FLETC Use of Force Training

Please examine the 9 posters included below and

on the inside back cover of this issue.

Also, note the articles concerning Use of Force training

and applications on pages 22 and 33.
This Issue

The Dunlow Documents ............................................................... 5

Managing The Paper Tiger ........................................................... 9

Welcome To FIT ................................................................................ 12

They Don’t Look Like Monsters .................................................. 16

De-Mystifying Distance Learning .............................................. 19

Electronic Control Devices: 

Liability And Training Aspects .................................................... 22

Follow The Money ........................................................................... 27

FLETC Student Educational 

Employment Program (FSEEP) 

‘Pilot’ Summer Program ................................................................ 31

Use of Force ....................................................................................... 33

Domestic Violence Here at Home .............................................. 38

The Law Enforcement Advanced 

Interviewing Training Program 

(LEAINTP) ............................................................................................ 45
The FLETC Journal

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Editors

Marie R. Bauer

Stephen W. Brooks

Rob Gray

Richard Hazzard

William Norris, Ph.D.

Andy Smotzer

Susan B. Thornton

Mark Ward

Cover Design

Sam Webster

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 at 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. 

The Editor’s Desk

Front Row (left to right): Andy Smotzer, Marie Bauer, Richard 

Hazzard, and Susan B. Thornton; Back Row: Rob Gray, 

William Norris, Steve Brooks, and Mark Ward. Not pictured 

Sam Webster.

Marie R. Bauer

The FLETC Journal’s mission is to provide a forum 

for exchanging information and sharing perspectives 

throughout the law enforcement training community. 

The editors attempt to select a range of articles and 

news items of interest to law enforcement trainers at all 

organizational levels, from large institutional training 

centers to small training departments. The Journal has 

been available in print since our first issue in Spring 

2004, and to the FLETC staff and Partner Organizations 

through our Intranet. We are happy to announce that the 

Journal will soon be available electronically from the 

FLETC website at www.fletc.gov. 

We take our commitment to law enforcement and training 

very seriously and strive for accuracy and integrity at 

all times. With this in mind, we must acknowledge 

and apologize for an error in our last issue. The 2006 

Spring edition of the FLETC Journal listed an incorrect 

author for the article “What’s Up with All the Smoke?” 

The article was authored by Scott Wells, the FLETC 

Forester/Natural Resources Manager. The corrected 

story is posted in our on-line edition.
I

t happens to every instructor who has spent more 

than a few hours in the classroom or training 

environment. You have just presented some 

information to the class and suddenly your brain 

decides this would be a good time to interject a 

personal account of an experience that happened 

to you. Unfortunately, the tactical concept you’re 

providing is not covered in the lesson plan. The 

moment this thought takes place, you should see 

red lights flashing a warning signal of all the 

possibilities and repercussions that could come 

from deviating from the lesson plan.

 

It happened to me one day after teaching a class 

in the Physical Techniques Division at the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). A 

group of students approached and popped the 

question, “Mr. Huyck, we’ve been learning all 

this ‘Mickey Mouse’ stuff, how about you teach 

us some real stuff?” I responded, “What else 

do you want to learn?” A “choke hold” was the 

reply, with several other eager students chiming 

in their support. I hesitated while I collected 

my thoughts and scanned the otherwise vacant 

mat room. It was now just me and these few 

enthusiastic students. The students pressed, as 

if they could read all the possibilities running 

through my mind. “Yeah, a choke hold, you don’t 

have to teach us here in the mat room, we can go 

over to the Student Center and you can show it to 

us over there, after hours!”

 

The students persisted, saying they were bored with 

all the basic defensive tactics they were being taught, 

and wanted to learn some “real street” survival tactics. 

I remembered in my basic training as a former U.S. 

Drug 

Enforcement 

Administration (DEA)

Special Agent, the defensive tactics 

curriculum included the carotid restraint as a 

legitimate defensive tactic. However, the FLETC 

defensive tactics curriculum did not. Luckily, 

the warning lights switched on and I responded, 

“If I show it to you, then I taught it to you, and it 

doesn’t matter if we are in the classroom or out of 

the classroom. A choke hold is not an approved 

defensive tactic per FLETC curriculum.” 

Before you think I’m being overly cautious 

or too concerned with teaching within the 

guidelines of the approved lesson plan, let me 

introduce you to Mr. Mike Dunlow. Mike 

is a former Internal Revenue Service Special 

Agent and current re-hired annuitant assigned 

to the Enforcement Operations Division (EOD) 

at the FLETC. The “Dunlow Documents” as 

I have termed them, is proof that every word 

you say and every concept you teach under the 

auspices of a professional law enforcement 

trainer could be used against you in a court 

of law! If this story doesn’t make you think 

twice about your classroom demeanor and 

instructional responsibility, you may seriously 

want to consider other employment before the 

subpoenas start coming in. As we used to say 

in DEA, “somebody is going to get indicted; it 

is just a matter of time.”

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 5

The Dunlow 

Documents

By Charles Huyck
I first met Mike Dunlow after being transferred 

to the EOD in 2004. As Branch Chief for Law 

Enforcement Support in the EOD, I supervised 

Mike. It quickly became apparent to me that 

Mike was an outstanding instructor who took 

his duties very seriously – just how seriously 

will become even more apparent as you continue 

reading.

At first, Mike and I rarely conversed for more than a 

few minutes at a time, and mainly the conversation 

would center around Mike’s needing a few hours 

off every now and then to hone his golf skills, or a 

leave slip to take some time to spend with family 

and friends. We discussed a few lesson plans 

from time to time and he would provide me with 

insight and suggestions as how best to improve our 

current course offerings. 

We also discussed the 

weather (every employee 

and supervisor must 

discuss the weather: it’s 

mandatory).

 

All the superficial 

conversation changed one 

day when Mike came into 

my office and told me he 

would need some time 

off the schedule to travel 

to San Francisco to serve as a witness in a trial. 

“A trial in San Francisco?” I questioned. Mike 

had been out of the field for quite some time so I 

wondered what the trial was all about. He replied, 

“Well, do you have some time, this may take more 

than a few minutes?” Mike sat down in my office 

and the story that unfolded literally astounded me.

Thirteen years ago, in June of 1993, Mike was 

employed by the Internal Revenue Service and 

detailed to the Behavioral Science Division at 

the FLETC. In this capacity, Mike had taught an 

Interviewing class and an Ethics and Conduct class 

to students enrolled in the Criminal Investigator 

Training Program. The class went off without a 

glitch, another successful instructional period for 

a top notch instructor. And then it happened...

On a dreary San Francisco morning in February 

2003, a Federal Protective Service (FPS) Uniformed 

Officer prepared for work and embarked for his 

duty assignment at the federal building. Sometime 

during the day, he and another officer were in their 

patrol vehicle outside the federal building when they 

observed an exotic sports car speed by the building 

at a very high rate of speed. The officers initiated a 

vehicle pursuit and stopped the car several blocks 

from the federal building. As the officers approached 

the vehicle, the suspect attempted to flee the scene. 

One of the officers opened fire on the vehicle, firing 

four shots into the suspect’s left front wheel area in 

an attempt to prevent the vehicle from escaping. 

The officers filed a report of the shooting incident, 

citing the incident took place on federal property, 

and that the shots were fired 

to deter the driver of the 

vehicle from running over 

the officers, not to prevent 

the vehicle from escaping. 

A videotape of the federal 

building and surrounding 

areas came into play, which 

prompted further review 

of the incident. A FPS 

Special Agent was assigned 

to review the facts and the 

report. It soon became 

apparent that the officers’ report did not match the 

circumstances as portrayed, and in fact, the incident 

had taken place off of federal property. 

As part of the review process, the officers involved 

were interviewed by the special agent. During 

the interview, one of the officers confessed to the 

fact that they had filed a false report. 

In the report filed by the FPS Special Agent, the 

agent did not mention the confession resulting from 

his interview of the FPS Officer. Not only did he 

omit the confession, but he also left other crucial 

elements out of his report in an apparent attempt to 

conceal the truth. Within the year, the special agent 

was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged 

with “knowingly concealing, covering up, falsifying 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Every word you say 

and every concept you 

teach under the auspices 

of a professional law 

enforcement trainer could 

be used against you in a 

court of law! 

6
and making a false entry in a record and document 

with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence an 

investigation,” in violation of 18 U.S.C Sect. 1519. 

On May 27, 2005, the FPS Special Agent was 

found guilty of writing a false report after a weeklong trial. Sentencing was scheduled for the 

offense, which held a maximum imprisonment 

sentence of 20 years and a fine of $250,000. 

Found guilty and facing a maximum sentence 

of up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of 

$250,000. This is not a position where any of 

us in the field of law enforcement want to find 

ourselves! In desperation, the defense went 

all out and focused part of their efforts on the 

training that the special agent had received at the 

FLETC some 13 years ago. To call in question the 

training that a special agent had been given was 

one thing, but to call the specific instructor that 

had provided that training was an eye opener and 

a shot heard around the world in the profession of 

law enforcement training. 

Most people do not recall much from 13 years 

ago. However, for those in the law enforcement 

profession, taking diligent notes and keeping 

factual and accurate records is a priority. For 

Mike Dunlow, the “Dunlow Documents” proved 

instrumental in shutting down this line of defense 

by the special agent, and shed light on just how 

critical it is to stay within the confines of the 

lesson plan when instructing.

In April 2005, the phone rang in Mike’s office. 

It was FLETC Legal Counsel advising Mike 

to come over to their office to speak with two 

attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Civil Rights Division. Their inquiry centered 

on the subject matter and lesson plan that Mike 

used to teach a class in 1993. It occurred to Mike, 

after the questioning from the DOJ attorneys, 

that apparently somewhere in the defense of the 

special agent the issue of falsifying a report was a 

key element, and the agent may well have stated 

that he had been taught by his FLETC Instructor 

that it was okay to omit certain aspects of an 

investigation in his report.

 

As part of the agent’s defense, he alleged that 

while attending classes at the FLETC, specifically 

interviewing and report writing, he had relied on 

the skills he had been taught at FLETC to further 

the investigation, which resulted in his omitting 

certain facts of the case. A check of the training 

records revealed that Mike Dunlow had been 

the instructor for the special agent’s Criminal 

Investigator Training Program (CITP) class 13 

years prior.

The DOJ Attorneys wanted to know specifically 

what the agent had been taught. This is where Mike 

proved his professionalism and set the standard 

for all trainers in the field of law enforcement. 

The DOJ attorneys wanted to know what Mike 

taught about note taking, securing of notes, and 

the documentation of confessions. Apparently 

the notes from the agent’s interview of the FPS 

Officers were missing as well as the all important 

confession by one of the FPS Officers. 

Mike reviewed the report by the agent and it was 

obvious to him that a confession had been made 

but omitted from the report. Mike verified that 

the lesson plan he had utilized to instruct the 

CITP class of 1993 stated that all notes had to be 

kept until all court proceedings were exhausted in 

the case. Mike also verified that the lesson plan 

stated that no facts of an investigation were to be 

omitted in a case for any reason, especially the fact 

that someone had made a confession. Mike also 

confirmed with the civil rights attorneys that he 

had followed the lesson plan without deviation.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 7
What occurred next separates the men from the 

boys, so to speak. During preparation for the trial, 

the DOJ Attorneys asked Mike to locate the lesson 

plan from the FLETC archives that he had used to 

teach the class in 1993. Mike not only had a copy 

of the original lesson plan from 1993, but he also 

had copies of the slides he used to teach the class 

and notes he had taken on the class. The “Dunlow 

Documents” were in a file neatly stowed away in 

Mike’s office. The “Dunlow Documents” were 

evidence of the dedication and professionalism 

of Mike Dunlow, and the seriousness of which 

he took his responsibilities every time he taught 

a class of law enforcement students. I seriously 

doubt the fact that Mike retained all of these 

original documents went unnoticed by the judge 

and jury hearing the case. The credibility that 

Mike brought to the courtroom with the “Dunlow 

Documents” was truly outstanding, as well as his 

testimony during the trial.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

The lessons to be learned from this story reach 

far and wide into the profession of training law 

enforcement officers. The story of the “Dunlow 

Documents” needs to be told, and re-told, on a 

consistent basis to all who bear the responsibility 

of training the next generation of law enforcement 

professionals. The best training is sometimes 

found in reviewing the basics. It is known as the 

fundamentals of the game.

 

So, be wise and remember to every now and then 

review the basics and fundamentals. If you do, then 

the next time you set foot in a classroom or get in 

front of an audience of law enforcement students, 

you will teach only that which is tried and proven, 

and only that subject matter contained within the 

confines of the official lesson plan. All trainers 

should learn from the “Dunlow Documents” that 

it never hurts to keep diligent notes and records - 

because you never know when you’ll need them. 

About the Instructor: Mike retired from the 

Internal Revenue Service after a distinguished 

career as a Special Agent. Mike Dunlow still 

enjoys teaching at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center as a reemployed annuitant in 

the Enforcement Operations Division. Mike 

can still be found on the links in his off hours 

somewhere in the Golden Isles chasing that 

ever elusive “birdie.” 

About the Author: Charles Huyck is a former 

Special Agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration, former Instructor for the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and 

is currently a reserve Special Agent for the Coast 

Guard Investigative Service and Branch Chief 

for the Enforcement Operations Division at the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

8
Conducting investigations used to be a process 

of following leads, obtaining information, and 

writing a case report. Much like putting a puzzle 

together, we started out with a referral and used 

traditional investigative techniques to “make the 

case.” Unfortunately, much as the complexity of 

our lives has increased, so have the cases that we 

work. With the advent of the electronic age, there is 

no shortage of information. The challenge is not in 

collecting information, but in organizing, analyzing, 

and retrieving it. Computers are here to stay, and 

we should harness these tools not just as word 

processors, but to assist in storing and making sense 

of the data. Software companies have sprung up to 

fill this niche, but there has been a lack of training, 

and many investigators simply do not have the time 

or the resources to negotiate the new technology. 

Electronic case management is a fairly new field with 

new advances being made almost daily. In addition, 

more and more courts and prosecutors are realizing 

the benefits of digitizing cases and evidence, realizing 

that this results in a significant saving in trial time. 

The subject of case organization can be broken down 

into several areas:

• organizing and inventorying evidence

• digitizing paper through electronic scanning

• indexing masses of records for easy retrieval

• storing, analyzing, and compiling

• visually diagramming the case 

Without organizational and analytical tools, the 

information obtained during complex investigations 

becomes unmanageable. 

In this article there are suggestions for tools to use in each 

of these areas and examples of appropriate software are 

provided. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive list 

and is not an endorsement of any particular software. The 

goal is to give a broad overview of the tools available as 

well as advantages and disadvantages of each. Factors to 

consider before choosing a particular software are the types 

of cases being worked, the skill level of the investigators 

and administrative support, the cost, and of course, the 

investigator’s most critical resource, time. In short, there 

is no absolute right or wrong way to organize and present a 

case. Through training and some application, you should 

find the approach that works for you. Flexibility is the 

key to conducting a successful investigation.

Organizing and Inventorying

If you are fortunate to work a case that easily fits in 

a standard file folder, then organizing it is a breeze. 

However, most investigations go beyond the file 

folder stage very quickly and move into boxes, then 

file cabinets, then into storage rooms, and perhaps 

ultimately into a warehouse. Time becomes a valuable 

resource for the investigator who needs to be able 

to find a particular document or item quickly. The 

investigator also needs to be able to answer some basic 

questions about the document, such as, where did it 

come from, what date was it received, where is it being 

stored, who can testify to it, and what relevance to the 

investigation does it possess. The answer to organizing 

your investigation is to employ an electronic database. 

The two most obvious choices available on most 

government desktop computers are Microsoft Excel 

and Microsoft Access. Other more sophisticated (and 

more complex) tools include Oracle, SQL Server, 

MySQL, DB2, and Paradox. Increasingly, there are 

commercial software available designed exclusively 

for organizing cases. Some of these are CaseMap, 

WinForce, and Analysts’ Notebook. These highly 

specialized databases are designed to offer an organized 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 9

MANAGING THE 

PAPER TIGER

Case Organization and Presentation

By Judi Langford
way for storing, managing, and retrieving information 

with minimal training. Databases are actually much 

more powerful than spreadsheets in the way they are 

able to manipulate data. Here are just a few of the 

functions that can be performed on a database that 

would be difficult, if not impossible to perform on a 

typical spreadsheet: 

• Retrieve all records from multiple sources 

that match certain criteria 

• Update records in bulk 

• Cross-reference records in different tables 

• Perform complex aggregate calculations 

across multiple data sources 

Not withstanding the admittedly broad limitation 

of spreadsheets, an investigator could certainly use 

Microsoft Excel (for instance) quite effectively and it 

would accomplish most if not all of the functions needed 

in managing a typical case. Excel is easy to learn. It 

does have some limitations in handling large numbers 

of records, so if your case has or is likely to have over 

65,000 records, you would be 

better served with another 

more powerful database 

program. In addition, Excel 

lacks security in that it only 

saves files when commanded 

by the user to do so, as opposed 

to a database program such as 

Microsoft Access which saves 

data after each transaction. Access does, however, require 

substantially more training and experience. 

The bottom line is not that one program is better than the 

other. There are times when it would be appropriate to 

import records from Access to Excel and vice versa. (Note: 

these two sibling programs exchange data quite easily.) 

Once the investigator begins to collect a fair amount of 

items, then they should begin to electronically inventory 

them. A critical concept is to inventory EVERYTHING. 

All items received during the investigation should be 

entered regardless of its relevance or importance. This 

will help assure a thorough and objective investigation. 

The column headers for spreadsheets (or field names for 

the corresponding database) are the categories that the 

investigator will use to analyze the data. A question that 

should be asked at this point is who will be doing the 

inventory? If more than one individual will be assisting, 

then it is imperative that all entries are done consistently. 

This is particularly true when using Excel as a database. 

Once the investigator has used this Investigative File 

Inventory (or IFI) a few times, a system will emerge 

of entering data to allow for the most efficient sorting 

and filtering. Experience has shown that when multiple 

users interact with common data sets – or files – 

database programs are generally more expedient than 

spreadsheets

Another important and time-saving consideration is 

to request whenever possible that records be given to 

you electronically. Certainly, there are instances when 

the original document is critical; for example, when 

a signature or notation is in question or the document 

is to be examined forensically for fingerprints or 

authenticity. However, having data in an electronic 

format will usually save time since it can be imported 

into your database without manual reentry. 

Identifying the items to be collected in the investigation 

is a critical process and one that should be addressed at 

the earliest investigative stage. Although this can be a 

mundane and tedious process, it is the most important part 

of case organization. Each item collected should have 

a unique identifier, which 

enables it to be retrieved 

quickly and easily. Consider 

using the term “ICN” (or 

Item Control Number) to 

signify this unique identifier. 

The form of this number 

may vary depending on the 

preferences of a prosecutor 

or of the investigative organization. A generally accepted 

standard for the ICN is the use of three numerical digits 

followed by a decimal and then three more digits. This 

allows flexibility in the numbering process. Some 

investigators or prosecutors may want the use of letters 

along with numbers. The important point is that the 

numbering system makes sense to the various users and 

allows for flexibility. Therefore, it is not recommended 

that the number placed on the boxes be included in the 

ICN number. In addition, it is not recommended that 

search warrant or other numbers be included in the ICN. 

Having voluminous numbers defeats the purpose of 

making this investigative process useful. 

In applying a document or item numbering system, it is 

recommended that similar things be grouped in the same 

category of numbers. For example, have you received 

several audits, reports, court documents, photographs, 

bank statements, etc.? Once you have received a number 

of items (this is usually at the point when a single file 

folder will no longer hold all of them), look at the broad 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Clarity of communication 

is always the goal of case 

management.

10
categories and apply a numbering system which will 

allow the most efficient way of analyzing through sorting 

and filtering. This will vary among investigators in the 

types of cases that they work. For example, an insurance 

investigator and a money laundering investigator may 

have different types of documents and evidence although 

they are both financial crimes investigators. This is 

why flexibility is so crucial in establishing a viable 

numbering system. Once an investigator has, through 

trial and error, used a numbering system that has worked 

throughout an investigation, then it can easily be used 

in other investigations of the same type. A good system 

of tracking all items collected in the investigation will 

quickly answer the questions, “What do I have?” and 

“Where is it?”

Ideally, the investigator should number each item or 

document that is received. However, this is not always 

possible. Therefore, the packet, folder, or container 

should receive a number and then groups of items 

should receive a sub-number within that category. A 

particularly relevant or significant item or document 

should definitely have its own number within the group 

for easy retrieval. This item could be inventoried 

later and receive a number at that time. For example, 

suppose the investigator receives a folder of documents 

from an individual at a business. These records relate to 

merchandise ordered by the business. The investigator 

has chosen the 600.000 series to represent business 

records. Therefore, the inventory of this folder might 

be entered as 601.000 as the ICN, the Description field 

would list “Company Name Folder,” Date Received, 

and the Source as who the folder was received from. 

Subsequently, specific documents found within the 

folder would be assigned sub-numbers such as 601.001, 

601.002, 601.003 .... Be mindful that the software 

would see the numbers 601.1, 601.10, and 601.100 as the 

same numbers mathematically. By correctly formatting 

this field and entering the numbers accurately, this 

confusion would be avoided. It should also be noted 

that whenever entering text into the inventory, the first 

word entered should be the proper name or name that 

would provide the easiest and quickest sort. 

In addition to creating an inventory of everything 

collected in the investigation, there will most likely 

be a need to create other types of databases as well. 

For example, subpoenas, witness lists, grand jury 

material, discoverable items, exhibit lists, evidence 

logs, and financial transactions should be entered and 

made available for subsequent analysis. These separate 

databases may or may not “talk” or relate to each other. 

A legend sheet should be constructed that explains any 

industry-specific or otherwise ubiquitous acronyms. 

For example, does “MTG” stand for meeting or 

mortgage? Clarity of communication is always the 

goal of case management. 

The Investigative File Inventory fields should fit on 

an 8.5”x 11” sheet, set up for landscape. The lateral 

dimensions of an IFI should allow an entire line to be 

entered and displayed. Although it is tempting to put 

in every possible field, having the inventory sheet print 

horizontally on more than one sheet creates unwieldy 

inventories that will not serve the investigator well. 

It is recommended to enter a sheet of data into an 

inventory, review it, and then manipulate the data to 

see if that format will be the most effective for the 

case. It is better to make adjustments early in the 

process than wait until numerous sheets have already 

been created.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 11

Example of Investigative File Inventory

ICN Location Witness Witness Keyword Date Hyperlink Agent Notes (1) (2) Description Received

2.001 File Tab 1 Doe, John Ness, Elliot MOI & Notes 1/20/1928 EN1 Alleges that Al Capone 

 -SA is evading taxes

1.001 Evidence Doe, John Ness, Elliot Doc—Capone 1/20/1928 Smith, Doc 1 Provided by Smith

Locker -SA finances “ledger” during interview to

 support allegations

3.001 File Tab 2 Ness, Elliot N/A S-Operation 1/29/1929 SOPS1 Presented to task force

-SA Plan 1/29/1929

4.001 File Tab 2 Ness, Elliot Borden, David S-Surveillance 1/30/1929 SLog1 Capone meets Frank Nitti

 -SA -SA log then boards plane 

 for Florida

continued on page 42
The Forensics and Investigative Technologies 

Division (FIT) of the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center is working toward ensuring students are 

trained in the newest and most innovative technology 

as they move into their new careers. For the past 25 

years, counterterrorism and technology coexisted in 

a one-sided relationship. For the most part, those in 

law enforcement and those in the military adapted 

the technologies that were commercially and readily 

available to their needs. However, September 11, 

2001, changed everything and FIT recognizes that a 

new and more proactive approach is needed to meet 

the challenges of our times. 

FIT also recognizes that the popularity of television 

shows such as CSI, 24, and Law and Order, and the 

televising of high-profile trials, has produced more 

sophisticated juries who expect the prosecution to 

introduce trace evidence to prove a crime. FIT is 

preparing students to meet that expectation by teaching 

them how to properly find and collect the evidence 

needed to convince juries. 

In addition to offering a staff of highly trained and 

qualified instructors (including certified crime scene 

technicians, fingerprint examiners, and electronic 

surveillance equipment operators), who were experts in 

their fields before coming to FLETC, FIT is developing 

new training initiatives using the most up-to-date 

technology available and incorporating that same 

technology into the current programs. The traditional 

means of developing law enforcement technologies 

are simply inadequate to deal with today’s strategic 

realities knowing that the war on global terror­ism wil

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

FORENSICS AND INVESTIGATIVE 

TECHNOLOGIES

By J. O. Smith

12
never go away. While law enforcement agencies may 

disagree on a definition of terrorism and how to combat 

it, that does not mean that it does not exist and does not 

represent a viable threat to our present and future law 

enforcement officers and agents. Criminals have not 

ceased their activities. In contrast, they are refining 

their schemes using techniques and technologies 

gathered from law enforcement incidents shown on 

television and in the movies. 

Why Forensics? 

Forensics means the application of science to law. 

Almost every case students will investigate when they 

leave the FLETC will involve some type of evidence 

which will be used in a legal proceeding. FIT’s job is 

to train students to recognize this evidence, correctly 

collect it, and properly analyze it using the latest legal 

and scientific methods available. How are we doing 

this? FIT developed several new programs within the 

past two years, many of them the result of meetings 

with partner agencies. Some of the new courses include 

Biometric Identification, Authentication of Documents, 

Environmental Crimes, Methamphetamine Laboratory 

First Responder, Night Vision, Advanced Forensic 

Techniques in Crime Scene Investigation Levels I and 

II, Wildland Fire Origin Cause and Determination, 

Internet Protocol Cameras, Covert Electronic Tracking, 

and Digital Photography using agency-specific 

cameras. 

One of the most requested new programs is the 

Methamphetamine Lab First Responder Program. 

FIT is partnering with the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration and the State of Georgia Department 

of Public Safety training facility in Forsyth, Georgia, 

to exchange information and training concerning 

methamphetamine labs. Methamphetamine has become 

the drug of choice in the United States and is causing 

more harm to law enforcement officers than any other 

drug at this time. Because of this, FIT has designed 

and built a mock methamphetamine lab in one of the 

wooded areas of FLETC. The house is fully equipped 

and is a replica of what an agent or officer may encounter 

in the field. It is equipped with booby traps, cameras, 

chemicals, odors, and all the equipment normally used 

in the manufacture and production of methamphetamine. 

FIT also outfitted a vehicle adjacent to the house as a 

mobile methamphetamine lab, which is another new 

trend in methamphetamine manufacturing. Several 

incidents involving portable meth labs in the trunks of 

vehicles have been in the news lately.

What are Investigative Technologies? 

A U.S. Attorney once said that he would rather have 15 

minutes of a video confession than one hour of verbal 

testimony. Capturing a suspect committing a crime or 

confessing on tape is precious to any prosecutor. Once 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 13
a jury actually sees a video of the suspect making the 

confession or committing a crime, it is difficult for the 

suspect to profess their innocence. FIT teaches the skills 

and techniques necessary to perform this task. Hidden 

video conveyances and body wire installations are another 

apart of what FIT does in its Electronic 

Surveillance Programs. The 

instructors teach tech agents 

how to plant listening 

devices in a room or 

a vehicle and how to 

find devices planted by 

others. With the support of 

FLETC and the Department of 

Homeland Security Wireless Committee, 

FIT has purchased many neat “little toys” and some of 

the latest surveillance equipment to accomplish this 

training including a $100,000 fully-equipped, state of the 

art surveillance van. 

The days of three or four agents conducting surveillance 

by following a suspect in a vehicle like little ducks 

following their mother are gone for the most part. 

Agents can now place a small device on a vehicle and 

track its movements anywhere in the country including 

the target, speed, and location from their PDAs, laptops, 

or from a desktop computer anywhere they have access 

to the internet. A video feed of the vehicle can also be 

obtained if the Internet Protocol (IP) address of a camera 

located near the vehicle is known. Agents can also 

control that same camera from that same PDA, laptop, 

or desktop anywhere in the world where they can log 

onto the internet. Agents today can place their own IP 

camera at a suspect’s home or work address and watch 

and record everyone that enters or leaves. Most of the 

technology that we see in the hit television series 24 is 

currently available to our agents in the field. This WiFi 

and broadband communications technology 

is not new. The capability of 

downloading and uploading 

video and photographs 

to and from a PDA 

instantaneously is a 

technology that can 

greatly benefit an agent 

in the field. GPS tracking of 

cell phones and vehicles is an everyday 

occurrence to the average consumer, so why not to our 

agents in the field? By 2008, every cell phone will be 

required to have GPS tracking capabilities built into it 

due to the new 911 requirements.

FIT has developed programs in each of these new 

technologies and is in the process of developing more 

programs. The new technology used by the division is 

in great demand by law enforcement agencies all across 

America and several of the programs can only be found at 

FLETC. Several non-partner agencies contacted FIT and 

requested a class on the use of IP cameras, and a program 

was developed specifically for DEA. When looking at 

what FIT and FLETC have to offer in equipment and 

instructors, coupled with the availability of resources 

such as raid houses and the low cost of housing for 

students, there is no place else where training can be 

done as effectively as it is done here at FLETC. When 

we add in the various terrains available including urban, 

rural, and wooded areas, FLETC is the best location for 

training found anywhere in the country.

With the heightened security concerns, there has 

been increased interest in using biometrics for 

identity verification, espe­cially in the areas of vis

and immigration docu­mentation and governmentissued identification card programs  This is eviden

here at FLETC with our new OPSEC requirements. 

FIT has conducted Questioned Document programs 

for several partner agencies, the Glynn County Tax 

Commissioner’s office, and the FLETC Police staff on 

the new trends in counterfeit documents surfacing on 

the street. 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Capturing 

a suspect committing 

a crime or confessing on tape is 

precious to any prosecutor. 

14
The days of just using a photograph for identification 

purposes are gone. The U.S. Government and DHS have 

mandated a new identification card for employees using 

some sort of biometric identification. The techniques we 

saw in the James Bond 007 movies years ago, such as iris 

scanning and other new biometric identification systems 

are now becoming the standard of most government 

agencies. Biometrics are recorded measures of a unique 

physical or behavioral characteristic of individuals. 

They are thought to be more reliable and more dif­ficul

to forge, lose, steal, falsify, or guess since they are part of 

a person rather than an ID card, a personal identification 

number, or a password. Many companies are already 

using iris scanning, facial identification, and voice 

analysis for entry into their facilities. FIT was given 

approval to pursue a new training initiative covering 

new biometric identification programs using our 

existing Identix Fingerprint Systems which are already 

in place. We are developing these programs using some 

of this new technology in our training programs while 

improving the other programs we instruct. 

FIT is responsible for: Digital Photography, Video, 

ARPA, Contraband Detection, Fingerprints, Latent 

Prints, Evidence Packaging, Description and 

Identification, Prisoner Processing, Sex Crimes 

Investigation, Death Investigation, Larceny from 

Motor Vehicles, Drugs of Abuse, Marijuana Cultivation 

and Eradication, Sequential Drug Testing, Crime 

Scene Preservation, Crime Scene Processing and 

Physical Evidence. 

FIT has a vision of these future technologies, and we are 

implementing initiatives that will broaden our customer 

base. We are making training more predictable and 

dependable, while developing policies that will help 

to overcome the barriers to innovation by harnessing 

technology geared towards the future needs of our law 

enforcement students. Drop by our link on the web 

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/forensics-andinvestigative to see what we do. I am sure you will be 

amazed.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 15

Mr. Smith is the Division Chief for the 

Forensics and Investigative Technologies 

Division. He joined FLETC Glynco after 

retiring from the United States Park Police. 

His varied background includes almost every 

position in law enforcement, including foot 

patrol, narcotics, hostage negotiator, trail 

bike, ID Technician, criminal investigations 

and SWAT. He also served for seven years 

on the Protection Detail for the Secretary of 

the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. He is a member 

of the IAI, NATIA, NOBLE and the IACP.
He seemed like such a nice guy. Who would have 

guessed he was a stalker? A recent study by the 

National Institute of Justice found that stalking was far 

more prevalent than anyone had imagined, 8 percent of 

American women and 2 percent of American men will 

be stalked in their lifetimes. This equates to 1.4 million 

American stalking victims every year. The majority of 

stalkers have been in relationships with their victims. 

Significant percentages either never met their victims 

or were just acquaintances - neighbors, friends or coworkers.

Annually in the United States, 503,485 women are 

stalked by an intimate partner.a Eighty percent of 

women who are stalked by former husbands are 

physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are 

sexually assaulted by that partner.b 

Intimate partner stalkers are typically known as the 

guy who “just can’t let go.” These men most often 

refuse to accept that a relationship is really over 

and that their affections are unwanted. Often, other 

people - even the victims - feel sorry for them. Studies 

show that the vast majority of these stalkers are not 

sympathetic, lonely people who are still hopelessly 

in love, but were in fact emotionally abusive and 

controlling during the relationship. These individuals 

are tacticians of power and control. Many have 

criminal histories unrelated to stalking. Well over 

half of stalkers fall into this “former intimate partner” 

category.

The victim may, in fact unknowingly, encourage 

the stalker by trying to “let him down easy,” or by 

agreeing to see him “for the last time.” Victims, 

their families, and friends must understand that 

there is no reasoning with stalkers. When the victim 

says, “I don’t want a relationship now,” the stalker 

hears, “She’ll want me again tomorrow. I just have 

to do something else to get her attention.” When 

the victim says, “I just need some space,” he hears, 

“If I just let her go out with her friends, she’ll come 

back.” “It’s just not working out,” is heard as, “It 

will be different this time; I promise.” In other 

words, the only thing to say to the stalker is “no” - 

no explanations, no time limits, no second chances. 

There can be no negotiation. 

A victim should only say “no” once and only 

once. If a stalker can’t have his victim, he’ll take 

whatever reaction he can manage to generate from 

her. The absolute last thing he wants is to be ignored. 

Sometimes, when not getting the attention they want, 

children will act out and misbehave because even 

negative attention is better than none at all. Former 

intimate partner stalkers have their entire sense of 

self-worth caught up in the fact that, “She really 

does love me.” They can be persistent and tenacious. 

Since giving up his victim means giving up his selfworth, the stalker is unlikely to do so. 

Delusional stalkers frequently have had little, if 

any, contact with their victims. They may have 

major mental illnesses like schizophrenia, manicdepression, or erotomania. What these stalkers have 

in common is some false belief that keeps them tied 

to their victims. In erotomania, the stalker maintains 

the delusion that the victim actually wants him. This 

stalker believes that he is having a relationship with 

his victim, even though they may have never met. 

Celebrity stalkers like the woman stalking David 

Letterman, the stalker who killed actress Rebecca 

Schaeffer, and the man who stalked Madonna were 

erotomanic stalkers. These delusions can last up to 

an average of ten years.

16 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

THEY DON’T LOOK 

LIKE MONSTERS

By Alex Graves
Another type of stalker believes that he or she is destined 

to be with someone and that if they only pursue hard 

enough and long enough, the victim will eventually 

come to love them. These individuals develop 

an obsession with their victims. 

These stalkers know they are 

not having a relationship 

with their victims, but 

firmly believe that they 

will someday. John 

Hinckley Jr.’s obsession 

with Jodi Foster is an example 

of this type of stalker.

What do stalkers look like? Typical behaviors of 

stalkers are that they are unmarried and socially 

immature loners, unable to establish or sustain close 

relationships with others. They rarely date and have 

had few, if any, intimate relationships. Since at the 

same time they are both threatened by and yearn 

for closeness, they target victims who are clearly 

unattainable in a myriad of ways. The potential 

victim may be married or has been the stalker’s 

therapist, clergyman, doctor, or teacher. Those in 

the helping professions are particularly vulnerable 

to delusional stalkers. For someone who already 

has difficulty separating reality from fantasy, 

kindness shown by the targeted individual (the one 

person who has treated the stalker with compassion 

and sensitivity) is distorted into a deluded concept 

of intimacy. What these stalkers cannot attain is 

achieved through fantasy that for them becomes 

a reality; thus, the delusion becomes difficult to 

relinquish. 

These delusional stalkers have almost always come 

from a background which was either emotionally 

barren or severely abusive. They grow up having a 

very poor sense of self. That history, combined with 

a predisposition toward psychosis, leads these stalkers 

to strive for satisfaction through another person. They 

yearn to merge with someone who is almost always 

perceived to be of a high socio-economic status 

(doctors, lawyers, teachers), who have achieved a 

recognizable level of success, or who are looked at as 

very socially desirable (celebrities). It is not unusual 

for this type of stalker to “hear” the soothing voice 

of their victim or believe that they are sending them 

messages through others. 

The final category of stalker is the vengeful stalker. This 

type of stalker becomes angry with their victims over 

some slight; real or imagined. Politicians, for example, 

get many of these types of stalkers who become 

angry over some piece of legislation 

or program the official 

sponsors. Disgruntled 

ex-employees can also 

stalk, whether targeting 

their former bosses, 

co-workers, or the entire 

company. Some of these angry 

stalkers are psychopaths (i.e., people 

without conscience or remorse). Some are delusional 

(most often paranoid) and believe that they, in fact, are 

the victims. They all stalk to “get even.”

What to do if you are being stalked

 1. Avoid all contact. Clearly, directly and explicitly 

advise the pursuer that you’re not interested in a 

relationship, and then avoid all contact. Handle 

any unexpected meetings or unavoidable phone 

calls calmly so as not to escalate the situation.

 2. Don’t react to the stalker no matter how frightened 

or angry you are. Stalkers thrive on your energy. 

They want to elicit attention either positive or 

negative from you. It’s up to you not to feed the 

obsessive interaction.

 3. Withdraw gently. When confronted with inescapable 

contact in person or on the phone, try to curb any 

actions or words that might provoke an angry 

reaction. Speak gently and slowly and say only 

one sentence before excusing yourself forcefully 

and totally. Your fallback sentence might be: 

“Please find someone else to focus your attention 

on. I have no interest in you.” Then shut the door, 

lock it, or hang up the phone. Don’t re-open the 

door or re-answer the phone. 

 4. Get a new unlisted phone number and private post 

office box. Use a private post office box for all mail 

and file a change-of-address card with your local 

post office. Mail should be kept as documentation 

should arrest and prosecution become necessary. 

Get a new unlisted phone number and keep the old 

one hooked up to an answering machine. Never 

pick up that line. Don’t erase the stalker’s messages 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 17

The only thing to say to 

the stalker is “no.”
left on your answering machine. The recorded 

message is evidence of his actions and could be 

valuable toward successful prosecution. 

 5. Carry a cell phone with a charged battery for safety. 

 6. Protect your house -

• Install a peep hole in your door.

• Install deadbolt locks on all doors.

• Keep your doors, windows, and garage locked.

• Install motion detector lights outside your home.

• Trim the shrubbery near your doors and consider 

planting thorny shrubs beneath windows.

• Install curtains or blinds that make it impossible 

to see movement or people in your house.

7. Change your routes and routines. Vary the daily 

routes you take, whether by car or on foot, as well 

as your routines and social habits. 

 8. Keep your car locked and park in well-lit areas. Don’t 

go into any parking structures unless you’re on high 

alert. At airport garages and many other garages, 

security guards will escort you to your car.

 9. Inform others. Let people around you, including 

family, friends, neighbors, household staff, coworkers, school officials know what’s going on and 

enlist their help. Describe the threatening person, 

as well as any vehicle(s) they may drive. Photos of 

the stalker are excellent.

10. Paper won’t stop bullets. No protective, 

restraining, or legal order of any kind can 

guarantee safety. These orders can be very 

important tools for law enforcement and the 

criminal justice system, and in some cases 

strong deterrents to active stalkers. However, 

initiation of legal remedies can provoke some 

perpetrators. 

11. Consider moving/relocating. Avoid using wellknown moving companies with easily remembered 

names on the side of the truck. Don’t pick up your 

mail at a former neighbor’s home or visit favorite 

haunts. Moving doesn’t help if your activities still 

make you a target. 

12. Remember, stalkers are persistent. They don’t go 

away just because you want them to. Their need for 

gratification is what drives them. It is about them first 

and foremost. Do not underestimate stalking behavior. 

Treat the uncomfortable behaviors and actions as 

serious and recognize the lethality levels involved. 

About the Author: Alex Graves (Shoshone/

Cherokee) joined FLETC after working for two 

years with Cangleska Inc., as a Law Enforcement 

Training Specialist. His responsibilities included 

curriculum development and implementation for 

law enforcement within the State of South Dakota 

and tribal law enforcement around the country. 

He was also a Special Investigator for the Oglala 

Lakota Attorney General. Prior to joining the 

staff of Cangleska, Inc., he served for twelve years 

as a Detective with the Hawaii County Police 

Department, where he supervised Area II (the West 

Hawaii) Criminal Investigation Section, Domestic 

Violence Unit.

At the FLETC Office of State and Local (OSL), 

Mr. Graves manages the Domestic Violence Indian 

Country Training Program. For more information 

on OSL programs, log onto www.fletc.gov/osl.

a. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and 

Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, National Institute 

of Justice, 2000 b. Center for Policy Research, Stalking in America, July 1997

18 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
How many of you have taken a course that 

was delivered by video teleconferencing 

or an on-line course and wished these courses 

were more interesting? Distance learning through 

video telephone or satellite broadcast can fail as 

an educational technique because the professors 

and instructors are not taught how to make it 

work. They are often told, “You just teach, and 

we’ll send your course to a distant location.” That 

means the distant location gets little if any of the 

instructor’s attention, and students at that location 

get to watch a continuous picture on a stationary 

box (television). So let’s try to make a difference 

and change the world of distance learning.

Some 10 years ago, I was given the assignment 

to develop the Distance Learning Instructor 

Training Program (DLITP). At that time, I had 

little knowledge of the distance learning concept. 

Here I sit, 10 years later, with a very successful 

program, a certification as a distance learning 

instructor (CDLI) from the Teletraining Institute, 

and a layman’s ability to author programs for 

e-learning. So if you want to make distance 

learning programs more interesting and change 

the end result, the DLITP is a way to develop 

your skills. 

Distance learning should be full-blown 

productions that incorporate the same skills that 

glue you to your television set in the evening. 

There needs to be simple little changes that reattract a viewer’s attention to that stationary box. 

There needs to be colors, shapes, and angles 

that make the viewing enjoyable. There needs 

to be interactivity with the distant class built 

in and constantly reinforced. You know how 

to make your classroom interesting. You make 

it interesting by putting a lot of your personal 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 19

De-Mystifying 

Distance Learning

By Matt Hall
experience and professional effort into inspiring 

students about your topic. Distance learning, 

properly prepared, does the same thing while 

teaching more people at once.

What about on-line learning? You can either 

provide lesson plan information so that someone 

else can put your facts on-line, or you can take 

a professional interest in inspiring more students 

through a well developed on-line presentation. 

You know how to inspire. You just don’t know 

how to write it out for e-learning. Brace yourself! 

I’m going to tell you a secret about e-learning. 

Are you ready?

It’s a book! Did you get that? It’s 

a book! It is a special, electronic 

book that can take “readers” 

anywhere the author wants them 

to go. They can go to video, audio, 

graphics, choices of directions, 

or they can be channeled to 

one location, but it is still just a 

book. So why do we delegate our 

“authorship” to others who don’t 

know and don’t really care about 

our topic?

When you write a book, you begin 

with an outline and then expand on 

the chapters and create a plot once you see how the 

overall book will flow. When you write a class, you 

begin with a lesson plan and then expand on the 

enabling performance objectives to attract interest 

once you see where you want to go (Terminal 

Performance Objective). No author would give 

his/her outline to a publisher and say okay, use this 

to put out a book in my name, and they certainly 

wouldn’t say write a movie about it.

Okay, so what do I mean by “it’s a book”? Look 

at any webpage or computer based program. 

You begin on a title page. There is a table of 

contents which is also a navigational resource. If 

you want to go to Chapter 10, or the directory, 

or the biography of the author, you simply click 

that button. All you are really doing is turning to 

that page as you would manually in a book. The 

advantage over a paper book, however, is that 

you can make that navigation go anywhere you 

want and back again.

Let’s say you are trying to teach conflict resolution. 

You have a scenario spelled out that causes the 

learners to reach a decision point. You have some 

options for them in the form of buttons. If they 

select the wrong button, you can give them a popup page that simply says “WRONG!” or they can 

be taken down a long line of 

decisions that will make them 

realize that they need to back up 

and rethink that decision. If we 

really learn by “doing,” we can 

make the learners cognitively 

perform any task before they are 

faced with real time role plays or 

real life experiences.

With the increasing emphasis on 

simulations these days, we can 

make these “books” even more 

realistic and engaging. You don’t 

have to know how to create a 

simulation. You don’t even need 

to know how to create a navigational button. You 

just need to be able to write the book with an eye 

to how you want the final product to progress. 

There are specialists that can make it aesthetically 

appealing and effectively linked.

I recently gave a presentation at the Society 

for Applied Learning Technologies (SALT) 

Conference in Orlando titled, “It’s all about me: 

Successes in Motivating Instructors into Distance 

Learning.” After the presentation, one member of 

the audience, a program developer, commented that 

he wished he could bottle my passion. I replied to 

him, “That’s just the point. You can!” When the 

20 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Technology will 

never replace 

teachers, but 

teachers who 

know technology 

will replace those 

who don’t.
most talented and impassioned instructors begin 

collaborating with equally talented producers and 

program developers, distance 

learning can become what it 

was designed to be.

Stephen King didn’t write 

a book and say, “Let it be a 

movie.” Someone read his book 

and decided to give it life as a 

movie. That producer/director 

then put Stephen King with a 

screenwriter who converted 

the drama to a script 

that became a movie. 

Take away the Stephen 

Kings and you take 

away the movies, but 

Stephen King doesn’t 

have to learn how to 

produce a movie to be 

successful.

If you don’t think that distance learning can be 

effective, sign up for the DLITP and see if our 

Media Support Division and I can prove you wrong. 

If you don’t think that e-learning can be effective, 

collaborate with one of the 

excellent program developers 

at Training Innovations 

Division with your passion and 

see how wrong you can be. If 

you write the book, they will 

make it flow and look good. 

You sell your topic in person 

every day. Are you too weak 

to sell it at a distance? I don’t 

think that will be a problem.

Let me add one 

final statement. 

Christine Melon 

said, “Technology 

will never replace 

teachers, but teachers 

who know technology 

will replace those who 

don’t.” I am an “old 

school” instructor. I love the classroom, but I will 

never be locked to it.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 21

About the Author: William M. 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, OK.

Every Instructor can benefit 

greatly by taking the Distance 

Learning Instructor Training 

Program at the FLETC.
Recent media stories have caused debate about the 

lethality of electronic control devices, sometimes 

called “tasers” or “stun guns.” This article is intended 

to outline the current legal principles regarding the 

deployment and use of such devices. Overall, the areas 

of constitutional law regarding the use of such devices 

are somewhat clear. However, aspects of potential 

liability under state tort claims of negligence are less 

than clear.

A Less-than-Lethal Device

In general, electronic control devices have been defined as a form of less-than-lethal (non-deadly) force. 

In McKenzie v. City of Milpitas1 the court explained:

[One type of electronic control device] is a hand 

held immobilizing device ... that is used by [police departments] to control uncooperative or 

dangerous subjects. [It] is operated by propelling 

two darts at a hostile subject. When the two darts 

... strike the subject, so long as both [hooked 

barbs] remain in contact with the subject’s body 

and/or clothing, the officer can send an electrical charge through the wires. The officer can 

continue to send charges through the subject by 

depressing a button.... The current generated by 

the [electronic control device] causes involuntary muscular contractions in the subject, which 

in turn usually causes the subject to lose muscular control for a short period of time and to fall to 

the ground. Because the ... subject loses muscular control, an officer can establish control over 

an uncooperative or dangerous subject without 

the need to resort to mace, batons, or personal 

combat techniques.

Landmark Case: Graham v. Connor

Despite being a form of less-than-lethal force, the use 

of electronic control devices by law enforcement officers must comply with constitutional standards. To 

comply with constitutional standards, law enforcement officers must be trained to make proper legal 

judgments about the amount of force to utilize in a 

particular situation. These judgments must be based 

on the facts and circumstances confronting that officer in the specific incident. The United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Graham v. Connor,

2

 held that excessive force claims are properly 

analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective 

reasonableness” standard. The Graham Court said:

The right to make an arrest or investigatory stop 

necessarily carries with it the right to use some 

degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to 

effect it.... The “reasonableness” of a particular 

use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather 

than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.3

The Court further stated:

The calculus of reasonableness must embody 

allowance for the fact that police officers are 

often forced to make split-second judgments -- 

in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and 

rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Electronic Control Devices:

Liability and Training Aspects

By Edmund Zigmund

22
that is necessary in a particular situation.... The 

“reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force 

case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances 

confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.4

The Court then outlined several factors that impact 

upon the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force:

Because the test of reasonableness under the 

Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application ... its proper 

application requires careful attention to the facts 

and circumstances of each particular case, including: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) 

whether the suspect poses an immediate threat 

to the safety of the officers or others; (3) whether 

he is actively resisting arrest; or (4) whether he 

is attempting to evade arrest by flight.5

Since Graham, other lower courts have developed additional factors to consider in making the determination 

as to whether an officer’s use of force is “reasonable.” 

Some of these other factors include: (1) the number of 

suspects and officers involved;6 (2) the size, age, and 

condition of the officer and suspect;7(3) the duration 

of the action;8 (4) whether the force applied resulted 

in injury;9(5) a previous violent history of the suspect, 

known to the officer at the time;10 (6) the use of alcohol 

or drugs by the suspect;11(7) the suspect’s mental or 

psychiatric history, known to the officer at the time;12

(8) the presence of innocent bystanders who could be 

harmed if force is not used;13 and (9) the availability of 

weapons, such as pepper spray, batons, or tasers.14

Constitutional Aspects: Use and Training

Under constitutional principles, there is a distinction 

between active resistance and passive resistance. Active resistance is generally defined as threatening an officer;15 shoving, striking, wrestling with and even biting 

an officer.16 In contrast, passive resistance is described 

by the following suspect actions: (1) remaining seated, 

refusing to move, and refusing to bear weight;17 (2) 

protestors going limp, or persons chaining themselves 

together and covering their hands with maple syrup to 

impede the use of handcuffs;18 (3) protestors employing 

lock-down devices that immobilize their arms and prevent their separation by police, although the protestors 

could disengage themselves from the devices.19 The use 

of pepper spray upon passive resistors can be found to 

be excessive and therefore unconstitutional.20 Likewise, 

it appears that the use of an electronic control device on 

a suspect who is merely passively resisting an officer 

can result in an unconstitutional use of force.21

Generally, the use of an electronic control device is constitutionally allowed when a subject is actively resisting 

the law enforcement officer. In Draper v. Reynolds,

22 a 

deputy sheriff lawfully used an electronic control device 

to subdue a tractor-trailer driver during a traffic stop. The 

court said that from the time the driver met the deputy at 

the back of the truck, the driver was hostile, belligerent, 

and uncooperative. No less than five times, the deputy 

asked the driver to retrieve documents from the truck 

cab, and each time the driver refused to comply. Instead, 

the driver used profanity, moved around and paced in 

agitation, and repeatedly yelled at the deputy. On appeal, the Draper Court said that there was a reasonable 

need for some use of force in this arrest. Although being 

struck by an electronic control device is an unpleasant 

experience, the amount of force the deputy used - a single use of the device causing a one-time shocking - was 

reasonably proportionate to the need for force and did 

not inflict any serious injury. The deputy’s use of the 

electronic control device did not constitute excessive 

force, and the deputy did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights in this arrest.

In Hinton v. City of Elwood,

23 an animal control officer reported that a suspect verbally threatened him. A 

police officer approached the suspect to speak to him. 

Thereafter, a struggle between police and the suspect 

occurred. Eventually, the police used an electronic control device to subdue the suspect. The suspect was taken 

into custody and charged with various crimes. Thereafter, the suspect filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

alleging excessive force. On appeal, the Hinton Court 

held that the arresting officers’ use of force did not rise 

to the level of a constitutional violation. Under Graham, 

some of the factors did not justify this use of force. The 

crime for which the suspect was initially stopped by the 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 23
police was the misdemeanor of disturbing the peace. The 

suspect did not constitute any type of immediate threat 

to the police or the public. There was no showing that he 

had a weapon or was under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs. In addition, he was outnumbered by the arresting 

officers. However, despite these factors, the third Graham factor of resisting arrest supported the officers’ use 

of force as being objectively reasonable. The suspect refused to talk with the police when they requested him 

to stop, and he shoved the officer after the police told 

him to calm down and go home. Only after the suspect 

displayed this level of resistance did the officers make 

any initial use of force to subdue the suspect. This use of 

force was preceded by an announcement that the suspect 

was under arrest and consisted only of police grabbing 

the suspect to keep him from leaving. After grabbing the 

suspect the officers increased their application of force. 

Not only did they wrestle him to the ground but they 

used an electronic control device on him. However, at 

this point, the suspect was actively and openly resisting the officers’ attempts to handcuff him, even to the 

extent of biting the officers. The police ceased using the 

device once the officers had succeeded in handcuffing 

him. Accordingly, the officers’ use of force, even after 

grabbing the suspect, was not constitutionally excessive 

and therefore the officers were entitled to qualified immunity (which dismissed the lawsuit).

Inappropriate electronic control device training can 

result in potential liability for trainers. Generally, the 

reported training liability cases deal with municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Mateyko v. Felix,

24

the court said that a municipality can be liable under 

§ 1983 only if its “policy” or “custom” caused a constitutional deprivation. Inadequate training can form 

the basis for municipal liability only where the failure 

to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights 

of persons with whom the police come into contact. In 

the Mateyko case, the court noted that police officers received approximately three to four hours of training in 

the use of electronic control devices and lacked information as to the device’s voltage or its precise effect on the 

human body. However, the court said that these alleged 

inadequacies in training, without more, do not establish deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with 

whom the police came in contact. Failure to provide a 

lengthier training program suggests, at most, negligence 

on the part of the City in miscalculating the amount of 

time necessary to adequately prepare its officers. However, the evidence does not show the City knew it was 

creating an unjustifiable risk to its citizenry and ignoring 

that risk. The same must be said of the City’s failure to 

inform its officers of the exact voltage of the electronic 

control device or its precise effect upon the human body. 

As such, a directed verdict for the City regarding the 

constitutional claim was upheld by the appellate court.

In McKenzie v. City of Milpitas,

25 the court observed 

that the City’s policy included: supplying tasers to officers with limited experience; allowing officers to carry 

tasers when making investigatory stops; not requiring 

officers to holster their tasers; allowing officers to resort to the use of tasers immediately after verbal warnings; and, inadequately training officers in the constitutional ramifications and health hazards of using 

tasers. The City’s electronic control device policy was 

absolutely silent on arrest policy. In the end, the court 

denied the motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the 

municipality and its police chief. The court said that 

the plaintiffs must prove that the City failed to train its 

officers, and that there is a causal connection between 

this failure and violation of their constitutional rights. 

Although this is a heavy burden, the plaintiffs are entitled to present their case to a jury.

The Federal Tort Claims Act and 

Negligence

In a non-deadly force situation, what if an unintentional 

death results after the use of an electronic control device? 

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal employees can be sued for negligence while acting within the 

scope of their office or employment.26 The elements of 

negligence are: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and 

(4) injury/damages. A simple example illustrating these 

elements can be found in the case of Sheehan v. United 

States.

27 In Sheehan, a female arrestee fell with her arms 

handcuffed behind her as she was being led by officers up 

a ramp into the United States Capitol Police headquarters. 

As a result, she suffered a fracture and other injuries. The 

Sheehan court held that the government was liable for the 

plaintiff’s fall. The court said that the female would not 

have fallen were it not for the officers’ negligence. The 

officers were in sole control of the situation. It is common 

24 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
sense that officers have a duty to assist persons walking 

up a ramp whose hands are handcuffed behind their backs 

to ensure that they do not fall. The officers breached that 

duty by failing to hold on to her securely to prevent her 

stumbling and by failing to break her fall.

The tort of negligence can be applied to incidents involving the use of an electronic control device. As 

previously stated, in McKenzie v. City of Milpitas,

28

the court recognized that an electronic control device 

training program that included three to four hours of 

training in the use of the device and lacked information 

as to the device’s voltage or its precise effect on the 

human body could suggest negligence on the part of 

a City in miscalculating the amount of time necessary 

to adequately prepare its officers.29 However, the case 

law in this area is less than clear.

In a civil lawsuit involving the tort of negligence, a main 

issue will involve determining the first element known as 

the “duty of care.” What is the legal “duty of care” owed 

to a potential suspect when devising and implementing an 

electronic control device training program, and in using 

the device in the field? Despite the current use of electronic control devices by law enforcement agencies, medical 

professionals and others are currently debating the safety 

of the use of these devices by law enforcement. Most importantly, information from medical experts can be used 

to define the parameters of law enforcement’s “duty of 

care.”30 In September 2005, one highly regarded medical expert, Dr. Fabrice Czarnecki31, conducted a presentation at the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

conference in Miami, Florida. Dr. Czarnecki provided his 

expert opinion regarding the use of electronic control devices by law enforcement officers. Some of the important 

medical recommendations by Dr. Czarnecki included the 

following: (1) if possible, limit the number of electronic 

control device exposures (three exposures is probably a 

reasonable number); (2) identify high-risk subjects: age 

extremes, pregnancy, and “excited delirium” (a condition often found in drug users); (3) if possible, avoid using such devices on pregnant women, elderly persons 

and very young persons; (4) train all officers in “excited 

delirium” recognition and its management; (5) immediately contact Emergency Medical Services if an electronic control device is used on a high-risk subject or if any 

person is subjected to more than three exposures; and (6) 

avoid electronic control device exposure during training 

because employees may have hidden medical conditions 

that could result in their injury or death. It is also important 

to note that when an electronic control device is used on 

a suspect, law enforcement officers can employ a “handson” control technique during the apprehension. Despite 

its effects on the suspect, the device will not physically 

affect the law enforcement officer. 

Conclusion

Law enforcement agencies must initially decide whether 

to employ electronic control devices as an optional use 

of force tool. Under constitutional standards, it is fairly 

clear as to when a law enforcement officer can lawfully 

use an electronic control device. According to current legal precedent, electronic control devices can be constitutionally used in enforcement situations when a suspect is 

actively resisting an officer. In contrast, definitive medical 

information is lacking in the area of how to use the devices 

with total safety. This is compounded by the fact that case 

law is less than clear as to how negligence principles apply to the use of the devices. If electronic control devices 

are deployed, law enforcement officers must be properly 

trained under current, generally accepted standards of 

care before using them. For example, one suggested tactic 

based on Dr. Czarnecki’s recommendations is to use the 

electronic control device to initially immobilize a suspect, 

then immediately apply a “hands-on” control technique. 

Using these techniques in combination can minimize the 

dangers associated with multiple exposures to the electronic control device, which could possibly lead to death. 

Overall, it appears that further litigation will occur in this 

area, especially when the use of an electronic control device results in the death of a suspect. To avoid liability 

based on a claim of negligence, the recommendations set 

forth by competent medical experts should be incorporated into the development of any electronic control device 

training program or agency policy.

1 738 F. Supp. 1293, 1296 (N.D. Cal. 1990); See also, Russo v. 

City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1040 n.1 (6th Cir. 1992). 2

 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

3

 490 U.S. at 396.

4

 490 U.S. at 396-97.

5

 490 U.S. at 396 (altered from original).

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 25
FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

6 See, Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 822 (3rd Cir. 1997); Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999). 7

 128 F.3d at 822; 187 F.3d at 1351.

8

 128 F.3d at 822; 187 F.3d at 1351.

9 128 F.3d at 822; 187 F.3d at 1351; See also, Mellott v. Heemer, 

161 F.3d 117, 123 (3rd Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1160 

(1999); Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1170 n.18 (11th Cir. 

2000); Wardlaw v. Pickett, 1 F.3d 1297, 1304 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 

1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1204 (1994). 10 Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 869 (4th Cir. 1988). 11 Krueger v. Fuhr, 991 F.2d 435 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 

946 (1993).

12 Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. 

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 2660 (2002); Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 472 (8th Cir. 1995). 13 Dean v. Worcester, 924 F.2d 364, 368 (1st Cir. 1991) 14 See, Tom v. Voida, 963 F.2d 952, 962 (7th Cir. 1992). 15 Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 507 

(U.S. 2004).

16 See, Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1993). 17 Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 

1994).

18 Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2nd 

Cir. 2004).

19 Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 

1125 (9th Cir. 2002).

20 See, 276 F.3d 1125. 21 See, 361 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 2004) (use of force on passive protestors consisting of pressing back wrists, throwing and dragging face-down to ground, placing a knee on a neck and ramming a head into a wall required denial of summary judgment 

for negligent supervision); 276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (use of 

pepper spray on passive protestors unconstitutional).

22 369 F.3d 1270.

23 997 F.2d 774.

24 924 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1990).

25 738 F. Supp. 1293 (N.D. Cal. 1990).

26 28 U.S.C. §2679(b)(1).

27 822 F. Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1993).

28 738 F. Supp. 1293 (N.D. Cal. 1990).

29 738 F. Supp. 1293 (N.D. Cal. 1990).

30 See generally, Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 39 F. Supp 2d 1013, 

1019-20 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (finding that information existed in 

the law enforcement community which put officers on notice of 

the dangers of positional asphyxiation).

31 Fabrice Czarnecki, MD, MA, MPH, is the Director of Medical-Legal Research with The Gables Group, Inc., a business 

intelligence and investigative consultancy based in Miami, 

FL, and the Director of Training of the Center for Homeland 

Security Studies, a non-profit corporation conducting training in counter-terrorism and intelligence for domestic law 

enforcement. He previously was an emergency physician of 

the Ambroise Pare Hospital, Boulogne, France, and currently 

practices occupational and emergency medicine in Baltimore, 

MD. Dr. Czarnecki is the Medical Advisor for the American 

Women’s Self Defense Association, and the National Law Enforcement Training Center. He is the Medical Advisor for the 

American Society for Law Enforcement Training (ASLET), 

and a member of the editorial board of the “Journal of Security 

Education”. Dr. Czarnecki served as a trainer and a consultant 

for several local and federal law enforcement agencies and the 

U.S. Marine Corps. He is a certified instructor in firearms, police defensive tactics, TASER, baton and in the use of deadly 

force. He co-authored the August 2003 issue of the “Clinics in 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine” dedicated to law 

enforcement worker health.

26

About the author: Instructor: Ed Zigmund is a Senior 

Instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia. He is a Senior 

Instructor for the Legal Division for FLETC basic and 

advanced programs. Ed has been a law enforcement 

trainer for the past four years, and has instructed a 

variety of law enforcement topics such as 4th 

Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Civil Liability. 

He was educated in Pennsylvania and worked there as 

both a police officer and Assistant District Attorney. 

Ed also was a Legal Instructor at the North Carolina 

Justice Academy prior to coming to the FLETC.
On August 1, 2005, a new partner organization 

joined the FLETC line-up, and one of its primary 

missions is to provide investigative assistance to federal, 

state, local, and international law enforcement. This 

organization was created to help criminal investigators 

enhance their investigations by providing new leads, 

expanding existing leads, networking agencies working 

on the same subjects, and tapping into international 

partners for possible case-related information. This 

agency does so strictly in the name of cooperation and 

information sharing - and without any hidden agenda 

such as stealing your thunder. You ask: Who? What? 

How? It is the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

(FinCEN), and it has recently established an office at 

FLETC to help spread the word about its valuable 

financial intelligence resources that are available to all 

levels of U.S. law enforcement. 

FinCEN, located in Vienna, VA, was established in 

1990 and is the largest overt collector of financial 

intelligence in the United States. It is also the United 

States Financial Intelligence Unit, or FIU. Its mission 

is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses 

of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money 

laundering, and other illicit activity. FinCEN achieves 

this by: 

• administering the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) 

• supporting law enforcement, intelligence, 

and regulatory agencies through sharing and 

analysis of financial intelligence

• building global cooperation with our counterpart FIUs

• networking customers and Bank Secrecy Act 

information

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 27

Follow the 

Money

By Germaine Perambo
As one of the government’s smallest bureaus, it’s often 

an unknown arrow in the law enforcement quiver. 

Despite its size (about 300 employees), FinCEN 

has tremendous assets and authorities to assist law 

enforcement in obtaining financial intelligence and 

other leads to enhance its investigations. Except 

for violent crimes and crimes of passion, just about 

every crime is committed for financial gain. Most 

often that financial gain is in the form of cash. The 

BSA is one of the nation’s most potent weapons for 

preventing corruption of the financial system. The 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the BSA 

help to establish a financial trail for investigators 

to follow as they track criminals, their activities, 

and their assets. Through the use of technology, 

information is extracted from numerous data sources 

to which FinCEN has access. Intelligence analysts 

are then able to link various aspects of a case and 

provide valuable information such as suspect names, 

personal identifiers, addresses, financial transactions, 

previously unknown assets, and names of associates 

to law enforcement agencies. 

Some readers may have heard of the BSA database 

but thought it was only of value for money laundering 

cases. BSA data, however, has provided key 

information to investigators on a wide range of cases 

to include: terrorist financing, embezzlement, fugitive 

apprehension, narcotics smuggling, procurement 

fraud, bank fraud, arson for profit, cigarette 

smuggling, foreign investment schemes, cattle fraud, 

cyber crimes, and asset forfeiture, to name a few. For 

those not familiar with the BSA, it was enacted in 

1970 to help law enforcement get its arms around the 

vast amount of drug money that was flowing in and 

out of banks. The Act provided the first reporting 

requirement for banks to report any cash deposit or 

withdrawal in excess of $10,000. This reporting 

requirement is known as the Currency Transaction 

Report – or CTR. Over the years the CTR has proven 

tremendously valuable in helping law enforcement 

follow the money moved by criminals. The report 

not only captures information about the specific cash 

transaction, it also reveals bank account numbers, 

names, addresses, DOBs, SSNs, doing business as 

(DBA) names, occupations, and names of associates 

who conduct banking transactions on behalf of others 

– all very valuable, prospective leads. 

The BSA has evolved over the years and now 

includes approximately a dozen reporting 

requirements for financial institutions. One of these 

reporting requirements, the Suspicious Activity 

Report or SAR, allows banks, casinos, brokerdealers, and other financial institutions to file SAR’s 

to describe activities by customers that they deem to 

be suspicious in nature. The report form includes 

a narrative section that allows financial institutions 

to describe, in detail, all the facts surrounding their 

decision to identify a transaction as suspicious. 

Suspicious Activity Reports have become a “golden 

nugget” for law enforcement intelligence in their 

counterterrorism initiatives. FinCEN maintains the 

SARs, CTRs, as well as all of the other Bank Secrecy 

Act forms in a database for use by law enforcement. 

Through FinCEN, federal, state, and local law 

enforcement can access this information, either 

directly through its Gateway and Platform Programs 

or through direct requests for research by FinCEN 

analysts. The Gateway Program allows law 

enforcement, through an MOU process, to access 

BSA data through a secure web portal. A growing 

number of federal agencies are Gateway participants, 

including: DEA, ATF, U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service, FBI, DHS-OIG, EPIC, FDA-CI, OFAC, 

SSA, USMS, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife, to name a 

few. In addition to federal law enforcement agencies 

participating in the Gateway Program, a number of 

agencies detail full-time agents/analysts to FinCEN 

to conduct research for their respective agencies. 

These agencies include: AFOSI, Army-CID, ATF, 

28 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
DEA, FBI, HUD-OIG, IRS-CI, NCIS, USDA-OIG, 

USPIS-OIG, and USSS. 

FinCEN’s Platform Program enables law 

enforcement agencies in the Washington, DC area 

to send a representative to FinCEN to conduct BSA 

research for agents in their respective field offices. 

These representatives come as often as needed to 

FinCEN’s Operations Center to complete their BSA 

research.

For state and local law enforcement, investigators 

can also request Bank 

Secrecy Act data through 

the Gateway Program. 

Each state, along with 

the District of Columbia 

and Puerto Rico, has a 

state coordinator that is 

usually the state attorney 

general’s office or state 

police department. 

Because of the volume 

of requests, several individual police departments 

have separate MOUs with FinCEN, such as the 

Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia and the 

Philadelphia Police Department. 

Law enforcement agencies can also request assistance 

from FinCEN’s talented intelligence analysts on 

their major cases, such as those involving domestic 

or international terrorism, terrorist financing, or 

cases that involve voluminous data or voluminous 

BSA data. On these complex/significant cases, 

law enforcement can expect multi-tier research, 

a narrative report describing research results and 

analytic opinions, database extracts, and link 

analysis/diagrams. 

In addition to the valuable information FinCEN 

provides to law enforcement agencies, it also offers 

a unique networking feature between agencies. 

Whenever an investigator uses FinCEN or its Gateway 

system to query a name in the BSA database, FinCEN, 

in turn, checks the name against its databases to 

identify if any other agency has requested information 

on the same subject. If there is a match, FinCEN 

notifies the requester of the match and provides the 

name and contact information of the person who had 

previously run the subject. The goal is to put the two 

agencies in contact with each other, not only to share 

information and combine resources against the same 

criminal(s), but also to minimize the likelihood of one 

agency unwittingly compromising the investigation 

or undercover operation of another. FinCEN does not 

disclose any investigative information to either party; 

it is up to the respective agencies to follow up and work 

together. 

This networking feature has proven incredibly 

productive over the years. Recently the Pennsylvania 

Attorney General’s 

Office Asset Forfeiture 

and Money Laundering 

Section conducted 

proactive targeting 

research through 

FinCEN and identified 

two suspects. Research 

on those two individuals 

resulted in a Gateway 

Alert that revealed a 

match with the Philadelphia INS (legacy) office. The 

two agencies combined their efforts and resources 

into one federal case. The PA AG’s Office worked 

the money laundering aspects of the case, while INS 

investigated the specified unlawful activity aspects 

(harboring/transporting illegal aliens). The first 

phase of their joint investigation culminated in the 

execution of 10 search warrants in five states, court 

orders freezing 36 bank accounts, and the seizure 

of almost $9 million. Undoubtedly, the networking 

capability of FinCEN proved quite valuable to both 

agencies. 

There are two additional investigative resources that 

warrant highlighting: the Financial Intelligence Unit 

(FIU) process and the 314(a) information-sharing 

program. 

As previously mentioned, FinCEN is the Financial 

Intelligence Unit (FIU) for the United States. Currently 

there are over 100 FIUs around the world that belong 

to the Egmont Group, an international network of 

countries that have implemented national centers, 

like FinCEN, to collect information on suspicious or 

unusual financial activity from the financial industry, 

analyze the data, and make it available to appropriate 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 29

Law enforcement agencies can 

also request assistance from 

FinCEN’s talented intelligence 

analysts on their major cases.
the necessary legal tools to obtain the financial 

records. To ensure that Section 314(a) inquiries are 

being used for appropriate cases, FinCEN requires 

all requesters to submit a form certifying that the 

investigation is based on credible evidence of 

terrorist financing or significant money laundering. 

To date, the 314(a) process has yielded productive 

leads in investigations such as arms trafficking, 

alien smuggling resulting in fatalities, cigarette 

smuggling, nationwide investment fraud, and multiagency drug trafficking investigations. Additional 

information on the 314(a) program can be found on 

FinCEN’s website at www.fincen.gov. 

If you believe agents in your agency could benefit 

from learning more about FinCEN while they’re 

at FLETC in either basic or advanced training 

sessions, feel free to contact Special Agent Germaine 

Perambo (FinCEN Agency Representative) at 

(912) 267-2850. You can also visit FinCEN’s website 

at www.fincen.gov to learn more about the agency, its 

regulatory/law enforcement/international programs, 

and its investigative resources. 

 

national authorities and other FIUs for use in combating 

terrorist funding and other financial crime. FinCEN can 

assist investigators by reaching out to its international 

partners and request that the foreign FIU query its 

intelligence for information related to their case. 

This networking can provide additional investigative 

leads and information, thus expanding investigative 

capabilities.

The 314(a) information sharing program (mandated 

under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001) is designed 

to encourage regulatory and law enforcement 

authorities to share information regarding 

individuals, entities, and organizations engaged in 

or reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, 

of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering 

activities. Section 314(a) enables Federal law 

enforcement agencies through FinCEN to query the 

nation’s banking system (more than 44,000 points 

of contact at more than 27,000 financial institutions) 

to locate accounts or transactions of persons who 

may be involved in terrorism or significant money 

laundering investigations. In essence, it casts a 

virtual investigative net over the nation’s banking 

system to help law enforcement identify prospective 

leads. When agents hear about this relatively new 

tool, they often sit back and say, “Wow.” 

The information sharing process begins once FinCEN 

receives a request from a federal law enforcement 

agency. Following a review, the request is transmitted 

to designated contacts within financial institutions 

across the country once every two weeks via either 

a secure internet web site or facsimile. The requests 

contain subject and business names, addresses, and 

as much identifying data as possible to assist the 

financial industry in searching their records. The 

financial institutions must query their records for 

data matches, including accounts maintained by the 

named subject during the preceding 12 months and 

transactions conducted within the last six months. 

Financial institutions have two weeks from the 

transmission date to respond to 314(a) requests. 

FinCEN provides any “hits” to the requesting law 

enforcement agency, which then is responsible for 

following up with the financial institution using 

30 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Author: Germaine Perambo
The FLETC recently conducted its first Summer 

Program for students in the local commuting 

areas of Glynco, Artesia, Cheltenham and Charleston. 

Students were hired for the summer to work in 

clerical positions all over the GLYNCO center, 

including the Counterterrorism Division, Physical 

Techniques Division, Enforcement Operations 

Division, Computer and Financial Investigations 

Division, Forensics and Investigative Technologies 

Division, Student Services Division, Media Support 

Division, Critical Incident/Stress Management 

Program, Inspection and Compliance Division, 

Security and Emergency Management Division, 

Environmental and Safety Division, Facilities Management Division, Human Resources Division, 

Property Management Division, Strategic Planning 

and Analysis Division, Finance Division, Procurement 

Division, and the Office of State and Local Training, 

as well as the Administration Divisions of Artesia, 

Cheltenham and Charleston.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 31

Students participating in the “Pilot” Summer 

Program at FLETC Glynco were officially 

sworn in by Director Patrick in a welcoming 

ceremony.

FLETC Student Educational 

Employment Program (FSEEP)

‘Pilot’ Summer Program

By Tina Goulet
Summer jobs allow students to apply the skills they have 

learned in the classroom in a real-world environment 

while providing a valuable benefit to the employer. Not 

only do they learn basic skills needed in 

any job, many of them are able 

to get practical experience 

in areas they plan on 

majoring in.

Our students came 

to us from various 

high schools and 

colleges, such as the 

University of Georgia, 

Valdosta State University, Old 

Dominion University, Moorehead State 

University, Mercer University, Spelman College, 

Georgia State University and the National Institute for 

the Deaf. 

During the summer program, students met weekly 

for lunch with Program Coordinators and to listen 

to representatives from among the FLETC’s various 

Partner Organizations, such as the U.S. Marshal 

Service and the U.S. Secret Service. They also 

participated in training facilities tours, activities and 

demonstrations. 

Although this was the first year for the program, 

initial results have been extremely positive, both for 

the students and the Center. Accreditation Manager 

Liz Truesdell stated that her student had an excellent 

attitude, great computer skills and was very innovative. 

Dr. Jannett Bradford, Chief of Strategic Planning 

and Analysis Division, stated that her students daily 

demonstrated an eager willingness to learn and work. 

“They are truly exemplary young adults and we were 

thrilled to have them share their summers with SPA”. 

Gail London, Program Manager for the CISM, was 

very complimentary of the student assigned to the 

Critical Incident Stress Management program. “We 

really enjoyed having DeAnna as part of our staff. 

She was a hard worker and had very good computer 

skills. DeAnna worked on two projects that were 

very important to the CISM, updating the Resource 

Directory and logging statistics. She 

was excellent at both. She was 

a pleasure to have in the 

office.” Branch Chief 

Mark Boswell stated 

that he is looking 

forward to having 

this program again 

next year.

The students returned to 

school in the fall with new skills 

and experiences. Summer jobs can be a big part 

of preparing for future success. 

About the Author: Tina Goulet is the Acting Chief 

of Staffing in the Human Resources Division. She 

has a Masters of Education Degree in Instructional 

Technology and a Bachelor of Science Degree 

in Human Resources Management. Tina has 18 

years experience in Human Resources with the 

Federal Government and came to the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center in 1988.

32 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Not only do they 

learn basic skills needed in any 

job, many of them are able to get 

practical experience in areas they 

plan on majoring in.
Those of us in the law enforcement community 

know them by many names, such as Use of Force 

Continuum, Use of Force Model, Use of Force Ladder, 

or Use of Force Matrix. Regardless of what they are 

called, visual models depicting progressive escalation 

and de-escalation of force have become a mainstay in 

the law enforcement community. There is a legitimate 

debate among police trainers, administrators and 

attorneys as to whether Use of Force continuums still 

serve a vital function in the modern law enforcement 

agency. The purpose of this article is not to take sides 

on the issue, but rather to examine the facts, and allow 

the reader to make an informed decision as to whether 

continuums still serve a purpose in their agency. 

Use of Force Continuums have been used in law 

enforcement training for many years. According to 

Bruce Siddle, founder of PPCT Management Systems 

and author of “Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge”, the 

first Use of Force models were based on early models 

found in U.S. Army Military Police Manuals from the 

early 1960’s.1 Siddle also indicated that those models 

may have been based 

on models developed by 

France in the mid 1940’s. 

According to police 

defense expert George 

Williams, “in the late 

1960s, law enforcement 

trainers who sincerely 

desired to assist officers 

in properly employing 

force developed force continuums.”2 The Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) first developed 

its own Use of Force Model as a result of the Use 

of Force project which began in September 1990. 

Regardless of when they were developed, Use of Force 

Continuums have been a foundational element of law 

enforcement training for the past twenty years.

Whether one is for or against the use of continuums 

in training, an objective look at most continuums 

will reveal a number of pitfalls that may limit their 

usefulness. The most obvious pitfall is that Use of Force 

Continuums are not typically based upon the standard 

established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham vs. 

Connor3. The Graham court established the standard 

for Use of Force that applies to all American police 

officers, regardless of jurisdiction. The Graham court 

held that Use of Force used by police officers is judged 

upon the “objective reasonableness” standard of the 

Fourth Amendment and incorporates the concept of 

the totality of the circumstances. In Graham the court 

specifically stated “the test of reasonableness under the 

Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition 

or mechanical application”4, but that is exactly what 

Use of Force Continuums attempt to do. Additionally, 

most Use of Force Continuums do not address the 

concept of the totality 

of circumstances. 

Most continuums are 

structured in such a 

way that a specific 

subject action equates 

to a specific officer 

response, regardless 

of the totality of 

circumstances known to 

the officer at the moment force was used. Experienced 

law enforcement officers know that Use of Force 

incidents do not occur in a vacuum. There are factors 

such as known violent history of the suspect, duration 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 33

Use of Force: 

Are Continuums Still Necessary?

by John Bostain

See the Use of Force Charts 

inside front and back covers 

of this issue.
of the action, officer/subject variables, and other facts 

that make up the totality of circumstances. Rather than 

a specific response to a subject’s actions, there may be 

a wide range of reasonable responses from which an 

officer may choose. 

Another problem is there is no consensus on the 

definitions used in the various models. Passive 

resistance may mean many different things to many 

different officers. One officer may view passive 

resistance as a protestor who refuses to stand up, while 

another officer perceives that same protestor as actively 

resistant. Who is right? Active resistance is generally 

defined as threatening an officer;5 shoving, striking, 

wrestling with, and even biting an 

officer.6 In contrast, passive 

resistance is described 

by the following 

suspect actions: (1) 

remaining seated, 

refusing to move, 

and refusing to bear 

weight;7 (2) protestors going 

limp, or persons chaining themselves 

together and covering their hands with maple syrup 

to impede the use of handcuffs;8 (3) protestors 

employing lock-down devices that immobilize their 

arms and prevent their separation by police, although 

the protestors could disengage themselves from the 

devices.9 In many instances, continuums define actions 

as active resistance which the courts have defined as 

passive resistance. These inconsistencies only add to 

the confusion an officer may experience when trying 

to apply concepts taught by a model in a dynamic Use 

of Force incident.

Finally, most Use of Force continuums are just not 

practical from an application standpoint. While they 

may certainly have benefit in explaining Use of Force 

to juries in a sterile, quiet courtroom environment, 

they hardly represent the “tense, uncertain and rapidly 

evolving”10 circumstances faced by police officers in the 

field. Linear models, progressive models, or whatever 

name one may call them, encourage the officer to 

try to find the minimal amount of force necessary to 

control a subject’s actions. What happens when that 

minimal amount of force fails to control the subject? 

The officer now has to use even more force to control 

the subject, which is likely to lead to more injuries to 

both the officer and the subject who is resisting arrest. 

At a recent law enforcement trainer’s conference this 

analogy was used:

“If there was a fire at your home, would you want 

the responding firefighters to attempt to calculate 

the minimal amount of water that is necessary to 

put out the flames, or would you prefer them to 

use the reasonable amount it would take to get 

the fire out? If they attempt to use the minimum 

amount of water, and it doesn’t work, the fire 

will most certainly get worse”11

I think most of us agree 

that if it is our house 

burning to the 

ground, we want 

the firefighters 

to use the reasonable 

amount of water, 

not the min-imal amount. 

Some trainers attempt to compensate 

for this obvious flaw with continuums by employing 

what is often called the “one plus rule”, which means 

the officer should employ a response that is one level 

above the subject’s resistance. Under that theory, it 

could be argued that an officer would be justified in 

using deadly force against every assaultive subject. 

Such confusion does little to help officers to make 

reasonable decisions. There is little purpose for a Use 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

Reduce hesitation 

by teaching officers what they can 

do rather than what they cannot.

34
of Force continuum, if it requires modification such 

as the “one plus rule” to be useful. It should also be 

remembered that the “one plus rule” is yet another 

concept in Use of Force training, while longstanding, 

is not founded upon the prevailing case law set forth by 

the Supreme Court.

So how do we reduce the confusion that some officers 

feel when using force? The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) has dramatically changed 

its approach to Use of Force training in recent years. 

A visitor to the FLETC may notice that the FLETC 

Use of Force Model has been removed from the 

walls of the classrooms, mat rooms and firing ranges. 

They are being replaced by posters which show the 

constitutional standard regarding Use of Force as held 

by the Supreme Court in Graham 

vs. Connor and Tennessee vs. 

Garner. The FLETC approach 

is designed to encourage officers 

to make objectively reasonable 

decisions based upon the facts 

of a situation, rather than the 

subjective principles defined 

in the Use of Force Model. 

Recognizing the potential pitfalls of using models and 

continuums, the FLETC approach helps students focus 

on making Use of Force decisions based upon the same 

facts that will be used by the courts to determine the 

reasonableness of a particular Use of Force.

The first step in the FLETC approach is legal 

understanding. All Use of Force training at FLETC is 

founded upon the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham vs. 

Connor and Tennessee vs. Garner. Rather than attempt to 

scare students with the threat of liability for using force, 

FLETC instead focuses on the pro-law enforcement 

language used by the Graham court, to teach students 

what the law tells them they can do, rather than what 

they cannot. FLETC instructors attempt to dispel the 

various myths regarding Use of Force such as “officers 

can never shoot someone in the back,”12 “officers can 

never shoot an unarmed person,”13 and “officers must 

exhaust all lesser means before using deadly force” 

by providing case law examples of where courts have 

determined such actions were reasonable based upon 

the totality of circumstances. Further myths that are 

dispelled are “officers must give a verbal warning 

prior to using deadly force,”14 “officers cannot use 

deadly force on suspects wielding an edged weapon 

until they are within 21 feet,”15 and “officers must be 

in fear for their lives before using deadly force”. By 

dispelling these types of myths through the use of case 

law, students are less likely to hesitate during a Use of 

Force incident. A legal foundation, through the use of 

applicable case law, is the basis for the entire FLETC 

Use of Force approach.

The second step in the FLETC approach is to teach 

students to be mentally prepared to use force. Building 

upon the legal foundation, officers are encouraged to 

be proactive rather than reactive in their application of 

force. Students are taught that the early (proactive) 

application of reasonable force 

will result in less overall force 

used, fewer injuries to suspects, 

and fewer injuries to officers. 

This is based upon the premise 

that if the subject is controlled 

earlier, the situation does not 

have a chance to deteriorate 

to a point where more force is 

needed to control the subject. The mental preparation 

portion of the training also teaches officers to be aware 

of the factors that may cause them to unnecessarily 

hesitate in a critical incident. An unfounded fear of 

liability, overly restrictive agency policy, fear of the 

media, and personal beliefs are all factors that may 

cause hesitation in a Use of Force incident. Students 

are taught how to resolve these issues in order to make 

better decisions under stress.

The third step in the FLETC approach focuses on 

report writing. This aspect of the program is important, 

because it relates to reducing the officers exposure to 

civil or criminal liability. Many law enforcement 

reports are unintentionally filled with conclusions 

rather than facts. Officers tend to use “police language” 

to describe their actions rather than facts. Look at the 

following excerpt from a police Use of Force report:

“When I told the suspect he was under arrest 

he became non-compliant. When I attempted 

to handcuff him he became actively resistant. I 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 35

Verbal warnings 

are Not 

Always Required.
deployed my OC spray, which was ineffective, 

and caused the subject to become assaultive. 

At this time I deployed my baton and struck 

him three times, which caused him to go to the 

ground, where he was handcuffed”

Not a bad report, right? It could be better, but it has 

the basic facts, right? The problem with the above 

excerpt is that it actually contains very few facts. It 

uses conclusions such as “non-compliant”, “actively 

resistant” and “assaultive” to justify the officer’s actions. 

During report writing exercises, FLETC instructors 

specifically look for these types of conclusions, and 

make the officers rewrite the reports and articulate the 

facts upon which the conclusions are made. When they 

are finished, the report may look like this:

“When I told the suspect he was under arrest, 

he turned to me and stated ‘I’m not going back 

to jail’. As he faced me, his hands became 

clenched, and he was staring at me like he was 

looking right through me. His right leg was 

set back from his left, in what appeared to be a 

stance used by a boxer. I approached the suspect 

in an attempt to control him for handcuffing. 

When I touched his arm, he quickly pulled 

his arm away from me, and raised his fist up 

to nearly his eye level. I sprayed him with O/

C spray to which he replied, ‘that ain’t gonna 

work on me,’ and rapidly closed the distance 

between us, with his fist still raised. I pulled 

out my baton, opened it, and struck the suspect 

approximately three times, which caused his 

leg to bend, and go down to the ground. I then 

went in and handcuffed him.”

Is that a perfect report? Maybe not, but which report 

best illustrates the true nature of the event? By training 

officers to explain their actions by articulating facts, 

and not merely stating conclusions, they will stand a 

much better chance of obtaining a favorable outcome 

if faced with civil or criminal action.

In addition to articulating facts rather than conclusions, 

the FLETC report also makes the students articulate 

the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham 

vs. Connor and Tennessee vs. Garner. The FLETC Use 

of Force form has blanks that make students articulate 

the severity of the crime, whether the subject was an 

immediate threat, active resistance of the subject and 

whether the subject was attempting to evade arrest 

by flight. It also contains an entire page dedicated 

to articulating the totality of circumstances known to 

the officer at the moment force was used. Each of the 

elements in the Use of Force form is designed to help 

the student articulate the incident consistently with the 

standards provided by the Supreme Court.

The fourth step in the FLETC process is practical 

application of the classroom information through the 

use of reality-based training. In addition to all of the 

other reality-based training they receive throughout 

their program, students have a four hour Use of Force 

laboratory, which is designed to test Use of Force 

skills specifically. Students respond to four scenarios, 

which require a wide array of force response options 

to be used. The students are purposely placed into 

situations that are designed to overcome some of the 

various myths previously discussed in the classroom. 

One scenario is designed to see if the students, when 

provided with adequate justification, will shoot a 

suspect in the back. Another scenario requires the 

students to be proactive in their Use of Force. If 

the student is not proactive, the situation develops 

into a shooting situation. At the conclusion of the 

four scenarios, students complete the Use of Force 

form. They receive immediate feedback from the 

instructors if they use conclusions rather than facts 

36 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
in their report. The instructors also reinforce the case 

law that applies to their particular scenario. 

In addition to the scenarios, students also participate 

in what are known as transition drills. These drills 

are designed to teach students how to move, shoot, 

and transition between their various force response 

options, all while fending off an attacker. Using 

Non Lethal Training Ammunition (NLTA), students 

make decisions and transitions under high stress, in 

close quarters. Again, the emphasis is on teaching 

them to be proactive. If they hesitate to use force, the 

situation generally deteriorates and becomes more 

difficult to control. Through the use of the scenarios 

and transition drills, students reinforce the legal and 

mental preparation principles they learned in the 

classroom.

All of the training in the FLETC program occurs 

without using a Use of Force Model or continuum. 

Rather than introduce a model that may potentially 

cause confusion and hesitation, the FLETC instead 

focuses on the standards provided by the Supreme 

Court: objective reasonableness based upon the totality 

of circumstances. All of the scenarios, drills, and 

report writing are designed to help students articulate 

themselves in accordance with the standards established 

in Graham vs. Connor and Tennessee vs. Garner. 

The training is also designed to reduce hesitation by 

teaching officers what they can do rather than what 

they cannot. This philosophy negates the need for a 

“model”. The debate over whether continuums are 

still necessary is not likely to end soon. They may still 

serve a legitimate purpose for some agencies. Clearly 

the FLETC approach is just one way of teaching Use 

of Force, not the only way. But hopefully, an open 

debate of the issue will only result in better training for 

all law enforcement officers.

1 Phone interview with Bruce Siddle, 06/07/2006

2 Williams, George Force Continuums: A Liability to 

Law Enforcement?, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 

June 2002 (p14-19)

3 Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

4 Id.

5 Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, (11th Cir. 2004)

6 Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 

1993).

7 Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 

1994).

8 «Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, 361 

F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 2004).

9 Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 

276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002).

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 37

About the author: Instructor: John Bostain is a 

Senior Instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia. He is 

the Senior Instructor for use of force for FLETC basic 

programs. John has been a law enforcement trainer 

for the past ten years, and has instructed a variety of 

law enforcement topics such as use of force, defensive 

tactics, firearms, defensive driving and others. John 

was previously with the Hampton Police Division 

in Virginia where he served as a uniform patrol 

officer, police academy instructor, patrol supervisor 

and SWAT team member. He is also an advisory 

board member of the International Law Enforcement 

Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA).
Domestic violence cuts across all socio-economic 

lines. Around the world, at least one in every 

three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or 

otherwise abused during her lifetime.i According 

to Bureau of Justice Statistics, domestic violence 

Domestic Violence 

Here at Home

By Scott Santoro

accounts for 11% of all reported and unreported 

violence. The majority of family violence victims 

are female (73%), white (74%) and were between 25 

to 54 years of age (66%).ii Accurate information on 

the extent of domestic violence is difficult to obtain 

38 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
because of extensive under-reporting.iii That said, 

approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men 

are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate 

partner each year.iv

What is Domestic Violence?

Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior where one 

intimate partner exerts power and control over the 

other that includes both emotional abuse and physical 

abuse. Often times, the victim is forced to change 

their behavior in response to the abuse. Additionally, 

domestic violence occurs in current or former 

dating relationships, spouses and former spouses, 

heterosexuals, homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and 

transgender people. 

Domestic violence usually occurs when the abuser 

seeks to control his or her victim by gaining and 

maintaining power and control using actual and 

assumed power. Actual power is described by using 

physical force; assumed power is psychological 

or emotional abuse. Both types of power are 

characterized as strategic, abusive tactics to reinforce 

this control.

To put it another way, not all acts of domestic 

violence are criminal. This frustrates many in the 

criminal justice arena because one cannot arrest or 

prosecute another for bullying their partner, calling 

them names or isolating them from their families. 

However, all these power and control tactics are 

used by abusers daily. When acts of domestic 

violence become physical, such as hitting, shoving, 

stabbing, shooting and stalking another, then the 

criminal justice system can try to hold these abusers 

accountable.

One of the best ways to illustrate the effect of domestic 

violence on others is the Power and Control wheel 

or pyramid.v The wheel has as its center, or axis, all 

of the psychological tactics and emotionally abusive 

behaviors used by batterers. The spokes or outer rims 

describe tools, pressures and rationale utilized in 

justifying coercive and dominant behavior. This wheel 

provides “snapshots” of coercive techniques: physical 

and sexual violence, emotional abuse, intimidation, 

threats, economic abuse, use of male privilege, attempts 

to isolate victims, and manipulation and victimization 

of children.

Quite frankly, batterers 

commit domestic violence 

because it works.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 39
What Causes and Does not Cause 

Domestic Violence?

There is no one cause to domestic violence. Quite 

frankly, batterers commit domestic violence because 

it works. For years, society has believed that domestic 

violence is a family issue and should not be discussed. 

Some actually blame the victim for the violence, 

which ultimately strengthens the power and control 

exerted by the batterer over the victim. 

Batterers make a choice to use violence; it is not a 

random act. The perpetrator directs the anger and abuse 

toward a loved one, not to random actors. Finally, 

domestic violence perpetrators learn this behavior from 

the home and from witnessing abuse growing up. 

On the other hand, there are many factors that do not 

cause domestic violence. For example, the victim’s 

illness (such as bi-polar disorder) does not cause 

violence. Nor does the genetic disposition of the 

abuser; the behavior is learned through observation 

and reinforcement. A big misnomer is that alcohol 

causes domestic violence. Although present in many 

cases, alcohol does not cause this behavior because 

40 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
the behavior is deeply rooted. A second myth is that 

one is always “out-of-control” when committing 

domestic violence. Actually, the opposite is true; one 

is very much in control when committing domestic 

violence.

Don’t Ask “Why the Victim Stays;” Ask 

“Why the Perpetrator Abuses”

Looking at the victim’s behavior as an explanation for the 

violence takes the focus off the perpetrator’s responsibility, 

and unintentionally supports the abuser’s violent behavior. 

There are many barriers to a victim’s safety when leaving 

a domestic violence situation. These include: 

• The relentless behavior of the batterer and fear 

of what the batterer might do; 

• Fear for the children; 

• Financial dependence on the batterer; 

• Conflicts with religious beliefs (marriage is 

forever); 

• Isolation and lack of support from family and 

friends; 

• Access to the batterer (Keep your friends close 

and your enemies closer).

As a reference, should you come into contact with a 

victim of domestic violence, here are 6 things to say 

to show that you care and are supportive:

1. I am afraid for your safety.

2. I am afraid for the safety of your children.

3. It will only get worse.

4. I am here for you when are ready to leave.

5. You don’t deserve to be abused.

6. Domestic Violence is a crime!

i

Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending 

Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series 

L, No. 11., December 1999

iiFamily Violence Statistics, US Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, June 2005.

iiiDomestic Violence, Administration for Children 

and Families, US Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2002.

ivId.

v

Domestic Violence: The Law Enforcement Response,

Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and the 

Law Enforcement Resource Center, 1988 (revised 1998)

About the author: Scott Santoro is a Senior Program 

Specialist with the Office of State and Local Training, 

overseeing the Domestic Violence Training Program. Prior 

to coming to FLETC, Scott was a prosecuting attorney for 

over 15 years, working in the Seattle area. He began his 

career with the Seattle Law Department in 1990 and in 1997 

was appointed director of the City of Everett’s Domestic 

Violence Unit. During his seven years in Everett, conviction 

rates for domestic violence crimes increased from 35% to 

over 70%. This was attributed to an aggressive prosecution 

of these crimes, on-going training to law enforcement 

officers and involving the entire community to become 

more involved in stopping domestic violence.

More information on OSL’s tuition-free programs can be 

found at www.fletc.gov/osl.

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 41
Document Management

Scanning documents has become much more widespread, and in many federal agencies has 

become a requirement for all investigations. Although 

scanning is a fairly straightforward operation, the 

output resolution and file type should be considered. 

This can have a dramatic effect on file sizes. In 

addition to scanning, technology can actually “read” 

the document as opposed to seeing it as a picture of 

a document. The technical tool which provides this 

service is “optical character recognition” software 

or OCR, which has improved significantly in quality 

over the last several years. OCR software allows the 

investigator to scan a document and produce editable 

text. Once again, this allows direct input without 

entering data by hand. OCR software is a standard 

tool on most scanners and can be used with varying 

degrees of reliability. However, there is now truly 

great OCR software on the market that will read 

documents with over 90 percent accuracy. Three 

examples of this are OmniPage Pro Plus Version 

15, ABBYY Fine Reader®, and Canada’s own Adlib 

SoftwareTM. A good OCR package has the capability 

to educate or “train” the software on a particular type 

of document. This means that when you initially 

scan the document, you proofread what the software 

is reading and make immediate corrections. The 

software “remembers” the corrections and applies 

them to future documents of this type. Proofreading 

the data for errors is critical whether the investigator 

enters it manually or the computer reads it through 

the use of OCR.

The use of barcoding in document management is also 

becoming more prevalent. There are several software 

companies that market products that support barcoding. 

Barcoding is simply a type of font that is installed, 

and the two most common are 39 or 128. Once the 

barcode has been printed on the item, it can then be 

easily read by the reader “wand,” which is actually a 

type of scanner.

If documents are to be scanned, they can be numbered 

during that process with the use of electronic Bates 

numbering software. This can be purchased very 

inexpensively. There are also more elaborate systems 

which will photocopy or scan as well as place a number 

on the copy or scan. Your agency or organization may 

not want an original marked. Many courts now readily 

accept the copies or scanned images. If these are used, 

the originals should always be kept and maintained in 

a secure location to be presented if necessary. 

Case Presentation

In addition to using computer technology to plan 

and organize the investigative product, the effective 

investigator realizes the value of creating visuals to 

assist him or her throughout the investigation. The 

days of drawing diagrams on a board or flip chart are 

gone, and the use of technology is critical to effective 

communication. Visuals can be used in briefing 

other agents for surveillances, search warrants, arrest 

warrants, meetings with supervisors, investigative 

planning, and selling your case to the U.S. Attorney’s 

office or other prosecutors. 

PowerPoint and other presentation software have brought 

us a long way in a short time. No longer will flip charts 

and copied hand-outs suffice when we have the ability to 

create sophisticated visuals replete with color, animation, 

charts, graphs, and photographs. However, as with the 

case with all investigative products, the visuals must be 

accurate as inaccuracies will render the conclusion that 

you are incompetent or worse. 

There are several different types of visual diagrams that 

can be used. The key is to determine the purpose of 

the diagram or presentation as well as identifying the 

concept to be communicated. Is the diagram going to be 

used for court presentation purposes or will it be serving 

only as a visual investigative aid? In presenting your 

case, does the visual explain the “who, what, where, 

when, and how?” Does the diagram indicate an accurate 

time line of events? The following are a few techniques 

used to visually present investigative findings:

1. Link Analysis shows the relationships among 

entities (individuals, organizations, etc.)

2. Flow charting is employed to show the flow 

of some commodity (money, narcotics, stolen 

continued from page 11

42 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006
goods, etc.) among a set of entities – people, 

places, organizations, and so on. 

3. Event charting shows the chronological linkage 

among related events. 

4. Activity charting shows the relationship among 

a set of related activities. It can be used to 

determine and describe the pattern or sequence 

of a criminal operation.

After you have decided which visual diagram to use, 

consider some of the following guidelines when you are 

creating your investigative diagram or your presentation: 

1. Circles represent individuals.

2. Confirmed links are shown with solid lines and 

suspected links with dotted lines: 

Confirmed Link

Unconfirmed Link

3. Squares represent organizations.

4. Avoid circling or crossed lines as they tend to 

confuse relationships.

5. Try to avoid the use of clip art, sound effects, 

spinning objects, too much text, and too many 

fonts. 

6. Check your visual with spell check and make 

sure that the text is easily read. 

In addition to PowerPoint, there are numerous other 

good presentation software which can be an effective 

tool for the investigator. A few are SmartDraw, Visio, 

RFFlow, TimeMap, Analyst Notebook, and SanctionII. 

SmartDraw, Visio, and RFFlow are drawing software. 

In addition, RFFlow can also do analysis of data such 

as telephone tolls as well as being a powerful tool for 

drawing flowcharts, organization charts, and other kinds 

of diagrams. The Department of Justice has purchased 

licenses for TimeMap, CaseMap, and SanctionII for all 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices throughout the United States. 

SanctionII is an integrated document management 

and video presentation application for organizing 

and displaying videotaped depositions, transcripts, 

documents, audio, and text simultaneously. 

Example of Visual Diagram 

There is a tremendous variety of software currently on 

the market that claims to work in law enforcement 

venues. These range in price from $50 to well into 

the thousands of dollars. Investigators, agencies, 

and organizations considering the purchase of case 

management software should evaluate each for 

simplicity of learning, ease of use, flexibility, and cost 

Al

Capone

Al

Capone

Frank’s

Speak

Easy

Frank’s

Speak

Easy

Al

Capone

ABC CO

TOM

SUE

ABC CO

ABC CO

AN ORGANIZATION

AN INDIVIDUAL BELONGING

TO AN ORGANIZATION

AN INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATED

WITH AN ORGANIZATION

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 43
effectiveness. There are many interesting and useful 

software functions that sound great and have wonderful 

marketing value, but actually have little or no “real 

world” applications to the job you are doing. 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

Case Organization and Presentation 

Training Program (COPTP)

Case Organization and Presentation Training Program 

(COPTP) is a one-week course designed for investigators 

in the local, state, and federal arena, who manage complex 

or voluminous cases. One of the most difficult problems 

investigators have is convincing a prosecutor or ultimately 

a jury that the defendant is guilty of the accused crime. 

In today’s environment, where the challenge is not in 

obtaining information, but in organizing and managing 

it, investigators need to digitize their evidence in a clear, 

organized multimedia presentation. In a complex case, 

this problem can be compounded by the need to present 

hundreds (or thousands) of exhibits to prove individual 

financial transactions. This training program teaches 

skills in organizing the relevant investigative leads, 

subpoenas, witness and attachment lists, as well as search 

warrant results. Thousands of evidentiary documents 

can be stored on a CD-ROM, projected as needed onto a 

screen, and they can be located and sorted using a database 

program. Video clips, digitized photos, and other images 

can also be linked to the document database and accessed 

instantly during the investigation and trial.

To address the issues for handling masses of documents 

used in cases, this training program integrates all 

aspects of organizational software, charting and 

analysis software, and presentation (multimedia) 

software to give students the ability to formulate a 

winning case strategy and courtroom presentation. 

This program involves using basic software available 

to any investigator as well as training in state-ofthe-art technology given to the students. The course 

culminates in a multi-faceted presentation of a case 

that has been created using the tools taught. This class 

is appropriate for any investigator with basic computer 

skills who investigates issues in the criminal, civil, or 

administrative realm. 

Federal applicants should contact the FLETC Training 

Coordination Division at (912) 267-2421 for enrollment 

and pricing information. Federal applicants employed 

by an pg 7 General agency should call the Inspector 

General Criminal Investigator Academy at (912) 

261-3759. Non-Federal and International applicants 

should contact the FLETC, Office of State, Local 

and International Training at (800) 743-5382. Upon 

acceptance in a program, a confirmation letter with 

details on housing, transportation, and schedule will 

be mailed to the participant.

For additional information related to the COPTP 

program contact:

Program Coordinator

Technical Investigations Branch

Computer and Financial Investigations

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

912 267 2394 tel 912 267 2500 fax

44 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

About the author: Judi Langford is a former Senior Instructor 

in the Computer and Financial Investigations Division at FLETC 

and program coordinator of Case Organization and Presentation 

Training Program, a 36-hour advanced course designed to assist in 

managing complex investigations. She is a retired Senior Special 

Agent with the Secret Service. She has previously taught tactics and 

interviewing as well as numerous law enforcement classes at the 

Secret Service Academy and has most recently taught at the DEA 

Academy.
The Law Enforcement Advanced 

Interviewing Training Program (LEAINTP) is 

taught by the Behavioral Science Division (BSD) at the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). 

If you’re an 1811 Criminal Investigator and have been 

working in the field for several years, you may want to 

come back to the FLETC in Brunswick, Georgia to attend 

this outstanding program! In the LEAINTP, interviewers 

will learn to use their own knowledge and experience 

to obtain additional and more accurate information 

from people. Although experienced personnel already 

have personal techniques or methods for interviewing 

people, these 

can be increased 

by learning why 

certain techniques 

are effective, while 

others are ineffective. 

Program instruction 

will teach participants 

how to obtain information 

effectively through a multidisciplinary approach to 

combine linguistics, 

psychology, criminology, 

and sociology with the 

principles of influence, 

negotiation, and bargaining. 

Throughout the LEAINTP, 

participants take part in lecture, 

laboratory, and practical exercise sessions. In a series 

of participatory exercises, the participants also evaluate 

their own potential strengths and weaknesses. Using 

the BSD laboratory facility, participants interview role 

players acting as victims, witnesses, and suspects. These 

interviews are videotaped to provide the participants an 

opportunity to critique their own performances and to 

observe other experienced interviewers.

The LEAINTP is a 36-hour program that begins on a 

Monday and concludes on Friday. Each day will begin 

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 45

The Law Enforcement Advanced 

Interviewing Training Program 

(LEAINTP)

By Andrew Smotzer
with four hours of lecture. The lectures cover a variety 

of interesting subjects such as “Report and Baseline 

Establishment,” “Detecting Deception,” “Obtaining a 

Truthful Statement From a Subject,” “Self-Incrimination,” 

and “Current Issues in Law Enforcement Interviewing”. 

The last topic that 

addresses current issues 

is extremely interesting 

because information on the 

polygraph and personality 

inventories as they relate 

to Gitmo and the Middle 

East are shared. There 

are also three practice 

laboratories conducted 

in the afternoons. One 

scenario is an Internal 

Affairs Investigation 

Interviewing Laboratory, 

the second laboratory 

concerns Rapport and Baseline Establishment, the third 

laboratory is one of a criminal investigation nature, and the 

final exercise is a Confrontational Interviewing Practical 

Exercise where all students are critiqued. 

In my opinion, the strength of this program lies in the 

experience and diversity of the instruction. The BSD 

staff has an outstanding reputation with experience 

levels that range from several years to four decades 

of law enforcement and criminal investigative 

experience. Members 

of our staff have worked 

with Federal, state, and 

local agencies and let’s 

not forget the military 

branches of service. Not 

only has our staff worked 

all over the United 

States, but many have 

worked internationally 

as well. The program 

has been rated highly by 

our students, and we are 

always looking at ways 

to enhance the training. 

For more information concerning the program and 

how to register contact Senior Instructor Dave Proctor 

of the BSD at 912- 267-2741 or Branch Chief Andy 

Smotzer at 912-267-2669.

46 FLETC Journal D Fall 2006

About the Author: Andrew A. Smotzer has served 

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

Service Uniformed Division Officer and Firearms 

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

and Senior Instructor. He is currently a Branch Chief 

in the Behavioral Science Division at the FLETC in 

Glynco, Georgia.. He is a college graduate and author 

of numerous articles in several nationally published 

law enforcement magazines.

If you’re an 1811 Criminal 

Investigator and have been 

working in the field for 

several years, you may want 

to come back to the FLETC in 

Brunswick, Georgia to attend 

this outstanding program.
10 Graham vs. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

11 2006 International Law Enforcement Educators 

and Trainer’s Association International Training 

Conference, Arlington Heights Illinois.

12 Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181 (11th Cir1997).

13 Plakas v. Drinski 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir 1994).

14 Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1(1985).

15 Williams, G, Rethinking the 21 Foot Rule, Tactical 

Response, Nov 2005 (p26-31).

FLETC Journal D Fall 2006 1

FLETC Use of Force Training (continued)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

1131 Chapel Crossing Road

Glynco, Georgia 31524

www.fletc.gov

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

1131 Chapel Crossing Road

Glynco, Georgia 31524

www.fletc.gov