This week we honor all LEOs and remember those who brought to the fight everything they had to give. On that day, at the end of their watch, their commitment and dedication to their communities were not enough. Their training and experience were not enough. So, true to the heart of a warrior, they gave their lives.

Let us take time to pause this week and remember their sacrifices. May we never forget the honor they demonstrated in their last moments. This week and always, we must remember and care for the spouses and children they left behind.

Through our actions and our words, I hope we make them proud as we continue their work here on earth. Share those blue ribbons with friends as well as strangers.  Tell them about our fallen brothers and sisters and the sacrifices they made. Tell the stories of their devotion to their communities. Tell everyone you know how proud we are to be part of this profession and how blue is the color of honor.

Stay safe.

Volunteers, some of whom are disabled LEOs, came from hundreds of miles away to bring to bear their efforts and resources to serve these fallen brothers. Some of the volunteers were active LEOs and some never served. Others were business owners and company representatives. This weekend, all were focused on a common mission: to serve and support our honorees.

This weekend, our heroes represented a broad age range. While one was recently injured in the line of duty, the others were injured three or more years earlier. Their lives, and the lives of those close to them, changed forever as a result of their injuries. They have endured physical and emotional hardships compounded by the financial hardships of the loss of a salary and benefits. In most cases, their stories have become far too familiar. Medical retirement from law enforcement leaves LEOs in dire financial straits. In addition, many feel abandoned by their departments and the governments they served, their final days of service long forgotten in a morass of rules, regulations and red tape. Benefits promised and outlined in policies serving as poor substitutes for the ability to work 40 hours per week and collect a paycheck and earn benefits. Finally, their spouses, standing strong in the face of adversity, bear the weight of unimaginable stress searching for programs and financial relief that seems to always be on the horizon. All the while, these LEOs move forward. Sometimes dependent upon others for even basic necessities of life.

This weekend, however, these broken heroes were taken away from the daily stress of their new lives and brought to an environment of healing, camaraderie and support to continue their life-long healing process. For one weekend, their needs were met, they shared stories, laughed and cried with fellow LEOs in an atmosphere of support befitting the sacrifices they made for their communities. In a beautiful setting in rural Missouri, we saw that while their bodies may be broken, their hearts are intact. Their drive to succeed is alive and well and their refusal to give up is as strong as ever. They are, simply put, still LEOs in every sense of the word.

They may no longer wear their uniforms, but we all know the uniform does not make a LEO. Being a LEO is a calling. It is a passion to serve and to answer the call of help from strangers.  It is that passion that carries these brave men through the surgeries and pain they have endured.

With handshakes, hugs, and tears, we parted from our new friends today. The heroes and their families thanked us for what we did for them. They said they appreciated our services and our sacrifices. However, through our service to them, we renew ourselves. We gave them a few days of time back in the fold of the law enforcement community. It is a strong community with arms broad enough to hold up and support the fallen and we must support them. We must do a better job of ensuring that no LEO injured in the line of duty ever wants for healthcare or groceries for themselves and their families. For if we are unable to focus our efforts on those among us who gave so much, then we will fail as public servants and our cities and counties cannot count themselves as communities. A community cares for those in need.

You can help Hunting For Heroes by letting us know about a disabled LEO in your community. You can also make a donation to the organization. Finally, you can serve as a volunteer at one of our events. Come see the smile on the face of a disabled LEO who meets the commander of the state patrol who arrived just to meet him. Watch a disabled LEO’s face as he receives gifts and spends time with people who gather just to honor him and his family. See the faces of family members who see their injured LEO smile and laugh for the first time in years. Watch as these heroes learn that they can be a part of the outdoors and fish and hunt like they did before their injuries took a toll. Support Hunting For Heroes and see what true passion, courage and determination resides in the heart of a hero.

Stay safe.

The allegations in this case are troubling and serious. If found to be true, the agents will face discipline including termination and families will likely be torn apart. There is no doubt that the agency is taking the allegations seriously and by all accounts, the investigation is in full swing.

I believe these allegations should be investigated fully and the agency should sanction inappropriate conduct. As long as the LEOs involved are treated professionally and provided with due process, you will not hear any complaints from me about the outcome. However, I am about tired of the raging hypocrisy in the news and the United States Congress about these allegations. Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

Name another person who was in a better position to influence a government official and have access to government secrets than Monica Lewinsky. Yet the media covered for Bill Clinton arguing that sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office was “personal conduct” and said nothing about his character. Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 cash in his freezer. NBC just fired staff for creating controversy in a racially charged shooting by manipulating a 911 recording. The company apologized and acted like this was the first time something like this happened. Have they forgotten the 1993 scandal with GM? Do you remember the 1983 Congressional page scandal? How about members of the United States Congress arrested for DUI? Congressman Charlie Rangel cannot even get paying his taxes or having tags on his car straight. Who could forget thankfully former United States Representative Cynthia McKinney striking a LEO in 2006! I could go on….and on….and on.

Perhaps to clear this up, we should allow United States Representative Hank Johnson to investigate these allegations as soon as he figures out how to keep Guam from tipping over. Maybe we should allow former United States Senator John Edwards to investigate these allegations. He may soon have a great deal of time on his hands…as soon as his trial is over. Perhaps Anthony Weiner could lend a hand with interviews. I hear he has some free time and is pretty handy with electronic media.

Here’s an idea. Follow me because it is way outside the box. Perhaps we should allow the investigation to continue and wait for the results. Perhaps the president should consider spending at least one holiday and vacation in Washington DC to give his security detail some time with their families. Perhaps the agency credited with safeguarding our monetary system and protecting presidents and heads of state since 1901 should be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, just maybe, the critics of the United Secret Service should let the established procedure for investigating such allegations proceed without trying to grab every sound bite opportunity.

I have been fortunate to take classes from, know and work with several LEOs from this agency. The thousands of agents, uniformed officers and support personnel of the United States Secret Service deserve better treatment. Faced with overwhelming media scrutiny and public condemnation, the agency still continues with its mission. The LEOs continue to put themselves in danger and remain committed to upholding their oaths. One part of that oath is to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. The LEOs accused of wrongdoing and those completely unconnected with the investigation deserve the protection of the constitution they uphold and defend.

Given the choice, I would trust a randomly selected member of the United States Secret Service over any one of their critics. It is not even a close call.

There are a lot of stories, commentaries, statements and opinions out there about the United States Secret Service. I hear criticism from all over. Is it just me or do you hear a lot of glass breaking?

Stay safe.

So who are these experts and where do they come from? What do they tell the jury? Does the jury listen and more importantly, why do we need them? In order to answer these questions, we need to look at the role of the jury and who sits on juries.

In a trial, the jury sits as the fact finder and the judge determines the law applicable to the case. This means that the jury will review and hear the evidence and decide what weight, if any, they will give to the documents, witnesses and other items introduced and allowed into evidence by the judge. In the course of the trial, there will be concepts that require specialized knowledge to understand. For example, in a DUI trial, a jury may need to learn about a prescription medication in order to determine if it would impair a person when driving a car. However, the law does not require jurors to have any specialized knowledge in order to sit on the jury. Jurors have varying degrees of education from grade school to graduate school. In order to ensure that the jurors can understand all of the evidence, the law allows experts to testify about these specialized issues to help the jury decide what weight, if any, to give the evidence.

Who Are These Experts?

Experts come from all areas of society. They are university professors, scientists, authors, licensed professionals and skilled workers who have been doing the same job for 20 years. It all depends upon the evidence at issue in the case. An expert in a vehicular homicide case may be an accident reconstructionist or an engineer to talk about the effects of poorly maintained brakes. An expert in a homicide trial may be a medical examiner or a DNA researcher. The standard for an expert varies slightly from state to state. The standard used in federal courts is found at Rule 702 in the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

This standard is applied in all cases including allegations of excessive force by LEOs. In such a case, the law recognizes that the jury is not expected to know about use of force techniques, law enforcement tactics, options available to LEOs when faced with threats and law enforcement procedures. In these cases, the experts could be LEOs with many years of experience as trainers, street officers and administrators.

How Do Experts Form Their Opinions?

An expert can rely on just about anything to form and support his opinions. From incident reports to policies and procedures as well as research done by others, the expert is entitled and expected to consider all available information from every source. In fact, the expert is expected to consider the theories of the opposing side in a case and can be asked if those theories are viable.

Experts also form their opinions based upon their experience. For instance, a firearms expert may testify how LEOs are trained to use cover or reload during a firefight. A defensive tactics expert may testify about the ability of a LEO to effectively use hard hand techniques following a foot chase. Finally, a LEO with many years of street experience may testify about the reasonableness of handcuffing all suspects behind their backs.

Does The Court Really Need Experts and Does The Jury Really Listen To Them?

Like the expert who brings his experience to the trial, the jurors also bring their own experiences to the courtroom. This can be helpful or harmful. A juror who only knows about police procedure from watching T.J. Hooker will likely not make good decisions! Likewise, a juror who has watched every episode of CSI may not understand what she does not know about the realities of a criminal investigation. Therefore, the court and the jury need experts, especially in a case involving the use of force by LEOs.

In my experience, the jury usually pays attention to experts. Even if they do not completely agree with  their opinions, they place a great deal of weight on the person who is brought to the court without an agenda and is accepted by the court as a person having specialized knowledge. They will listen to the expert. That is all you can ask because if they listen, they may learn enough to help them reach a decision.

Be Part Of The Solution

So here is the take away. First and foremost, tell everyone you know to consider jury duty an honor. It truly bothers me when I hear people talk about getting out of jury duty. We need reasonable people on juries. As a LEO, your career and freedom could depend upon it.

Second, consider acting as an expert. If you have information that would help a jury, if you can speak plainly with strangers to educate them about police procedure and if you enjoy the courtroom, you could be an effective expert.

Stay safe.

When I speak with and train LEOs, especially about the use of deadly force, I often hear this question, “Why would I need a lawyer if the use of deadly force was clearly justified?” This question strikes at the heart of the use of deadly force in our society. A shooting is a seizure. Every use of force by a LEO is an application of government authority. Therefore, every use of force and every shooting raises issues of constitutional import and courts justifiably take the LEO’s actions seriously.

Let’s look at the United States Supreme Court’s (USSC) opinion in Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989). This case sets out the standards applied to the use of force to control, arrest, and seize a person. In short, the USSC stated that the use of force by a LEO will be evaluated objectively according to the reasonableness test of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the USSC also discussed the perceptions of the LEO in a use of force case. This analysis is critical to this blog post.

Put simply, it is important to protect yourself after an OIS. The opportunity to retain and involve counsel is often presented through a narrow window because the effectiveness of the attorney will be limited after some point. I have been involved in many situations representing LEOs where I was limited in the options available and some options were foreclosed completely due to the actions of the LEO before I was involved. In more than one situation, the LEO lost all rights to pursue justice and remedies in the courts. I discussed these situations in a previous post.

Finally, the attorney is able to objectively evaluate the facts of the incident and confirm the appropriateness of your actions. It seems obvious that you will likely believe that every use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because you made the decision. The role of the lawyer is to determine if facts outside your knowledge may create an alternative version of events. For instance, when you focused upon the suspect’s chest after looking at the gun in his hand, do you miss the fact that the suspect dropped the gun after the second of your five shots? Due to auditory exclusion, were you unable to hear the neighbors of a 15-year-old screaming that the gun in his hand was a toy? Due to low light conditions, were you unable to see that the object in the suspect’s hand was a cellphone and not a firearm? While these and other facts may not change the fact that the shooting was justified, an attorney is able to monitor these facts to ensure that your statement of your perceptions are accurate and support your decision to use deadly force.

The presence of an attorney at the scene of an OIS can benefit the LEO in many ways. While some LEOs are concerned about how this will appear to their chain of command, through proper education, this fear should be rendered moot. I know from experience. I have been with many agency heads who have told me I would be among the first people called to the scene if they were involved in an OIS. The lawful application of deadly force is never easy to watch on a video or listen to when the LEO relates what occurred. Remember that the use of deadly force is often subjected to scrutiny by individuals who are untrained and others who are suspicious of every OIS at the outset. An attorney is the only person on the scene of and during the investigation of an OIS who is focused solely on protecting the LEO. You are entitled to counsel. Protect yourself. Stay safe.

When a tragedy occurs, it is reasonable and expected that people will seek the assistance of our courts. I routinely represent people on both sides of these cases. I file suit on behalf of people injured or killed by DUI drivers, armed robbers and people who are merely careless. I also defend cases filed by people who are injured or families who have lost someone. Despite the news stories about excessive verdicts, judges and juries are best known for careful consideration and reasonable verdicts. I have personally watched trial and appellate courts wrestle with tough issues and spoken with jurors after verdicts to learn how much they focused on the facts and law to arrive at a resolution. After all, in the end cases goes to a jury because the parties are unable to resolve their disputes.

There is no doubt that the policies and procedures of governments and law enforcement agencies are shaped by jury verdicts. The $8 million verdict this month in connection with the Virginia Tech shooting will get the attention of administrators irrespective of the anticipated appeal. A jury found fault and put a price on the compensation for the parents of the two students. This verdict will resonate for some time on campuses around the United States and policies will reflect this renewed focus on student safety. However, are those efforts appropriately focused on preventing future strategies?

With regard to active shooters, we are witnessing a conflict between opposing polices and philosophies. While everyone wants to prevent these tragedies, that is where the sides diverge. One side believes that high verdicts against landowners, universities and corporations will prevent future active shooter incidents. The other side understands that nothing can truly prevent the active shooter and recognizes that we can only find ways to reduce the threat and when the active shooter strikes, we must find ways to neutralize that threat as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, this debate is further complicated by the fact that the first group wants to restrict or eliminate the ability of citizens and law enforcement to react to the active shooter by limiting access to firearms. For example, LEOs have been able to carry firearms off-duty all over the United States since 2004. However, I have helped several LEOs who were criticized by college administrators for carrying firearms while attending classes. One LEO received a complaint when he wore his firearm into a day care center when he dropped off his child. He was in uniform. You just cannot make this up.

Only in rare instances do we have any advanced warning of an active shooter. Witnesses saw Colin Ferguson loading magazines on a New York City subway before he shot 25 people killing 6 on December 7, 1993.  However, more often than not, the warning signs are pieced together after the fact during the investigation. Although many active shooters have been stopped before they act out their plans, if we rely upon advance notice to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from active shooters, we will continue to be disappointed in our efforts.

Active shooter incidents are typically over within a few minutes. Intervention by LEOs or armed civilians must be swift and decisive. It is extremely rare for an active shooter to leave a scene and return some time later. Yet this was exactly what the active shooter did at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Part of the threat and fear of an active shooter is the lack of predictability. That will never change.

We have a jury verdict nearly five years after Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 others on a college campus. Long after these heartbroken parents buried their children and far into the recovery for the injured students, we are still listening to self-proclaimed experts tell us about law enforcement techniques. As I stated in a previous post, they continue to criticize our profession and blame everyone from the LEOs to gun manufacturers.

The verdicts will not protect anyone, the news articles will not save anyone and the so-called “experts” will not be around to run toward the gunshots to save lives. It will be the LEOs who respond and the armed civilians on the scene who will protect the potential victims of the next active shooter. Perhaps when both sides of the argument agree on this point, the carnage will stop or at least the numbers of injured and killed civilians will go down. It would help if the media focused half of their attention on educating the public on how to respond to these incidents and less upon the verdicts years after the funerals.

Until then, LEOs will train to respond, plan for every contingency and prepare for the inevitable criticism that follows any incident. We do not need verdicts to motivate us. It is part of the oath. Stay safe.

I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  In fact, you will find that I am a staunch defender of the entire Constitution including the Second Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and everything that provides due process to LEOs.  So, you will not hear me rail about the evils of access to law enforcement files, videos, audiotaped interviews of suspects and the like.  Instead, my perspective is a bit different.  Due to the ease of access to this once sensitive law enforcement information, a PIO, law enforcement administrator, or LEO who steps into the arena of the media frenzy following a critical incident is in a coliseum with very different rules.  Compared to 25 years ago, the number of spectators has increased and so has the number of lions.  Just like any other game, when the rules change, you have to change the playbook.  Hopefully, at the end of the post, you will consider these options as a groundwork for the future defense of a civil suit, criminal action, or just a publicity inquiry concerning the actions of your agency.

Use the Facts, the Facts Will Set You Free

Faced with a high publicity use of force incident, most departments put out a press release advising that the LEOs were forced to use a TASER® and start immediately defending the LEOs’ actions from the perspective of the media and lay people who know absolutely nothing about the laws surrounding the use of force.  Phrases like, “the officers had no choice”, or “the matter is under investigation” just fuel the fire that the LEOs’ actions are subject to review and the department is concerned.  Although some who teach public information classes agree that you should release very little information and state that an investigation is ongoing, I could not disagree more.

In the weeks following a critical incident, the LEOs’ actions will be questioned in the media as to why they did not have any video of the deployment of the TASER® or of their approach to the suspect.  They will now be in a position of defending their actions because the agency did not proactively explain why the LEOs made sound tactical decisions.  A video of a violent encounter with a LEO that is not put in context usually will be misinterpreted.  So, I suggest this press release instead.

“This afternoon, two of our officers responded to a trouble unknown call at the Gas-mart on Elm Street.  Due to the nature of the call, the officers were unable to park in front of the business and had to approach the call as a possible armed robbery in progress.  As the officers got closer to the business, they were unable to see into the business due to signs and posters that were placed over the windows by the store owner.  When the officers were able to make contact with one of the patrons, they learned that an individual was becoming violent inside the store.  As they entered the store, they could tell that the employees were scared as were the two patrons inside the business. 

When the officers first saw the subject, he was standing at a cooler of drinks with a quart-size glass bottle in each hand and was staring and mumbling. It was apparent that he had been consuming alcoholic beverages.  The officers separated to minimize the impact of their presence on the subject and one of our most senior officers approached the subject.  The officer, a 15-year veteran of the force with 10 years of experience training other officers, approached the subject in a calm voice attempting to calm him down and determine a way to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, the subject immediately attacked the officer striking him with his elbow. The suspect then began a violent effort to disarm the officer by trying to remove his firearm from the holster.  The subject, who was over 6 feet 5 inches, and weighed over 300 pounds, was laying on top of the officer trying to jerk his weapon out of his holster.  At times, he was picking the officer up off of the floor by his holster as the officer desperately tried to hold onto his firearm.  Fortunately, the backup officer was able to deploy a TASER® and avoid the use of deadly force against the subject.  Due to the subject’s continued struggling, and the fact that the subject was still laying on top of the first officer, the backup officer was required to deploy his TASER® more than once, in fact a total of four times, and the subject was placed into custody without any further injury.  While this was a sad situation that a person with mental difficulties had a violent encounter with the police, fortunately higher levels of force were averted through the use of proper tactics, training, and the deployment of a less lethal device known as a Taser®.”

Aside from the obvious advantage for the publicity, this statement will be used and will assist you when someone is considering whether or not to sue your department.  A department that proactively puts out the facts and states in plain terms what happened along with stating unapologetically exactly what level of force was used, why, and the injuries suffered by the suspect and the LEOs, I believe is less likely to face a suit and more able to defend a suit should one occur.

Other Rules Have Changed As Well

In 2011 and in the last five years, we saw multiple violent attacks on LEOs.  LEOs can now see videos on the internet of other LEOs being attacked.  Attacks against LEOs are becoming more prevalent and more violent.  Although we can debate the reasons, I personally believe it is because we are letting more and more violent people out of prison and avoiding jail sentences in order to save money.  Serial felony offenders are being let out of prison.  In addition, LEOs are able to see the dash cameras from LEOs who were injured or lost their lives on You Tube and other multi-media websites.  It is no wonder they are reacting more quickly.  However, we can use these videos to our advantage.  We use them in training, why not train the public?  When the public understands just how quickly a situation on a traffic stop can become deadly, they will, in my experience, understand why the LEO used the level of force he chose.  When they understand the level of force used and what the LEO perceived, the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force by LEOs.  While there are some who will never support any use of force under any circumstances by LEOs, they are not your audience.  You will never change their minds, and they will never understand.

So, here is the takeaway.  When you have a critical incident, or any incident in which you know media attention will follow, put the information out there first.  Use only the facts that you can back up, verify, and defend in court.  Utilize websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others to let the public know that you are acting in an open and honest manner.  When you have a situation where a LEO is assaulted, say it.  When you have a situation during which your LEOs were forced to use force, state the level of force used, the reason and the injury to the suspect, as well as the injury to the LEO.  Do not apologize for less than lethal force.  This is especially true when you have a department filled with highly trained, highly experienced, and professional LEOs.  I do not apologize for any efforts that my clients have taken to protect themselves or the lives of another, and neither should you.

By changing the tide of negative publicity, negative inferences, and a general suspicion of the use of force, we educate the public and turn the conversations from what the LEOs did wrong to, “Why did the suspect take the actions he took” and “Fortunately, the LEO was able to avoid taking a life.”  We all know that every physical confrontation with a LEO has the potential to turn deadly.  When they do not turn deadly, we should take pride in that fact and let the public know.  Further, consider every confrontation faced by a LEO, including every citizen contact, and the fact that the average LEO is involved in only one or two serious use of force or use of deadly force incidents in a 20-year career. Those statistics speak for themselves and help you defend the LEO as a person who judiciously uses force in a reasonable manner and not someone who uses excessive force.

Stay safe.

There was one question I did not ask and to this day, I cannot tell you why. “How much vacation do you get each year?” Looking back, that may have been the most important question for me to ask! The older I get, the more I realize what an important piece of information that was to me.

I know when you started working as a LEO, you were convinced that if you were out for one day, crime would take over the world! Robbers would rob, burglars would burgle and people would start ripping off their mattress tags! It would be chaos! As you know, this feeling wears off and we go forward knowing that the world will not end if we take a day off. However, we then encounter other reasons to avoid putting in for annual leave. The shift is short-handed, you need the overtime, you are working part-time jobs in your off days, etc. Before you know it, you are a seven-year veteran with a great work record, lots of training and a case of burnout that could kill a horse! That is how it happens, one shift at a time.

Now burnout is a bad thing for many reasons. First and foremost, your body becomes less able to manage normal levels of stress. Second, you become less tolerant of the daily nonsense LEOs encounter from the public and the agency. Finally, and most important, you become careless. This job demands your highest levels of attention. Being tired, being lax or getting into a rush can get you hurt or killed. Even worse, it can get someone else hurt or killed.

No matter how great your working conditions, you need a vacation at least once per year. If you are like me, it takes more than a long weekend to push in the clutch and let the RPMs wind down. You need a week, even if you never leave town. I’m talking about time away from the job. You do not need to head to see the big rat or one of the seven wonders of the world to decompress, get the stress out of your system and renew your commitment for the profession. You just need to separate yourself from your work!

Perhaps you work in a department that does not have any politics going on, has no stressful calls and no conflict whatsoever. If so, readers of this blog would love to apply! Even if you do, and I doubt it, the job itself is stressful enough to warrant a break.

Still don’t believe me? Ask your family. They’ll tell you…if you are willing to listen. Your spouse would like to see you out of uniform, pun intended. Your kids would like to see you for more that a few minutes between shifts and part-time jobs. Your friends would like to get you out for a movie, ball game or BBQ. Just ask them then listen to their answers.

So, before you find yourself writing someone a ticket for walking a cat without a license or doing a felony stop on a kid riding his bike without a helmet, take some time off. Check your calendar this week. Check your department schedule for the next few months. Look at your annual leave bank. You can afford some vacation time. Schedule it and take it. You will renew your desire to do the job, your family will benefit and trust me, crime will not overrun the world in your absence.

If crime does take over the world in your absence, when you get back you can put on your cape and take care of business!

Stay safe.