FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - March 2002 Issue

United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC 20535-0001

Contributors' opinions and statements should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any policy, program, or service.

The attorney general has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(ISSN-0014-5688) is published monthly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

This publication is produced by members of the Law Enforcement Communication Unit, William T. Guyton, chief
Internet Address leb@fbiacademy.edu

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

1	Escape from the Killing Zone By Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E. Miller III Law enforcement officers must learn to avoid rushing into the killing zone,that is, within a 10-foot radius of the offender.
	Managing the Stress of Organizational Change By James D. Sewell Agencies can implement a 10-stepplan to help their organization and employees manage the stress of change.
14
22	Providing Consular Rights Warnings to Foreign Nationals By M. Wesley Clark Law enforcement officials must provide consular rights warnings to arrested or detained foreign nationals.

On a daily basis, law enforcement officers encounter many situations that potentially place them in grave personal jeopardy. While this depicts the nature of the profession, all too frequently, officers increase the likelihood of personal injury by their desire to apprehend offenders at all cost. Their keen sense of justice and their desire to keep their communities safe from social predators sometimes cloud their judgement, which can increase the possibility of harm to themselves.

While engaged in such activities as foot chases and vehicle pursuits, officers often exhibit a tendency to rush into what can be described as “the killing zone,” that is, within a 10-foot radius of the offender.¹ Why? Most officers relate that they engage in these types of pursuits “without thinking” and “without formulating a plan of action.” They also report that the object of a pursuit is to apprehend the violator. While this represents a reasonable response, officers should concentrate their efforts not simply on apprehending the violator but safely apprehending the violator. In addition, officers, who have admitted rushing into these situations, did so while unknowingly making some inaccurate assumptions—primarily, that the fleeing offenders were attempting to escape from the offenses known to the officers. However, whether involved in foot or vehicle chases for apparently minor violations, officers must understand that the offenders in these incidents already have demonstrated their willingness to resist arrest. Further, their reason for flight may involve far more serious violations than those known to the officers. Most important, these individuals may lead officers into areas advantageous to themselves, such as a gang area where the offenders might have accomplices, a housing project more

familiar to the offenders than to the officers, or a dark or wooded site where the officers may become disoriented and unable to report their location to the dispatcher. What causes officers to become entangled in these situations and possibly drawn into the killing zone?

Shortly after eight o’clock on a Tuesday evening, a police dispatcher received a call reporting a prowler at a three-level apartment complex. Due to a large number of calls for service that summer evening, an officer was not able to get to the apartment to take a report until ten o’clock that night. When the responding officer arrived at the parking area of the apartment complex, an off-duty, uniformed officer from the same department, who happened to be returning to his own apartment, met him. The two officers proceeded to the apartment where the call originated to speak to the complainants.

Dr. Pinizzotto is a clinical forensic psychologist in the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy.

The officers learned that the complainants had seen an individual on the balcony of their second-story apartment. They described the alleged prowler as a Hispanic male, approximately 14 or 15 years of age, 5' 6" in height, and weighing approximately 90 pounds. Because of the construction of the apartment complex, the balcony was accessible either from the apartment’s sliding door or, with considerable effort, from a window in the second-floor hallway. The complainants requested that the officers question the residents of the third-story apartment.

Initially, an occupant of the third-story apartment denied having any relevant information, reporting that no one fitting the youth’s description lived there. Further questioning, however, revealed that someone fitting this description was visiting one of the residents of the apartment. Having taken the information, the officers left the apartment building and walked to the responding officer’s patrol vehicle.

As the two officers were discussing the incident, a security officer employed by the apartment complex approached them. He stated that a young boy apparently was stranded on an air conditioning unit that protruded from the apartment building. All three of the officers went to the side of the building and observed a teenage Hispanic male, weighing approximately 85 to 90 pounds, about 5' 6" tall, wearing a T-shirt, sneakers, and tan pants perched on an air conditioning unit. Because the teenager appeared unable to get down, the responding officer decided to call the fire department to respond with a ladder. However, before he could broadcast his request to the fire department, the responding officer

Mr. Miller is an instructor with the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

noticed that the young male inexplicably had climbed into the window of the third-floor apartment. All three of the officers immediately attempted to locate the youth.

The responding officer entered a walkway within the apartment and noticed the youth, approximately 5 feet from him, lying prone on the floor of a corridor with his arms extended in front of him. Immediately, and without any warning, the youth jumped up, ran toward the officer, and began flailing his arms. Unknown to the responding officer at that moment, the youth actually was stabbing him in the arm, chest, and stomach areas with a dagger. Hitting the officer’s protective vest, the youth continued to move the weapon lower until he struck below the vest.

At this point, the responding officer, realizing that he was being stabbed, pulled his service weapon and attempted to fire. When the gun did not fire, the officer believed that it malfunctioned and pulled the trigger again, wounding the youth in the arm. (The officer learned later that his gun functioned well. The reason that he could not pull the trigger the first time was due to temporary muscle and nerve damage from the stab wounds.) When the off-duty officer heard the shot, he ran toward the sound of the gunfire. As he approached the doorway, the youth fled the building, stabbing the off-duty officer in his side. At this point, the security officer approached the area and saw the youth running from the scene. After chasing the youth into the nearby woods, the security officer ended the pursuit. A neighbor, hearing the gunfire and seeing that two of the officers were wounded, called for emergency assistance.

After sending search dogs into the woods, backup officers apprehended the youth approximately 1¹/₂hours later. The youth, who had wounded two officers with a dagger and eluded a third officer, turned out to be the same teenage prowler reported earlier that evening.

Although it remains both easy and frequently unfair to judge law enforcement officers’ actions, constructively reviewing such incidents can assist in preventing future injuries and deaths. In the case study, what did the officers do right? Could they have done something differently? Does it appear that the officers made certain assumptions about the nature of the call for service, the suspect, or each other’s actions? How did these assumptions affect their decisions to act? What plan or approach did the officers exhibit? How did the officers communicate with each other? Was the communication effective?

Officers continually need to remind themselves that, when entering the killing zone, they must become exceedingly aware of the increased possibility of injury to themselves. For example, from 1990 to 1999, nearly 75 percent of officers feloniously killed died within that 10-foot radius of the offender.²While officers obviously must enter this killing zone to apprehend individuals, they need to realize that they may be reacting too quickly, misreading behaviors or actions of offenders, or missing danger signs or signals that offenders may send unintentionally. Training should prepare officers to react appropriately and safely when they must take immediate action in a situation that necessarily brings them into the killing zone. Realistic and practical exercises can instill in officers the skills and mental preparedness that they can call on automatically when confronting offenders. Law enforcement agencies should ensure that officers receive training in such critical issues as formulating action plans, following established policies, knowing their physical and mental conditions, remaining aware of their surroundings, considering offender reactions, and exploring tactical options.

Has training made officers consider formulating a plan of action, rather than simply reacting to the behavior of offenders? As officers respond to calls for service or initiate chases, do they consider

various situations that they might face? How will they deal with these? If officers receive practical and realistic training, they will run less risk of being surprised and easily taken advantage of. For example, an offender may lead an officer into a tunnel area, where no opportunity for cover exists, so that the offender can suddenly turn and attack. In such cases, officers should run parallel to offenders, not follow the same path, so that offenders planning an attack will not know the exact location of the officers.

The complainants in the case study described the youth to the responding officer as young, wearing only a T-shirt, sneakers, and tan pants. The description fits many teenagers—most of whom are neither criminals nor dangerous. Could someone so described harm an officer? After years of encountering thousands of teenagers who have not presented a physical threat, perhaps the responding officer made assumptions that almost cost him his life. Even in situations that appear nonthreatening and mundane, officers must consider “what if” circumstances to provide them with options for reacting to surprising occurrences.

Law enforcement agencies should realize that developing a foot pursuit policy not only enhances officer safety but decreases the chances that a mishandled foot pursuit will develop into a possible use of deadly force situation.³ In the interest of officer safety, agencies should consider policies that address foot pursuits while officers are alone or those occurring under specific circumstances, such as when—

multiple suspects flee a scene in the same direction;
offenders flee into nonpublic structures or dwellings, isolated wooded sites, known drug-trafficking areas, or locations unfamiliar to pursuing officers; or
officers know offenders and can reasonably arrest them on a warrant at a more advantageous time.

In the case study, when the security officer initiated a foot pursuit, the youth already had seriously cut the responding officer and stabbed the off-duty officer. What options did the security officer have? Was he knowledgeable of the surroundings? Was he as knowledgeable of the surroundings as the youth? Could the youth have planned an ambush? Could other youths have been awaiting their arrival? Not knowing the youth’s intentions, the security officer wisely halted the chase and waited for backup.

Is the officer prepared to subdue an offender after a prolonged chase? What is the officer’s present physical condition? Could the offender intend to run the officer into exhaustion to give the offender the upper hand? Is the officer under excessive amounts of stress, including personal or professional issues, that could cause possible distractions?

Experienced officers recognize that if they are not in good physical shape, a pursuit, especially on foot, can deplete their energy. At the point of physical contact, the officer can have a clear disadvantage, particularly in situations, such as the case study, where the suspect was young, energetic, and in excellent physical condition.

However, officers may not realize how their emotional and psychological health can work either for or against them. Just as poor physical conditioning depletes the energy level of an officer, so do excessive amounts of stress and strain. Medical experts have demonstrated that when human organisms are under high levels of stress over extended periods of time, not only does their physical strength lessen but their cognitive abilities, such as memory, thinking, and attention, diminish. Stress not only kills physically but emotionally as well.⁴To react appropriately under demanding and life-threatening circumstances, an officer’s physical and emotional condition prove

vitally important. In the case study, if the responding officer and the off-duty officer had experienced recent major emotional conflict and crisis (at home or on the job), their abilities to accurately and quickly process information could have become impaired. This could have affected their perception as well, particularly hearing and seeing.

Is the officer aware of the surroundings as the chase begins? If not consciously aware of the surroundings, the officer can experience “tunnel vision” and lose awareness of peripheral threats, such as accomplices lurking nearby or areas with hidden pitfalls. This could lead the officer into dangerous, yet preventable, situations. For example, an offender may lead an officer intentionally around a blind corner and plan an ambush or sudden overwhelming attack or into buildings that contain prearranged traps.⁵

In the case study, due to a large volume of calls for service, the first available police unit had to respond to the call at the apartment complex, rather than the regularly assigned officer who patrols the area. The responding officer was acquainted generally with the geographical street plan, but unfamiliar with the configuration of the large apartment complexes in the area and possibly unacquainted with back alleys and side streets.

When officers become engaged in a pursuit in unfamiliar territory, several possibilities can result. For example, they can expend as much of their energy and thoughts on trying to determine where they are as they do on keeping the suspect in sight. Or, they can place all of their time and attention on the pursuit suspect and become totally disoriented as to where they are, even unable to give the dispatcher an accurate location. Therefore, especially in unfamiliar surroundings, officers must exercise great caution to avoid being drawn into the killing zone.

Considering the reasons for an offender’s actions proves paramount when those actions do not seem to fit the target crime. For example, in a traffic stop, the driver pulls to the curb and runs from the vehicle. The officer should consider the seriousness of the traffic violation and question whether a person would risk fleeing for such a minor offense. If this reaction does not make sense to the officer, perhaps it represents a clue that the driver may have committed a more serious crime.

Even in what some consider an increasingly violent society, in the experience of many police officers throughout America, 14- or 15-year-old boys rarely stab law enforcement officers. But, as shown in the case study, this does happen. The officers did not know why the youth was on the air conditioning unit. Burglary? Peeping? Leaving his girlfriend’s residence? Running away from home? If caught by the police, how would he react? Run? Surrender? Argue? Fight? Many officers would not expect that someone so young could have warrants for several counts of attempted homicide; practice combat, hand-to-hand knife fighting regularly; or state that he would never go to prison as the youth in the case study did. What do most officers expect when they attempt to make an arrest? They need to remain vigilante and expect the unexpected,

Do officers consider and use verbal commands prior to and during a confrontation? For example, officer training should stress that when they catch up with an offender or the offender stops, officers should not close the distance between them immediately. Instead, they should give verbal commands to test the offender’s compliance. In cases where offenders do not comply, officers should not move closer until adequate assistance arrives on the scene.

Sometimes officers should create distance between themselves and offenders, rather than moving closer. Has training taught officers to consider creating distance between themselves and the offender? Distance gives the officer increased time to react to offenders’ actions, thereby enhancing officer safety.

Circumstances may occur when officers should contain the offender in an area, rather than rush in to apprehend. For example, an offender flees into an abandoned building with exits that the officer can view safely from the outside. If backup units are en route, the officer may want to remain outside the building until these other officers arrive on the scene. In any pursuit, officers must weigh the risks and benefits before rushing in to capture suspects. Should they attempt to gain physical control and arrest the subject immediately? Or, should they remain outside the killing zone (i.e., retreat and seek cover) until adequate assistance arrives on the scene? What are the chances that the offender may overpower the officer if the officer physically attempts to control the offender at this point? While officers must assess the situation and base their decisions on a variety of factors, the training they have received greatly impacts their decisions and, in turn, strongly affects the outcome of the incident.

Sometimes circumstances merit officers holding offenders at some distance and awaiting assistance before attempting to handcuff them. Tactical considerations always result from how officers perceive the situations they encounter. Perceived reality determines tactical approach. Clearly, it proves impossible to have all tactical equipment available (e.g., high-powered firearms, less-than-lethal weapons, and riot gear) as officers encounter each pedestrian or motorist. Although they may not have tactical hardware available, officers must engage a tactical mentality at all times. Should they deploy current resources? Or, should they wait, contain the threat, and approach with backup? Should they continue to approach into the killing zone after an armed suspect who just stabbed two officers? Or, should they create some distance until the suspect complies with verbal orders? When a suspect has demonstrated well-developed marshal arts skills, with or without an additional weapon, should they attempt to place handcuffs on the subject or wait for available backup? By considering how they will respond to these types of situations before they face an actual threat, officers can improve their chances of avoiding the killing zone and still bring the offender to justice.

Because the law enforcement profession constitutes an inherently dangerous occupation, its members must explore ways of curbing the hazards. Regular and realistic training, both at the academy and during in-services, can sharpen the skills officers need to safely effect arrests. Practical, hands-on training can encourage officers to rehearse various situations that they may encounter and experiment with different strategies that they can employ to react to them. Training should include “what if” situations and require officers to offer a number of possible solutions. Officers should develop their own “what if” scenarios

that pertain to their particular patrol areas. Partners should develop and rehearse “what if” scenarios that involve their actions as partners, as well as their actions if situations require them to act alone.

The more practical, realistic, and applied the scenarios are, the greater the likelihood that officers will rehearse them. Much like fire drills that all schoolchildren practice, the more officers rehearse, the less chance exists that they will be caught off-guard when a real emergency occurs. Safety of the officer during an arrest is not an option; it is a requirement. Officers must learn how to escape from the killing zone and, equally important, know when to avoid entering it in the first place.

¹ The authors based this article on research they are conducting currently, interviewing officers who survived attacks by offenders. For additional information on past research in this area, see Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E. Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, In the Line of Fire: A Study of Selected Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers (Washington, DC, 1997).

² Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1999 (Washington, DC, 2000), 13-14.

³ For information on establishing a foot pursuit policy, see Shannon Bohrer, Edward F. Davis, and Thomas J. Garrity, Jr., “Establishing a Foot Pursuit Policy: Running into Danger,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, May 2000, 10-15.

⁴ For additional information, see Arthur W. Kureczka, “Critical Incident Stress in Law Enforcement,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February/March 1996, 10-16.

“...AlexandriaCARES trained personnel use the minivan, BABY-1, to provide parents and care givers education and hands-on assistance in the proper use of child restraint systems. Community involvement, public awareness and education, and safety assistance are all necessary components of an effective program.”¹

In 1996, only 40 families in Alexandria, Vir-ginia, received help with the difficult issue of properly using their children’s safety seats, despite studies showing that more than 8 out of 10 children were unprotected in vehicle crashes because of misused restraints.² Five years later, a unique partnership of police, municipal agencies, private service groups, and citizens helped more than 1,000 families protect their little ones. How did the Alexandria Police Department make this tremendous change?

It employed community policing, wherein officers identify the needs of their specific neighborhoods through meetings with citizens and written surveys. The officers then work with residents, businesses, and other municipal agencies to meet these needs. Often called problem-solving policing, this approach fosters greater cooperation, understanding, and trust between police and citizens. To this end, in 1995, the Alexan-dria Police Department expanded its successful Community Support Section, supplementing residential officers who live in their assigned neighborhoods with new community officers who serve other areas of the city. One such new assignment included Alexandria’s government center and tourist district and became the patrol area of Officer Mark Bergin, then a 9-year veteran of the department.³

As part of this newly expanded community policing initiative, Officer Bergin completed basic training in the proper selection, installation, and use of child safety seats in the spring of 1996. Arranged by a women’s volunteer service group, the 4-hour training program was developed by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Traffic Safety Training Center. During this training, Officer Bergin, four other police officers, and the women’s service group volunteers learned that more than 85 percent of all American children ride unsafely and improperly restrained in vehicles.⁴ This contributes to more than two-thirds of the 600 to 700 deaths of children under age 4 that occur annually due to motor vehicle accidents.⁵ Officer Bergin also discovered that both of his own children were riding unsafely in the family car because of improper child seat use, a failure that hammered home the nationwide child seat problem and propelled his efforts to inform families of these dangers.

The child safety seat problem starts on many levels. First, families become dazzled by a large array of child seats, but few stores have employees qualified to point out which seat styles or designs are appropriate. Next, many buyers find installation manuals difficult to decipher and, sometimes, do not read them at all. Often, proper use seems counterintuitive. For example, a forward-facing child may appear more secure in harness straps placed close to the shoulders. But, the closest harness slots may not be reinforced for this configuration and could crack apart in the 20-g force⁶ sustained by a child seat in a 30 mile-per-hour crash. Also, rules for best practice can change over time, and families with

older children must understand that what was appropriate for their oldest child now may be unsafe for their youngest. Moreover, a perfect restraint to fit in one car may not be compatible with the seat belts in another, and the same family may own both cars.

Knowing that awareness, education, and assistance represent the three keys to improving proper child restraint use, Officer Bergin immediately began offering child seat assistance to families in his patrol area, mostly during encounters while on foot patrol. These interactions led to invitations to speak at schools and mothers’ groups, then doctors’ offices and local businesses. With assistance from the women’s volunteer service group, Officer Bergin held Alexandria’s first child seat checkup—a large public event where families brought their children, vehicles, and child safety seats for expert assessment, advice, and reinstallation—and checked 40 restraints.

However, Alexandria’s approximately 10,000 restraint-age children needed more help than the police department could provide with once-a-year checkup events or meetings squeezed in between other patrol responsibilities. The more word spread, the more families realized that they needed help, outstripping one officer’s ability to serve. City fire and emergency services personnel tried to help by accepting training from Officer Bergin.⁷ Still, they were not reaching enough families and not protecting enough children. At the only child seat checkup Alexandria held in 1997, they checked 71 restraints. At three checkups in 1998, they examined a total of 80 seats. Adding in 166 checkups Officer Bergin performed across Alexandria, only 357 child seats inspections took place between 1996 and 1998. For all of these seat checks, the failure rate was approximately 90 percent,⁸ worse than the national indicated average failure rate of 85 percent.⁹As part of his ongoing evaluation of community needs, Officer Bergin saw that thousands of children were less than safe and recognized his duty as a community support officer to seek better ways to serve them. To meet the increasing demand for information and assistance with proper child seat installation, Officer Bergin knew that he needed additional help. He also recognized that it would require special efforts to break through the language and cultural barriers in Alexandria’s highly populated, but economically disadvantaged, Latino community.¹⁰

In 1999, Officer Bergin formed a nonprofit organization called AlexandriaCARES (Alexandria Child Automobile Restraint Education Services). This public service project teamed trained employees of the police, fire and rescue, and social service agencies with members of volunteer service organizations, such as the women’s service group that brought the police department its first safety seat training 3 years before. In exchange for the free police training,¹¹ these volunteers committed to help establish a program of regular, monthly child seat checkup events in economically disadvantaged areas of Alexandria. These child seat checks became highly visible activities that improved the safety of families who attended and increased public awareness of safety issues and the need for trained help. The teams have held regularly scheduled events every month since October 1999.

Officer Bergin also began teaching couples the proper child seat installation, selection, and use during childbirth classes at a local hospital. These 45-minute basic presentations have demonstrated a clear benefit. He finds that about one-half of the families who hear his presentations before attending a checkup event have installed their seats correctly. Of course, about twice a month, Officer Bergin ends up in the parking lot of the hospital with families who delayed just a bit too long in seeking assistance before the births of their children. He also gives demonstrations at mothers’ groups, P.T.A. meetings, area stores and shopping malls, and other community events, such as health fairs, block parties, and arts festivals. He answers questions and shows installation techniques

Place infants to age 1 and weighing up to 20 pounds facing the rear and never in front of an air bag.
• Secure toddlers weighing up to 40 pounds in a child safety seat with a harness that is tight, with no more than one adult finger-width between the strap and the child’s chest, and with the harness retainer clips linking the straps across the chest at armpit level.
• After children outgrow safety seats and until they weigh 80 pounds and stand 4' 9", they should use booster seats—ones that help big belts fit little bodies—with belts low on hips, across the center of the chest and shoulder, and with knees bent comfortably straight down.
Lock child safety seats tightly, with no more than 1 inch of play either way.
Read and follow vehicle and restraint directions.

using a vehicle and seat belt system taken from a wrecked car and mounted on a wheeled platform constructed for indoor educational opportunities.

However, promoting child passenger safety in disadvantaged neighborhoods would prove fruitless if families could not obtain useable, affordable safety equipment. The most economical serviceable child restraints cost around $40, still a difficult purchase for some families. So, AlexandriaCARES applied for and received more that $2,500 in grant money from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to buy large numbers of quality replacement child seats, which it then provides at low or no cost to economically disadvantaged families who attend seat checkup events. AlexandriaCARES also receives substantial donations that go toward purchasing safety equipment for checkups, including highway signs, reflective safety vests for checkup staff, traffic cones, and Spanish-language posters and brochures.¹²The program has become so successful that the Virginia Department of Health uses a member of AlexandriaCARES to administer its local program of distributing child seats to families in the city health department system. These seats are purchased with money paid to Virginia as fines for violations of the state child restraint traffic laws.

Even with all of these efforts, Officer Bergin did not rest. He wanted to find a new way to let the public know that AlexandriaCARES exists. So, to further increase awareness of the AlexandriaCARES projects and the availability of child restraint services, Officer Bergin arranged for a local automobile dealer to donate a new minivan to the police department.¹³Delivered in January 2000 and known as BABY-1, the minivan has the official markings and equipment of a police patrol cruiser, yet carries all of the spare giveaway seats and materials needed to conduct checkup events or demonstrations. Dual sliding doors make it easy for families to watch demonstrations of proper child seat installation and seat belt use. It typically carries eight or nine different types of child restraints at any given time.

BABY-1’s high visibility, unique appearance, and family-car personality have established it as a recognized advertisement for the ready availability of child seat assistance. For example, half of the attendees at a recent lecture at a local bookstore said that they knew to come to that location because they saw BABY-1 parked outside. Moreover, the dealer who donated BABY-1 hosts regular monthly checkup events at the dealership, has Officer Bergin train the sales and service employees in proper child restraint use, and stocks an array of child restraints in the parts department.

While these monthly checkup events and BABY-1 increased awareness of child restraint

issues, Officer Bergin sought to expand his availability to the community. He procured free office space in a large shopping mall and called it a Child Passenger Safety Center. The center, staffed on a regular, announced weekly schedule by Officer Bergin and AlexandriaCARES members, offers families the convenience of a local, accessible site for drop-in questions and demonstrations or checkups, making child restraint assistance available on demand. From the time it opened in January 2000, the Child Passenger Safety Center’s attendance has grown from 5 families a day to a recent monthly average of 20 families a day. In the summer of 2000, a second Child Passenger Safety Center opened in Officer Bergin’s primary duty area in space donated by the Alexandria Convention and Tourism Association (ACVA). Attendance at this center also has grown steadily, and Officer Bergin’s presence in an office on his regular patrol route has made him available to assist citizens and fellow officers in a number of more traditional police incidents, such as bank robberies, store larcenies, and disorderly persons. AlexandriaCARES and the ACVA are developing a program to loan child restraints to tourists, as well as disadvantaged city families, on a short-term basis.

The newest Child Passenger Safety Center, in a primarily Spanish-speaking community, opened in a donated shopping center storefront. Officer Bergin began assisting families in April 2001, after learning enough basic Spanish to ask vital questions of families, such as the weight and age of children, to determine proper child seat selection and configuration. Having BABY-1 makes it easier to operate the centers because it acts as a mobile storage area for needed demonstration and loaner seats.

These centers, sometimes referred to as “fitting stations” and established in accordance with recommendations proposed by the National Transportation Safety Board, offer families the convenience of reliable, available assistance that fit their own schedules. In addition to the help offered to 25 to 75 families at the monthly seat checkup events, Officer Bergin and AlexandriaCARES members perform dozens of checkups a week at the safety centers. They also make house calls for families with health issues, multiple vehicles, or very young children.

Such concerted efforts have led to remarkable results. In its first year of operation at monthly child seat checkup events and the Child Passenger Safety Centers, AlexandriaCARES members checked 1,053 child restraints, with an observed misuse rate of 94 percent. The organization distributed more than 50 new restraints to families, ensuring that no children left a checkup event unprotected. Most important, during 2000, AlexandriaCARES recorded three “saves” with five children surviving three dangerous automobile crashes without serious injuries, one just 20 minutes after leaving the checkup site. About 1 in 5 families come from outside Alexandria, from jurisdictions where child seat assistance is not offered or cannot be easily located. AlexandriaCARES never refuses to help any family.

Besides such encouraging statistics, the project has resulted in many other members of the community coming together to address the problem of child safety seats. Officer Bergin has assisted several city agencies with child transport issues and has loaned or donated child seats to many others, including hospitals and social service agencies. Recently, a local hospital sought Officer Bergin’s advice on transporting children in its emergency evacuation helicopter.

In addition to its members, the financial and logistical support from the car dealer who donated BABY-1 and the local shopping centers that house the safety centers and the donations of time and money from private citizens, AlexandriaCARES has garnered support from numerous civic groups, including a service club from the area’s local high school. Some of these organizations have developed specific areas

of interest, such as a loaner program of specialty seats for premature infants and a program to promote restraint education and use among residents of local shelters.

Within the Community Support Section, Officer Bergin has become the Alexandria Police Department’s Child Seat Safety Coordinator.14 He helped develop the department’s child transport policies, making Alexandria what is believed to be the first
police department in the country to ban transport of restraint-aged children in police cruisers because of dangers posed by rigid prisoner security screens in the back seat. This limitation on cruiser transport is now part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 32-hour program curriculum.

Conclusion
The issue of properly protecting America’s youngest citizens
may not appear as important as apprehending dangerous criminals. However, these young citizens cannot speak for themselves and must rely on the compassion and consideration of adults. Although parents try to secure their children in vehicles and assume that they have done so in the correct manner, all too often this tragically proves incorrect.

The Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department has devised a program that can enable officers to help parents correctly install child safety seats and ensure that they understand the importance of properly restraining their children in vehicles. All law enforcement agencies should join in this effort to safeguard America’s smallest and most vulnerable citizens because they represent the future and deserve every chance to grow up and enjoy it.

Endnotes
1 In a letter, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall congratulated the Alexandria Police Department on its child safety seat program.
2 Lawrence E. Decina and Kathleen Y. Knoebel, “Patterns of Misuse of Child Safety Seats,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Final Report, DOT HS 808, January 1996.

3 For detailed information, contact Officer Bergin, Project Director, AlexandriaCARES, at 703-924-9294 or at bergin01@msn.com or access the Web site at http://www.alexandriacares.org.
4 Supra note 2.
5 Reports from the Fatal Analysis Report System of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
6 Acceleration of gravity: a unit of force equal to the force exerted by gravity on a body at rest and used to indicate the force to which a body is subjected when accelerated, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. “g.”

7 In 1998, Officer Bergin completed the 32-hour training program from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to become a Child Passenger Safety Technician and received certification as an instructor.
8 Analysis of child restraint checkup reports, Alexandria Police Department, 1996-1998.
9 National SAFE KIDS Campaign, Child Passengers at Risk in America: A National Study of Car Seat Misuse (Washington, DC, February 1999).
10 For additional information, see Kim Kapp, “Welcoming Immigrants,” Community Links, June 2001, 9-10.
11 Officer Bergin trained members of these organizations, including Spanish-speaking volunteers, in a child passenger safety
curriculum developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police called Operation Kids. The department chose the
Operation Kids curriculum because, at 8 hours in length, it represented both the minimum length of training needed to meet Virginia Department of Health standards for child safety advocates and the maximum length of training that a typical volunteer with other life, family, and job obligations could afford to take.
12 Applications currently are being completed to register AlexandriaCARES as a nonprofit charity and to make AlexandriaCARES a part of the United Way Campaign.
13 The donation was arranged as a lease, approved by the chief of police and the city manager, and governed by a memorandum of understanding adopted by the city council. The dealer pays the lease, and BABY-1 reverts to the dealership at the end of 3 years. However, the dealer has expressed his support of the program and expects to renew the lease and provide a new vehicle at that time.
14 Officer Bergin received the 2001 Governor’s Transportation Safety Award in the category of Occupant Protection. This award, presented at the state’s Annual Conference on Transportation Safety (ACTS), recognizes Officer Bergin for creating an innovative safety program using community participation to extend police resources and improve service to the Alexandria and Northern Virginia community.

Sergeant Gittins serves in the Internal Affairs Section of the Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department.

Victimization in the nation’s schools has decreased since 1992, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001 reports that, between 1992 and 1999, violent victimization rates at schools generally declined from 48 crimes per 1,000 students ages 12 through 18 to 33 per 1,000 students. Data also indicates that, between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students who said they were the victims of any crime of violence or theft at school decreased from 10 to 8 percent.

During 1999, students were victims of about 2.5 million crimes at school, 1.6 million thefts, and 880,000 nonfatal violent crimes, including about 186,000 serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). In comparison, students were victims of 2.1 million crimes away from school: 1 million thefts and 1.1 million nonfatal violent crimes, including 476,000 serious violent crimes.

Over the 1995-1999 period, teachers were the victims of 1,708,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 1,073,000 thefts and 635,000 violent crimes. On a per teacher basis, this translates to 79 crimes per 1,000 teachers annually.

The report is the fourth in a series of annual reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Education. It is organized as a series of indicators, with each indicator presenting data on a different aspect of school crime and safety. This year’s report repeats many indicators from the 2000 report, but also provides updated data on fatal and nonfatal student victimization, nonfatal teacher victimization, students being threatened or injured with a weapon at school, fights at school, students carrying weapons to schools, students’ use of alcohol and marijuana, and student reports of drug availability on school property.

Copies of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001 may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at 800-732-3277 or by accessing the BJS Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

Responding to Hate Crimes: A Roll Call Training Video for Police Officers presents major steps in responding to and investigating potential hate crimes. This 20-minute video is supplemented by an instructor’s guide for an additional 30 minutes of instruction. The instructor’s guide answers frequently asked questions, examines the importance of identifying bias indicators, and presents case studies to facilitate group discussion. Up to five copies of the video (NCJ 179015) and accompanying instructor’s guide (NCJ 180808) are free; orders of more than five will be assessed shipping and handling fees. To place an order, contact the Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse at 800-688-4252.

Law enforcement agencies are in an era of change. The needs of communities and constituencies, rapid technological growth and enhancements, and the changing capabilities and structures of law enforcement organizations demand that agencies regularly examine and improve their ways of operation. According to some futurists, changes in a society occur in several major areas, directly affecting law enforcement and compounding the stress inherently associated with the profession.

CHANGES FACING
LAW ENFORCEMENT
From a social perspective, communities are undergoing major andmunities are undergoing major and rapid demographic change. Police agencies have increased their racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity and have continued to improve the educational level of officers. At the same time, the employment of persons of heterogeneous age ranges has added new challenges and opportunities.

From a technological perspective, advanced information systems now allow citizens to have real-time information relating to crime, and many departments provide officers with their own computers. From 1993 to 1997, the percentage of local police departments using infield computers grew from 13 percent to 29 percent, which includes 73 percent of all officers employed.¹ Information once dependent upon access and transmission by dispatchers from antiquated computer systems is now instantly at officers’ fingertips in their patrol cars.

Technological advances go beyond mere access to information. DNA technology and automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) foster the more definitive and rapid identification of unknown offenders, and enhanced ballistics technology allows for identification of weapons from shell casings instead of merely retrieved projectiles.

From an economic perspective, the United States is in an era of unparalleled growth, and many local governments, especially those relying upon property and sales taxes, have enhanced their tax bases. Concurrently, revenues available for law enforcement agencies, including federal funding, have increased. On the other hand, with unemployment rates at one of the lowest levels in history, law enforcement finds itself competing with the higher pay and better benefits of the private sector to hire the best and brightest young persons beginning their professional careers.

Additionally, environmental changes now pose a major concern to law enforcement. In such states as California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona, the infrastructure cannot handle the population explosion. Dealing with the urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and water restrictions have become law enforcement matters. Disasters, from hurricanes to tornadoes to fires, increasingly occupy the attention of law enforcement agencies and their personnel.

Dr. Sewell serves as the regional director of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Finally, political change has tremendous impact on law enforcement agencies. Significantly, an increased focus on communitarianism² and the emergence of strong grassroots involvement at the neighborhood level have increased in recent years. Now, more than before, citizens want to be involved in the governance of their communities. As a direct result, community-based criminal justice (policing, victim services, corrections, and prosecution) is increasingly the norm,³ and criminal justice agencies continue to remold their philosophy, structure, and tactics to meet community expectations and needs.

Concurrent with increased community-based efforts, many law enforcement agencies, like their private sector counterparts, are flattening their organizational structure, reducing the steps between entry-level personnel and the chief executive officer (CEO). “The effect of flattening the hierarchical structure is to devolve decision-making authority and responsibility to the working level. This allows the principle of ‘empowerment’ to operate. Empowerment is the organizational principle of allowing those at the operational level of an organization, who know local conditions and needs, to make their own decisions about how their work should be done to best effect.”⁴Clearly, significant change affecting the organization and the individual has become the norm in American law enforcement. “Change within an organization is always difficult, and, in most circumstances, some employees cannot or will not adapt well. Change requires adjustment, which can be stressful.”⁵

The success of an organization and its individual employees in dealing with the stress of change depends, in large measure, on the ability of the organization’s leadership to recognize, understand, and actively manage that stress. To do so, agencies can implement 10 interrelated steps.

organizational change is an awareness that it exists. Too frequently, well-intentioned police executives and administrators implement change with little effort at planning and scheduling and with little consideration for its impact on the agency’s most vital resource, its personnel.

Often, the organizational change represents a blend of two management approaches. The first exemplifies a desire to flatten the organization, streamline operations, and improve efficiency and effectiveness, all indicators of the most innovative and contemporary approaches to leadership and management. The second reflects change based on a hierarchical mandate, the traditional paramilitary model of management. In this approach, the chief executive identifies the need for change and decrees its forward motion down the organizational structure, with minimal involvement of personnel at the lowest levels and little demonstrated concern for the needs or fears of the agency’s “people.” Thus, understanding and mitigating the stress resulting from major organizational change on both the organization and its individual members requires recognizing that it occurs. When executives take steps to change an organization, its personnel will have a number of reactions: fear, frustration, anger, resentment, inertia, active or passive resistance, depression, and, in many cases, a welcoming of necessary improvements. The success of the change will, in large measure, depend on the executive’s ability to anticipate and effectively deal with

these personnel and the source of their emotions. As one information technology executive has noted, “You have to be adaptable and flexible. If you take only a collaborative approach, the change will take 3 to 5 years, which is too long given the competitive urgency. But, then the organizational psychologists we hired will say we’re going too fast; people can’t cope with that rate of change. I’ve learned to have some patience, slow down, and develop a strong relationship with my subordinates to understand the impact this is having on people.”⁶

For the realtor, the well-known key to successful real estate transactions is “location, location, location.” Similarly, for the executive, or even first-line manager, in a law enforcement agency undergoing major change, the correlated axiom is “communication, communication, communication.” During a time of change, personnel search for meaning and an understanding of the actual impact of the change on each of them as individuals. The presence of accurate and, perhaps more important, timely information delivered by credible sources on a regular basis is critical. Where a vacuum exists in the provision of such information, the organization’s grapevine, enhanced within organizations with good electronic systems, rapidly will fill that void. Effective rumor control depends on an active and aggressive program of communication using all means, including interpersonal, one-on-one, written, or electronic, available to an executive.

Agencies must understand the importance of the credibility of that information and its presenter. Executives and managers charged with delivering messages relating to organizational change must directly and truthfully answer employee questions and concerns; if they do not know the answer, or are not allowed to answer specific questions, they cannot afford to lie to their constituents. Equally important, executives should maintain an atmosphere that encourages employee questions without concern for the truthfulness of the response or fear of overt or subtle reproach for simply asking questions.

While communication normally occurs between supervisors and their immediate subordinates, departmental leadership should communicate aggressively with managers and first-line supervisors, those individuals most likely to receive employee questions and to deal with their concerns. These managers should have the most accurate information, and leaders must assure that they communicate issues and answers relating to change with the same organizational voice. One private sector

executive, who has captured the essence of this issue, advises, “The ability to communicate is critical. When you’re doing this all the time, your own thoughts are advancing constantly, and it’s easy to assume others are at the same place you are in your thinking. I had a notion that if it’s clear to me, it’s clear to somebody else, but that isn’t the case.”⁷

Experts have identified the “high tech, high touch” nature of future change.⁸ In times of major change in a law enforcement organization, the high touch component becomes particularly noteworthy. The visible presence of an agency’s leadership, its highest command officers, is necessary and, in the eyes of the agency’s personnel, absolutely expected. Throughout the course of major change, an aggressive policy of “management by walking around” and a leadership style that encourages interactive interpersonal communication best serve leaders and the organization. When the agency undergoes significant change, the “troops” need to feel the active interest of their bosses in both them and their concerns.

For example, in 1987, when the Aurora, Colorado, Police Department was expanding its community policing approach throughout the agency and all ranks, it hired outside experts to provide the necessary training during regularly scheduled shifts. The agency ensured the consistency of the message and delivered it on their personnel’s “home turf” during their normal work hours, not the day shift classroom training often offered for new issues. Yet, a more subtle message became more important than the formal one—the chief of police attended all of these sessions, regardless of the time of day or day of the week. His conspicuous presence and visible leadership clearly showed its importance to the city and the department.

During stressful times surrounding major organizational change, encouragement by an agency’s leadership takes two forms. First, administrators should send a clear message that the change will make the agency stronger, serve the organization’s members better, and eventually become fully implemented, which shows a

Invest 30 minutes in vigorous physical exercise, three to five times per week (assuming your doctor doesn’t have a problem with that). Work up a sweat.
Learn relaxation techniques.
• Cut down on caffeine.
• Eat right.
• Meditate, get still, “center.”
• Develop better time management habits.
• Play, have fun, recharge.
• Get plenty of sleep.

Smile more, laugh, use humor to lighten your emotional load.
Count your blessings daily, make thankfulness a habit.
Say nice things when you talk to yourself.
Simplify.
Set personal goals, give yourself a sense of purpose.
Forgive, grudges are too heavy to carry around.
Practice optimism and positive expectancy, hope is a muscle—develop it.

Source: Price Pritchett and Ron Pound, A Survival Guide to the Stress of Organizational Change (Plano, TX: Pritchett Rummler-Brache, 1998), 35.

real end in sight. At the same time, while stress accompanies change, each employee actively should adjust to it: “The organization is going to change—it must—if it is to survive and prosper. Rather than banging your head against the wall of hard reality and bruising your spirit, invest your energy in making quick adjustments. Turn when the organization turns. Practice instant alignment. Your own decisions may do more to determine your stress level than anything the organization decides to do.^”9

Second, even though the pace of change may become demanding on all elements within a department, especially its managers and supervisors, all personnel should understand that major stress requires comprehensive stress mitigation practices. The need to maintain proper dietary and nutritional habits, an ongoing physical exercise and fitness program, and acceptable outlets outside the agency for pent-up emotions remain particularly crucial for personal stress resolution during such times.

No longer immune to efforts at downsizing government, law enforcement agencies must reduce unnecessary, or outdated, programs or civilianize traditionally sworn positions. Sometimes, the impact of such organizational change is so great and viewed so personally that individuals within an organization cannot handle it effectively without professional assistance. When employees believe something jeopardizes their jobs or their concept of themselves in the workplace, the perceived consequence of change can be tremendous.

In such circumstances, access to a skilled employee assistance program (EAP), available either within the agency or through outside referrals, becomes vitally important. Employee assistance program providers should understand the law enforcement agency, the nature and process of the change, the organization’s efforts during the change, and the potential impact on its personnel. When change results in the elimination of positions and departments lay off some of their employees, EAP providers, or other job placement experts, can make the transition a little easier, both for those who leave the organization and, equally important, for those who remain behind.

During times of significant organizational change, even the most well-adjusted professionals will feel a loss of control over their environment. While emphasizing the importance of change throughout the organization, some organizational elements or activities should remain stable. The agency’s leadership should allow their personnel to feel that there is still something over which they have control or which remains familiar. Organizational change requires adjustment, and well-thought-out plans can make that adjustment, and the success of the change, far more likely.

Major organizational change within a law enforcement agency can come from a variety of sources: a natural evolution to better meet organizational or community needs; a revolution resulting from changes in the jurisdiction’s or department’s leadership or occurring amid allegations of criminal or professional misconduct; or a devolution of successful programs or ideas that the agency head viewed, heard of, or read about. Regardless of the source of the change, the change most frequently comes from the top down, with little input from or involvement of those personnel most directly impacted.

Increased education of Amer-ica’s police officers and the changing culture of the work force have led line personnel to expect to be involved in decisions about their on-the-job fate. The most successful efforts at major organizational change involve the affected personnel in the tactical implementation of the program, under the strategic design of the agency’s leadership. Their role can allow them to feel that they “own” part of the change, that they are responsible for its success, and that they can see the value of the change to them, their jobs, and their organization.

At times, communication, no matter how effective, simply is not enough. Some types of organizational change, especially the kind built upon enhanced or expanded technology, require formalized programs of education and training. Such training is important to enhance the technical skills needed to handle both the immediate impact of change, as well as its long-range effects. Educational efforts can produce a greater understanding of the need for and the anticipated results of such change. The key is an organized approach to ensuring that personnel throughout the agency are prepared now for the future of their agency and their jobs.

One attorney, responsible for implementing a number of major political and organizational changes in a large state investigative agency, used to say, “timing is not an important thing, it is the only thing.” While this adage may cause some debate, its message remains: the most successful change agents, determined to assure the results of their efforts are lasting, plan and time their change.

This belief applies both to initial efforts at implementing change and to subsequent efforts to fine-tune that change or implement subsequent programs, projects, or efforts. As the organization changes, the organizational culture must absorb those changes for long-term effect. As this occurs, leaders of change must assure that they do not foster an organizational counterreaction because those responsible for implementing or being affected by change are simply overwhelmed by too much over too short a period.

Organizational change in any law enforcement agency produces stress on all of its personnel. A change-oriented leadership frequently expects that the agency’s managers and supervisors will adapt readily to their changes. Because individuals charged with effecting change care deeply about their organization, they are just as susceptible, sometimes even more so, to the fears, frustrations, and anxiety of their subordinates.

Too frequently, however, executives expect those managers to keep that “stiff upper lip,” relegating their personal feelings to their unexpressed subconscious. Especially in agencies undergoing waves of change—no matter how needed or well-intentioned—these managers are prone to stress overload and, as a consequence, can lose some of the sharpness and tenacity so necessary for them to ensure effective change. When that occurs, the law enforcement chief executive risks burning out the very individuals necessary to ensure the success of his efforts.

Guarding against burnout of key staff requires the same awareness and aggressive tools that can protect the organization from its own burnout. Communication, stability, and support can help prevent this problem. Further, agencies must recognize that managers in an organization, regardless of their rank, loyalty, skills, and zeal, are still human and, during times of stress associated with organizational
change, need the same sensitivity and respect that agencies give their line troops.

Community needs are changing in a variety of ways. Such necessary change impacts the quality and types of services law enforcement
organizations provide for their communities and affects the organization’s personnel and the heart of its culture as well. For change to
have the desired lasting effect and to become absorbed within the organization’s culture, the agency’s highest levels of leadership must
recognize and properly address the stress that such change brings.

In changing organizations, executives must acknowledge that they, in fact, organizationally and personally create and shape their own future. Efforts to improve the police agency’s ability to deal with community safety and to enhance the quality of life through

community policing, for instance, have affected the organization’s future and potential for stress. Moreover, an executive’s individual efforts, as well as those of an agency’s personnel, affect each employee’s future and, because of individual perspective, can cause or mitigate stress. By consciously implementing a comprehensive, 10-step stress reduction program, law enforcement executives can help both the organization and its employees manage the stress of change.

¹ B.A. Reaves and A. L. Goldberg, Local Police Departments 1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2000), iv.

² Of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist communities, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (1996), s.v.

³ Eduardo Barajas, Jr., “Confronting Crime Through Criminal Justice,” Community Policing Exchange, VII (May/June 2000): 2.

⁴ Tonita Murray, “Police and the Challenge of the 21st Century,” RCMP Gazette, 62 (1, 2000): 11.

⁵ James D. Sewell, “What They Didn’t Teach in Management School,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 1991, 5-8. For additional management perspective, see Peter F. Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century (New York, NY: Harper Business, 1999).

⁷ Philip N. Newbold quoted in Abbie Lundberg, “The People Side of Change,” CIO (May 15, 1997).

⁹ Price Pritchett and Ron Pound, A Survival Guide to the Stress of Organizational Change

(Plano, TX: Pritchett Rummler-Brache, 1998), 8. See also, Price Pritchett, Carpe Manana: 10 Critical Leadership Practices for Managing Toward the Future (Plano, TX: Pritchett Rummler-Brache, 2000).

Currently, Roy Lee Ward is incarcerated in Warrick County, Indiana, on murder charges. Law enforcement authorities believe that he may have attempted or committed homicides and sexual assaults in other states.

On July 11, 2001, a Dale, Indiana, Police Department officer responded to an emergency call from a 14-year-old girl reporting an assault on her sister. Upon arriving at the girl’s residence, the officer observed a black 1989 Pontiac Bonneville, with Indiana license plates registered to Ward’s father, parked in the driveway. As the officer gained entry through an unlocked front door, he saw a young white male, later identified as Ward, standing just inside.

The male’s clothing was completely saturated with blood and sweat, and he was holding a closed folding knife in his left hand. The officer detained the male and called for backup. Detectives arrived and located a 15-year-old girl, dressed only in a T-shirt, lying on the living room floor. She had severe cuts to her throat, left hand, and abdomen and later died during surgery. The detectives searched the vehicle in the driveway and found items in the trunk taken from a residence in Fort Branch, Indiana, approximately 50 minutes from the victim’s house.

In 1999, authorities arrested Ward in Tifton, Georgia, for the possession of marijuana and public indecency as a result of an incident in a department store parking lot. A woman with her two children came out of the store and walked to their car. Ward, seated in a vehicle parked next to the woman’s, began masturbating in front of her and the children. In 1997, Ward was charged with criminal recklessness and indecent exposure in Sellersburg, Indiana. These charges also stemmed from an incident that occurred in a parking lot. A woman leaving a grocery store observed Ward, sitting in his vehicle, masturbating. She immediately got into her vehicle and left the store parking lot. Ward followed her. In a panic, the woman started traveling at a high rate of speed and attempted to leave the interstate via an exit ramp. A trooper with the Indiana State Police observed Ward ram his vehicle into the woman’s car and arrested him. Ward also has a history of burglary and forgery.

Ward enjoys prowling for women in shopping malls and rest stops. If he discovers a woman that piques his interest, he attempts to expose himself or masturbate in front of her. Ward frequently and randomly travels the roads and interstates throughout the United States. He never carries luggage on his extended road trips and has been known to sleep in his vehicle. Ward also has access to and uses vehicles registered to his father. In 1999, Ward had access to his father’s black Ford pickup truck, with Indiana license plate number 82484L. In 2000, he had access to his father’s 1997 white Ford pickup truck, with Indiana license plate number 13218. An NCIC record check indicates that law enforcement agencies in 24 states have entered Ward’s name, driver’s license number, and social security number over 260 times.

Law enforcement agencies should bring this information on Roy Lee Ward to the attention of all crime analysis personnel and officers investigating homicides, crimes against persons, sex crimes, burglaries, and forgeries. Any agencies with solved or unsolved crimes similar to these should contact Trooper Randy Cutrell or Trooper Brad Cieslack of the Indiana State Police at 812-482-1441 or Special Agent Gary Cramer or Crime Analyst Anita Hayne of the FBI’s Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP) at 703-632-4197 or 703-632-4167, respectively.

Tattoos: A star, with Christy Lynn inside, on his right arm; two hearts on his left arm; a rose, with Roy Jenny inside, on his left arm; the initials, jlw, on his chest; and a cross with a sword on his back.

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Providing Consular Rights Warnings to Foreign Nationals
By M. WESLEY CLARK, J.D., LL.M.

For 35 years, federal, state, and local law enforcement officials have been giving Miranda rights warnings to suspects in custody.¹ To ensure that the suspect is correctly informed of these rights, (i.e., that the verbiage actually given during the heat of the moment will pass constitutional muster) law enforcement agencies typically provide their operational personnel with pocket- or wallet-sized cards that contain the Miranda warnings verbatim. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) card, for example, has the rights printed in both English and Spanish on a durable piece of 4¹/₄-inch by 2¹/₂-inch yellow plastic.

In contrast, how many law enforcement personnel at the federal, state, and local level read arrested or detained foreign nationals the rights warnings contained on the U.S. Department of State’s Consular Notification and Access Reference Card?² How many have ever seen the card, let alone have one? How many know what consular rights warnings are? How many prosecutors are familiar with them? How many know that failure to provide these rights warnings to detained foreign nationals is in contravention of the law?

Law enforcement officials must provide consular rights warnings to arrested or detained foreign nationals. And, under appropriate circumstances, they must notify the foreign nationals’ consular officials who are posted in the United States.

Most countries of the world, including the United States, are parties to or otherwise obligated by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes (VCCR).³ Consistent with the Constitution, this multilateral treaty is the “supreme law of the land” within the United States.⁴ Article 36(1)(b) of the VCCR, which applies equally to all federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, states—[I]f he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending state if, within its consular district, a national of that state is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner.... The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph.

In other words, an arresting or detaining official must notify the foreign national of the right to have the individual’s nearest consular officials notified of the arrest or detention so that the appropriate foreign official may visit and assist. Article 36(1)(c) of the VCCR provides that “consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending state who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation.”⁵ With the exception of the mandatory circumstances discussed below, officers must not notify the foreign national’s consulate unless the individual requests them to do so. Foreign nationals may not want their country of nationality to know of their arrest or detention either because they may fare badly if they ever voluntarily or involuntarily return home or because any family members remaining in the country of nationality may be subjected to harsh treatment (especially if the arrested/detained nationals desire refugee or asylum status in the United States).

The U.S. Department of State (State) suggests the following notice be read (this should be documented)⁶ to those detained or arrested foreign nationals who have the right to decide (i.e., those who are not from a “mandatory notification country”) whether or not they want consular officials to be notified: As a non-U.S. citizen who is being arrested or detained, you are entitled to have us notify your country’s consular representatives here in the United States. A consular official from your country may be able to help you obtain legal counsel, and may contact your family and visit you in detention, among other things. If you want us to notify your country’s consular officials, you can request this notification now, or at any time in the future. After your consular officials are notified, they may call or visit you. Do you want us to notify your country’s consular officials?⁷

In addition to the VCCR, the United States has entered into bilateral agreements with 56 countries that require consular notification

Mr. Clark is a senior attorney in the International Law Section, Office of Chief Counsel, DEA.

despite even the individual’s most emphatic desire to the contrary. These nations generally are referred to as “mandatory notification countries” and are listed in State’s Consular Notification and Access Reference Card⁸ and in State’s

Consular Notification and Access booklet.⁹ The list and the explanatory notes (contained in the latter two references) should be studied carefully because some countries that one might not expect to be on the list, such as the United Kingdom (U.K.),¹⁰ are and some nations that could be anticipated to be listed, such as Mexico, are not. Further, some of the listed countries no longer exist (the U.S.S.R.), but mandatory notification is nevertheless still necessary for some of the U.S.S.R. successor states (which are named) and for some areas (which also are named) formerly part of the U.S.S.R. Additionally, the explanatory notes contain other important details relating to China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and the notes in the booklet also list those U.K. dependencies requiring mandatory notification.¹¹ State recommends that the following rights warning be provided in mandatory notification circumstances:

For the purposes of consular rights notification, some definitions may be different from traditional understandings under domestic U.S. law. A “foreign national,” including a lawful permanent resident alien, is anyone who is not a U.S. citizen.¹³ Under some circumstances, determining nationality might be a challenge. Ask for the person’s country of citizenship; if the detainees state they are U.S. citizens, law enforcement officials can rely upon that assertion unless the claim does not ring true giving officials reason to probe further. Proof of foreign nationality would include a passport or an alien registration document.¹⁴

“Without delay” refers both to how quickly foreign nationals are to be advised of their rights and how quickly the consular officials are to be notified. State emphatically recites that foreign nationals are to be provided consular rights warnings without “...deliberate delay and notification [to the individuals] should occur as soon as reasonably possible under the circumstances.”¹⁵ Notification to consular officials should follow thereafter and “...there should be no deliberate delay and...[it] should occur as soon as reasonably possible under the circumstances. State normally would expect notification to consular officials to have been made within 24 hours, and certainly within 72 hours.”¹⁶ Law enforcement officials may telephone the consular official or choose to use State’s suggested fax sheet.¹⁷ Notifying the consular official does not necessarily mean or include providing an explanation of the reason for the arrest or detention. The VCCR does not require that these details be given; additionally, foreign nationals may not want their country to know why they are being detained. “Thus we suggest that [the reasons for the detention] not be provided unless requested specifically by the consular officer, or if the detainee authorizes the disclosure.... If a consular official insists that he/she is entitled to information about an alien that the alien does not want disclosed, the Department of State can provide guidance.”¹⁸ The “suggested fax sheet,” for example, does not list or contain any information category relating to reasons, such as charges or crimes, for the arrest or detention. The fax sheet is helpful if consular notification of necessity will occur after normal business hours or if it is presently improvident for the law enforcement officer to speak personally with a consular officer.

Notification must be made to a consular official and not to a foreign law enforcement counterpart

The VCCR does not explain what “detention” means. State has adopted a “reasonable person” standard.

8	Police Practice Alexandria CARES and BABY-1
13	Bulletin Reports School Crime and Safety Crime Prevention