F B I Law Enforcement Bulletin - February 2003 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.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
(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, Training Division.

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

Connecting Drug Paraphernalia to Drug Gangs
By Robert D. Sheehy and Efrain A. Rosario
The connection between drug paraphernalia and drug gangs can aid law enforcement agencies in the battle against drug distribution.

Consent Once Removed
By Edward M. Hendrie
It is possible to make a warrantless entry to arrest a suspect based on consent to enter given previously to an undercover officer or informant.

The trail of drug paraphernalia can lead investigators to illicit drugs and drug gangs. The FBI in Baltimore, Maryland, together with the Maryland State Police, U.S. Customs Service, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Howard County Police Departments put this concept to the test. From April 1997 through February 2000, these agencies conducted an investigation targeting drug paraphernalia outlets. Known as “Shop Light,” this investigation used the outlets as a means to locate, identify, and disrupt (or dismantle) large drug organizations operating in the greater Baltimore metropolitan area.

The Shop Light investigation recognized that two types of illegal paraphernalia stores operated in the region. However, the investigation ignored the first type of store, commonly referred to as “head shops,” because their inventory, although illegal, consists of products designed for the end user (addicts) to ingest drugs. Instead, the investigation focused on the second type of store, typically known as “cut or vial stores.” Their inventory includes diluents, adulterants, and other products used by drug organizations to measure, separate, convert, dilute, adulterate, and package drugs in bulk quantities that drug gangs then sell.

In April 1997, investigators found 30 businesses in the city of Baltimore engaged in the sale of drug paraphernalia to area gangs. With the exception of just a few of the businesses, the sale of paraphernalia accounted for nearly all of the revenue received by the shops. A review of law enforcement records revealed that police already knew about the stores and, in fact, had raided most of the stores, some on more than one occasion. Nearly all of the prior raids failed to result in meaningful prosecutions, with most of these cases being stetted or nolle prossed. Those that authorities pursued resulted in a fine and probation before judgment. The subjects considered the prosecution merely an inconvenience and simply the price of doing business. Further investigation discovered that even those offenders successfully prosecuted in the past immediately reopened their stores and continued business as usual. Two central themes appeared in the ill-fated cases: first, an apparent lack of understanding of the essential and contributory role played by these stores in the distribution of drugs and, second, an inability to present adequate testimony of the illegal nature and use of the paraphernalia.

Investigators should not consider paraphernalia stores as an isolated industry, separate and distinct from drug gangs. In fact, these stores fill an absolutely essential role with each drug gang that patronizes such a store. For example, a kilogram of raw heroin, purchased in New York for distribution in Bal-timore, is essentially worth little more than its cost upon arrival at Baltimore in its raw form. However, when diluted (gangs in Balti-more favored mannitol and quinine), the drug gang will realize an increase in weight to approximately 8 kilograms of heroin at a 13 percent purity level, ready for packaging and sale. At a very minimum, the gang will gross a sixfold return over the cost of the original kilogram.

In short, the paraphernalia industry acts in concert with the drug gangs, facilitating drug distribution by supplying the means to accomplish the cutting and packaging of illegal drugs. This fact is exploited by the shops, which greedily share in the drug proceeds by charging extraordinary mark ups, ranging up to 2,500 percent over the cost of items sold. Evidence from cooperating subjects revealed that shop owners also would advance paraphernalia to their larger drug customers and await payment until after the drugs were sold.

Based upon this view, one objective in the Shop Light investigation was to seriously impact the paraphernalia industry after first using the industry to eliminate multiple drug gangs. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Mary-land decided to charge the more significant paraphernalia subjects with Conspiracy to Aid and Abet the Distribution of Drugs and Engaging in Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) as more reflective of their involvement than mere violation of paraphernalia laws. This case marked the first use of the CCE statute when the underlying violation involved paraphernalia.

Initially, investigators must determine what diluents/adulterants (cut) and packaging materials drug gangs operating in their territory favor. Debriefing such individuals as drug subjects, sources, and local police officers should provide locations of cut and vial stores from which drug organizations secure their supplies. Another source of information concerning the whereabouts of these stores includes the manufacturers of some of the items, such as gelatin capsules.

Once investigators locate the stores, they should have sources or undercover officers make small purchases of drug paraphernalia to observe the outlets’ operations. After analyzing the information obtained during debriefings, investigators then can formulate an investigative strategy. Next, investigators need to answer some important questions.

cooperation. Passive (covert) use of the stores occurs when investigators establish surveillance without the knowledge of store owners/managers. And, of course, investigators may choose to approach some store owners, securing their cooperation, while conducting surveillance at other stores without involving the owners/managers.

•   How many outlets are operating in the area and when are they open?
•   Can investigators identify the largest outlets and does paraphernalia sales account for the majority of their business?
•   Should authorities put some of the smaller outlets and those where legitimate business is greater than paraphernalia sales out of the “cut game?” Continuous raids that seize the products each time the store restocks paraphernalia will force it to discontinue the sale of those items.
•   Which stores are located in areas that investigators can surveil, including the use of closed-circuit television under certain conditions?

If the answers to these questions reveal that cut/vial shops are in operation, the most important question for investigators then becomes the selection of an approach. The conduct of the investigation can be overt, covert, or both. That is, aggressive (overt) use of the shops involves approaching the store owners and securing their cooperation. Passive (covert) use of the stores occurs when investigators
establish surveillance without the knowledge of store owners/managers. And, of course, investigators may choose to approach some store owners, securing their cooperation, while conducting surveillance at other stores without involving the owners/managers.

The Shop Light investigation obtained positive results using both overt and covert approaches. Obviously, cooperation from the store owner/manager simplifies selection of which drug gangs to investigate. Owners can rank their customers based upon the quantities of cut and packaging purchased, as well as the frequency at which they make purchases. If owners do not know the true names of customers, they often know their street names and usually can supply pager numbers, as well as vehicle descriptions. If a gang frequents a store, the owner may restrict certain products for its use alone, such as a specific color of gelatin capsule or small plastic resealable bags bearing a specific stamp. By offering special pricing discounts or restricted packaging, a cooperating store owner may predict the arrival of certain drug subjects, thereby making surveillance more productive.

Regardless of the approach, the objective remains the same, to follow drug dealers to their “safe” or “stash” houses where they store drugs, weapons, cash, documents, and other items of value to the investigation. The most compelling reason for monitoring paraphernalia stores is that the drug dealers themselves are indicating a recent receipt of raw drugs by making purchases of paraphernalia. Following the paraphernalia will lead investigators directly to the nerve center of the gang. Experience gained in Shop Light determined that drug gangs do not stockpile or keep inventories of diluents and packaging, rather they purchase those items on an as-needed basis. Investigators found that this paraphernalia resupply, on average, occurred on a 2-week cycle, timed with the purchase of raw drugs.

Investigators can obtain the cooperation of some store owners for economic reasons. Some will prefer to assist investigators as a means to continue reaping the profits from their business, rather than face closure, loss of income, and criminal charges. However, absent prior contact indicating that a paraphernalia shop owner will cooperate, investigators first should make a case against the store before “quietly” approaching the owner away from the business. Indeed, the case against the store and owner already may exist, for the most part, by a drug subject currently cooperating with investigators. Moreover, investigators should substantiate statements relative to the store owner’s knowledge of the drug dealer’s use of the products by a consensual covert recording in the store. The store owner’s cooperation is more likely forthcoming if the individual believes that investigators are ready to raid the business.

In this approach, investigators conduct surveillance of customers away from a cut store using an arbitrarily applied factor, such as following anyone carrying an agreed-upon size bag or box from the store. Investigators can use this approach only when drug paraphernalia sales account for nearly all sales made from the store or if the paraphernalia sales can be readily distinguished from legitimate sales (e.g., if the only legal merchandise in the store is tires or bicycles). Because no one within the store is assisting investigators, establishing surveillance without detection poses the largest problem. The Shop Light investigation employed remote-controlled “pole cameras” to relay activity at the shop to a monitoring site. The monitor would then broadcast to surveillance units the physical and vehicle descriptive information for individuals meeting the agreed-upon prerequisite.

Shop Light investigators determined that even when some shop owners learned of the surveillance, they were powerless to do anything about it. They could not warn their customers, fearing a loss of profits, and they could not complain to authorities because they were attempting to create an air of ignorance as to the actual use of the products.

Experience has shown that where members take the package of paraphernalia is the central hub (safe house) for the gang. Here, the gang stores significant amounts of drugs, cash, and other such items as weapons and records. Surveillance of that location will identify the hierarchy of the organization, including many individuals not involved in the actual street sales of drugs.

The only people allowed into this site while the drugs are being prepared for distribution are the most trusted members of the gang.

Probable cause to raid a gang’s central hub or safe house must be drawn from facts that investigators develop after identifying its location. This occurs primarily to protect the technique of ongoing surveillance of the cut shop for future use against other gangs. Further, most judges will not consider following a package from a store, even a known cut shop, sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant in the case of the covert surveillance. The affidavit would expose the cooperation of the store owner/manager in the overt method. Normal investigative procedures will develop the probable cause necessary to raid the safe house.

During Shop Light, investigators frequently developed probable cause to support a search warrant by retrieving trash containing packaging wrappers for paraphernalia discarded from the identified safe house location, intercepting the delivery of drugs from the stash house when transported to a worker at a site where the drugs were sold, and stopping departing vehicles a distance away from the house if a legal reason existed. In many instances, investigators developed the requisite probable cause to support a search warrant in a matter of hours after identifying the gang’s safe house. Some of the surveillances identified subjects of ongoing investigations conducted by other agencies. Shop Light investigators contacted officers from these agencies who then assumed investigative responsibility from the Shop Light team at the safe house. In each case encountered, the investigating agency had not previously identified the location.

As a cautionary note, while conducting the initial surveillance away from the cut store, investigators must not get too aggressive. It is better to lose the subjects than to needlessly expose the surveillance. The subjects will return to the store on future dates to purchase additional diluents/adulterants and packaging, and investigators might have better luck with the surveillance at that time.

After using the paraphernalia stores to locate and eliminate as many gangs as deemed worthwhile, the final action should be to close the shops. Depending upon the number of stores and the evidence collected against each, authorities will have to decide between federal or state prosecution. Criteria used in deciding which venue to use for the Shop Light investigation included—

•    whether surveillance of subjects away from a store
•    produced a prosecutable drug case; and
•    whether the owner conducted regional/national sales via mail order or Internet advertising.

EXAMINING THE RESULTS

The Shop Light investigation resulted in the arrests of approximately 80 significant drug dealers. Investigators seized multiple kilograms of heroin and cocaine, weapons, cash, and vehicles usually within hours of the first sightings of the drug dealers. Twenty federal indictments of drug paraphernalia distributors, four of whom were charged with the minimum mandatory 20-year CCE violation, were handed down along with 25 state indictments of other drug paraphernalia distributors. The investigation also closed 30 Balti-more area businesses engaged in paraphernalia sales, a California chemical wholesaler specializing in the national distribution of diluents and adulterants, and an importing company that distributed diluents along the east coast of the United States used in selling 40,000 pounds of heroin at street-level purity with a volume of drug sales approaching $1 billion. In addition, Shop Light resulted in numerous spin-off drug investigations to include international subjects importing drugs into the United States.

Mannitol/Mannite
Quinine
Lidocaine
Procaine
Benzocaine
Vitamin B blend
Caffeine
Asteroid Rock, Bolivian Rock and Comeback
Inositol
Lactose
Niacinamide
Ascorbic acid

Scales (electronic and mechanical)
Strainers and sifters
Grinders Glassware (e.g., bongs and rose stem tubes)
Detox pills and drinks
Capsule-filling trays
Heat-sealing machines
Stash safes
Pipe screens
Single-edged razor blades
Protective equipment (e.g., breathing masks and gloves)

Gelatin capsules
Vials and stoppers
Jugs and screw caps
Small resealable plastic bags
Glassine envelopes

The Shop Light investigation offers a technique that other law enforcement jurisdictions may desire to implement. The approach represents another proven method that agencies can employ in the battle against drug distribution. A major benefit of using this technique is that it produces instant identification of the upper echelon members of numerous drug gangs and identifies the gangs’ principle operating locations in a minimum of time without relying upon unpredictable informants. Concentrating on the trail of drug paraphernalia leads to those who traffic in such illicit substances, provides a means of uncovering illegal drug operations, and shows those involved in these criminal activities that no aspect of the drug trade will be safe from the scrutiny of law enforcement agencies dedicated to ridding society of the scourge of drug abuse.

E-mail Address

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin staff invites you to communicate with us via e-mail. Our Internet address is leb@fbiacademy.edu.

We would like to know your thoughts on contemporary law enforcement issues. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions about the magazine. Please include your name, title, and agency on all e-mail messages.

Also, the Bulletin is available for viewing or downloading on a number of computer services, as well as the FBI’s home page.

A key issue in combating youth gangs is providing a uniform definition for them, distinguishing them from troublesome youth groups and adult criminal organizations.¹

A group must be involved in a pattern of criminal acts to be considered a youth gang. These groups typically are composed of only juveniles, but may include young adults in their memberships.”² “A criminal street gang refers to three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.”³ “A street gang is a cohesive group, with most members between the ages of 11 and 21, that has a recognizable geographical territory (usually defined with graffiti), leadership, a purpose, and various levels of organized continuous course of criminal activities.”⁴These three examples of what constitutes a gang illustrate the variety of definitions of the term. With the surge in gang-involved criminal activity over the past 20 years, it would seem likely that the law enforcement community would have a commonly recognized definition for what typically is called gang-related or gang-motivated crime. The need for such a definition within the community would appear obvious on its face. However, a review of published books, articles, and law enforcement policies revealed that no uniform definition used openly articulates what constitutes a gang-involved crime.⁵ Rather, considerable differences existed in what the law enforcement profession considers as gang-related or gang-motivated crime. Such variations in definitions and reporting characteristics can lead to inaccurate and unreliable gang-related crime statistics, which, in turn, can distort any national estimate of the gang problem and the extent of gang-related crime. What can the law enforcement community do to remedy this?

“The definition problem is not trivial. How to define a youth gang is one of the most contentious issues in the field of youth crime. Policymakers, law enforcement personnel, social service agencies, researchers, and other groups have not been able to reach consensus on this issue over the past 25 years, and current efforts to reach this goal have thus far met with only limited success. There is little disagreement among those who study or deal with gangs that the availability and widespread use of a uniform definition would be extremely useful for a variety of important purposes, but few are willing to relinquish and replace the definitions that have become established within their agencies and are intimately related to agency operations....”⁶ Herein lies the issue that can lead to vagueness, conflict, and denial, without a uniform gang-involved crime definition.

With these difficulties in mind, the author suggests a uniform gang-involved crime definition that he believes can consider both the gang member-based and activity-based issues. Adoption of a uniform policy would benefit the entire law enforcement community in several ways.

Law enforcement officers would better understand their own agency’s policy on gang-member and gang-involved crime definitions and could apply those definitions when documenting gang reports and investigating gang-involved crime.
• Officers could provide more complete and accurate information in police reports, improving the content and accuracy of police records.
• Databases from different agencies could share information in common terms, reducing confusion about whether a person is a gang member and in which, if any, jurisdiction.

• Trainers could communicate the same information when instructing law enforcement personnel on gang awareness, identification, investigation, prosecution, and prevention. Training materials would cover the same information and criteria.

• Commonality would exist when discussing gang members or gang-involved crime with prosecutors, thereby aiding in the case presentation at trial for motive (common design) and method of operation, as well as sentencing proceedings.
• Courts and juries would better understand the testimony of expert witnesses on the issue of gang members and gang-involved crime as departmental, or even state or federal, law enforcement operating guidelines would document the explanations given by these witnesses.

• Corrections facilities would better understand incoming inmates and their gang involvement, if any.

For these reasons, as well as others, the law enforcement community should address the need for a uniform gang-member definition. A set of definitions—open enough to encompass all of the relevant criteria, yet specific enough for courts to accept and uphold—incorporated into a model operational policy could offer a workable and practical solution for classifying gang members and gang-involved crime.

The author offers this policy as an example of addressing the current need for a uniform definition for gang crime and gang members and to outline a set of working guidelines for the law enforcement community. The definitions include, but are not limited to, members and associates of criminal street gangs, criminal motorcycle gangs, criminal hate groups, and criminal extremist groups.

• Criminal gang: A group of people following a common code of conduct, having common beliefs and identifiers, existing in a semistructured organization or hierarchy, and attempting to accomplish their goals through criminal activity.

• Criminal gang member/associate: A person involved with a criminal gang who either bears a tattoo that represents a specific gang or states his or her membership in a specific gang. In addition, a combination of two or more of the following items can establish criminal gang association in a specific criminal gang and two or more of these on three or more occasions can establish criminal gang membership in a specific criminal gang: wears clothing that contains the colors or symbols of a specific criminal gang; exhibits jewelry that represents a specific criminal gang; displays hand signs or other gestures or speaks a slogan of a specific criminal gang; associates with known criminal gang members at established criminal gang locations or hangouts; and has information meeting any of these criteria verified by a law enforcement agency.

• Gang-involved crime: Any criminal acts, including but not limited to those, involving gang members or gang associates committed for the benefit or furtherance of any criminal gang or analyzed by a law enforcement officer with specialized training in identifying criminal gang associates, members, or gang activity based on a reasonable application of that specialized knowledge who can articulate facts that indicate criminal gang involvement.

Agencies should classify criminal incidents that involve a person or activity that meets the definitions for a criminal gang, criminal gang member/associate, or gang-involved crime as a gang-involved crime. A gang-involved crime report must have the appropriate boxes (criminal gang member/associate involved as a victim, suspect, or complainant; criminal gang identifiers involved; and criminal gang activity involved) checked in the gang-involved crime section of the report.

The incident report should document all known details and facts of criminal gang members/associates or criminal gang activity involved in the incident. In the event that the incident does not require a report, officers should document the information on a criminal gang member/associate information form or an investigative information report. In either case, officers should submit these documents to their supervisor for approval. After approval, the supervisor forwards the documents to the records division for data entry and then to the appropriate investigative division. The supervisor also should include any relevant information for immediate street operations planning on the appropriate shift pass-along information file in the computer system. This information then becomes available for crime suppression operations planning by patrol and special operations supervisors when applicable.

All officers should receive training on gang awareness and identification. Training objectives should provide relevant information on—

• definitions of a criminal gang, criminal gang member/associate, and gang-involved crime;

• legal issues addressing criminal gang member/associate identifications, field stops, and investigations;

• effective street investigation tactics and techniques for criminal gang activity and gang-involved crime.

Information sharing is critical to effective law enforcement planning. Agencies should use gang-involved crime information for analysis purposes, including, but not limited to, crime-occurrence mapping, crime statistics, crime patterns and trends, police resource allocation, crime suppression planning, and community-oriented policing direction.

Agencies should produce daily gang information bulletins based on the review of gang-crime incident reports, criminal gang member/associate information forms, investigative information reports, and other relevant data. They can use these bulletins, documented in the shift information computer file, not only for in-services but every day throughout each shift. They also can use them in planning crime suppression operations and for crime analysis. In addition, agencies should review current crime-mapping printouts at in-services, along with any relevant crime analysis information.

Crime analysts should compile weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual reports and distribute them to all supervisory and command-level personnel, along with statistical reports showing comparisons of historical patterns, current levels, and future forecasts of potential trends. These reports should serve to keep a continuous flow of information on gang-involved crime available for resource allocation, operations planning, and response effectiveness evaluations.

Supervisors should review all documentation closely and assure that all relevant information is included and formatted properly. Accurate information collected, documented, processed, and analyzed in a timely fashion greatly enhances effectiveness in planning and scheduling and in investigations and other operational considerations. This information establishes a strategy to focus daily, weekly, and long-term goals to drive an agency’s efforts to reduce gang-involved crime. It also serves to evaluate these efforts and to adjust the plans and operations for peak performance.

To gather as much gang-related information as possible, agencies should endeavor to interview every criminal gang member/associate arrested. These interviews would be in addition to any criminal case investigation interviews in an attempt to gain additional gang-related information or to corroborate current gang-involved crime data. Interviewers should concentrate on learning about gang hierarchies, leadership, membership, meeting information and locations, criminal activities, rivalry, and any other relevant criminal gang information.

Officers would document all information gained from these interviews on the appropriate forms, duly submitting them to and processing them through the proper division for analysis. Supervisory personnel would determine the practicality of distributing any information gained through these interviews and the appropriate recipients for use in planning, scheduling, operations, and investigations.

This model policy serves as a set of guidelines for defining, classifying, and processing criminal gang crime information. The collection, documentation, analysis, and distribution of any information always would be within the applicable laws and procedures.⁷Agencies should address any questions on proper action through their training divisions, supervisors, or command-level officers who would decide the appropriate action or obtain further direction from their legal departments or advisors.

There appears to be as many definitions for gang-related or gang-motivated crime as there are different law enforcement agencies in the United States. Such a quandary does little to help the law enforcement community reduce the ever-increasing threat of gangs and their criminal activities. By agreeing upon a uniform definition of what constitutes a criminal gang, what describes a person as a member/ associate of a gang, and what unlawful acts comprise gang-involved crime, the law enforcement profession can begin the difficult, but not impossible, task of reversing the current menace that has engulfed many of America’s young people and their communities.

Additionally, a model policy that incorporates a broad range of criteria and gives the criminal justice system a workable, comprehensive classification of gang members and gang-involved crime can lead to a truer picture of the gang problem in America and focus resources on this growing concern. The dedicated officers who strive daily to rescue young people from the clutches of gang membership and who also see the ravages inflicted upon the victims of gang-involved crime deserve the support of a law enforcement community united in its effort to combat gangs and their criminal activities.

¹ James C. Howell, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Gangs: An Overview (Washington, DC, August 1998), 15.

³ Deborah Lamm Weisel and Ellen Painter, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Police Executive Research Forum, The Police Response to Gangs (Washington, DC, 1997), 14-15.

⁴ Chicago Crime Commission, Gangs: Public Enemy Number One (Chicago, IL, 1995).

⁵ While attending the National Academy (the FBI hosts four 10-week sessions each year for law enforcement executives from around the world), the author conducted research on this matter and submitted his findings in a paper for a futuristics course. He reviewed a large amount of literature on the subject, including studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and research done by the Police Executive Research Forum. He also surveyed several of his fellow National Academy attendees concerning the policies and procedures that their agencies employed in classifying gang-involved crime. He based this article on the results of his research.

⁶ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States: 1970-1998 (Washington, DC, April 2001), 7-8.

⁷ For additional information, see Lisa A. Regini, “Combating Gangs: The Need for Innovation,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1998, 25-32; and Daniel L. Schofield, “Gang Congregation Ordinance: Supreme Court Invalidation,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1999, 28-32.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has announced that the nation’s violent crime rate fell 10 percent in 2001, continuing a trend observed since 1994. Violent victimization and property crime rates in 2001 are the lowest recorded since the National Crime Victimization Survey’s inception in 1973. There were an estimated 44 million personal and household crimes that year, compared to 24.2 million during 2001.

In 2001, there were approximately 18.3 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and household theft) and 5.7 million violent personal crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault). The decline in violent crimes in 2001 was attributable primarily to a drop in simple assaults.

According to victim self-reports, most male victims of violence were victimized by strangers, whereas the majority of females were victimized by someone they knew. About 1 in 3 victims of violence faced an offender armed with a weapon; 1 in 11 victims of violence said the offender had a firearm. Firearm use in crime has significantly declined; it accounted for 12 percent of all violent crime in 1994 and 9 percent in 2001. Additionally, between 1993 and 2000, FBI murder data show a decrease of 42 percent in the per capita rate of murder, a drop from 9.5 murders per 100,000 U.S. residents to 5.5 per 100,000 residents.

The report, “Criminal Victimization 2001, Changes 2000-2001 with Trends 1993-2001" (NCJ 194610), was written by BJS statistician Callie Rennison. It may be obtained from the BJS clearing-house at 1-800-732-3277 or from the BJS Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv01.htm.

Throughout the United States, the number of Hmong gangs and the level of their criminal activity is increasing in severity. Their participation in criminal activity has evolved over time. During that evolution, they have become involved in a wide range of crimes, such as homicides, gang rapes, prostitution, home invasions, burglaries, auto thefts, and, most recently, the sale and distribution of illicit drugs.

The crime of rape, however, with its violent nature, its strong incorporation into the gang’s operational structure, and the serious implications for the victim and the overall Hmong community, represents a particular concern to the law enforcement profession and requires a special focus to find ways of decreasing its occurrence. To this end, the law enforcement community must examine the unique structure of Hmong gangs, including their historical and cultural influences, and the characteristics of the “ritual” use of rape by these gangs and the impact on the victims.¹

The Hmong gangs started forming in St. Paul and Ramsey County, Minnesota, in the mid-1980s.² The first Hmong gang in Minnesota, the Cobra gang, began as a group of teenage friends who played on a soccer team. At the time, the majority lived in housing projects and banded together to protect themselves and other Hmong youth from the racism occurring in their schools and neighborhoods. Eventually, some members of the Cobra soccer team became involved in crimes, leading to the evolution of the Cobra gang. These crimes started out as fights, thefts, and other minor crimes, but soon led to more serious crimes, such as auto theft and aggravated assault.

Around 1988, some 10- and 11-year-old Hmong youths wanted to become members of the Cobra gang. After being told that they were too young, they decided to start their own gang, the White Tigers. The White Tiger gang was, perhaps, the first Hmong gang to break into gun shops to obtain weapons. They would steal a car, drive it through the front door of a gun shop, and have individuals go into the store, break the glass out of the gun cases, and scoop guns (usually only semiautomatic handguns) into a bag. In just a few minutes, the gang could acquire 20 to 30 guns. With these weapons, the White Tigers became the first of the active and violent Hmong gangs in Minnesota.

In addition to these two gangs, several others, such as the Oroville Mono Boys, Oriental Ruthless Boys, and Asian Crips, exist in Minnesota and throughout the country. These gangs, comprised of many members, operate in Califor-nia, North and South Carolina, Rhode Island, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Because Hmong gangs are not as organized as African-American and Hispanic gangs in leadership and rank structure, their members do not need to ask a leader for permission before committing a crime. In fact, some members of the gang may not know that their own members have perpetrated a crime.

In addition, Hmong gangs often resort to violence, as was the case in the St. Paul/Minneapolis area during the summer of 1999. Within about a 6-week period, at least 22 reported shootings resulted in two deaths and 14 injuries. The majority of these shootings occurred among four rival gangs, the White Tigers, Oroville Mono Boys, Purple Brothers, and Oriental Ruthless Boys. This violence primarily resulted from the abundant availability of guns within the gangs and the need to “save face” by not backing down or showing weakness to a rival gang.

Moreover, Hmong gangs have considerable mobility. It is not uncommon for gang members to drive from California to North Carolina, stopping en route to visit fellow gang members in other states, such as Minnesota or Wisconsin. Many times, these gangs transport guns to another state and commit crimes in transit. Because of this mobility, law enforcement agencies investigating these gangs must maintain a high level of communication to effectively track gang activity.

In addition to their violent tendencies toward rival gang members, the Hmong gangs also present a violent threat to people who are not members of gangs. The most frequent and violent crimes against nongang members are rape and prostitution.

Since 1997, authorities have received reports of several gang rapes, kidnappings, prostitution rings, and other violent sexual assaults involving Hmong gang members. The majority of the victims in these incidents are juvenile Hmong females. For example, during the fall of 1997, St. Paul officers conducted an investigation involving members of three Hmong gangs meeting juvenile Hmong females on the “G-Line” (a message service using an access code where individuals can leave messages and others can listen to them). Mainly used by gang members who would call and disrespect rival gangs, the service also attracted young females who would call to listen to the messages. In such cases, some of the victims, 12 to 15 years old, arranged to meet the gang members from the “G-Line.” The victims went willingly with the males, but, in one case, the victim was kidnapped. The girls thought that they were just going for a ride or to a party. Instead, gang members took them to an attic of a garage or a house, turned off the lights or put a blanket over their heads, and raped them. The gang members called this “doing the Ninja” as the victim could not identify who had sexually assaulted her. Several different cases, with multiple victims, occurred over a period of time. However, the first victims did not report the assault until several days later, and the other victims had to be located and asked to make police reports. Gaining the trust of the victims and working in the Hmong community eventually led authorities to arrest and obtain convictions of eight members of three different gangs.

While other such incidents occurred in Minnesota, the mobility of Hmong gangs resulted in similar crimes in other states. For example, in Warren, Michigan, several members of a Hmong gang were arrested for repeatedly raping teenage girls who they had held prisoner for nearly 3 weeks. The gang had kidnapped some of the girls and also had transported others from state to state and prostituted them. The victims came from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Also, authorities in Fresno, California, uncovered a similar case when the first three victims, 12-to 14-year-old Hmong girls, came forward in April 1998. Members of the gang held the girls for 2 days at a local motel. After further investigation, officers discovered several other victims who agreed to come forward. Investigators identified a total of 33 victims between January 1997 and April 1998. The gang had held the victims anywhere from 2 days to 3 months.

The lead investigator stated that the case was so large that officials had to pursue it in three phases.³ In the first phase, the grand jury handed down 350 indictments on 14 suspects. Eleven of the suspects pled guilty and received sentences ranging from 17 to 31 years in prison. Two other gang members got 280 years and 4 months and 94 years and 4 months, respectively, in prison. The second phase consisted of the grand jury handing down a 323-count indictment and several of the suspects pleading guilty. The third phase included 9 victims and 20 suspects, in which the grand jury handed down an 826-count indictment. Several suspects pled guilty and others were found guilty. The lead investigator also said that during the 2-year investigation, 10 percent of the victims stayed with the gang and were not threatened by its members. The rest were lured, kidnapped, and forced into unwilling participants. The gang held the victims against their will, repeatedly raped them, and forced them into prostitution. Gang members displayed guns and beat and threatened those victims who tried to leave.

These cases represent just a small number of the known and reported gang rapes occurring across the country involving Hmong street gangs. What makes these cases so similar is that the victims were afraid to come forward and, in most cases, did so reluctantly. Also, other victims in the cases would not come forward. One of the reasons for this reluctance to come forward was fear of the gang members because they had produced guns, talked about the “shootings” they had been involved in, and threatened to assault the victims or kill their families if they talked. After the victims were raped, they feared being shunned by members of their families who now would consider them “damaged” or having “shamed” them. This reaction stems from the Hmong culture, which values virginity before marriage. If a girl is raped, others in the Hmong community may look down on her. The gang members also used this belief to their advantage. They told the victims that they were no good to their families and that the gang was now their family. “There is a double standard for Hmong girls, the blaming and shame is big, and the girls give up when they see they are not getting support from their family and the community.”⁴ Some of the victims stayed with the gang members even after they were raped. They felt that they had nowhere else to go because they feared their own families more than the gang members.

These gang rapes and prostitution of young females are happening everywhere, not just in large cities. “There is a market out there for young girls, and the Hmong community is not seeing this, they are not acknowledging it.”⁵

Due to their violent behavior, high degree of mobility, and broad level of contacts around the country, Hmong gangs require law enforcement agencies to practice quality tactics and maintain adequate communication when conducting investigations. One of the most important aspects in the investigation of a gang rape involves what the street officer does at the scene. The street officer may not even know that a crime has occurred or may believe that some juveniles only have been drinking. All officers have responded to calls where they encounter a group of young males and females who have been drinking at a house or a motel. The difference in incidents involving Hmong females with older males is that there probably has been more happening than just drinking. Officers on the scene of such incidents should—

• compare the ages of the females to the ages of the males (11- to 13-year-old females in a room with adult or teenage males indicates a problem);
• separate the females from the males and from each other (the females may be more afraid of the police than of the males with them);
• ask the females their names, maybe more than once (they may lie because they are afraid to go home, or they may be runaways);
• ask the females how long they have been with the males in the room, how they know them, and where they met the males;• question the males about who they are and how they know the females;
• search the room for evidence of sexual assaults, including condom wrappers, condoms, and blood on the mattresses;
• check the motel records to determine who rented the room; and
• note and photograph any gang graffiti (if officers are unsure

whether a crime occurred, they should make every effort to ensure that they properly identify everyone, including photographing the people involved and the surroundings). When assigned a gang rape or prostitution case involving a Hmong female victim, the investigator may face difficulties. The incident may have happened days or weeks earlier and little or no evidence may exist. The victim may be a runaway or may have left home willingly with a group of unknown males or gang members. Regardless, investigators must trust the victim, gain her trust, and not question her judgment in allowing herself to become a victim or not reporting the incident in a timely manner. The victim not only has been sexually assaulted and threatened but also faces possible cultural consequences. One 12-year-old victim stated, “I was given two choices; the gang would kill me if I talked, or I could just keep hanging out with the gang members and they could have sex with me when they wanted.” She also said that she was afraid to tell anyone because, being Hmong, she was afraid of what her parents would do to her. She felt as though her parents would blame her for getting raped, yell at her, hit her, or, worse, kick her out of the house.

To conduct a thorough investigation and to be respectful of the victim, investigators should consider several factors. They may have to talk to the victim several times, just to get new information and to gain her trust. Only one person should interview the victim, usually someone who has gained the victim’s trust. If it can be avoided, a male Hmong officer should not interview the victim. The Hmong officer can help identify the suspects, but the victim may hesitate to discuss the matter with a Hmong male. The investigator should attempt to find help from the Hmong community for the victim and her family. Also, according to the lead investigator of the Fresno, California, cases, investigators should “recognize the impact of threats, violence, retaliation, length of time held, prostitution, culture issues, and overall condition of the victim. Keep these issues in mind when starting to interview. These victims have been severely traumatized. Remember that everyone shows or reacts to a situation differently. Don’t go into the interview expecting the victim to act in any certain way.”⁶In prostitution cases, it may prove difficult to identify the pimps and to obtain evidence. The pimps are Hmong who usually only offer the girls to other Hmong, often older members of the community. They bring the victims to unknown locations or motels, as well as transporting them to other cities and states.

One of the most difficult aspects of the investigation is keeping the victim from disappearing. Many of these young Hmong girls have been runaways. After they do come forward, they are under opposing pressure from the police, suspects, friends, and family members. Investigators must maintain almost constant contact with the victim and continue to reassure her that she did the right thing by coming forward.

Even after the investigation concludes, other people, such as defense attorneys and members of the Hmong community, will scrutinize the victims. The effects of the crime on its victims may be minimized or viewed as typical teenage behavior. After the guilty charges in the Fresno case, the local newspaper reported comments, such as “A bunch of kids were doing the wrong thing. It was a big party, a moving summer party. You blame somebody else, I’m not saying these guys are all these innocent angels.

They’re not. They’re gang members, but certainly forcible rape, to me, is out of the question. The girls themselves were gang members, too, a lot of people disagree with the girls for charging the boys with raping them. We, as parents, would want to put them both into jail. Not everyone believed the girls.”⁷ Although cultural issues may interfere, prosecution of these cases must continue.

Law enforcement can more effectively investigate and prosecute cases of Hmong gang rapes and prostitution. Networking among law enforcement agencies throughout the country is imperative due to the mobility of Hmong gangs. More important, understanding the Hmong culture and the role of the gangs in the community and following the specific guidelines for investigation will equip the law enforcement profession to better address the needs of the victims involved in gang rapes and prostitution. Working with the victims will bring the perpetrators to justice and ultimately put a stop to Hmong gang rapes.

¹ The author based this article on the knowledge he has gained during 10 years of working in the Hmong community as a street officer and investigator. He has talked to hundreds of Hmong gang members in custodial and noncustodial situations and investigated numerous crimes involving Hmong gangs, including homicides, assaults, rapes, and prostitution rings.

² Originally from China, some Hmong left due to persecution and traveled to Vietnam and Laos around 1740. They fought alongside U.S. troops and rescued downed pilots during the war in Vietnam. This alliance resulted in persecution by the Vietnamese government, and many Hmong immigrated to the United States, first settling in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. With additional families immigrating to America, at least 36 states now have Hmong populations.

⁴ Na Ly Yang, executive director of Women’s Association of Hmong and Lao, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

⁷ These comments from various individuals connected with the case appeared in the July 14 and 15, 2000, issues of the Fresno Bee.

Confronting Gangs: Crime and the Community
b y G. David Curry and Scott H. Decker, Roxbury Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, 1998.

Confronting Gangs: Crime and the Community provides the gang investigator or police administrator with an easily understood overview of important topics relevant to criminal street gangs. The authors draw from their own experiences, a wide range of previously conducted studies, and gang member interviews to explain the often-confusing world of gangsters and those who attempt to work with them. The book concludes with a number of suggested prevention or intervention methods available to agencies confronted with either existing or emerging gang problems.

Developing a realistic law enforcement strategy to deal with gangs must start with a good definition of what constitutes a “gang.” The book points out the problems a jurisdiction can experience by denying or failing to understand a gang presence in its community. Confronting Gangs employs diverse sources to reach a widely applicable composite description for a criminal street gang. Using the guidelines given in this description, the gang investigator or police administrator can guide discussions with political leaders and community residents to reach a consensus on the existence or degree of the gang problem in their area.

The amount of criminal activity gang members engage in represents a major aspect of the gang dilemma. The authors use a variety of studies and other information to demonstrate that gang members, as a group, are involved in more criminal activity and delinquency than nongang members. The authors advance an important conclusion for gang investigators to consider: gang solidarity is a product of external forces as opposed to internal dynamics. Therefore, instead of dismantling a criminal street gang, police efforts and well-meaning social programs, if not properly managed, inadvertently may provide an opportunity for growth.

Curry and Decker draw from their own experiences and gang member interviews to discuss what gangsters may face during their time in that subculture. While street gangs come in a variety of shapes and sizes, most lack any real organization or structure. However, the authors recognize important exceptions, such as the Gangster Disciples and other Chicago-based gangs, which are well organized. They identify violence as an important part of a gang’s makeup. Violent acts committed against the gang call for retaliation, which leads to a circle composed of more violent acts. As a result, gang members are more likely than nongang members to be victims or perpetrators of assaults. Fear of violence then becomes a unifying factor for gangsters.

The authors identify members and discuss the roles and leadership of street gangs. They interviewed gangsters about leaving the street gang and dispel one popular myth: most gangsters simply leave the gang when it is appropriate for them. Curry and Decker indicate that most street gangs hold meetings, often on an irregular basis. They describe leaders as resembling “captains of sports teams” whose roles can change quickly. Law enforcement officials involved in targeting gangs must understand these facts and structure intervention efforts appropriately.

The authors indicate in their discussions regarding drug sales by gang members that the amount of organization present in the gang may contribute to the level of drug sales by the group’s members. Party gangs may sell enough drugs to fund their partying. Gangs that deal crack cocaine at the street level often are loosely organized because their customers demand ready and easy access to the product. Information of this nature could be an important consideration when the structure and goal of an investigation is determined.

A discussion of females as gang members covers a variety of topics. The authors advance a thought-provoking argument that female gang members are more in danger of suffering emotional damage than their male counterparts because of their traditional role in the family and child rearing. They also mention the role females sometimes play in dismantling a gang by pulling male members away. Confronting Gangs indicates that a distinct need exists for more research when it comes to the involvement of females in the gang subculture.

Curry and Decker devote the last two chapters of the book to a discussion of intervention and prevention strategies. The authors provide enough information on each entry to allow readers to decide if it would be an appropriate program to study for application to an identified gang problem in their communities. As an aid, the book points out areas of concern that have arisen when others have employed some of the initiatives mentioned.

The book concludes with an examination of the future of gangs in the United States. The authors point out that the historical pattern for street gangs is one of ebb and flow. Gangs will flourish for a time, and, then, as social conditions change, they will diminish to the point of almost disappearing. The growth of a permanent under-class with high unemployment represents the current trend that Curry and Decker see as having the strongest influence on future gangs. Coupled with the spread of the gang ideology by media sources and popular culture, the high unemployment will contribute to gang members staying with their gangs well into adulthood. Older gang members may lead to more organized gangs, with profit from illegal activities playing an increasingly important role in the gang’s makeup.

Gang investigators and police executives who develop enforcement policies for their agencies should read Confronting Gangs: Crime and Community. Moreover, many of the programs the authors identify blend well with community-policing initiatives that agencies already may have implemented.

The Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department requests assistance in an ongoing serial sexual assault investigation. Since the spring of 1999, nearly two dozen unsolved sexual assault attacks have occurred at southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois mall and strip mall stores and parking lots. In all cases, a lone white male stalked and attacked young white female store clerks working alone or customers and clerks as they walked to their vehicles in the late afternoon or evening hours. The suspect selected, stalked, and spoke to the victims before attacking them from behind. In many cases, he used a knife to gain control and compliance in getting victims into their cars or a store bathroom.

The suspect appears comfortable traveling long distances between attack sites and has selected victims in malls around the Madison area, as well as in the jurisdictions of Janesville, Fond du Lac, Johnson Creek, Cottage Grove, and Monona, Wiscon-sin, and Roscoe, Illinois. For the past 3 years, he has effected a pattern of discontinuing the attacks in Wisconsin around the month of September and returning in late January or early February. For this reason, investigators believe that he may be traveling for work or other reasons and perpetrating elsewhere.

Law enforcement officers should pay particular attention to all calls dispatched to mall and strip mall stores and parking lots between 1 p.m. and 10 p.m. In previous cases, officers received dispatches of armed robberies, domestic disturbances, suspicious person complaints, and exposure incidents, as well as sexual assaults. As a result of this initial call confusion, response sometimes was slow or given low priority, resulting in the suspect’s escape and loss of evidence from the scenes. Therefore, regardless of the nature of the dispatched call, if it occurs at a mall or strip mall store in the afternoon or evening hours, responding officers should remain alert for this suspect fleeing to a nearby highway.

Officers should consider this suspect as armed and dangerous and preserve all possible evidence at the scene, including soft drink cans, cigarette butts, chewing gum, coins, videotapes, latent fingerprints on doors, and any other items of DNA or evidentiary value. Suspect DNA currently is on file in CODIS with no known identification.

The suspect is described as a white male, 25 to 35 years of age, 5' 7" to 5' 10" in height, with a stocky build, broad shoulders, and strong hands. He has sandy brown short hair, with no thinning or receding hairline. He has noticeably blue eyes, is clean shaven or with a five o’clock shadow and a rough complexion, and frequently wears a close-fitting baseball cap.

The suspect has fled the scenes of previous attacks in a metallic ruby red, early to mid-1990s, full-size, clean pickup truck, possibly a Chevy Silverado or Ford F-150. The truck may have a narrow midline white or silver horizontal stripe, a black toolbox with two chrome handles in the bed behind the cab, and a reddish maroon topper. He also was seen operating a full-size, clean, 1989 to 1995, gray, Ford F-150, with a gray topper and gray interior, following an attack in Illinois.

Law enforcement agencies should bring this information to the attention of all crime analysis personnel and officers investigating crimes against persons, sex crimes, and robberies. Any agency with crimes similar to these should contact Madison Police Department Detectives Maureen Wall at 608-266-4696, Mark Zwart at 608-266-5935, or Bruce Frey at 608-245-3656 or Crime Analyst Butch Rabiega of the FBI’s Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) at 703-632-4170 or Special Agent Gary Cramer at 703-632-4197. For a composite drawing and vehicle description, access http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/police.

Agencies that have information on similar cases in their areas should contact the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department at 608-266-4696.

As employees advance through the ranks of an agency, the nature of their writing changes. Sergeants write fewer incident reports and more performance evaluations; lieutenants and captains respond to letters from the public, propose new programs, submit grant requests and the like; even chiefs and sheriffs may find themselves writing unfamiliar documents for new audiences. Civilian employees face similar transitions, from writing standard interagency memos to wide-ranging budget narratives and annual reports. As one student at the FBI National Academy recently said, “In law enforcement, there is a point where the gun becomes less of a weapon and writing becomes more of one.”¹ Law enforcement officers should be proficient with both.

Business writing is not mysterious, magical, or impossible to learn. Writers at all levels can follow five logical steps to ensure that their documents get the job done with minimal fuss and effort. By answering a few questions, brainstorming potential information to include, selecting the needed information and organizing it logically, editing for style, and finally proofreading for grammar and punctuation, writers can produce successful documents.

When given a writing assignment, inexperienced authors frequently start typing right away. This approach usually leads to a jumble of rambling thoughts that readers cannot decipher. Just as officers learn to develop a plan for responding to a call for service before they arrive at the scene, writers should develop a plan for composing their documents before they sit down at the computer. Answering these four basic questions will put writers on the correct path:

The answers to these questions will help writers form a simple, one-sentence statement that conveys the essence of their message: a bottom line. This sentence tells the reader the topic, who is affected, and what will or should happen. Here are a few examples of bottom lines for everyday documents:

• Internal job posting: To apply for this position in the Drug Unit, you must submit a letter describing your qualifications to Lieutenant Mary Jones by 1700 hours on 12/20/02.

• Information request: By Tuesday, please send me a spreadsheet showing the projected fleet maintenance costs for fiscal year 2002.

• Thank you letter: Thank you for speaking to my class today and sharing your expertise in legal issues.

• Performance evaluation: During the rating period, Mr. Adams met expectations in the areas of oral and written communications, but he needs to improve his interpersonal skills and filing system.

An effective bottom line predicts the information to follow; everything else in the document should support or clarify it. Anything that does not pertain to the bottom line does not belong in the document.

With a clear bottom line on paper, writers can begin brainstorming potential ideas to include in the document. This step often is called “fast writing” because the writer seeks to record as many ideas as possible without sorting or evaluating them. Not every idea generated at this stage will end up in the final document, but that is okay. Anyone who has participated in a group brainstorming session probably has experienced the phenomenon of having a silly idea from one person inspire someone else to think of the perfect solution. The same thing holds true here. No idea is too absurd or wrong to record during a fast-writing session.

Writers employ a variety of fast-writing techniques. Some jot lists of words and phrases for key ideas, while others use more visual techniques, such as webbing or mind mapping. Free writing, also known as letter writing, helps some writers generate ideas; this technique simply involves writing a letter about the topic to a trusted reader. Still others, encumbered by the tools of writing, talk through their ideas and record them on audiotape to transcribe into a first draft later. No matter the fast-writing method used, the objective remains to record as many ideas related to the bottom line as possible. From this pool of ideas, writers choose the best ones to include in the final document.

Writers can choose from many patterns to organize their information. For investigative reports, chronological order makes the most sense. For other types of documents, however, chronological order might not serve the reader or the writer well, so effective writers use different methods of organization.

For example, proposals frequently describe the problem or current situation first, follow with the proposed solution, and end with the anticipated results. Progress and after-action reports follow the same format, only all in past tense. Employee evaluations might employ a topical or grouping method, describing each performance element in a set order. Instructions and procedures follow sequential order from first step to last. Operational plans include a spatial component that describes the physical layout of the buildings, streets, or locations involved. Writers should select the pattern that best serves the document’s purpose.

Clutter, jargon, ambiguity, and bias can derail even a well-organized document. Unnecessary verbiage acts like static on the radio; it just adds distracting noise to the message. Specialized terms, including abbreviated program names or the use of 10-codes in certain situations, exclude readers unfamiliar with the definitions. Vague references or unclear descriptions leave readers confused and frustrated. Similarly, language that exhibits prejudice can anger readers, causing them to dismiss the writer’s message completely. The style choices writers make in each of these areas dramatically affect the success of the document; therefore, after crafting the first draft, writers should carefully review their documents for clarity, simplicity, specificity, and sensitivity.

Many kinds of clutter exist, including redundancies (e.g., free gift, fatal slaying), wordy expressions (e.g., “six individuals of the male persuasion” versus “six men”), smothered verbs (e.g., “conduct an appraisal” versus “appraise” or “have expectations” versus “expect”), and passive voice (e.g., “All homicide cases are investigated by Detective Larson.” versus “Detective Larson investigates all homicides.”). Writers should strive for clean sentences that include no unnecessary words.

Writers also should choose the simplest words possible. Why say “assist with recuperative maintenance” when “help clean up” will do? When writers use plain language as much as possible, readers do not mind the occasional difficult or specialized term. Writers should try not to drown readers in big words or jargon. Not only does it annoy the reader, it defeats the writer’s purpose because the audience cannot comprehend the message.

Writers can make their words more specific by describing observable actions and characteristics instead of using general conclusions. Rather than reporting that a suspect “appeared suspicious,” for example, a writer might say that the suspect “left the car running at the curb, carried a brick in one hand, and peered into the window of the closed jewelry store.” As the example shows, sometimes it takes more words to say something clearly. That is okay. Writers must never sacrifice clarity for brevity.

One last item for writers to check in this step is bias. Biased language–whether racial, ethnic, sexist, or otherwise–has no place in careful workplace writing. Writers should be sensitive to the concerns of their readers.

Such choices can determine whether a document succeeds or fails. With careful attention to these four aspects of style, writers will improve the readability of their documents, help readers who do not have a lot of time to devote to the task, and ensure that readers receive the intended message.

After writers ensure that they have organized the content well and removed all clutter, they must check the fine details of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Running the spell check application available in today’s word processing programs will catch the obvious errors, but it cannot replace a careful line-byline, word-by-word review. Software programs cannot tell the difference between a misspelled word and a misused word.

For the most part, grammar-checking programs perform even more poorly than spell-checking applications. While they can highlight areas for the writer to examine more closely, such programs often misunderstand the writer’s meaning and offer bad advice for corrections. Writers should invest in a good grammar book and take time to learn the basic rules of grammar and punctuation. Continuing education courses or in-service training can help employees refresh their skills.

When in doubt about the correct punctuation, writers should revise the sentence until they know for certain how to punctuate it. This frequently requires breaking a complex sentence into two or more simple ones.

This time-tested writing process divides a writing task into manageable steps. Some writers, however, tend to get stuck along the way and run out of time before completing all of the steps. To avoid such problems, writers can follow this general guide for dividing the time they have to complete a document:²

1) Prewriting 12.5 %
2) Brainstorming 25.0 %
3) Writing and organizing 25.0 %
4) Revising for style 25.0 %
5) Proofreading 12.5 %

Thus, if a letter needed to go out in an hour, the writer would spend about 7 minutes answering the prewriting questions and developing a bottom line, 15 minutes brainstorming, 15 minutes writing and organizing, 15 minutes revising for style, and 7 minutes proofreading. These times are flexible, so 10 minutes brainstorming and 20 minutes writing would probably work well, too. The objective is to leave enough time to complete all five steps.

For most people, writing well requires study and practice. Law enforcement officers at all levels should approach learning this skill just like they learned marksmanship or investigative techniques: begin with the basics, split the task into steps, practice with feedback, and requalify regularly. With time and practice, the steps outlined here will become second nature.

Writing matters. It can help spend or save money, win or lose a case, and cause or avert danger. Members of the public expect their law enforcement officers to use all available tools to protect them and keep the peace; members of the department expect their leaders to do the same. Law enforcement executives must arm themselves with both the pen and the sword.