Category and Location Clustering

Uncategorized

Category and Location Clustering

Aug 17, 2024 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments , ,

Investigative Interviewing – Category and Location Clustering

WRITTEN BY:

Rui Paulo – Liverpool; John Moores University, United Kingdom

Mark Severino – Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.), United States

Science-based techniques are key for obtaining detailed and accurate accounts from witnesses and victims. However, some techniques like the change order mnemonic or a witness-compatible questioning can be too complex or challenging to use and sometimes elicit a limited amount of new information. To address this, Paulo et al. (2021) developed two retrieval strategies that could apply to most crimes/events and are easily adapted/used by detectives with various levels of training: Category Clustering Recall (CCR) and Location Clustering Recall (LCR).

CCR consists of asking eyewitnesses to recall a crime using broad information categories that are present in most crimes to guide and organize their recall (e.g., person-related details, object/ environmental-related details, location-related details, action-related details, and auditory information). This is based on research suggesting that focusing on one specific cluster at a time can trigger relevant associated memories that otherwise might not be recalled.

LCR consists of asking eyewitnesses to recall a crime using locations to guide and organize their recall. Therefore, witnesses are asked to focus and recall information concerning each separate location of the crime scene, one at a time. This was based on research suggesting that locations can be effective cues for enhancing episodic memory.

These techniques were initially intended to be used after a free recall to obtain additional detail from witnesses. In the lab, CCR was found to be more effective in eliciting information after a free recall in comparison with the change order mnemonic (Paulo et al., 2016) and witness-compatible questioning (Paulo et al., 2017). However, recent research suggests these techniques might also be more effective (and possibly replace) a free recall (Paulo et al., 2021; Shahvaroughi et al., 2021; Thorley, 2018).

There are several ways we would use the CCR/LCR concepts.

After the free recall, I would ask the subject to concentrate on PLATO topics individually. The problem I have with the context reinstatement mnemonic is it is a large request (e.g., concentrate on the people, actions, objects, odors, emotions felt, etc.) Too large of a request for a victim/witness who is having problems concentrating and many times too general.

CCR on the other hand allows the subject to concentrate on one topic at a time. The other advantage of CCR is I can include as many general topics as needed specific to the investigation/interview. For example, with the context reinstatement mnemonic, I could ask for objects observed and would receive a general description. With CCR, I would ask to concentrate on objects. Description of said objects, color, size, weight, markings, scratches exact locations, etc. The sketch Plan works hand in hand with CCR. The subject could draw the object, articulate the markings, etc. The Sketch Plan facilitates communication during CCR.  

The same holds for Location Clustering. Locations can be different areas of a room the subject went to, and different rooms the subject was placed in (e.g., a kidnapped subject was moved and tortured in different rooms within a large commercial structure. The subject was tortured in each room by different suspects using different means). Locations can be physical locations the subject visited or was forced to travel to. This works very well with Haneen Deeb’s Mapping research. Location Clustering allows the subject to concentrate on one location at a time. This also works well with the Timeline technique, when the event being investigated is spread out over hours/days.

I have used the CCR concept when explaining the interview process (pre-free recall) and advising the subject to think about the different CCR categories. I like front-loading the categories before the free recall. After obtaining the free recall, I would select the topics from the free recall that required further follow-up. After exhausting the subject’s memory recall, I would still ask the subject to think about CCR general categories (PLATO) even if they were not mentioned during free recall. It is common for subjects to remember more when concentrating on one category at a time. (e.g., a witness who observed several people sitting in a vehicle only gave a general description during free recall. However, when asked to only concentrate on the individuals we obtained more fine-grain detail on the occupants as well as the subject remembering another person who had walked by the vehicle. Thus, another witness. This is compatible with laboratory research from Paulo et al. (2016) and Paulo et al., (2017) suggesting CCR can be effective in eliciting detailed information after a free recall, particularly person-related details.  

In a tactical situation when debriefing a witness (e.g., active shooter), the CCR concept is useful when we need specific information promptly. There is no time for CI/free recall, that would come much later. The CCR is a very flexible concept and appears to be easy to understand for the subject and flexible for the interviewer. Anytime a subject can concentrate on a single topic, we always receive more information vs. a request that includes many topics.

When we select the topics from the free recall that require further explanation, we use the mini-context reinstatement to focus the subject on only that topic. For example, the subject stated during free recall that a male suspect entered the convenience store, walked down the subject’s aisle, approached the subject, and pointed a gun at the subject, demanding his wallet.   

We would break down the event;

  • When the subject first observed the suspect enter the store. CCR categories, other people near the suspect (additional witnesses), actions, objects, conversations, etc.
  • When the subject observed the suspect walking down the aisle toward him. CCR categories, other people, objects, conversations, etc.
  • When the suspect pointed a weapon demanding the subject’s wallet. CCR categories include the suspect (full description), objects (logos on clothing/hat), jewelry worn by the suspect, odors (cologne) conversations (exact words used by the suspect), and the weapon (full description).

Again, anytime we can have the subject concentrate on a specific category or event, we always receive more detailed information. Even with the free recall, we always would break down the free recall into smaller bites.  I am an avid believer in CCR and can attest that most events can be broken down into CCR general categories. Sometimes, the subject’s free recall is very general lacking any detail as supported by academic research that found CCR and LCR to elicit more detailed accounts in comparison with a free recall (Paulo et al., 2021; Shahvaroughi et al., 2021; Thorley, 2018). CCR categories are a good way of prompting the subject to extend the free recall.

The opinions expressed in this article, which was prepared in Mark Severino’s capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.

References

Paulo, R. M., Jones, E., & Mendes, R. (2021). Testing two retrieval strategies to enhance eyewitness memory: Category and location clustering recall. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27, 140-149.

Paulo, R. M., Albuquerque, P. B., Vitorino, F., & Bull, R. (2017). Enhancing the cognitive interview with an alternative procedure to witness-compatible questioning: Category clustering recall. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 967-982.

Paulo, R. M., Albuquerque, P. B., & Bull, R. (2016). Improving the enhanced cognitive interview with a new interview strategy: Category clustering recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 775-784.

Shahvaroughi, A., Ehsan, H., Hatami, J., Monajem, A., & Paulo, R. M. (2021). Testing a modified cognitive interview with category clustering recall in Iran. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 148-159.

Thorley, C. (2018). Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall. Memory, 26(8), 1128-1139.

Uncategorized

Transforming Sexual Assault Response: Empowering Individual Detectives

Aug 15, 2024 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments , , ,

WRITTEN BY: Matthew Stegner

Senior Investigator (Ret.) New York State Police | IADLEST National Certified Instructor | Keynote Speaker | Owner – Stegner Consulting and Training

In candid conversations with law enforcement professionals nationwide about our approach to sexual violence and child abuse, a deeply concerning theme surfaces during the animated and insightful discussions that follow training sessions. The prevailing issue revolves around the lack of wholehearted support from higher-ranking officials for survivor-centric practices such as victim-centered investigations, trauma-informed interviews (video/audio recorded), and innovative investigative techniques.

The Challenge of Tradition:

Within our profession, many have encountered supervisors who rigidly adhere to traditional methods, playing it safe in the pursuit of promotions. This resistance unfortunately constrains Detectives on the front lines, creating a discouraging environment for those seeking to modernize and humanize the profession.

Leveraging Experience:

Drawing upon my extensive 26-year career, I present five comprehensive strategies to fellow professionals for effecting positive change without jeopardizing their careers.

1. Anticipate Leadership Changes:

One of the foundational principles of navigating institutional resistance is the understanding that leadership evolves, especially among those prioritizing risk avoidance. While awaiting the inevitable shifts, astute Detectives can exploit the disinterest of certain leaders in the intricacies of investigations. If aligned with directives and best practices, such as trauma-informed interviews, proceed without explicit permission. This strategic patience lays the groundwork for change.

2. Lead Through Actions, Not Words:

A pivotal lesson learned through years of experience is the potency of leading by example. Rather than vocally expressing frustrations with higher-ups, concentrate on excelling in your role. Construct robust cases, provide unwavering support to survivors, and consistently apply best practices. Allow your actions, not your words, to echo your commitment to positive change. This approach not only fosters trust within the team but also demonstrates the effectiveness of modern investigative techniques. Patience becomes a vital virtue as real change often takes time to manifest.

3. Harness the Momentum of Recognition:

Cultivating a reputation as an exceptional investigator in sexual assault cases is paramount. Garnering recognition among advocates, prosecutors, and peers can transform a Detective from a potential challenge into an indispensable asset for superiors. Positive acknowledgment demands effort, but the dividends are significant. As community partners acknowledge a Detective’s proficiency in trauma-informed techniques, the resistance from higher-ups is likely to wane. This shift positions the Detective as a sought-after expert, contributing to a more favorable and progressive work environment.

4. Seek Pivotal Cases:

Devotion to delivering high-caliber investigations for every sexual assault survivor is not just a professional duty but a commitment to justice. By consistently applying trauma-informed techniques, a Detective enhances their investigative prowess. This proficiency may, in due course, lead to a high-profile case that captures media attention. The ensuing public scrutiny not only brings the issue to the forefront but also showcases the efficacy of modern investigative approaches. A well-handled case has the potential to influence public opinion and pave the way for institutional change.

5. Establish a Support Network:

Acknowledging the challenges of this transformative path is crucial. Navigating it solo can be daunting. Engaging with local Sexual Assault Response and Resource Teams (SARRT) provides a platform to connect with supportive allies — Advocates, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners, and Prosecutors. Collaborating with like-minded professionals not only strengthens the impact of individual efforts but also fosters a network that can advocate for change collectively. Building alliances within these groups provides a robust support system, mitigating the potential isolation that may accompany efforts to modernize investigative practices.

The Power of Collective Change:

In conclusion, the journey to transform sexual assault response at the individual detective level demands resilience, commitment, and a strategic approach. As we navigate the complexities of our profession, it becomes evident that our actions today shape the landscape for survivors tomorrow. Encourage fellow professionals to view themselves as architects of change, weaving a tapestry of progress through trauma-informed practices and unwavering dedication.

Embracing the Challenge:

As the new year beckons, let us collectively embrace the challenge of being catalysts for positive transformation within our departments. By fostering a culture that prioritizes survivors and amplifying the impact of our efforts, we not only shape our careers but contribute to a more compassionate and effective response to sexual assault.

The Dependence on Each Detective:

Remember, the power to effect change rests within each detective, and survivors are not just counting on us – they are depending on us to be the champions they deserve. In extending our commitment to supporting survivors, we not only elevate our profession but also contribute to a more just and empathetic society. May the coming year be marked not only by individual growth but by collective progress in our shared mission to empower and protect survivors of sexual assault. As we stand at the intersection of personal and professional evolution, let us reaffirm our dedication to the cause, for in the face of collective determination, institutional change is not just possible — it is inevitable.

Uncategorized

No Need for a Confession

Aug 14, 2024 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments , ,

Science-Based Interviewing

Written by: Mark Severino (Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.))

At the beginning of an interview, the interviewer may have already formed an opinion about what had happened, who may have observed it, and who may be responsible based on the investigation’s findings. However, it is essential to find out what the subject knows, is willing to talk about, or what the subject’s alibi may be. The interviewer should not direct the subject to only talk about topics the interviewer is interested in. Instead, they should encourage subjects to speak on issues such as their alibi. When an interviewer enters an interview to seek a confession, the interview is conducted specifically to meet that objective. If the subject does not confess to the crime, techniques such as minimization, maximization, bait questions, or introducing false evidence have contributed to false confessions. The author believes there are additional objectives other than a confession that would deem an interview successful.

  • The interview revealed additional investigative information
  • The interview revealed additional prosecutorial information
  • The interview elicited an admission
  • The interview exonerated the subject
  • The interview identified false statements in the subject’s alibi

Subject’s Alibi: A statement or evidence alleges the subject was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

Exculpatory Evidence: Evidence that, if true, may exonerate the subject from the crime investigated. This may include witness testimony, phone records, receipts, video footage, or evidence collected at a crime scene.

False Exculpatory Statements: When the subject offers a statement pointing to their innocence but is proven false, i.e., a lie. Depending on the legal jurisdictions (e.g., California), false statements may be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The prosecution may instruct the jury on the inference of guilt they may draw from the subjects’ false statements. False statements may be stronger indicators of guilt than a confession, i.e., there is no need to lie unless guilty. Cross-examination by a criminal defense attorney may challenge the interviewer’s credibility to such an extent that a jury may believe the interviewer coerced the confession. However, juries usually believe an interviewer’s testimony when the interviewer can accurately identify the subject’s lies.

The Interview:

During an interview, the subject’s false statements will be highlighted during the evidence disclosure phase (e.g., when the subject’s statements contrast with the evidence disclosed by the interviewer). A science-based interview, i.e., establishing rapport, eliciting a free recall, proper questioning, and tactically introducing evidence using the Strategic Use of Evidence technique (SUE), will amplify truthful and fabricated statements. Before disclosing evidence, the SUE technique suggests obtaining a complete, uninterrupted account. Giving the subject a sense of autonomy, active listening, and appropriate questioning strategies will increase the amount of information reported and lock the subject into their true or false story (e.g., the subject stated he never left his residence the day of the crime). However, the evidence revealed a different story.

Evidence is arranged in the order of disclosure, beginning with vague evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject left his residence) and gradually introducing more precise evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject drove his vehicle to the neighborhood where the crime was committed), followed by the most precise evidence (e.g., a security camera captured subject entering the crime scene).

Questions are composed for each item of evidence, beginning with general questions (e.g., tell me in as much detail as possible everything you did on …) and progressing to more specific questions (e.g., did you ever leave your residence?) and gradually even more specific questions (e.g., did you drive to the neighborhood of …?) followed by the disclosure of the piece of evidence (e.g., video footage of subject entering the crime scene). Arranging the evidence in a vague-to-precise manner and disclosing the evidence using a general-to-specific questioning strategy magnifies cues to deception and truthfulness while increasing the amount of information obtained from the subject.

The interviewer has two possible options when confronting subjects on their contradictory statements. The reactive approach is to confront the issue of each contradiction as it becomes apparent. The selective approach only engages the subject on specific contradictions and not others. The author used both the reactive and selective approaches independently or in combination during an interview, and this was dependent on the type of evidence or the interview objectives. When confronting subjects on their contradictory statements, the interviewer asks for an explanation for the contradictions while maintaining a non-judgmental and non-accusatory demeanor. Science-based interviewing and the electronic recording of the interview process would show there was no coercion or fabrication by the interviewer, and the subject’s statements were given freely. The interview process would also show that the subject had multiple opportunities to explain away any contradictions.

Suggestions:

Inconsistencies may be deception cues, but they are also everyday memory phenomena. Therefore, any opinions regarding the veracity of the subject’s story should be withheld until the subject has given their entire account, all evidence has been disclosed, and the subject has had the opportunity to explain any inconsistencies. The interviewer should never be confrontational with a subject who is being deceptive. Instead, the interviewer should encourage the subject to continue to talk, i.e., lie and contrast with the evidence held by the interviewer. The author believes identifying a subject’s false statements is like a bomb that drops down on the subject’s alibi and would make it difficult for a criminal defense team to overcome, unlike a confession. That said, identifying truthful statements is as important or even more critical when the interviewer can exonerate the subject from wrongdoing.

Conclusion:

This report is one example of why the success of an interview should not be based solely on a confession. When the interviewer can demonstrate how s/he methodically elicited the subject’s false statements, it can facilitate prosecution and offer powerful testimony in front of a jury. The author believes the SUE technique is a fundamental concept and is considered one of the most effective lie detection techniques. Identifying deception in the subject’s alibi allows the prosecutor to present the false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The author encourages interviewers to consult their local prosecutors regarding false exculpatory statements. The author also urges interviewers to seek additional information on science-based interviewing, the SUE technique, and other verbal lie-detection methods.

The opinions expressed in this article, which were prepared in Mark Severino’s capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Uncategorized

PTO, FTO, or Hybrid Model

Aug 7, 2023 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

PTO, FTO, or Apple Sauce – Reconsidering the Hybrid Training Model

Written by: Lt Jessie Browning (Retired, Louisville Metro Police Dept)

An invitation to present at the annual Southeastern Field Training Officer Association (SEFTOA) conference had me dipping my toe back into the Police Training Officer pool, and – forgive the metaphor – sent me swimming in a new direction. As a PTO consultant, I never tried to convince department leaders to change from FTO to PTO but did dissuade them from implementing hybrid models. I believed most hybrids resulted from timid coordinators who shied away from the parts of PTO they considered TFC (touchy-feely crap) before they fully understood the benefits of those components. This, undoubtedly, was because I wanted to make a hybrid at my agency for that very reason. I now believe hybrid training models are not only doable, but when created and implemented in the right environment, some homegrown programs can be more effective than either PTO or FTO alone.

After 15 years on patrol, 2005 found me accepting a position as the FTEP Coordinator for my department. We switched programs six months later, throwing me into the role of PTO program designer, implementer, coordinator, instructor, and overall cheerleader. I was fortunate to be trained by two of the original PTO program creators and mentored by some of the best police leaders I ever met. We assembled a small but phenomenal team to facilitate a successful transition. Before I knew it, other agencies were calling for implementation guidance and a small training company was born.

The truth is, I did not like PTO at first. In fact, I spent the first week of my PTO training course justifying why the program would not work for us. “Trust me,” I told the Major, “we need to get rid of journaling and keep DORs.” I really thought I was onto something new here. His response was ego-checking: “So in four days you’ve come up with a better program than the one created by national police experts? Has your model been vetted? Are you prepared to legally defend it when we are sued for wrongful termination?” Of course not. So back to training I went and never had the desire to explore hybrids again. Until now.

I believe both the PTO and the FTO program can yield exceptional officers. I also believe there is a time and a place for either option to be most effective. The Police Training Officer (PTO) program began in 1999, when the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) funded a grant to a group of police leaders, researchers, and practioners to create a post-academy police training model based on community policing concepts. Every training activity, form, and evaluation supports and measures job behaviors identified by your agency with a connection to the philosophy of community policing and through adult learning strategies. There is a shift in responsibility with this program, calling for the trainee to be intensely accountable for what they learn as demonstrated though exercises and job performance. The optimal training environment will have both the trainer and the trainee understand and openly discuss emotional intelligence (EI/EQ) – which is also crucial for a successful police career – so PTO courses are steeped in EI training.

Most Field Training Officer (FTO) programs originated from the San Jose model which resulted from an emphatic need for training and performance accountability in the early 1970s. This model is typically focused on documentation of the trainee’s performance in about thirty job behaviors, and might include community oriented tasks. The model uses Daily Observation Reports (DORs), as well as Weekly and End of Phase Reports completed by the trainer who rates the trainee’s knowledge, skills and abilities on patrol. Many FTO courses also teach adult learning strategies and emotional intelligence as they relate to training and evaluating new officers and in the furtherance of successful careers.

Both programs are valuable. Every component of each program was designed to support the other components respectively. But can they be mixed together to create an effective hybrid model?

The pieces of the PTO program work together like a recipe for baking a cake. Professional bakers carefully crafted the recipe, calling for certain ingredients added at just right the time so they bake together for the desired cake. If the recipe calls for eggs, and you take out the eggs, it’s not going to taste like the cake you wanted. It will look like a cake, smell like a cake, but something will definitely be off.  I borrowed this analogy from my friend and mentor, retired Chief of Police Ed Brodt, and have often used it with PTO coordinators after they removed or redefined program components, then questioned why it is not “working” for them. The original recipe of the PTO program was designed to have all the ingredients interact for a synergistic effect.

I also gave the same analogy when asked about adding components of the PTO program into an agency’s FTO model. But after talking to several FTO program leaders at the SEFTOA conference, I am considering a sequel to the cake analogy. What if, instead of eggs, you add applesauce – and you like the cake better? I think this is very possible with the FTO model.

Here’s the thing. The PTO program works best when agencies subscribe to a true community policing philosophy. What is that? The COPS Office definition has always included development and sustainment in the following areas for the purposes of crime prevention, reduction, and control:

  • Organizational Transformation
  • Problem Solving
  • Community Partnerships

These are not mere words nor policies left for a select few to follow. For a department to be truly aligned with this definition, they allow the philosophy to guide every day policing. If an agency is not committed to this mission, the foundation for the PTO program will crumble. Some PTO components then become abstract theories, ultimately changed so they match the department’s true practices, or removed completely because they were never really relevant to their officers. For example, agencies might throw out journals and replace them with DORs, swap Coaching and Training Reports for WORs, or turn the Neighborhood Portfolio Exercises into a product for trainees to update rather than an exercise to learn about their community. Other modifications can occur when coordinators lack the development or support to sustain the program, such as maintaining an outdated Matrix, avoiding Learning Activity Packages, and turning Problem Based Learning Exercises into pass/fail scenarios. Any of this situations interrupt the intended synergy of the PTO program as a whole.

Misfires also happen when agencies implement the PTO program as a catalyst for their organizational transformation – hoping new recruits will latch onto these strategies and breed community policing department wide. But recruits rarely respond to the “do as I say and not as I do” rule, especially with conflicting missions. For successful implementation, an agency should be well on their way to embracing the COP philosophy; supported by their policies and evident in their operations.  Absent this foundation, the program is more likely to diminish little by little until the department goes back to the FTO program.

When they return to FTO, the same pitfalls may exist as before. FTO models can provide solid evaluative components to document a trainee’s performance, but only if the methods are implemented and managed appropriately. For example, if an agency does not base the Standardized Evaluation Guidelines on written procedures etched by current law, the legal protection sought from these evaluations is negated. Chief’s struggle to terminate nonresponsive trainees because of inconsistent ratings, which are their sole source of verifiable reference. FTOs become frustrated and burnt out from redundant reports and feel unsupported in their recommendations. And police leaders expect more field training related to community policing than shown by simple check marks on evaluations.

How can an agency improve their FTO program if they are not fully prepared to move to the PTO program? Applesauce instead of eggs.

Prior to transitioning to the PTO model, I suggest agency leaders and program coordinators attend a full PTO course for the purpose of evaluating their agency’s community policing foundation through the lens of the program’s components. This analysis may lead to additional organizational changes to support the PTO program, or it may reveal the PTO program is not a good fit for you. Good PTO training will give you these answers. If you determine the program as a whole is not right for your agency, you will now be in a better position to modify your FTO program with community policing training components which have been in place for over two decades.

I would like to stress I am not advocating PTO, FTO, nor a hybrid model. I am not an expert in your department, so I will stick to what I know based on experience, consultations, and conversations. If you are inclined to tweak your training recipe, may I suggest the following:

Know all the rules of the game before you modify the play.  Know how both programs function as they were originally designed. Do not eliminate or change a component of either program without fully understanding its purpose and how that omission or change impacts other components in the program.

Do not change anything to make anyone more comfortable. Learning happens outside the comfort zone. Training should be challenging for everyone. Don’t fall for excuses.

Seek legal advice. Maybe the Chief isn’t worried about it. Will that be the same answer from the Mayor if a group of young officers are in a high-profile incident? The FTO and PTO programs have been tested in trials and scrutinized by legal experts. Vet your homegrown program with your legal experts, HR executives, EEOC experts, etc. to test its defensibility against internal and external litigations.

Build a sustainable program. Will the changes outlast the person making the suggestion? Changes to your program should be rare. Today’s trainees are the tomorrow’s trainers.

Be strategic. Build a program to address confirmed needs in your agency. Evaluate whether or not the components are addressing those needs. Hold people accountable to the program you have in place before you make modifications. New forms or projects may not be the right answer.

Network. Someone else has tried your recipe before. I promise.

I am grateful to be a part of SEFTOA and look forward to learning more new answers to old questions at next year’s conference. Who knows, maybe a little applesauce cake will be on the menu.

Jessie is also a board member of SEFTOA. If you’d like to learn more, just tap this link!

Uncategorized

Be a great cop – do this!

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

WRITTEN BY: Captain Mike Schentrup (RET)

Let’s face it, 99% of our job is talking to people, whether its community contacts, victims or witness to a crime, confidential courses, and of course suspects.  Obviously, the better we can communicate, the better a cop we can become.  Its that simple.  You want to be great, learn to a great communicator.

I recently retired after 25 years at my department, most of those years spent in investigative units. I’ve conducted thousands of interviews and interrogations over those years. I’ve attended probably a dozen interview courses myself and I have taught several thousand cops how to conduct successful interrogations. 

Having said that, I always knew the secret of how to successfully interrogate. I understood that empathy is the “secret sauce” when it comes to being a great interrogator. The suspect had to believe that I was not judging them and they had to think that I understood what they were going through. Sometimes justifications were given to the suspect to allow them to say to themselves, “This detective gets it; he understands me.”

What I didn’t realize until later that empathy is the “secret sauce” in being a great communicator, period. And as I stated, if 99% of our job is communicating with others, than being great at it is pretty important.

Here’s a couple things you can start doing immediately to improve your empathy.

  • Start any communication with a victim, witness, and even a suspect with a empathetic statement, such as “I am sorry you are going through this” or maybe for the victim of a violent crime, “I am so sorry this happened to you and I want you to know you are safe now.”  Yes, you should even use these with suspects!  Empathetic statements instantly create a small connection and can open up the lines of communication.
  • Assume when someone is being short or discourteous to you, that they are experiencing a very bad day. The fact is we don’t know; they may have just left the hospital where their mom is on the ventilator. Or they about to evicted from their only place to live.  Let’s just everyone the benefit of the doubt. (BONUS:  It’ll make you a happier person overall!)
  • Let them talk.  Great communicators are great listeners. Now this is the hardest thing, especially for me.  And it can be tough for our understaffed patrol divisions, who are going call-to-call.  But when interviewing victims, witnesses, or suspects, take your time and let them talk.
  • Ask lots of open-ended questions.  Use phrases like, “tell me more about that” or “explain that more to me” to get more information. My buddy Jon Rappa call these “compellers” and I love the term. 

It’s not rocket science that people are going to want talk more with those they have a connection with. And in our job, we have to communicate with those who don’t trust the police or victims who maybe even reluctant to report their attack (i.e., victim of intimate partner violence).

If you want to be a great cop or if you’re the boss and you want a department of great cops, teach them these few tricks.  Send them to some good interview schools. There are some people who are innately empathetic, but for the rest of us, like me, we can learn.

Uncategorized

Seven Reasons Officers Fail the FTO Program

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

WRITTEN BY: Lt. Wayne South (RET)

Field Training Officers serve as gatekeepers to your agency and the law enforcement profession.  They have a profound effect on their trainees and directly influence their success.  Trainees will report to training with varied degrees of experience, confidence, and knowledge.  Most new officers will be successful in the FTO program; however, there are a few that will not successfully complete the program.  The reasons vary and below is a short list (not inclusive) of reasons I have seen officers fail the FTO program.  Understanding these reasons will help your FTO’s prepare to overcome them.

  1. Report Writing

Report writing deficiencies are the toughest to correct.  There is a lot of material to cover during a typical FTO program with most varying in length from 10 to 16 plus weeks.  Simple mistakes can be corrected, but the basics taught in high school and/or college cannot be taught during a typical FTO program.  

Most officers do not realize the impact a well, or poorly, written incident report can have. A well written report establishes your reputation as a professional, who conducts thorough investigations, and can convey the results of the investigation in that report.  Conversely a poorly written report causes issues with your trainer, criminal cases are dismissed or pled to a lesser charge, and ultimately can lead to the trainee’s termination from the program.

  • Human Interaction

In today’s technologically driven society, most of your new officers will excel with technology but may struggle with face-to-face interaction.   This is a skill that may take some time for an FTO to develop in their trainee.  Technology is an excellent tool, but it does not allow for an officer to read body language, listen for tone in someone’s voice, or resolve conflict.  An officer who cannot interact with another person face-to-face will not be able to conduct thorough investigations, resolve conflict, or establish relationships/rapport.

  • Fear

Fear is a natural emotion that all new officers will experience in the training program and especially when responding to a high-risk call or confronted with a hostile individual. Fear surfaces in two forms; one, anxiety or the fear of failure and two, the fear of being injured.  How the officer controls their fear and performs while experiencing fear will make the difference between success or failing out of the FTO program.

Anxiety is natural and can be overcome.  The trainer should seek to pinpoint the source of anxiety and refocus their training efforts.  The trainer should ask and answer the “what if” questions and ask them to visualize success.  

A trainee who is afraid of being injured may hesitate to engage or not engage at all.  Although not impossible, it is going to be very tough for the trainee to overcome.  This fear may dimmish after their first physical confrontation. 

 FTO’s should seek out the “hot” calls to allow the recruit to improve their performance level while experiencing fear. Careful guidance by the FTO through this adaptive process ensures that officer safety is maintained, and the recruit can make sound decisions while under great stress.

  • Agency Selection of FTO’s

Good FTO’s should be results driven, professional, ethical, fair, motivated, and excellent communicators.  Bottom line is this, being a field training officer is a lot of work if you do it right. FTO’s should also have proven themselves at the agency for three to five years prior to selection. Normally this time frame provides enough information for an agency to evaluate their decision-making skills, attitude, and any disciplinary issues.  Agencies should invest a lot of time, training, and money into their FTO’s or else you have the untrained training the untrained. Failure to do so could result in an FTO recommending remedial, or termination, from the training program because of their own lack of job experience and training.

  • Lack of Creative Thinking

An FTO’s job is to train, educate, and guide a new officer through the FTO program.  It is also the FTO’s job to let them “struggle” on a call if officer safety is not an issue. This motivates the trainee, allows the trainee to problem solve, which improves their performance level as well as   their decision-making skills and confidence.       

  • Lack of Confidence

FTO’s should identify those areas in which the trainee is not confident.  Once these areas are identified, talk to the trainee about them and then create a plan for improvement.  If they are timid when talking to someone who is intoxicated and belligerent, it could be a lack of confidence in their defensive tactic’s skills.  Take them to the mat room to build confidence and skill.

Role play scenarios can help a trainee build confidence in making decisions and use of force.  If your agency has a video simulator, use it.  Scenario training should always be positive and build on their strengths while improving their weaknesses.

  • Poor Decision Making

Many times, this is a trainee’s lack of knowledge of department policies, state laws, and ordinances.   This should improve with time and training, and it is incumbent on the FTO to ensure they have a good knowledge base.   The FTO should constantly quiz the trainee on these topics.  The key is that the FTO stay on top of this daily and document improvement.

 Most officers make more decisions in one day than most people make in a week.  Some decisions will have a tremendous impact on someone’s life and officers must be able to decide, live with their decision, and have the confidence (knowledge) to know it was the right decision.

This is a short list of my observations over the years.  I am sure you can add many more.  I believe that if your FTO’s train professional, knowledgeable, and ethical officers then they are laying the groundwork for your future FTO’s.

For more great insights, check out the Southeastern Field Training Officers Association (SEFTOA).

Uncategorized

Top Five Leadership Principles Every FTO Should Know

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

WRITTEN BY: Lt. Wayne South (RET)

Field Training Officer’s (FTO) have a tremendous impact on new officers which starts during their first interaction.   This interaction between trainer and trainee sets the stage for the culture of the organization and creates “buy-in” to the organization from the trainee.  But how much training as an agency is provided to our FTO’s prior to leading a new officer to success? I am not talking about training on hard skills such as driving, firearms, or defensive tactics, what I am talking about is leadership training and those soft skills that make FTO’s, and their trainees, successful. Although there are numerous leadership principles, there are five I think all FTO’s should know.

  1. Leadership is not about me

Leadership is about people and the ability to influence behavior to achieve personal and organizational goals.   The ability of the FTO to effectively communicate and engage the trainee in the learning process is essential.  The inability to communicate with a trainee only leads to frustration, mistakes, and the failure of a new officer.   I think what a lot of FTO’s fail to realize is that training takes teamwork.   The old style of training where the training officer did not talk to the trainee did not work then and it does not work now. 

Leadership is all about influencing human behavior to achieve personal and organizational goals. FTO’s should constantly work on improving relationships with those they work with, their interpersonal skills, and how they can improve at FTO’s.

  • Honesty

An FTO is a role model for a new officer.  The FTO must always be honest above reproach and have those difficult discussions with their trainees when performance is not acceptable. The same honesty we employ in our personal lives should also reflect in our profession.  A leader’s communication, oral or written, must always be honest, forthright, and avoid minimizing or exaggerating the topic at hand. 

Honesty is courage.  The courage to respectfully voice your opinion to a person of a higher rank and be very direct when needed.   Honestly is essential in any healthy training program and building trust.

  • Listen

Active listeners should listen more than they talk.  If you slow down and truly listen to what someone is saying it is amazing what we can learn.  Most of us listen with the intent to reply.  By learning to listen, pause and formulate a reply, then speaking, we not only learn the intellectual intent of the message but the emotional side of the message.  A good leader should strive to understand both.

  • As a leader we need to be human

We make mistakes.  Rank, whether positional or referent, does not make us perfect.  A good leader, and a good FTO, uses these mistakes as learning opportunities. Leaders who are honest about their shortfalls start earning the respect of those they work around. 

I was a field training officer for a long time.  I sought to learn from each trainee.  We all want to be the best training officers and leaders we can be, but sometimes the trainee will know more about a topic than we do.  Learn from it….

  • Never stop improving yourself

A good leader never stops the learning process.  Always seek out information which will improve our ability to better influence behavior (i.e., leadership).  To improve ourselves professionally we should know the departments mission statement and organizational goals. Personally, and professionally, we can improve ourselves by reading, listen to podcasts, take classes, attend leadership training. 

Leadership is a lot of work if you want to do it right.  Most of us are not born leaders, however with just a little effort you will start seeing results and being more confident in your role. 

For more great insights, check out the Southeastern Field Training Officers Association (SEFTOA).

Uncategorized

7 Way to Build Trust with your Squad

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments ,

WRITTEN BY: Captain Mike Schentrup (RET)

I have always said that the most important leadership attribute is trust. Of course I am not alone, many authors and experts have given trust the nod as the most important thing a leader can have with their team. But that begs the question, how do you build trust? The following are seven things you can do every day to build trust with your team.

  1. Be Present:  Be seen by your team working day in and day out, just as hard as they are. If they stay late, you stay with them. If it’s raining and your subordinate is working a traffic crash, get out there with them.  Share in the misery. And when the time is right, jump in as a teammate and not the boss. Believe me, your employees will take notice and love you for it,
  2. Keep Commitments:  If you say you’re going to do something, then do it. It seems simple, but it’s not. How many times has a boss promised to look over a travel or training request and you never hear another thing about it?  Commitments with your team are just like any commitments with your spouse or children. Once you commit, then do it!
  3. Build Relationships: Trust is the foundation of any relationship and relationships are the foundation of a great teams. As bosses, we have to know about the needs, wants, and desires of our teammates. What do they treasure most? Is it their family, their puppy, the job? How can we help them live their best lives if we don’t know anything about them? So, get to know your teammates.
  4. Seek First to Understand: This was something written by Steven Covey and it rings true as ever. Trust is built when we truly listen to our employees. Most of us listen just enough to formulate a response, without ever really understanding what the person is trying to convey. The tool of empathetic listening is like a superpower. It definitely takes practice, but you can do it and watch your trust account grow exponentially with your team!
  5. Deliver Results: When trying to build trust up the chain, with your boss, nothing is more vital that getting the job done and done well. When your team delivers results, your agency’s executives will take notice. And when the time comes for you to ask for some specialized training for a member of your team, the bosses say “no problem.”
  6. Extend Trust:  As a supervisor, you must extend trust to your team in order to build trust with them. By extending trust, you treat your team like the professionals they are. Let them go an execute the plan, don’t hover and micromanage any situations. And sometimes, even let them fail (as long as it’s not a safety issue). And once they fail, use it as a coaching moment and build them back up. We want our teammates to be critical thinkers, so failing sometimes is part of that. Once they know, you trust them to do the job and you don’t get on them for a small failure, your team will flourish with new and innovative ideas.
  7. Admit Mistakes and Apologize:  I believe this might be the biggest trust builder of all. Bosses that can admit when they were wrong demonstrate humility toward their team. It also shows the team, it’s OK not to be right all the time and no one will hold it against you for admitting failure. This safe environment to fail is vital for building strong teams. And if your mistake affected another person, then apologize. If the mistake was made in public, then apologize in public. Remember, humility is a strength!

High trust teams have incredible communication between members. Why, because the members all know there is no hidden agendas when questions are asked or tasked are distributes. It’s just time to go to work.  Now go out and use these 7 tools to build your own high trust team!

Uncategorized

The 3 most common defense strategies

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

WRITTEN BY : Captain Mike Schentrup (RET)

I think defense attorneys all go to the same school or follow the same Facebook page.  I say this because when it comes to defense strategies during a criminal trial, it usually boils down to the same three.  Now they use these three because they are somewhat effective, but usually they use them because their client is guilty, and we (cops) give them tons of examples to use during trial.  Now let’s take a look at them.

Normally, the defense uses one, two, or all three of these following strategies.

  1. The cops didn’t follow protocol or were flat out sloppy in their investigation.  This is an easy one for most defense teams because we sometimes take shortcuts.  Not shortcuts in an illegal or immoral way, but we’re busy and we just make things a little simpler for ourselves.  One of the main examples of this is not writing case supplements or not ensuring everyone in the chain of custody of evidence is properly documented.  Things like this are just fodder for the defense.  During their closing arguments, the defense attorney may say something like, “These examples of sloppy police work are just the ones we were able to uncover; we’re not even sure how many more mistakes the police made during this so-called investigation.”
  2. The police lied to cover up their sloppy investigation or worse to frame my client.  If you’ve sat in on closing arguments from a defense attorney, then you’ve heard them call you a liar.  Some attorney’s more brazen than others.  Usually, the lie is about how you conducted or documented your investigation.  An example might be you interviewed a crucial witness but forgot to write it in your report. I’ve done this and it was an honest mistake, but how does this look to a jury.  And how can the defense spin this to the jury.  “So detective, you want the jury to believe you had this vital conversation with the witness, but you never documented it?”
  3. The cops focused solely on my client from the start.  This is a very common defense strategy and for good reason. We normally have a pretty good suspect early on in our investigations; however, this is a danger too.  We must show our investigations are impartial and we looked at all evidence; even evidence that showed our suspect may not be guilty (i.e. an alibi).

No one used these defense strategies better than OJ Simpson’s legal dream team during his trail for double murder in the early 1990’s.  They were remarkable and were able to get OJ acquitted even though there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Now that you know the strategies, be careful not to feed into them. Be thorough in your investigation and write great investigative police reports.  Document as much as you can on audio and video and keep your chain of custody for evidence really tight.

If you want to learn more, I talk about all of these and go more in-depth in each in my webinar, Homicide Mistake and Pitfalls; How to Avoid Them.

Uncategorized

5 Types of Difficult Trainees and Tips on Effective Training

Sep 2, 2022 by Michael Schentrup 0 Comments

WRITTEN BY: Captain Robert Fanelli

One of the most important skills a trainer can have is the ability to adjust and adapt the training environment to the trainee. I will always argue that our goal as trainers is to provide the “best chance” for success to our trainees by giving the best training experience possible. In my years of training I have found that there are some categories of what we will call “difficult trainees”. So what are they and how do we adjust our training for success:

  • The Know-It-All Trainee– They seem confident and knowledgeable however they are tough to train because they think they have all the answers already. The trouble with this trainee is that they have an attitude of arrogance which puts up roadblocks to learning.
    • It is important that you allow this trainee to experience failure and capitalize on mistakes as learning opportunities. Focus on their decision making process and go beyond the actual decision asking them often, “Why did you decide to do that?” 
  • The Unconfident Trainee– In police work this type of trainee makes up for their lack of confidence by being rude or overly aggressive.
    • This requires a focus on empathy based training and ethics. This requires a major attitude adjustment and needs to be addressed immediately.
  • The Distracted Trainee– This type of trainee brings their home-life troubles to the job. A resulting symptom becomes difficulty communicating and concentrating that results in a Failure to Respond to Training issue.
    • Goal-setting is a critical task when responding to this type of trainee. Establish clear, simple, and achievable goals to help this type of training see their accomplishments, become goal oriented and improve their focus.
  • The Processor– This type of trainee internalizes the learning process and shows signs of “slow learning”. Their “slow learning” is not because they are unintelligent, distracted, or uncaring but it is quite the opposite. Their “slow learning” is because they are thinking through each concept taught and are being intentional in their learning of new ideas and concepts.
    • You have to be patient with this type of trainee because they often become very good employees.  Focus on the structure of training and expose them to different types of teaching techniques hitting on cognitive and sensory forms of learning styles.
  • The One Task Trainee– This type of training is overwhelmed by multi-tasking. In law enforcement this may result in officer safety issues simply because they can’t focus on investigating and maintaining tactical advantages at the same time.
    • This type of trainee should be exposed to scenario based training. Scenarios should be structured with singular goals in mind and conducted in a step-by-step approach. Focus on one element of the scenario at a time before moving to the next step.

Seek to understand the root of your trainee’s problems and work to adjust training- this is the mark of an excellent trainer. I hope this article adds to your trainer playbook. If you have other experiences, thoughts and training hacks please share!

For more great insights, check out the Southeastern Field Training Officers Association (SEFTOA).