Sie sind auf Seite 1von 36

April 2011

Combating Gangsters Online

April 2011
Volume 80
Number 4
United States
Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Robert S. Mueller III
Contributors’ opinions and statements Features
should not be considered an
endorsement by the FBI for any policy,
program, or service.
The attorney general has determined Combating Law enforcement personnel need to
that the publication of this periodical
is necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by law. Use
Gangsters Online 1 understand how to investigate gang
activity in an online environment.
of funds for printing this periodical has By Matthew O’Deane
been approved by the director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Law Enforcement A significant factor in the history
(ISSN-0014-5688) is published
monthly by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania
By Anthony J. Pinizzotto,
10 of law enforcement professionalism
is training.
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20535-0001. Periodicals postage paid Shannon Bohrer,
at Washington, D.C., and additional
mailing offices. Postmaster: and Edward F. Davis
Send address changes to Editor,
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
FBI Academy,
Quantico, VA 22135.
Searches of Motor Officers must understand the narrow
John E. Ott
Vehicles Incident to Arrest 24 guidelines pertaining to searches of
motor vehicles incident to the arrest
in a Post-Gant World
Associate Editors of one of its occupants.
By Kenneth A. Myers
David W. MacWha
Stephanie Mitesser
Art Director
Stephanie L. Lowe

The Training Division’s

Outreach and Communications Unit
produces this publication with
assistance from the division’s
National Academy Unit. 8 Leadership Spotlight 18 Police Practice
Issues are available online at Are You an Effective Leader? Harnessing Technology

E-mail Address 14 Safeguard Spotlight
Exposure to Child Pornography/
Cover Photo Exploitation Materials

Send article submissions to Editor,

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
FBI Academy,
Quantico, VA 22135.

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Gangsters Online


s gang members in- will find relevant to their cases. activity, investigators use an

A creasingly use the

Internet, law enforce-
ment personnel need to become
Officers can tap into this impor-
tant source of data by making
formal legal requests in a timely
important weapon in the war
against illegal gangs.

more Web savvy. Internet sites, manner; this process typically
like MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, requires a grand jury subpoena, COMMUNICATION
AIM, and Facebook, continue to administrative subpoena, court Its ease of use, potential
grow in such use, and, thus, of- order, search warrant, or user audience size, and reduced risk
ficers need to understand how to consent pursuant to the Elec- of user detection has made the
investigate gang-related activity tronic Communications Privacy Internet one of the most promi-
in an online environment. Act (ECPA) to get the service nent methods of gang communi-
Many of these Web sites con- providers to comply.1 By ex- cation. Gangs of every ethnicity
tain information that investigators ploiting gang members’ online and age group in jurisdictions

April 2011 / 1
across the nation and beyond sophisticated home pages share crimes, identity theft, and fraud;
increasingly take advantage of a number of common elements, conduct recruitment activities;
today’s advanced telecommuni- such as unique slang; members’ provoke rival groups through
cations capabilities. e-mail addresses; forums for derogatory postings; and spread
Most gang members have gangsters’ opinions; sections their message and culture.
a personal Web page (usually dedicated to honoring deceased
through a free Internet service), members; and links to affiliate VARIETY OF
social networking account, or gangs’ e-mail addresses and INFORMATION
chat room access. These users Web sites. Many times, officers will
can create profile pages, which Gangsters conduct various find gang-related Web pages;
may include general biographi- types of activity online. Many secure sites that require pass-
cal information; lists of their of them routinely place videos words accessible only to gang
favorite musicians, books, and on YouTube featuring them members; or links to gangsters’
movies; photos, at times featur- even, at times, singing about instant messaging, e-mail,
ing them and their friends dis- their criminal lifestyles. Oth- audio, or text-messaging ser-
playing gang-related hand signs ers advertise prostitutes on the vices. On other occasions,
or holding weapons; videos Internet. Members of gangs investigators may locate one via
of themselves and associates, use Web sites to glorify their an informant who may pro-
perhaps even talking openly group and its members; recruit vide, if necessary, a name and
about their exploits; and links new gangsters; inform other password needed to access and
to related Web pages. They also members of meetings, parties, explore the site. Or, an officer
can send and receive personal and other relevant informa- will formally request the needed
messages and communicate pri- tion; commit criminal activity, information.
vately in chat rooms. The more such as intellectual property Gang members’ Web pages
often help to prosecute them.
While pursuing pertinent on-
line information, investigators

must understand the law and
recognize exactly what they and
Its ease of use, the service providers can do.
potential audience size, Officers also should know how
and reduced risk of user gang members use the Internet
detection has made the and should use against them
Internet one of the most their desire for recognition and
prominent methods of respect in their subculture.
gang communication.
Basic Subscriber Data

Basic subscriber informa-
tion may include gangsters’ first
Dr. O’Deane, a former detective, is an investigator with the San Diego and last names, user identifica-
County, California, District Attorney’s Office and is an adjunct tion number, e-mail address,
professor at Kaplan, Brandman, and National Universities.
registered mobile number,

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Internet protocol (IP) address that they accessed their profiles. Additionally, bulletins sent from
at the time of sign-up, date The process required to obtain and held for users on service
and time of account creation, historical records typically in- provider servers are available.
and most recent logins (gener- cludes a grand jury subpoena or To obtain messages less
ally the last 2 to 3 days prior administrative subpoena under than 180 days old, investigators
to processing the request). In Title 18, U.S. Code, Section need a search warrant under
general, successful data retriev- 2703 (c)(2); a court order; a Title 18, U.S. Code, Section
al depends on the investigator search warrant; or user consent. 2703 (a); or user consent. For
finding a gangster’s user ID, Prospectively capturing log-in older messages, officers need a
group ID, or the associated user IPs typically requires a pen reg- subpoena or court order where
name or group name; officers ister/trap-and-trace order under the government provides prior
can locate this information by Title 18, U.S. Code, Section notice to the subscriber (or de-
checking the e-mail addresses 3121. lays notice under Title 18, U.S.
connected with gang members’ Code, Section 2705), a search

accounts. warrant, or user consent. For
The author has had suc- example, an investigator may
cess by accessing and explor- present a warrant asking the
ing informants’ accounts (upon …investigators provider for records pertaining
gaining their consent) to find must understand the to a particular user ID, includ-
information on targets—often law and recognize ing the person’s name, postal
fellow gang members—of in- exactly what they and code, country, and e-mail ad-
vestigations and then taking the the service providers dress; date of account creation;
necessary steps to gain addition- can do. IP address at account sign-up;
al data (e.g., a user’s name, date logs showing IP address and
of birth, address, gender, and date stamps for account ac-

private message information). cesses; and the contents of
When dealing with service pro- the user’s inbox and sent mail
viders, investigators will benefit folder.
by having valuable informa- Private Messages
tion up front. Requests without Private messages in a gang- Photoprint
specifics typically require more ster’s inbox remain available The photoprint is a compila-
time and effort to identify a par-until the individual removes tion of all photos uploaded and
ticular user account. Generally, them. Service providers do not not deleted by the user, along
officers will need a court order maintain copies of messages with those uploaded by another
under Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec- marked for deletion by a user individual and featuring a tag
tion 2703 (d); a search warrant; and cannot recover them once of the user of interest. A request
or user consent. deleted. And, without an already should specify photo prints
operational Title III wiretap, related to a particular user ID.
IP Log-In Records investigators have no access to Officers should remember that
Investigators can access logs them. Gang members’ private these pictures typically are de-
showing the IP address assigned messages not manually deleted livered in PDF format and con-
to users and the dates and times stay in the sent box for 14 days. tain profile information, such

April 2011 / 3
as links to other photos, videos, copies of viewed pages—stored officers can have a program that
and blogs. The process required on the local machine until the not only will follow people in
to get this information involves user or computer removes them. real time but provide turn-by-
a grand jury or administrative This can include viewed turn directions on how to get
subpoena; court order in which images. to them. Gangsters often want
the government provides prior To obtain such information, their friends to know where
notice to the subscriber under investigators should include they are, but, if their friends
Title 18, U.S. Code, Section personal computers in all gang- know, so can their enemies.
2703 (b)(2) (or delays notice related search warrants when Many of these individuals add
under Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec- appropriate and should search a location to their tweets letting
tion 2705); search warrant; or and seize the machines in ac- all of their friends know where
user consent. cordance with these warrants to they are. This, of course, can be
gather as much evidence against used by rival gang members to
Videos find or set them up by intercept-
Gang members often post ing tweets or by having associ-
videos of themselves, some- ates pass these messages along
times conducting incriminating to them.
activity, on Web sites, such as
YouTube. These videos provide PROCUREMENT
an excellent way to prove that PROCEDURES
individuals in an investiga- For information requests,
tion are gang members. As the service providers need the iden-
videos are public domain, they tity of requesting officers; their
need simply to be downloaded. agency; employer-issued e-mail
Later, they can serve as valuable address; telephone contact,
evidence for a jury. including area code and exten-
© sion; and department mailing
Forensic Evidence address (a post office box often
In many cases, a tremen- a gangster as possible. These will prove insufficient). They
dous amount of information, search warrants are defined un- also must have a response due
such as instant messenger chat der Title 18, U.S. Code, Section date, which typically should
and client logs, may exist on the 2703. allow them at least 2 to 4 weeks
gangster’s personal computer— for processing. Service provid-
of course, not in the possession Location Tools ers also should receive from
of the service provider. Cookie Investigators also can take investigators specific details
data can remain on a gangster’s advantage of applications that pertaining to the account, such
computer for extended periods can allow someone to locate as dates of interest—data per-
of time if the individual did not a cellular telephone from a taining to large periods of time
clear it after using the machine computer or another cell phone. may be unavailable or labor
to access an ISP account. In- While designed to locate a lost intensive to retrieve. Most of
vestigators easily can find that cellular device, these applica- the communication between
information. The same is true tions can find a potential victim the requesting officer and the
with cached pages—electronic just as well. For a nominal cost, service provider will be via

4 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

e-mail, including the returned intend to seize. Further, in- of future process or sign forms
data, which also may be mailed vestigators should specify the that promise such.
on storage media. address, but include language In these situations, service
Many times, such requests covering all storage locations providers will supply informa-
involve costs that may need owned, maintained, controlled, tion pursuant to Title 18, U.S.
management approval. Service or operated by the provider. Code, Sections 2702 (b)(6)(C)
providers typically reserve the This is in case the data is stored and 2702 (c)(4). Emergency dis-
right to charge reasonable fees, at a location other than the closures are not compelled, but
where permissible, to cover the headquarters address. voluntary on the part of the pro-
cost of replying to user data re- vider, who may refuse without
quests, such as search warrants legal consequence. Often, they

or subpoenas. Title 18, U.S. seek information, the amount
Code, Section 2706, defines and of their choice, to enable them
governs these compensation to determine whether an emer-
matters. This does not require A search of gency exists. Typically, an
government agencies seeking the cyber world emergency disclosure statement
certain categories of informa- should be part of by law enforcement, including
tion to pay for subpoena com- every major gang a description of the nature of
pliance unless the request is investigation…. the emergency (e.g., potential
overly burdensome. bodily harm or kidnapping), is
required; and, even though the

Search Warrants guidelines may vary slightly
As with all warrants, inves- between service providers, most
tigators need to explain why require essentially the same
they need the information. For facts.
example, officers may want to Emergency Disclosures Pursuant to Title 18, U.S.
tell the judge that based on their Web providers voluntarily Code, Sections 2702 (b)(7) and
training and experience, they can disclose information, in- 2702 (c), officers need to give
know that gang members and cluding user identity, log-in as much information as pos-
their crimes are inherently con- information, private messages, sible to persuade the provider to
spiratorial in nature and involve and other data, to federal, state, supply the information needed.
continual and regular contact or local authorities when they Investigators should seek only
between the gangsters. As such, believe in good faith that an information they believe will
the investigators would believe emergency involving danger assist them in protecting those
that by securing the requested of death or serious physical potentially affected by the emer-
information for the appropriate injury to any person requires gency. Officers must attest that
time period that they will collect such disclosure without delay. the request is true and accurate
sufficient evidence to identify Emergency disclosures must to the best of their knowledge
the criminals. meet the threshold requirements and sign the request.
And, just like every other of the ECPA as demonstrated in
search warrant, officers need to writing by the requestor. Law User Consent
identify the account information enforcement officers must be Similar to when they knock
of interest and the items they careful not to include a promise on doors and ask for consent

April 2011 / 5

investigated should note that gangsters can continue

clearly specify modifying the information on
not to disable an their page as before and that
account until a these actions will not affect
particular date. the stored copy retained by the
Conversely, inves- service provider.
tigators who want Officers should not rou-
an account disabled tinely seek preservation of all
immediately—to data, only what they intend to
stop threats, for obtain through the legal pro-
example—and who cess. Otherwise, providers will
do not care if the be preserving, in some cases,
target knows can a vast amount of data, perhaps
indicate that it is not valuable to law enforcement
not a problem to personnel.
disable the account. Officers should tell service
providers that failure to comply
Preserving with the request could subject
Records them to liability under Title 18,
In accordance U.S. Code, Section 2707 and
with Title 18, U.S. ask that they do not disclose the
Code, Section existence of the request to the
to search, officers can do es- 2703 (f), providers subscriber or any other person
sentially the same with Internet must comply with requests by unless necessary. Investiga-
service providers. Information law enforcement to preserve tors also must ensure that they
can be obtained pursuant to the information for 90 days with an provide a means for providers
voluntary consent of the user extension for another 90 days to contact them; they further
per Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec- upon a renewed request per should thank these individuals
tions 2702 (b)(3) and 2702 (c) Title 18, U.S. Code, Section for cooperating. Once informa-
(2). Authentication of the true 2703 (f)(2). Pending the issu- tion in an active account has
identity of the user must be ance of a subpoena or search been preserved, the account will
provided and articulated in the warrant, providers will preserve remain active, and the user will
consent request (e.g., a nota- information in accordance with not be prevented from logging
rized consent letter). the law but will not produce into it. Any request to restrict
data until receipt of a valid legal the user’s access to the profile
OTHER REQUESTS request. When service providers should be based on investiga-
receive a preservation request, tors’ assessment of whether this
Disabling Accounts they merely save a copy of the would impede the investigation.
Most providers will not dis- information they possess, which
able an account if it will jeopar- will be retained and later pro- CASE EXAMPLES
dize an ongoing investigation. vided to law enforcement upon To gain a greater under-
Officers not wanting targets to presentation of legal process. standing of how gang members’
know that their account is being However, investigators should online activities can help in

6 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

investigations, officers can testified, and a bold statement communicating that he was on
benefit from real-world ex- was made to the gang: Those a “murder mission.” He provid-
amples. To this end, the author who make threats against a wit- ed his gang name, moniker, and
offers three cases. ness in a gang case—in person specific photos showing his tat-
or online—will be held account- toos; his identity and home ad-
Case #1 able for their actions. dress later were determined.
A gang member testified After a short surveillance, offi-
in court against his associates Case #2 cers arrested him and conduct-
who committed two murders. In another case, four gang ed a search of his car and home,
Just prior to taking the stand, members arrested for involve- finding several guns and a lot of
the witness received threats via ment in a shooting were await- gang evidence. The arrest nev-
instant messaging, which he ing trial in county jail. All er would have been made if not
relied on to stay updated about initially claimed they were not for the creative and proactive ap-
goings-on in the gang. Particu- active members. However, a proach taken by investigators to
larly disturbing were a common use the gang’s desire for recog-
greeting for his fellow gang nition against them.

members followed by a threat
to his family and a listing of CONCLUSION
his home address. Clearly, this Investigators have access to
situation demanded immediate Gang members’ much information online that
attention. Web pages often can help them in their cases
With the witness’ consent, help to prosecute against gang members. A search
the author examined the phone them. of the cyber world should be
and obtained the necessary part of every major gang in-
information to get a warrant vestigation; it should not be

to identify the source of the an untapped resource in any
threats. The service provider jurisdiction. Officers should
was contacted, and a warrant take advantage of the informa-
was drafted that resulted about visitor took cell phone pictures tion superhighway to make the
5 hours later in the identifi- subsequently posted on MyS- community safer and success-
cation of the account holder pace of two of them throwing fully prosecute gangsters by
sending the threats. The follow- up gang signs while waiting in using against them their desire
ing day, the fugitive task force a holding tank for the trial to to be well-known, respected, and
arrested this individual. As it begin. Once confronted with the feared. It takes effort and time
turned out, a gangster in court photos, they stopped their deni- but has proven in many cases to
had been relaying information als of gang affiliation. Further, be well worth it.
to a fellow gang member in investigators knew when and
another state. This individual where the photos were taken. Endnotes
then forwarded the texts to the Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2701, et
Case #3 seq. For additional guidance on the issues
witness in an attempt to get
discussed in this article, access the Web site
him to recant or fail to testify. On a Web page, a gang of the U.S. Department of Justice, Comput-
Fortunately, it did not work. member had pictures of him- er Crime and Intellectual Property Section
The witness took the stand and self holding several guns and (CCIPS) at

April 2011 / 7
Leadership Spotlight

Are You an Effective Leader?

R egardless of our rank or assignment,

we all are potential leaders. Most of
us talk about, aspire to, learn of, and, at times,
knew more about you than, perhaps, some of
your friends.
“Evil managers are the antithesis of their
fail at leadership. You may picture it in your leader counterparts. They are consistently de-
mind’s eye but be unable to explain or describe structive to the organizational culture and to
leadership. We all know various types of lead- employees, and they are widely distrusted and
ers, including those we would follow into the despised throughout the agency. They are ego-
worst of situations, expecting success. How- tistical and self-centered, and they have a pred-
ever, others we probably would not want even atory perspective on others. They may have
to accompa- strong ethical
ny across the and character
street. problems and
The posi- often engage
tive and nega- in inappropri-
tive attributes ate behavior.”3
that encom- You will re-
pass a leadership style vary just as we do. For member these individuals and swear that you
some individuals, leadership comes naturally. never will treat others as they did.
Others must try many styles and approaches “Ineffective managers…are basically ethi-
before finding the one that works for them. cal and caring people like their leader counter-
Some never may find the right fit. Ultimately, parts; however, they do not consistently prac-
there are good, bad, and weak leaders. tice and demonstrate good leadership behavior
All such personnel can be grouped into with their subordinates. They are not disliked
three categories: leaders, evil managers, and by the rank and file, but neither are they re-
ineffective managers.1 “Leaders tend to gener- spected. They are perceived by most as wishy-
ate commitment in most people they supervise. washy and inconsistent. Employees cannot
They lead by example, both professionally trust them to stand behind them.”4 These in-
and personally. Though they fail on occasion, dividuals may know something about good
overall they consistently discipline themselves leadership, but they cannot accomplish it. On
to demonstrate recognized leadership behav- a positive note, they basically are good people
iors in their dealings with others.”2 You will who can improve if they so desire. Such per-
remember these leaders when you look back sonnel may be new in their positions and have
on your career as a police officer. Such high- much to learn. Perhaps they have lost their way
quality leaders may have confronted you from and, with proper guidance and support, can
time to time, but they also listened to you and turn their leadership abilities around.

8 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Leadership is an individual matter. What “Reading is to the mind what exercise
works for one person may not work for is to the body.” Discover different points
someone else. Also, leadership encompasses of view on all sorts of topics. Read about
many things: knowledge, skills, attitude, things you like. Learn about things unfa-
presence, perseverance, humility, adapt- miliar to you. Become a student of
ability, and creativity. You can follow strate- learning.
gies that may help improve your leadership
• Be empathetic. People around you
want to know they can bring things to
• Find a mentor. Locate someone your attention—both good and bad. Be a
you trust and learn from them. Ask them listener. You do not always have to be a
what has and has not proven successful. problem solver. Theodore Roosevelt once
Explain your thought processes and how said, “Nobody cares how much you know,
you made some of your decisions. Hope- until they know how much you care.”
fully, these conversations will expose How do we move organizations forward if
you to new thoughts and experiences the people around us are afraid to talk with
without the firsthand pain of someone us about critical issues?
else’s mistakes.
Ultimately, your leadership style is up to
• Seek feedback. Find other people you. Maybe you still are figuring out your
willing to provide honest, critical leadership style. Or, perhaps you already are
feedback. Seek it at various times and a top leader. Chances are you are not there
for different reasons. Do not ask for yet, but, you can get there. Like many other
feedback only when you want positive important things in life, being a good leader
reinforcement. Some of the most effec- takes hard work and continued effort.
tive feedback comes after unsuccessful
decisions. It also may prove ideal to have Endnotes
this feedback from a variety of levels or 1
Jack Enter, Challenging the Law Enforcement Organi-
perspectives. If possible, find someone zation (Dacula, GA: Narrow Road Press, 2006).
above your rank, another at your level, 2
and a third below your rank—perhaps, Ibid.
the most difficult source from which to
receive honest feedback.
• Read. Some of the most successful Commander Cory Amend of the Broomfield, Colorado,
leaders have been avid readers. Writer Police Department prepared this Leadership Spotlight.
and politician Joseph Addison wrote,

April 2011 / 9
Law Enforcement
Professionalism merican law enforcement

Training Is the Key

A is professional, effec-
tive, efficient, and, often,
regarded as a model to follow
and EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.A. worldwide. Some would hold that
a significant factor in the history
of this professionalism is train-
ing, which imparts the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes that form its
The recent deep economic
decline in this country negatively
affected city, county, and state
governments. In response, these
entities made drastic budget cuts
that impacted most public service
organizations in all jurisdictions.
Law enforcement executives now
must reduce budgets that, in many
cases, they viewed as inadequate
to begin with. Deciding what
to cut while, at the same time,
continuing to provide adequate
safety to their communities and
members of their agencies is a
daunting task. Historically, chiefs
and sheriffs have attempted to
cover budget cuts by not replacing
members who retire or leave their
agencies. Today, this measure may
not make up the budget shortfall.
Some view decreasing recruit
training as preferable to eliminat-
ing current employees. Addition-
ally, in-service training frequently
is reduced to the minimum state
Police Officer Standards and
Training (POST) requirements.
While often hard to justify, how-
ever, training constitutes the glue
of effectiveness that forms the
© Mark C. Ide foundation for successful law
enforcement efforts.

10 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Placing scarce resources up the topics covered, the meth- HOUSE OF TRAINING
front in training can produce odology used, and the effec- Thinking of police train-
safe, effective, and efficient of- tiveness achieved. With fewer ing as a house can illustrate
ficers, supervisors, and adminis- available resources, law en- how to divide the process into
trators, which can lessen operat- forcement organizations need to four categories. While each
ing costs in the long run. As an ensure that with their training, has a different purpose, all of
old advertisement for oil filters they are doing the right thing the training is interrelated and
pointed out, “You can pay me and doing it the right way.1 interdependent, just as the foun-
now, or you can pay me later,” What is the cost to a depart- dation, walls, and roof support
the idea being that sometimes a ment for an illegal arrest, use of and form a structure.
small investment can result in excessive force, or a wrongful 1) Entrance-level training
large savings. The cost of an oil death? It seems reasonable to (initial knowledge, skills,
filter is minor compared with assume that if training could and attitudes for new
that of an engine. The same prevent these events, it would officers)
holds true for law enforcement be done. Of course, even with
training. the right training, these still can 2) In-service training (main-
occur. Conversely, without such tenance of skills taught in
NECESSITY OF training these incidents will entrance level, along with
TRAINING take place and probably more knowledge about new laws,
In many ways, these dif- frequently. Training is rarely enforcement procedures,
ficult economic times should viewed from the perspective of and safety practices)
cause agencies to reevaluate risk management, yet a direct 3) Supervisor training (spe-
their training needs, including relationship exists. cific information tailored

Dr. Pinizzotto, a retired FBI senior Mr. Bohrer, a retired Maryland State Mr. Davis, a retired police
scientist, is a clinical forensic Police sergeant and range master lieutenant and FBI Academy
psychologist who privately consults for the Maryland Police and Cor- instructor, owns a private
for law enforcement and other rectional Training Commissions, is consulting company in
criminal justice agencies. a self-employed law enforcement Virginia.
instructor and consultant.

April 2011 / 11
to overseeing rank-and-file all, everything else sits on the and specialized training, just
members and to developing foundation. Without the proper like the initial recruit selection
instructional abilities) foundation materials (the recruit and training, as a long-term in-
4) Administrator training and the entrance-level training), vestment. Building a house well
(influences direction and the long-term product has no with a solid foundation creates a
operational effectiveness guarantee of success. positive investment, but, with-
of the organization) out maintenance, unexpected
Maintenance Training problems will develop.
The authors offer these four As with any house, police
categories of training only as training must be maintained. Supervisor Training
a guide that can represent the This involves the in-service and
training in any agency. Not Even with the proper main-
specialized continuum of train- tenance, at some point, a house
meant to be all inclusive, these ing that officers need. Select-
do not encompass every pos- may need remodeling. The
ing appropriate candidates and same holds true in police train-
sible training need, but give an
overall view. When examining ing. Oftentimes, agencies select

their training needs, agencies officers who excel at a particu-
should take the overall view be- lar skill to become supervisors
cause training greatly influences and trainers, which does not
and shapes the interdependency Law enforcement always work well. Those who
and interrelationships of their executives now must mold and build the raw materi-
als (the recruits) into effective
officers, units, and ranks and reduce budgets that and efficient officers and who
affects every law enforcement in many cases, they
function. take seasoned professionals
viewed as inadequate and form them into supervisors
Entrance-Level Training to begin with. and managers need to receive
Viewing police training as specific training following an

a house requires starting with extensive selection process. Su-
sound raw materials: the re- pervising and instructing others
cruits. The right training can require not only subject-matter
shape the recruit into a poten- providing sound entrance-level expertise but also the ability to
tially long-term effective and training began the process of accurately convey knowledge to
efficient employee. Entrance- turning the raw materials (re- others. Continued training for
level training does not end or cruits) into the solid structure. supervisors and instructors must
finish the training process but, When quality recruits receive include evaluating their training
rather, allows the recruit to the correct entrance-level train- skills and how well they apply
operate with minimum super- ing, they gain the knowledge, them.
vision and to continue learn- skills, and attitudes to become
ing through experiences and effective and efficient officers Administrator Training
in-service training. Selecting for a long time. However, if the The final category, admin-
quality recruits is like choos- training stops at that point, their istrator training, frequently is
ing the best materials to build efficiency can decline. Agencies overlooked. Agencies often as-
the foundation of a house. After should view regular in-service sume that officers who worked

12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

the streets, arrested people, and
became supervisors or train-
ers have gained the necessary
experience. Arguments have
been made in both directions
on this topic, with both hav-
ing valid points. One argument
is that all of the preceding
training—as an officer, supervi-
sor, or trainer—helped prepare
the individual for the position.
The counter argument holds
that all of the previous train-
ing was targeted toward those
previous assignments, whereas © Mark C. Ide

administrative positions require

additional skills. Supervisors structure that can last through a better course of action than
supervise people and managers many generations—so also can merely halting training altogeth-
manage programs, but adminis- law enforcement agencies that er. After all, recruiting, hiring,
trators need all of these abilities understand the importance of and training officers who work
plus leadership. Another valid well-trained leaders who can a long and productive career—
argument could be made that move their organizations for- from recruitment to retirement—
administrators are the most im- ward through whatever chal- represents a lofty goal that every
portant because they determine lenges they may face. chief and sheriff tries to attain.
the training content, budget, By doing so, these leaders can
and direction of their agencies. CONCLUSION safeguard their communities not
Administrator training also can Training should be viewed only for the short term but for
prove difficult to obtain because as an investment law enforce- future generations.
only a few nationally recog- ment agencies make for the
nized law enforcement train- present and future. With fis- Endnotes
ing academies, such as the FBI cal restrains, however, it often 1
The authors based this article on
National Academy, offer such becomes one of the first casu- their personal experiences in the law
courses. alties. Because training forms enforcement profession and on three main
When comparing police the center of law enforcement references: Peter Senge, The Fifth Disci-
pline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
training to a house, administra- effectiveness and efficiency, Organization (New York, NY: Broadway
tors represent the long-term in- administrators have a fiduciary Business, 1994); Walter Dick and Lou
vestment potential that all home responsibility to examine the Carey, The Systematic Design of Instruc-
owners recognize as the bottom resources they use to ensure that tion (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little
line. Using the best materials, Brown Higher Education, 1990); and Robert
their citizens are getting their
Gagne and Karen Medsker, The Conditions
performing continual mainte- money’s worth. Questioning of Learning: Training Applications (Fort
nance, and remodeling portions their training programs, content, Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company,
when needed culminate in a and projected benefits can prove 1996).

April 2011 / 13
Safeguard Spotlight

Coping with Line-of-Duty Exposure to

Child Pornography/Exploitation Materials
By Nicole Cruz, Ph.D.

M ost officers who investigate or assist

in cases involving exposure to child
exploitation materials (CEMs) wittingly or un-
Individuals commonly assume that compart-
mentalization is a one-dimensional skill that ev-
eryone does the same way. However, as a clinical
wittingly spend time and energy learning how to psychologist who provides, through testing and
master the skill of compartmentalization—using interviews, robust annual psychological assess-
their personal psychological resources to separate ments to a team of approximately 500 investiga-
themselves from the toxicity of these graphic tors exposed to CEMs, I have witnessed individu-
images and videos. Compartmentalization helps als compartmentalize in a variety of ways as a
investigators operate within a space of wellness method of coping. I see some of the brightest,
where they can continue to work without having most highly skilled professionals use creative,
these materials bleed excessively into their rela- thoughtful ways to process their responses to
tionships, religious faith, and sense of safety in CEMs so they can continue to work on these
the world. Their success in this endeavor proves cases. The end result may look the same for every
crucial to preserving what they hold most dear. individual—the person has found a way to cope
with the unthinkable.
Many members of the team have grown ac-
customed to people asking them, with a look of
dismay and, perhaps, disgust, “How can you do
that job?” They may not know that they are
asking a thoughtful, intricate question: How
do people process and cope with the sight
of infants and children being exploited,
tortured, degraded, and raped? Upon
closer inspection, I have found that
people use various coping styles that
access different personal strengths
so that they can survive the con-
tent of CEMs. Compartmen-
talization skills may manifest
themselves as strong or
flexible mental abilities, an
innate ability to repress, or
willful or unconscious en-
gagement in behaviors
that make investiga-
tors “shift gears.”

14 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Many officers haphazardly stumble upon their While psychologically assessing officers ex-
strengths—they have an uncanny ability to use posed to CEMs, I have discovered eight common
their cognitive labeling skills to quickly catego- coping styles, along with accompanying vulner-
rize images, thus distracting them from the per- abilities. Investigators can identify their top three
sonal or emotional perspective. Others, through and consider the potential vulnerabilities and
painful trial and error, finally discover their way; ways to counteract them.
for example, they decompress from work stress
during their drive home and then spend time with 1) Emergency Workers
their children to separate themselves from the • Naturally compartmentalize well
job. Some investigators bravely discover that they • Have had none or little obvious work/home
should not do this kind of work. Others, sadly, try spillover
to cope in ways that they imagine one should—
perhaps, like their colleagues. In comparing • Typically have had a history of working
themselves with others, they muddy their own with critical incidents (e.g., have seen dis-
process of discovering their coping style and cast membered bodies in the line of duty)
doubt on their abilities. • Use compartmentalization skills that feel
Some of the most reassuring support that I familiar
have provided to investigators has been in the
validation of their coping strengths, as well as Negatives
their vulnerabilities, through the clinical interview • Unconscious crossover stress from work,
and psychological test findings. Investigators noticed more by others (e.g., increasing
must recognize their strengths and have insight grumpiness)
into their personal coping styles. It normalizes the • Harder to treat—individuals do not want to
process for them as they realize that they comprise admit a “weakness”
part of a larger community doing this type of
work. This practice also may encourage officers • May have more psychosomatic difficulties
to stop trying to emulate their colleagues’ coping (e.g., “I feel great, but I have high blood
styles and discover their own, which always is the pressure.”)
more resilient option. • “Numb” themselves in situations outside of
Potential vulnerabilities correspond with ev- work (e.g., “Why is everyone around me so
ery coping option. As a rule, it proves helpful to emotional?”)
remember that any coping skill can be dysfunc-
tional if it becomes excessive, rigid, or distorted 2) Athletes
with use. For example, officers who, as a coping • Diffuse stress physically (e.g., exercise,
style, expertly label disturbing images may find yoga)
that they also numb their emotions when dealing • Engage the mind-body connection
with family stressors. Thus, investigators must
develop one or more strong relationships (e.g., co- • Typically are disciplined (e.g., exercise 3 or
workers, a spouse, family members) with people more times per week)
close to them and willing to let the officers know • Stay fit—increase overall sense of wellness
if they have changed in ways unhealthy for them and competency
or those around them.

April 2011 / 15
Negatives 5) Ritualists
• Must rely on a rigid schedule and a high • Develop rituals (e.g., playing with kids,
energy level prayer) to diffuse stress or to help
• Depend on an external coping skill and are compartmentalize
vulnerable if unable to exercise and without • Have developed a creative and hardy
another coping style approach to coping
• Engage in therapeutic coping that could have
3) Challenge Seekers healing properties
• See difficulties as challenges • May engage their existential/spiritual
• Have a resilient perspective beliefs
• May try different coping styles to master • Make good use of time—less time consum-
tasks and stress ing in the long run to develop a ritual
• Sharpen existing coping skills
Negatives • May need to complement rituals with other
• Sometimes apply undue pressure on coping methods
6) Professionals
• May let their guard down (become compla-
• Focused on the evidence, not the personal
cent) when they feel comfortable, giving the element
perception that they have reached mastery
level and, thus, needing to continuously use • Mentally diffuse/compartmentalize the
this coping style content
• Use what psychologists may label as a
4) Team Players cognitive strategy—increases coping
• Actively engage with coworkers (e.g., use abilities
dark humor)
• Develop supportive relationships on and
off the job • May minimize the strength of the evidence
• Can vent, or express their feelings, well • Could have difficulties processing the affec-
tive component and its impact, or when they
• Use healthy processing of emotions need a break (enough is enough)
• Make excellent colleagues/teammates
• Create a safe environment in which people 7) Pragmatists
can process their responses to images • Were “volunteered” to do this duty—was not
an option
Negatives • May just be focusing on what is practical
• Although team players, have to work solo to them
• May have a team comprised of distant rela- • Want to work this duty partly because
tionships or, perhaps, featuring persons it works well with their schedule or
who cause stress commute

16 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

• Appreciate the additional income or compen- Negatives
satory time • May not stop when they should
• See this job as means of career advancement • May minimize their personal difficulties
Negatives • May not invest in support to the degree of
what they need
• Vulnerable to having significant negative
impact (vicarious trauma) if they do this duty • Most vulnerable to burnout (personally and
against their wishes, particularly if they are systemically)
experiencing high, pervasive levels of distress So, if investigators handle cases that involve
• May indicate poor prioritizing if they chose exposure to CEMs and someone asks them the
this for practical reasons, are being distressed, question, “How do you do that kind of a job?” they
and they continue to work this duty can have additional insight into the true response.
In summary, they can say, “I can do it because I
• They or the system they work in may not fully have found a way to.” The quiet, indestructible
appreciate self-care as a necessity when their instinct to protect children can be one of the most
work involves exposure to CEMs powerful motivators.
8) Believers
• Highly motivated with a sense of duty or Dr. Nicole Cruz of the FBI’s Undercover Safeguard Unit
calling for their work (USU) prepared this Safeguard Spotlight. USU provides
guidance and support for personnel exposed to child por-
• Rely on their instinct to protect children nography and child exploitation materials. The unit can be
• Can persevere despite difficulties because contacted at 202-324-3000.
of the meaningfulness of their work
• Are hard workers
• Have high levels of “compassion
satisfaction”—a great buffer
uffer for this type
of work
• Believe and know that their
heir work has great

“How do you do that kind of a job?”

“I can do it because I have
ave found a way to.”
Police Practice
Harnessing Technology to
Transform a Police Department
By Cam Coppess

L aw enforcement agencies strive to enhance

the way they deliver police services. To
accomplish this, many departments wish to im-
A recent burglary investigation perfectly il-
lustrates how developing our department’s tech-
nological capabilities drastically boosted our
prove how they store and analyze the information effectiveness. When a burglar robbed a local
they gather 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Often, retail store, our officers responded to the call and
technology best solves this problem, but limited investigated the crime scene with a wide range
budgets challenge police administrators to deter- of tools: they practiced tried-and-true interview
mine the most cost-effective tools. At times, tight techniques, examined the store’s surveillance foot-
budgets prevent departments from prioritizing new age, and employed our latest technology, such as
technology, but at the West Des Moines, Iowa, a computerized records management system and
Police Department (WDMPD), we found that the a law enforcement data-sharing site. With these
return on such investments extends far beyond tools, they gathered enough information for our
sophisticated software; the collaboration and co- crime analyst at the station to build a six-person
operation required to implement this technology photographic lineup that included the suspect’s
made us a more effective, proactive agency.1 picture. The analyst e-mailed this document to the

18 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

officers’ mobile data computers in their patrol cars. allows officers to submit information electroni-
When an officer showed the lineup to a witness, the cally. As a result, we have a central records compo-
witness identified the suspect, and a judge issued nent that integrates with our dispatch system. Once
an arrest warrant, all within 4 hours. the information enters the computer-aided dispatch
This successful case occurred recently, but (CAD) and records management systems (RMS),
we started on this journey to capitalize on new we use it to identify patterns and implement initia-
technology to improve police services in 1999. tives to address crime trends and quality-of-life
With 65 sworn officers and 22 civilian employees, issues in different locations.
we comprise a relatively small operation. Despite
our limited staff and tight budget, we wished to Mobile Data Browser
transform how officers report information from the Next, we improved how officers on patrol com-
street into computerized systems, as well as how municate with the station by establishing a mobile
they retrieve information data connection between squad
gathered by others. Also, we cars and dispatchers. When
needed to build relationships dispatchers receive a call, they
with community partners to
increase awareness about
our efforts and ask for their
support. Eleven years later,
“ …the collaboration
and cooperation
immediately enter information
into CAD and RMS simulta-
neously. The dispatcher then
voices the information over
required to implement
we have information sys- this technology made the radio while the system
tems that identify crime and sends the information to the
quality-of-life issues. This
us a more effective, mobile data computers in the
allows us to implement suc- proactive agency. patrol vehicles. This two-way
cessful solutions and reduce connection between the patrol
This transformation re-
quired far more than the
” cars and the dispatcher permits
officers to receive or initiate
calls for service, as well as
purchase of new software. Undoubtedly, our de- report information back into CAD and RMS. The
partment acquired more advanced technology, but mobile data computers also provide patrolling of-
these tools would be worthless if we did not train ficers with access to the Iowa Online Warrants and
our employees properly, collaborate with other law Article (IOWA) system and the National Crime
enforcement and government offices, and ask the Information Center (NCIC). This expedites com-
community for feedback and support. munication between dispatchers and officers and
allows us to track the response time and duration
We connected the mobile data computers in
Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and each patrol car to the city’s computer network
Record Management Systems (RMS) through an evolution-data-optimized modem. To
At WDMPD, we began this process by upgrad- assuage security concerns, we secured our devices
ing our computerized records systems. We pur- through a virtual private network. Through this
chased commercial off-the-shelf products, worked network, we exchange a large amount of data
with third-party vendors, and partnered with between the patrol car computers and the central
county government offices to create a system that servers; this means that the officers on patrol can

April 2011 / 19
access all of the same information systems avail- This system mitigates the risk of losing our data if
able at the police station. Also, as many of the tools one database collapses. It also allows personnel to
are Web based, we equipped the mobile computer search for information in new ways and even pro-
with Internet access so that officers can take full duces a hard copy report. This duplication reduces
advantage of these systems from their patrol cars. employees’ fears of technology failure connected
with transitioning to a paperless world.
Report-Writing Software
Iowa state officials provided our department Crime Analysis
with new report-writing software at no cost. With After we implemented this new technology,
this software, immediately after a car accident, we needed an employee who would manage and
a device sends crash data directly to the Iowa operate these new tools full-time; therefore, we
Department of Transportation and citation data hired a crime analyst to mine the data to dis-
directly to the clerk of court. cover patterns and trends in
To expedite this process criminal behavior. To make
even further, we commis- our analyst as productive
sioned a third-party vendor as possible, we provided
to interface the report-writ- her with an even more so-
ing tool with RMS so that we phisticated version of our
can electronically transmit technology⎯she works with
data from the cars into our powerful software that mines
central records. The software our data in greater detail.
generates a report that draws We also wanted the rest of
from our criminal informa- the department to learn from
tion reports, crash reports, our analyst’s assessments, so
electronic citations, and elec- we worked with vendors to
tronic warnings. Then, su- set up an automated process
pervisors accept or reject the that plots this crime data on
report through the electronic an electronic map. We then
review process before the purchased a Web-based tool
information enters RMS. With these upgrades, the that makes this crime map available to all users,
system makes information available to the whole whether in the station or a patrol car.
agency within 24 hours of the incident. Once a month, we meet to review this crime
The report-writing software also generates a data and discuss ongoing trends. Officers must be
field interview report. Here, officers document prepared to speak about worrisome patterns and
any suspicious information they discover during steps they have taken to reverse the trends. This
an interview or any event they deem notable but meeting serves as a great communication tool be-
that does not fit into a specific category in other cause it allows all areas of the department to stay
paperwork. Our personnel review this data daily abreast of current challenges and offer solutions.
to examine if it correlates with any larger crime The crime analyst also helps keep these tools
trends. relevant to the daily tasks of officers. At the month-
ly meeting, she presents a report that indicates
Backup Database when we received service calls, what departments
In addition to the data in RMS, we store elec- they pertained to, and what reports were authored;
tronic images of the reports in a second database. she even breaks down the calls by both time of

20 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

day and police territory or geographic location. charges. GIS tools helped us solve not only this
This keeps our officers informed and gets more case but numerous others.
employees to use the tools on their own. The crime
analyst’s presentation also reminds officers of the STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS
tools available to assist them with more efficient
Interagency Collaboration
information gathering.
For departments to successfully advance their
Geographic Information Systems data-gathering capabilities, they must collaborate
Our department and stakeholders responded with other agencies and share information. To
very positively to our crime analyst and crime- boost the effectiveness of our new technology, we
mapping project, which led us to create another developed new ways to share our data and receive
new job position: geographic information system information from other departments. Therefore, we
(GIS) coordinator. Our new coordinator needed to spearheaded an information-sharing project among
obtain city- and county-wide geographic informa- different agencies in the county, including the Polk
tion to develop GIS tools and, thus, had to solicit County Sheriff’s Office and the Des Moines Police
help from various govern- Department.
ment offices that we never To collaborate with
worked with previously. other government offices
The success of these part-
nerships led to many other
joint projects.
The improved GIS tools
“ To boost the
effectiveness of our
and law enforcement agen-
cies, we needed a system
to translate the myriad
types of data used by each
displayed immediate re- new technology, we office. We commissioned
sults during a recent string a vendor to build a data
of burglaries. Our officers
developed new ways to warehouse that accepts
identified a suspect and lo- share our data and information from different
cated the individual’s motor receive information from systems around the law en-
vehicle with a global posi- other departments. forcement community. The
tioning system (GPS). We Web-based database allows
then created a map that il-
lustrated the suspect’s route
on three specific nights.
The map indicated that the
” users to retrieve informa-
tion gathered by numerous
law enforcement agencies
in different locations. This
vehicle traveled to the crime scenes on the same tool provides a more global view for officers on
nights when the burglaries occurred. Next, we used patrol. If officers stop an individual on the street,
the GIS data and GPS device to establish an elec- right from their patrol car, they can obtain photo-
tronic boundary that alerted us when the vehicle graphs of subjects to identify them. Also, leverag-
traveled beyond a certain distance. Because the ing multiple data sources gives officers a wider
device tracks vehicles in real time through a Web range of information about suspects during their
site, it notified us immediately via text message investigations.
when the vehicle crossed the boundary. Our of-
ficers intercepted the suspect as he exited a dance Training
studio that he had just burglarized. Eventually, the As we acquired these new tools, we recog-
county convicted the suspect on felony burglary nized that they would add value to the department

April 2011 / 21
only if employees embraced them and used them the tools to our Police Chief’s Advisory Council,
properly. Our department immediately intro- a group of community members who we consult
duces all new officers to the proactive policing about new ideas, programs, and services. We
philosophy and tools during their initial 12-week explained our proactive policing philosophy and
field-training period. We instruct them on how to how our new tools contributed to this ideology,
input information into the reporting systems, as and the group supported our ideas. We also devel-
well as how to access the information systems that oped a presentation with a slide show and a live
might help them piece together the puzzles of their demonstration of the crime-mapping tool, and we
investigations. showcased it to any stakeholder group who would
To train our employees more specifically for listen. We also demonstrated the crime-mapping
each device, whenever we roll out a new tool or tool at area GIS conferences.
software, we hold 1-day
training sessions for all LESSONS LEARNED
department employees. WDMPD initiated this
To follow up, during journey to improve police
in-service training, we services in 1999. As we
reinforce to officers how look back to where we
to access the information started and where we are
they gather during inves- now, we clearly learned
tigations. We continually many lessons to get to this
instruct our employees point.
on how to analyze crime First, a successful or-
maps, access the RMS, ganization demands three
and reach out to the crime components: people,
analyst for assistance. processes, and technol-
The initial 1-day ses- ogy, and this means that
sions provide the neces- commercial off-the-shelf
sary foundation for the products alone will not
technological overhaul. But, to truly engrain the progress an agency. Departmentwide improve-
new tools in the department’s daily operations, ments require not just advanced technology
we conduct the additional sessions and monthly but also support from employees and heavy
crime-analysis meetings to remind our employees logistical planning.
of the benefits of these tools. Sufficient training Second, no one can build a department’s pro-
is crucial for the success of any technological cesses and systems better than its own personnel.
changes; without a strong commitment from our Therefore, someone or several people in the de-
employees, these new tools would remain under- partment must learn about the systems inside and
used, and the department never would transition out and put them into practical application. Before
from a reactive department to a proactive one. a department purchases anything, personnel must
thoroughly research the vendor, and someone
Community Feedback must serve as the project manager to take owner-
Before we fully implemented these changes, ship of the project and drive its success. Several
we engaged the community to inform them of our other employees need to become experts with the
efforts and solicit their feedback. We first showed new tools to teach others how to use them and to

22 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

promote their value to other employees. These
employees and the project manager should act as Wanted:
that project’s biggest champions and hold some Photographs
accountability for its success.
Undoubtedly, progressive technology ampli-
fies the efficiency of law enforcement agencies.
However, we at the West Des Moines Police
Department realized that technology upgrades
cultivate a dynamic, collaborative work envi-
ronment that benefits a department in countless
ways. When our department had to consult with
outside personnel for assistance with build- T he Bulletin staff always
is looking for dynamic,
law enforcement-related im-
ing and rolling out new systems, this provided
ages for possible publication
unbeatable networking opportunities that paid in the magazine. We are in-
even bigger dividends. Networking with other terested in those that visually
organizations, whether with government offices, depict the many aspects of
private companies, or even the Iowa state school the law enforcement profes-
system, strengthens our presence across the state sion and illustrate the vari-
and grants us access to higher quality sources of ous tasks law enforcement
information. personnel perform.
Last, when an agency openly communicates We can use digital pho-
with the public about its efforts, it illustrates tographs or color prints. It
to the community that the department is flex- is our policy to credit pho-
ible to change and that it welcomes their input, tographers when their work
which inspires better cooperation. This change appears in the magazine.
Contributors sending prints
greatly contributes to an agency’s ultimate goal: should send duplicate cop-
to reduce crime and enhance quality of life in the ies, not originals, as we do
community. not accept responsibility for
damaged or lost prints.
Endnotes Send materials to:
In this article, the author provides his agency’s experiences
as a general overview of police technology. No specific product Art Director
names could be mentioned because of Department of Justice FBI Law Enforcement
publishing guidelines. Bulletin, FBI Academy,
Mod A, Quantico, VA
Lieutenant Coppess of the West Des Moines, Iowa, Police
Department serves as the commander of the agency’s
Criminal Investigations Unit and its Police Records and
Technology Unit.

April 2011 / 23
Legal Digest
© Mark C. Ide

Searches of Motor Vehicles

Incident to Arrest in a
Post-Gant World

n April 21, 2009, the provide broad justification3 for article examines how lower

O U.S. Supreme Court

decided Arizona v.
Gant,1 in which the Court an-
searches following the lawful
arrest of any occupant, or recent
occupant, of a motor vehicle.
courts have interpreted the two-
part holding of Gant and pro-
vide law enforcement officers
nounced new, narrow rules as to However, in Gant, the Court guidance in conducting future
when law enforcement officers limited this Fourth Amendment searches of motor vehicles
properly may search the pas- search authority to two circum- incident to arrest in a post-Gant
senger compartment of a motor stances: “police may search world.
vehicle incident to the arrest of a vehicle incident to a recent
one of its occupants. For ap- occupant’s arrest only if the ar- Summary of Gant
proximately 28 years prior to restee is within reaching dis- In Gant, Tucson police
Gant, police relied upon the tance of the passenger compart- officers arrested Rodney Gant
apparent holdings of other U.S. ment at the time of the search for driving with a suspended
Supreme Court decisions,2 as or it is reasonable to believe the license. After he was hand-
well as the holdings of other vehicle contains evidence of cuffed and locked in the back
state and federal precedent, to the offense of the arrest.”4 This of a patrol car, officers searched

24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

his car and found cocaine in a typically implicated in arrest Access to Passenger
jacket located on the backseat. situations”11 and is limited to ar- Compartment
Gant moved to suppress the co- eas within the arrestee’s “imme- The first prong of the hold-
caine found on the grounds that diate control.”12 In applying this ing in Gant deals with access
the warrantless search of his car exception to the motor vehicle and states that “police may
violated the Fourth Amendment. context, the Court in New York search a vehicle incident to a
The Arizona Supreme Court v. Belton13 held that the area of recent occupant’s arrest only
held that the search-incident-to- immediate control is limited to if the arrestee is within reach-
arrest exception to the Fourth the “passenger compartment ing distance of the passenger
Amendment’s warrant require- of a vehicle and any contain- compartment at the time of
ment did not justify the search in ers therein as a contemporane- the search.”18 This part of the
this case.5 ous incident of an arrest of the Gant holding is tethered to the
The U.S. Supreme Court vehicle’s recent occupant.”14 In Court’s decision in Chimel v.
agreed. Under the facts of the Gant, the Supreme Court clari- California19 and is based on the
case, Gant was not within reach- fied that Belton tells us what “safety and evidentiary justifi-
ing distance of the vehicle at the area of the motor vehicle may cations” of Chimel’s “reaching-
time of the search (he was hand- be searched incident to arrest distance rule.”20
cuffed and locked inside a police (scope),15 while the two-part To understand when an
car), and there was no reason rule announced in Gant estab- arrestee is outside of the reach-
to believe the car contained lishes when such area may be ing distance of the passenger
evidence of the crime for which searched (prerequisite).16 The compartment of a motor ve-
he was arrested (driving with a Gant test is an either/or propo- hicle, it is best to start with
suspended license). Therefore, sition, meaning that only one the facts of Gant. In Gant, the
the search of his car violated prong of the test must be satis- defendant was arrested, hand-
the Fourth Amendment, and the fied to be in compliance with cuffed, and locked in the back
contraband discovered during the holding of the decision.17 of a police patrol car at the time
the search was suppressed.6
Searches Incident to Arrest
According to the Supreme

Court, searches conducted
without a warrant are presumed
unreasonable.7 However, the …the Court
Court has recognized a “few limited this Fourth
specifically established and Amendment search
well-delineated exceptions”8 to authority to two
the search warrant requirement, circumstances….
to include searches incident to
lawful arrest.9 This exception, as
defined by the Court in Chimel
v. California,10 “derives from
interests in officer safety and
evidence preservation that are

Special Agent Myers is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

April 2011 / 25
that his vehicle was searched.21 According to the court, the facts effectuate an arrest so that a
Under these circumstances, presented in this case are “text- real possibility of access to the
the Court determined that the book examples of ‘[t]he safety arrestee’s vehicle remains.”28
defendant had no access to his and evidentiary justifications However, when announcing the
vehicle and that the search of underlying Chimel’s reaching holding of the decision (and
his vehicle incident to his arrest distance rule....’”).25 articulating the new two-part
was unreasonable under the first Outside of a Gant-like fact rule), the Court dropped any
prong of the Gant test.22 Clearly, pattern, where the arrestee is reference to the arrestee being
if an individual has been ar- handcuffed and placed in the secured or unsecured and sim-
rested, placed in handcuffs, and back of a patrol car, the analysis ply stated (under the first prong
secured in a police vehicle, the under this first prong of Gant of the test) that police “may
first prong of Gant does not becomes more challenging. search a vehicle incident to a
permit law enforcement officers recent occupant’s arrest only

to conduct a search incident to if the arrestee is within reach-
arrest of the passenger compart- ing distance of the passenger
ment of that individual’s motor compartment at the time of the
vehicle as the individual no The key to search.”29
longer has access to the vehicle. understanding the In Boykins v. State,30 the
Courts interpreting the Supreme Court of Appeals of Georgia
Court’s ruling agree that search-
second prong of interpreted this first prong of
es incident to arrest under these the Gant test is to the Gant rule “to mean that the
circumstances would be unrea- define “reasonable police may conduct a search of
sonable under the first prong of to believe.” the passenger compartment of
Gant.23 However, if there are the arrestee’s vehicle incident

multiple occupants in a vehicle to his lawful arrest in the ‘rare
and one occupant is arrested, case’ in which the arrestee has a
handcuffed, and secured in a ‘real possibility of access’ to his
police vehicle, the search of the Some of the difficulty derives vehicle.”31 In analyzing Gant,
passenger compartment of the from the language used in the the court emphasized that the
vehicle nevertheless may be majority’s decision in Gant. In requirement that the arrestee
permissible incident to arrest if several parts of the decision, be “unsecured” was “notice-
the other occupants still have the Court refers to whether ably absent” from the Supreme
access to the vehicle. For exam- the arrestee is “secured”26 or Court’s first prong of the rule.32
ple, in United States v. Davis,24 “unsecured”27 and within access In Boykins, the defendant
the Eighth Circuit Court of of the vehicle at the time of the had been arrested on an out-
Appeals upheld the search of search when analyzing the first standing probation warrant,
the passenger compartment of part of the test. Moreover, in handcuffed, and stood outside
a vehicle incident to arrest of a footnote, the Court explains of his vehicle under the control
the driver when the three re- that “[b]ecause officers have of a policeman when his vehicle
maining, unsecured, and intoxi- many means of ensuring the was searched by another of-
cated occupants “were standing safe arrest of vehicle occupants, ficer. The Court noted that “the
around a vehicle redolent of it will be the rare case in which trial court apparently inferred
recently smoked marijuana.” an officer is unable to fully from the officer’s testimony that

26 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Boykins was within arm’s reach remains a lenient standard.”37 On the other hand, in State
of the passenger compartment”33 In Shakir, the court affirmed v. Carter41 the Court of Appeals
at the time of the search. The the conviction of an individual of North Carolina ruled that
Court then distinguished Gant, for armed bank robbery and when the defendant had been
reasoning that “unlike the de- refused to suppress evidence “removed from the vehicle,
fendant in Gant, Boykins had found in a bag near his feet handcuffed, and directed to
not been placed in the back of during a search incident to his sit on a curb” when the search
the patrol car at the time of the arrest. The court reasoned that of the vehicle was conducted,
search; he was standing outside “[a]lthough he was handcuffed there was “no reason to believe
of his vehicle.”34 Accordingly, and guarded by two policemen, defendant was within reaching
in affirming Boykin’s convic- Shakir’s bag was literally at his distance or otherwise able to ac-
tion for possession of cocaine feet, so it was accessible if he cess the passenger compartment
(which was found in the passen- dropped to the floor. Although it of the vehicle.”42 Accordingly,
ger compartment of his vehicle would have been more difficult the court could not justify the
during the search incident to for Shakir to open the bag and search incident to arrest under
arrest), the Court held that the first prong of Gant.43
“whether he [Boykins] had any © Mark C. Ide Additionally, in United
‘real possibility of access’ to the States v. Chavez,44 the U.S.
passenger compartment of his District Court for the Eastern
vehicle was a mixed question of District of California held that
fact and law for the trial court to when a defendant fled from
determine. We will not second- the site of an attempted arrest,
guess the trial court’s finding police were not justified to
that the search was justified search his vehicle incident to
under Gant and Chimel on the arrest. The subject had eluded
basis of officer safety.”35 the officers, jumped a fence,
Similarly, in applying the and was nowhere near the scene
two-part Gant rule to a nonve- when the search of his vehicle
hicle situation, the Third Circuit was conducted. Moreover, the
Court of Appeals in United police were standing by the car
States v. Shakir36 held that “a to ensure that if the defendant
search is permissible incident to retrieve the weapon while hand- did return, he would not have
a suspect’s arrest when, under cuffed, we do not regard this access to the vehicle.45
all the circumstances, there possibility as remote enough From these decisions, it
remains a reasonable possibility to render unconstitutional the is clear that the first prong of
that the arrestee could access search incident to arrest.”38 The the Gant test involves “case-
a weapon or destructible evi- court, citing the Fifth Circuit by-case, fact specific decision
dence in the container or area Court of Appeals, explained that making”46 by law enforcement
to be searched. Although this handcuffs are not “fail-safe”39 as there no longer is any bright-
standard requires something and “are a temporary restrain- line rule. The first prong of the
more than a theoretical pos- ing device; they limit but do not test hinges on access and re-
sibility that a suspect might eliminate a person’s ability to quires officers to articulate
access a weapon or evidence, it perform various acts.”40 facts demonstrating that there

April 2011 / 27
is a real or reasonable possibil- this prong is “consistent with [b]ut in others, including Belton
ity that the defendant can access the holding in Thornton”50 and and Thornton, the offense of
the passenger compartment is based on Justice Scalia’s con- the arrest will supply a basis for
to obtain a weapon or destroy curring opinion in that case.51 searching the passenger com-
evidence at the time of the Additionally, this second prong partment of an arrestee’s vehicle
search. When an arrestee has is “unique to the automobile and any containers therein.”55 Of
been handcuffed and secured in context.”52 note, both Belton56 and Thor-
a police vehicle, the justification The key to understanding ton57 involved arrests for drug
for a subsequent search inci- the second prong of the Gant offenses.
dent to arrest of the passenger test is to define “reasonable to The majority in Gant did
compartment of the arrestee’s believe.” In Gant, the police not provide further explanation
vehicle no longer is present arrested the defendant for driv- or guidance as to the second
under the first prong of the test. ing with a suspended license.53 prong of the test. As stated by
However, when the arrestee has The Court found the subsequent Justice Alito in his dissenting
been handcuffed but not yet se- search incident to arrest of the opinion, this “creates a host of
cured in a police vehicle, there uncertainties.”58 Not surprising-

is case law in support of permit- ly, lower courts have struggled
ting the search of the passenger with the language of this part of
compartment of the arrestee’s the test and have come up with
vehicle incident to arrest for To understand myriad interpretations.
weapons and evidence as long when an arrestee An analysis of these lower
as the arrestee still is within is outside of the court opinions reveals some
reaching distance of the vehicle. reaching distance of commonalities. First, the courts
This is not to recommend that the passenger generally have not interpreted
officers keep recently arrested compartment of a the “reasonable to believe”
subjects near their vehicles so motor vehicle, it is best standard as being synonymous
that such searches may be justi- to start with the with probable cause. The vast
fied as officer safety remains of facts of Gant. majority of courts interpreting
paramount importance. Gant have concluded that the

standard is less than probable
“Reasonable To cause, reasoning that a probable
Believe” Standard cause standard merely would
The second prong of the defendant’s vehicle to be un- duplicate the level of proof re-
Gant test permits the search of reasonable as it was not likely quired under the motor vehicle
the passenger compartment of a that the police would discover exception.59 However, if the
motor vehicle following the ar- offense-related evidence dur- standard is not probable cause,
rest of a recent occupant of that ing the search.54 The Court ex- what is it? Courts interpreting
vehicle when “it is reasonable plained that “[i]n many cases, this part of the test are not in
to believe the vehicle contains as when a recent occupant is agreement.60 There has been
evidence of the arrest.”47 This arrested for a traffic violation, a wide range of explanations
prong does not deal with ac- there will be no reasonable of the test,61 but most courts
cess48 and is not tethered to the basis to believe the vehicle conclude that “reasonable to
holding of Chimel.49 Instead, contains relevant evidence... believe” is determined in one

28 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

of two ways: 1) by a reasonable from objections similar to those for “driving without [a] seat-
suspicion standard or 2) by the that Gant condemned in the belt fastened, failing to secure
nature of the offense. It should broad reading of Belton.”68 In [passenger] children in seat-
be noted that Justice Alito, who Chamberlain, the court upheld belts, driving without a license,
dissented in Gant, has described the suppression of evidence and failing to provide proof of
this test as a “reasonable suspi- found in the defendant’s vehicle insurance”)72 and Knowles v.
cion requirement.”62 after she had been arrested for Iowa73 (involving an arrest for
In United States v. Vinton,63 false reporting; when the officer speeding). The Court stated that
the D.C. Court of Appeals already possessed her driver’s in other cases, like Belton74 and
presumed that “‘the reason- license, registration, and proof Thornton75 (both involving drug
able to believe’ standard prob- of insurance; and it was not rea- arrests), the “offense of arrest
ably is akin to the ‘reasonable sonable that her vehicle would will supply a basis for search-
suspicion’ standard required to contain any additional evidence ing the passenger compartment
justify a Terry64 search.”65 In ap- of the offense of the arrest.69 of an arrestee’s vehicle and
plying the standard to the facts any containers therein.”76 The
of the case, the court justified Court then concluded that since
the search of a locked briefcase Gant was arrested for driving
found in the passenger compart- with a suspended license, the
ment of a defendant’s vehicle police could not expect to find
after he was arrested for the un- evidence of this crime in the
lawful possession of a weapon passenger compartment of his
and the officer had discovered vehicle.77
other weapons in the vehicle A significant number of
during a protective search of the lower courts have used the
passenger compartment. above language to conclude
In People v. Chamberlain,66 that the second prong of Gant
the Supreme Court of Colorado, hinges on the “nature of the
en banc, concluded that the offense” involved in the arrest
“reasonable to believe” standard © Mark C. Ide and “not some independent
of Gant requires “some degree evidence that gives rise to a
of articulable suspicion,” simi- A second line of cases inter- belief that the particular vehicle
lar to the “lesser degree of sus- prets “reasonable to believe” as contains evidence.”78 With this
picion commensurate with that a “nature-of-the-offense” test. test in mind, it is important to
sufficient for limited intrusions, This test originates from the examine what types of offenses
like investigatory stops.”67 The Court’s language in Gant, where courts have determined would
court reasoned that the “‘nature- the Court explained that there fall within the parameters of the
of-the-offense’ exception, in are some offenses, like traffic test. Clearly, most routine traffic
which a reasonable belief is violations, where “there will be offenses fall outside this sec-
held to exist whenever the no reasonable basis to believe ond prong of Gant.79 However,
crime of arrest is one for which the vehicle contains relevant courts have justified searches
evidence is possible and might evidence.”70 The Court then incident to arrest under the “na-
conceivably be found in the cited as examples Atwater v. ture of the offense” test for the
arrestee’s vehicle...would suffer Lago Visa71 (involving an arrest following offenses: theft,80 drug

April 2011 / 29
offenses,81 illegal firearms,82 If the arrestee no longer or follows the prerequisite and
driving under the influence,83 has access to the passenger scope of another recognized
and fraud and abuse.84 It must compartment of the vehicle, search warrant exception.86
be remembered that this search the officer must determine if While the holding of Gant
authority is limited to evidence it is reasonable to believe that restricted searches incident
of the crime for which the arrest evidence of the offense of the to arrest, it had no impact on
was made “or of another crime arrest is located in the passenger the other exceptions, such
that the officer has probable compartment of the vehicle to as consent,87 the emergency
cause to believe occurred.”85 be searched. Courts have dif- exception,88 the motor vehicle
fered in their interpretation of exception,89 and the inventory
Conclusion this second prong of the test, exception.90
While the U.S. Supreme and, until the Supreme Court
Court has limited the ability Endnotes
specifically addresses this issue,
of law enforcement to search 1
556 U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).
the passenger compartment of In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454,

460, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (1981), the
a motor vehicle incident to the U.S. Supreme Court held that “when a
arrest of a recent occupant of policeman has made a lawful custodial
that vehicle, it certainly has not arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he
eliminated this viable search
While the holding may, as a contemporaneous incident of that
warrant exception. However, of Gant restricted arrest, search the passenger compartment
officers applying this exception searches incident of that automobile.” In Thornton v. United
to arrest, it had no States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127
must be familiar with the word- (2004), the Court extended the holding of
ing and meaning of the Court’s impact on the other Belton to allow for the lawful search of the
two-part test articulated in Gant. exceptions…. passenger compartment of a motor vehicle
It also must be remembered that following the arrest of a recent occupant of

that vehicle.
facts satisfying either prong of 3
Gant at 1718-1719.
the test will result in a reason- 4
Id. at 1723.
able search incident to arrest. 5
Id. at 1714-1716.
Under the first prong, the it is incumbent on law enforce- Id. at 1719. A detailed account of the
defendant still must have a ment officers to learn and facts of Gant and an in-depth review of the
legal precedent leading up to the decision
real possibility of access to the follow the precedent of their have been the subject of a previous Law
vehicle at the time of the search respective jurisdictions. The Enforcement Bulletin article and will not
for this part of the test to be sat- two most common interpreta- be repeated herein. See Richard G. Schott,
isfied. This has become a fact- tions of the second prong of the “The Supreme Court Reexamines Search
specific, case-by-case determi- test are the reasonable suspicion Incident to Lawful Arrest,” FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, July 2009. Addition-
nation for the officer to make at standard and the nature-of-the- ally, the retroactive application of Gant,
the scene of the arrest. Factors offense test. whether police may rely on a “good faith”
in this analysis include whether Even if both prongs of the exception to the exclusionary rule for pre-
or not the subject is handcuffed, Gant test are inapplicable, a Gant searches, and the extension of Gant
search of a passenger compart- beyond the motor vehicle context all are
or secured in a police vehicle,
beyond the scope of this article.
the proximity of the subject to ment of a motor vehicle still 7
Gant at 1716 (citing Katz v. United
the vehicle to be searched, and would be considered reasonable States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)).
subject-to-officer ratio. if the officer obtains a warrant 8

30 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

9 24
Id.; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 569 F. 3d 813 (C.A. 8 2009). to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the
383, 392, 34 S. Ct. 341 (1914). Id. at 817. See also United States arrestee is unsecured and within reaching
395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 v. Goodwin-Bey, 584 F.3d 1117, (C.A. 8 distance of the passenger compartment at
L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). 2009), cert. denied ___U.S.___, 130 S. Ct. the time of the search”).
11 28
Gant at 1716; United States v. Robin- 1563, 176 L.Ed 2d 148 (2010) (permitting Supra note 4.
son, 414 U.S. 218, 230-234, 94 S. Ct. 467 search of passenger compartment of motor Id. at 1724.
(1973); and Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. vehicle incident to the arrest of one of the ---S.E.2d---, 2010 WL 4243134 (Ga.
752, 763, 89 S. Ct. 2034 (1969). passengers due to safety concern based on App. 2010).
12 31
Gant at 1714 (citing Chimel v. Cali- earlier report of a weapon in the vehicle Id. at p. 6.
fornia, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S. Ct. 2034 and presence of three remaining pas- Id.
(1969)). sengers outside of the vehicle. The three Id.
13 34
453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860 (1981). passengers had been patted down, but Id.
14 35
Gant at 1715; and New York v. Bel- were not restrained or otherwise secured); Id.
ton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S. Ct. 2860, and United States v. Salamasina, 615 F.3d 616 F.3d 315 (C.A. 3 2010), cert.
2864 (1981). 925 (C.A. 8 2010) (search of passenger denied 131 S. Ct. 841 (2010).
15 37
Gant at 1717-1718, 1724. compartment of vehicle permitted incident Id. at 321.
16 38
Id. at 1724. to the arrest of driver on drug charges, Id.
17 39
Id. (“police may search a vehicle even though at time of search he was Id. at 320.
incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only Id. (citing United States v. Sanders,
if the arrestee is within reaching distance 994 F.2d 200, 209 (C.A. 5 1993)). See also
of the passenger compartment at the time United States v. Perdoma, 621 F.3d 745,
of the search or it is reasonable to believe 753 (C.A. 8 2010) (without expressly hold-
the vehicle contains evidence of the of- ing that Gant applied to nonmotor vehicle
fense of the arrest [emphasis added]). See situations, the Court reasoned that the fact
also United States v. Davis, 569 F.3d 813, that the defendant had been handcuffed
816-817 (C.A. 8 2009); Commonwealth and restrained by police in a bus terminal
v. Elliott, 322 S.W.3d 106, 110 (Ky. App. at the time of his arrest did not mean that
2010); and Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, he clearly was outside of reaching distance
678, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2593 (DC App. of his nearby bag at the time of the search).
Fla. 2009). 682 S.E.2d 416 (N.C. App. 2009).
18 42
Id. at 1723. Id. at 421.
19 43
395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 Id.
L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). 2009 WL 4282111 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
20 45
Gant at 1714. Id. at p. 5.
21 46
Id. at 1714-1715. Gant at 1729 (2009) (Alito, J.,
Id. at 1719, 1723. dissenting).
© Mark C. Ide 47
See, for example, United States v. Id. at 1724.
Lopez, 567 F. 3d 755, 757-758 (C.A. 6 handcuffed and moved to a location next to United States v. Davis, 569 F.3d 813,
2009); United States v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d the patrol car and away from the vehicle. 816-817 (C.A. 8 2009); and Common-
713 (C.A. 9 2009) (no authority for search Defendant’s fiancee and two minor chil- wealth v. Elliott, 322 S.W.3d 106, 110 (Ky.
incident to arrest but justified under inven- dren still had access to the vehicle, and the App. 2010).
tory exception); People v. Chamberlain, fiancee repeatedly entered and exited the 556 U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719
229 P.3d 1054, 1055 (Colo. 2010); United vehicle to tend to her children and spoke in (2009).
States v. Megginson, 340 Fed.Appx. 856, a foreign language to the arrestee despite Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S.
857 (C.A. 4 2009); State v. Johnson, the officer’s instructions not to do so). 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127 (2004) (the U.S.
---N.C.App.---, 693 S.E. 2d 711,717 Gant at 1714 (“we hold that Belton Supreme Court extended the holding of
(2010); United States v. Majette, 326 Fed. does not authorize a vehicle search Belton to allow for the lawful search of the
Appx. 211, 213 (C.A. 4 2009) (unpub- incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after passenger compartment of a motor vehicle
lished); United States v. Kelley, 2011 WL the arrestee has been secured and cannot following the arrest of a recent occupant of
201477 (S.D. Texas 2011); and United access the interior of the vehicle”). that vehicle).
27 51
States v. Reagan, 713 F.Supp2d 724, 727 Id. at 1719 (“the Chimel rationale au- Gant at 1714, 1719.
(E.D. Tenn. 2010). thorizes police to search a vehicle incident Id.

April 2011 / 31
53 80
Id. holding in Gant to require an officer to sus- Id. at 677.
54 81
Id. at 1719. pect the presence of more direct evidence United States v. Wright, 374 Fed.
Id. of the crime of arrest than...highly indirect Appx. 386, 391, 210 WL 1500520 (C.A.4
453 U.S. 454, 456, 101 S. Ct. 2860, circumstantial evidence...). 2010); United States v. Brown, 2009 WL
2864 (1981). 229 P.3d 1054, 1056-1057 (Colo. 2346668 (S.D. Ind. 2009); United States v.
541 U.S. 615, 618, 124 S. Ct. 2127 2010). Page, 679 F.Supp.2d 648 (E.D. Va. 2009);
(2004). Id. and United States v. Conerly, 2010 WL
58 70
See Megginson v. United States, 129 Gant at 1714, 1719. 4723434 (E.D. Mi.2010).
71 82
S. Ct. 1982 (2009) and Grooms v. United 532 U.S. 318, 324, 121 S. Ct. 1536, People v. Osborne, 175 Cal.App.4th
States, 129 S. Ct. 1981 (2009) (dissenting 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001). 1052, 1065, 96 Ca.Rptr.3d 696 (Cal.App.
opinions of Justice Alito in two matters Id. at 321. Dist.1 Div.4 2009).
73 83
before the Court that were remanded for 525 U.S. 113, 118, 119 S. Ct. 484, Commonwealth v. Elliott, 322
further consideration in light of Arizona v. 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998). S.W.3d 106, 110 (Ky. App. 2010); Idaho
Gant). New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, v. Cantrell, 233 P.3d 178, 183 (Idaho App.
See, for example, United States v. 460, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (1981). 2010); but see United States v. Reagan,
Vinton, 594 F.3d 14, 25 (DC Cir. 2010), Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 713 F.Supp.2d 724, 733 (E.D. Tenn. 2010)
cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 93 (2010); United 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127 (2004). (DUI arrest alone, without particularized
States v. Polanco, ---F.3d.---, 2011 WL and articulable reason to believe evidence

420747 at * 4 (C.A. 1 2011); People v. of DUI is contained in vehicle at time
Chamberlain, 229 P.3d 1054, 1057 (Colo. of search does not satisfy reasonable-to-
2010); United States v. Leak, 2010 WL believe standard).
1418227 (W.D.N.C. 2010); Powell v. Com- United States v. Owen, 2009 WL
monwealth, 57 Va. App. 329, 339, 701 S.E. …facts satisfying 2857959 (S.D. Miss., South. Div. 2009).
2d 831 (Va. App. 2010); Idaho v. Cantrell either prong of the 85
Gant at 1714, 1725 (Scalia, J., con-
233 P.3d 178, 183 (Idaho App. 2010); but, test will result in a curring); and Deemer v. State, ---P.3d.---,
see United States v. Grote, 629 F.Supp 2d 2010 WL 5187698 (Alaska App. 2010).
1201, 1203 (E.D. Wash.2009) (reasonable reasonable search 86
Gant at 1724.
to believe equates to probable cause). incident to arrest. 87
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.
State v. Gamboa, 2010 WL 2773359 218 (1973).
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.

(Ariz. App. Div. 1 2010) (unreported).
Id. 757 (1966); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S.
Megginson v. United States, 129 S. 1032, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201
Ct. 1982 (2009). (1983); and Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S.
63 76
594 F.3d 14 (D.C.Cir. 2010), cert. Gant at 1714, 1719. 325, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276
denied 131 S. Ct. 93 (2010). Id. (1990).
64 78 89
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, 678, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798,
1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2593 (D.C. App. 820-821, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d
594 F.3d 14, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2010), Fla. 2009), review denied 39 So.3d 1264 572 (1982); United States v. Polanco,
cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 93 (2010). (2010); endnote 79. ---F.3d.---, 2011 WL 420747 at * 3 (Co. 1
66 79
229 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2010). United States v. Lopez, 567 F. 3d 2011).
67 90
Id. at 1057. See also People v. 755, 758 (C.A. 6 2009) (reckless driving); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S.
Perez, 231 P.3d 957 (Colo. 2010); United United States v. Brunick, 374 FedAppx. 364 (1976).
States v. Reagan, 713 F.Supp.2d 724, 733 714, 716, 2010 WL 1041369 (C.A. 9
(E.D. Tenn. 2010) (reasonable-to-believe 2010) (driving under suspended license);
standard is based on common sense fac- United States v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713,718 Law enforcement officers of other than
tors and the totality of the circumstances (C.A. 9 2009) (driving under suspended federal jurisdiction who are interested
that evidence of the offense of the arrest license); United States v. Bronner, 2009 in this article should consult their legal
is in the passenger compartment of the WL 1748533 (D. Minn.2009) (driving advisors. Some police procedures ruled
vehicle, in other words “particularized under revoked license); and United permissible under federal constitutional
and articulable reasons”); State v. Mbacke, States v. Holmes, 2009 WL 1748533 law are of questionable legality under
---S.E.2d---, 2011 WL 13814 (N.C. App. (D. Minn.2009) (unreported) (driving state law or are not permitted at all.
2011) (“we interpret the Supreme Court’s under revoked license).

32 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Bulletin Notes
Law enforcement officers are challenged daily in the performance of their duties; they face each
challenge freely and unselfishly while answering the call to duty. In certain instances, their actions
warrant special attention from their respective departments. The Bulletin also wants to recognize
those situations that transcend the normal rigors of the law enforcement profession.

On September 19, 2010, Chief Vincent Carlone of the New Shoreham

Police Department in Block Island, Rhode Island responded to a call for a
capsized vessel with two people clinging to the hull. Earlier, Hurricane Igor
generated huge swells that rolled the boat more than 1,000 feet off shore.
Upon arrival at the scene, Chief Carlone donned his diving gear, grabbed a
rescue buoy, and entered the dangerous surf. He navigated his way through
boulders, crashing waves, and surging whitewater to find the two fishermen.
When Chief Carlone reached them, he handed the rescue buoy to one man
and swam back into the ocean with the other man in tow. A nearby boat
Chief Carlone
picked them up, so the chief returned for the second fisherman and repeated
the rescue process. Then, a harbor master brought the group back to Block
Island, and an ambulance transported the men to a local medical center where they received
treatment for hypothermia and other minor injuries. Chief Carlone’s prompt action and strong
physical stamina averted a potentially disastrous event.

While on patrol, Officer Jeffrey Holtz of the Bridgeport, Connecticut,

Police Department encountered a three-family residence fully engulfed in
flames. After he learned that a victim remained trapped in an apartment
on the third floor, Officer Holtz entered the burning building immediately.
Battling excessive smoke inhalation, he made his way to a second-floor
landing and assisted the victim down from her window with the help of a

Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be based

Officer Holtz on either the rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s)
made at unusual risk to an officer’s safety. Submissions
should include a short write-up (maximum of 250 words),
a separate photograph of each nominee, and a letter
from the department’s ranking officer endorsing the
nomination. Submissions can be mailed to the Editor,
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Outreach
and Communications Unit, Quantico, VA 22135 or
e-mailed to
U.S. Department of Justice Periodicals
Federal Bureau of Investigation Postage and Fees Paid
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ISSN 0014-5688
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Patch Call

The Missouri State Highway Patrol’s patch The patch of the Lacy Lakeview, Texas, Police
displays a replica of the state’s official seal. The Department has a blue background, representing
center shield features a bald eagle, a grizzly bear, awareness, persistence, and justice; the red letters
and a crescent moon. Two more grizzly bears rep- reflect bravery and resilience; and the white circle
resenting courage and strength stand on a scroll indicates purity and innocence. An olive branch
inscribed with the motto, “Service and Protection.” surrounds the city’s emblem. The red and white
The helmet illustrates state sovereignty, and the star symbolizes the department’s commitment to
circular band and buckle symbolize the connection its community.
between the state and federal governments.