Several years ago, I read an article called “Use of Force and High Intensity Tactical Police Flashlights: Policy Concerns.” Since then I have seen it re-printed in various other locations.
In the article, R. Paul McCauley, Ph.D., a criminology professor at a Pennsylvania university, opines that
- the use of high-intensity tactical police flashlights (HITPFs) is a use of force;
- the police use of these flashlights is largely ineffective as a use of force;
- when used, high-intensity flashlights may often cause an escalation in the use of force; and
- policies and training need to be developed to govern the use of illumination in police work.
I don’t know what background, if any, McCauley has in modern police work, but the use of illumination is not a use of force. The use of illumination is considered concealment (as in “concealment vs. cover”). Concealment helps to hide the officer’s exact location from a suspect, but it cannot control the suspect, nor offer any barriers if the suspect was to charge at the officer, or begin firing a weapon at the officer.
In McCauley’s own words:
“…the light…obscures subjects’ ability to visually target, it seemingly does not apply any physical force or pain to gain control or compliance from these individuals.”
This would seem to indicate that McCauley understands that the use of light is merely tactical concealment, but in the very next sentence, he states that:
“Agency policy makers must decide…if light is controlling or painful to determine where HITPFs fall in the use-of-force continuum.”
So, McCauley moves from stating that light doesn’t apply any physical force or pain, to encouraging departments to determine if the light is “controlling” or “painful” so the light can be properly placed in the use-of-force continuum.
Let me be perfectly clear: the use of lighting is not a use of force. The use of lighting, when done correctly, can create concealment for the officer. If the officer is able to take advantage of the concealment, he or she may be able to gain control of the suspect(s) using lower levels of force, than if the officer did not have the tactical advantage of concealment.
Reading through the rest of the article, I began to understand McCauley’s motivation in writing the piece. See if you can pick it out.
McCauley states that using light as concealment may prevent suspects from recognizing police, and “…this situation is not only dangerous, but subject to legal scrutiny and possible civil litigation.”
McCauley performed a non-reproducible, non-scientific “experiment” with 17 college students. McCauley had them walk toward him in a dark hallway, and he shined a flashlight in their eyes. McCauley reported that 14 of the students “extended to some degree” one or both of their arms. From this, McCauley extrapolates that when a police officer shines a light at a suspect, the suspect is likely to raise their arms, and the police officer will respond with a greater use of force. With this, McCauley states, “…the officer’s actions created the dangerous situation.”
McCauley then goes on to state “Agencies must clarify when and how to use HITPFs,” as police officers “…need policy guidance and training.”
A quick Google search on McCauley, located what I suspected: McCauley pedals himself as an expert witness, or hired gun, for people looking to sue police departments.
Don’t believe me? Check out all of the entries in Google with his name, or just wander over to ALMExperts.com’s entry on McCauley. In it, McCauley states:
Profile:
R. Paul McCauley has assisted plaintiff & defense attorneys in matters of police & security negligence, excessive use of force, pursuits, hiring, retention and assignment of officers.Years as Expert: 28
Primary Area of Expertise: Security/Premises Liability
In McCauley’s resume, the only police experience he lists is as a trainer for an unnamed Pennsylvania police department from 1966-1969 (during part of that time, he also lists that he was an assistant manager for Burns Security.) So, as near as I can tell, McCauley crafted the entire article in such a way to set himself up as an expert in a new area of police litigation: the improper use of lighting.
While I expect such people to write such articles, I am sadly disappointed to report where this article was originally published: the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
I hope everyone critically evaluates the information they read from any source (mine included).
Stay Safe!
Also, check out my prior article on the use of flashlights in police service.
Related posts:
Amazing, how many individuals with access to a computer and 10 fingers can become an “expert” at something. Having been through the civil court side of a law enforcement career, I cannot stress enough to know who the “expert”witnesses are, yours (as defendant) and the plaintiffs. I have found that with 20+ years in law enforcement, my resume is better than alot of plaintiffs “experts”