LIGHTS OUT! TECHNIQUES FOR DARKNESS

There are times when remaining in near darkness is actually a great advantage to officers. Here are a few situations where being in near darkness is actually a benefit:

• Maintaining a perimeter position.
• Moving through open areas that offer little cover and are exposed to the suspect.
• Crossing fatal funnels.
• Moving through fatal funnels.
• Hiding from your supervisor … uh, wait, different article!

When on perimeter duty for trying to lock down a fleeing criminal it could definitely be advantageous to remain in near darkness and allow our sense of hearing or smell to assist us. Standing around with a light on full-time may be beneficial if we are absolutely certain the perimeter was set up in time. In that case the light should lock the suspect down, or at least identify his flight path. If we aren’t sure, or we’re dealing with a known armed suspect, then setting up a perimeter in darkness may be more appropriate.

Whether inside a structure or in an open field, movement across open areas is of particular concern to officers. In most situations this movement should be completed with as little or no light as possible. This would be a great opportunity to mix techniques. Officers could intermittently light up an area they want to cross for the purpose of identifying obvious trip hazards or other obstacles. Then, under the concealment of darkness, officers could move across that area in a reasonably safe manner. Again, noise discipline will be a critical concern in these situations as well.

Crossing fatal funnels is a horrible reality that officers must face. A fatal funnel is any location that focuses the area a suspect can expect police movement. This could be a doorway, a window, a hallway, a pathway through woods, etc. This obviously increases the chances that an officer will be attacked while in the funnel. Since this type of movement is frequent in police work, officers should investigate as many techniques as they can find on how to successfully navigate this threat area.

One of the things that an officer might be able to control is the amount of light available at the funnel. After using other lighting techniques to “quick peek” or “cut the pie” the officer can go “lights out” and rapidly move across the funnel under concealment of darkness. “Cutting the pie” allows the officer to remain behind a position of cover while exposing the majority of the room for officer inspection. The final movement is to “quick peek” the deep corners before moving into the room. In this manner the entire room can be examined before crossing the threshold.

Communication with other officers is critical so they don’t back light an officer during this movement. “Lights out” should tell all other officers that a movement in darkness is about to occur, and they need to turn their lights off and be quiet. “Lights out” means lights out! In most circumstances, this instruction will come from the lead officer, but may come from a cover officer who senses a threat from an area different from the main objective.

Limited communication is just as important, it should not let the suspect know what the officers are doing. Loudly proclaiming “lights out so I can cross this doorway” defeats the aspect of surprise. Officers should be comfortable with limited and quiet communications that are brief and to the point.

Another time that “lights out” should be considered is when officers are finally ready to move through the funnel and into a room. From “painting” and “cutting the pie” officers should have a good idea of a clear movement path. Obviously with furniture in the room there are still possible areas that a suspect could hide. When ready officers can call for “lights out” and then move into the room under darkness. Once in the room, officers can relight using an intermittent light technique until the room is clear or a suspect is located, at which time a full-time lighting technique should be used.

Moving into a room should be a considered and deliberate movement. This is not a slow movement, but movement with a plan. Officers still want to clear the funnel as quickly as possible, as there might be ambient light that partially back lights them. To accomplish this officers should move into the room and immediately step away from the doorway a few steps. This clears them from the funnel and allows room for backing officers to enter the room as well. Once inside the room officers should turn lights on to clear any remaining threat areas (like behind furniture).

There are two basic methods for entering the room – crossing and button-hook. In the crossing method, an officer is on one side of the doorway (e.g. left), steps into the room, and then steps across to the other side of the doorway on the inside of the room (right). This is the most natural form of movement into the room that still clears the funnel.

In the button-hook method, an officer is on one side of the doorway (e.g. left), steps into the room and immediately spins back in the same direction (going left), in effect following the contour of the wall they were using as cover.

In either method the officer should take 2-3 steps into the room to clear room for other officers to enter. Going too far into the room will cut off the angle necessary for backing officers to provide additional firepower should an immediate threat be realized. In addition, the officer should move in a manner that places them 3-5 feet away from the wall. This creates a moving target for any suspect that is hiding in the deep corner. If the officer simply moves along the wall they only create a bigger target.

The obvious concerns for the officers are the deep corners and these should be checked first. The deep corners are the ones adjacent to the walls of the room or hallway the officers are in before entering. Using lighting techniques officers should be able to observe the far corners from a position of cover, but the deep corners are often difficult to observe even with a “quick peek” due to furniture or other obstacles.

Once in the room the officers should sweep their weapons inward until the entire room is covered, but not crossing over their partners area to avoid “lasering” each other. Continuing to move while clearing obstacles is a good idea as long as officers are aware of their muzzle and do not laser each other and communication between officers remains constant. Once the room has been thoroughly checked a pre-set communication should be given, such as “nothing seen” or “clear”.

HOSTAGE SITUATIONS

Many agencies do not have the luxury of a full-time S.W.A.T. Team, or even a part-time team that can be assembled in a reasonable amount of time. This is especially true in more rural areas where agencies may be a part of a multi-jurisdictional team that requires even more time to assemble. Whether it is the initial patrol officers or a S.W.A.T. Team that is handling a hostage taker situation, each style of lighting can be utilized.

The intermittent use of light can be an extremely effective tool in the event that the hostage taker must be taken out. Obviously the best use of intermittent light would be if the hostage taker and hostage are in a darkened area. If the hostage rescue has to be performed in a lighted area I would still recommend officers use light on the hostage taker’s eyes to further distract them from officers’ movements.

In a darkened hostage rescue action officers can decide on two methods to engage the hostage taker. These techniques are meant for the common situation where the hostage taker is behind the hostage and holding the hostage close to themselves. The point of these techniques is to get officers close enough to the hostage taker to allow officers to take a head shot on the hostage taker that affords the utmost certainty of avoiding the hostage.

In the first method some of the cover officers can continue to have full-time light on the hostage taker, while other officers move in the peripheral areas to a point where they can engage the hostage taker. The advantage of this is that there will be enough ambient light for the officers to move into position and see the hostage taker. The disadvantages are that the hostage taker is not going to like the light on them, and the ambient light may expose the officers moving in and cause the hostage taker to take action against the hostage.

In the second method the officers maintain full-time light on the hostage taker until they have a reasonable plan of action decided. Then they can go “lights out” which has the appearance of doing what the hostage taker wants from them. Instead, with the hostage taker’s eyes now very much compromised to the dark, the officer(s) can stealthily but quickly take a flanking movement to the hostage taker’s position. At the last possible moment the officer illuminates the hostage taker and takes as near of a contact head shot as possible to ensure ending the hostage taker’s threat, while avoiding injury to the hostage.

Now before any negotiators or administrators write any scathing responses about not trying to talk the hostage taker down I will restate the purpose of this article – low- light techniques. Yes, officers should first try to negotiate or talk hostage takers into releasing their hostages and surrendering. But when the situation has obviously deteriorated and the officers have a reasonable belief that the hostage is in immediate danger of serious physical injury or death, than the officers must act. And in order to act effectively they need to practice techniques that will give them the best advantage. That is the only point of this article.

With disciplined practice, the techniques in this article will help officers to confidently tackle whatever scenario they face in darkness, and actually come to appreciate the benefits of darkness. I would highly recommend that officers review this material and perhaps practice some of the techniques, but seek out qualified training in the area of low-light engagements to fully appreciate the proper methods of using light.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

USING LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY (ON/OFF MODE)

The intermittent use of light is one of the most advantageous methods of flashlight use for law enforcement, but also one of the most misunderstood and misused methods. With this technique, officers should only be turning their flashlights on for a brief lighting, or making rapid on/off switches of their flashlight. Here are some examples where intermittent light is needed:

• Initial lighting for areas of concern to the officer.
• Lighting an area that the officer is preparing to move into.
• Communicating to other officers areas they should focus on, or to communicate the direction of travel for officers.
• Relighting an area after making a movement in total darkness.
• Making quick peek observations into unknown areas.
• Engaging a hostage taker during an emergency action movement.

Obviously lights with a strobe function can simply be turned on to strobe for brief times to illuminate areas of need. Otherwise, officers should turn the light off when they feel that area is reasonably clear, to provide themselves with the concealment of darkness. This on/off method of light use acts to confuse the suspect as to what our intentions are and where we might be going. In general people have trouble gauging time and distance without light. This on/off method of light use compounds the confusion for the suspect because it makes it nearly impossible to accurately judge where an officer is, or where they are going.

Officers need to train and practice extensively to be comfortable in the dark. There is a reason that our troops are so successful in Iraq and Afghanistan – we rule the dark, through night vision optics and proper illumination techniques! Ask a veteran and I’ll bet they’ll tell you they’d rather fight at night than in daylight. Many high risk duties occur at night so we should be that comfortable as well.

The brain is a remarkable instrument if trained properly. Practice moving through dark houses, buildings and yards with very little use of light. An officer could easily gain the skills to observe a room or area with only a few momentary bursts of light, and then actually move through that room or area relatively safely in darkness. Imagine the suspect’s surprise as they try to track the officer’s movement, see the light in one area or room, and then only moments later the light appears (briefly) in an entirely new area.

Now to be sure, this technique is best used when we are in search mode and have to go through open areas that do not offer much cover. I understand that in search mode our mindset must always be thinking that there IS a suspect hiding somewhere in the area we are going, whether in that room or the next, so we must move as stealthily as possible. Maintaining noise discipline is just as important as light discipline during these movements.

If contact is made, or something peeks the officers interest, than another intermittent light use should be employed to examine that area of concern. If a suspect is located, than we switch to full-time light as mentioned above. In a situation where an officer was on the move, it would be necessary for the officer to maintain full- time light on the suspect, while continuing to move to a position of cover.

Through dozens of force-on-force scenarios (often with SWAT officers as bad guys) I can tell you that proper use of intermittent lighting causes the “suspects” to be very concerned that the pain train is coming unless they surrender!

I have had the luxury of training with officers and instructors that have hundreds of hours of low-light techniques training and experience, and I can attest that the confidence to perform well in darkness can be achieved fairly quickly if practiced correctly. And when you use the proper techniques the effects are devastating for those who wait in hiding to do you harm, or who simply try to stay hidden.

Another good example of intermittent light is when officers perform a “quick peek”. The quick peek is done when an officer is in a position of cover, behind a wall or at a door frame for example, and the officer wants to examine where they are going without exposing themselves for long. A quick peek in most cases will be performed after the officer has “cut the pie”. “Cutting the pie” is a technique where officers slowly and deliberately move around corners to examine the area past that corner – most commonly at doorways, or the ends of hallways.

In the quick peek method an officer holds at the position of cover, and first uses their other senses. Yeah, use of flashlights is great but don’t forget the other senses while doing so. If you are at that position of cover and smell a cigarette, or body odor, or hear noise then stay behind cover and call the bad guy out to you on your terms! If you don’t have any other sensual stimulus but you still want to confirm that the area you are going into is relatively safe use the quick peek.

To do this, the officer must concentrate on what they are doing to get the timing right. When the officer is ready they will move in darkness to a point where their light, gun, and eyes can see where they want to look. This should only expose the bare minimum of the officer’s body. As soon as the officer is in that position conduct a quick on/off of their flashlight in the direction that the officer wants to see. Once done immediately withdraw back to cover.

The goal of a “quick peek” is to allow the officer to see into a threat area, but not long enough to give a suspect time to fire or attack the officer. The officer is taking a snap-shot picture of what he saw, and allowing that picture to develop while in cover like an old Polaroid instant picture did (younger officers Google it!).

If the officer needs to look in the other direction into the hot area, than they need to make sure they displace and conduct their “quick peek” from a different position (kneeling, modified prone, etc.). The quick peek should be performed from start to finish in about one second, less for those who are highly practiced in the technique.

Depending on the circumstances, the officer can follow with “painting” the room or moving on to another area, hopefully under the concealment of darkness. Something officers should remember is that all of these techniques are tools for the officers. Officers should not feel compelled or bound to follow a certain set of rules on using their flashlight, but instead take all of these techniques into the field and use the ones that are appropriate for the situation they find themselves in.

With all the good that the on/off or intermittent use of light brings, this area of light use also brings with it a certain mystique and plenty of naysayers. I firmly believe that those who aren’t fans have either never tried it, or more likely, have tried it incorrectly and quickly discarded the technique because of early failures. To be certain, this method of light use requires the highest level of training and practice, otherwise it will lose its powerful and positive effect.

An example of a failure to properly use intermittent light would be an officer who simply flashes some light in a certain area but doesn’t take mental photographs of what they are seeing. In that case the officer has simply wasted time and effort. An officer must train themselves to know that they are going to briefly turn the light on, and train the brain to respond to the limited stimulus by recording information. It is very possible! You’ll be amazed at the amount of detail and information you can gather from a flash of light that is on less than one second.

TRY THIS EXPERIMENT OF THE QUICK PEEK

Have an officer stand in the deep corner of a room (the corner that is adjacent to the doorway) and make the room as dark as possible. That officer will do something particular for the lighting officer to identify (make a peace symbol, be sitting with hands up, have hands in a position to shoot, etc.). The officer with the light will move their head (eyes), flashlight, and training weapon into the room while still dark to do a quick peek. Start with no time limits so the movements can be mastered. Then as officers master the movements, start dialing it in with time restrictions – must be completed in 2 seconds, 1.5 seconds, 1 second.

After the officer has moved back to cover allow their brain to start developing that picture. Then ask the lighting officer what they saw in as much detail as possible. Once the lighting officer does well with one officer, try two or three, or have other types of objects or stimulus for them to identify. You’ll be amazed about how much information you can gather in such a short time.

One thing to remember is that action is always faster than reaction. Here, we are expecting that our action will be faster than the suspect’s reaction. This requires a combination of speed and skill. As you train this technique and start feeling more comfortable, step it up a notch. Get everyone in protective gear (full face masks, etc.) and give the “suspect” a Sims or Airsoft gun. Let the “suspect” know that they have a green light to shoot the officer whenever they have a chance. Then let the officers perform the same drills.

The successful officers will come away even more convinced of their abilities in darkness. If an officer is hit then review why they were hit – too long exposed, improper lighting, talking out loud to partners about what they’re going to do, or peeking from the same point repeatedly.

The quick peek has limitations. If done improperly the picture will not provide the officer enough information to make decisions. If the officer lights up before entering the room then they have telegraphed their movement and are susceptible to danger. If the officer lights up as they are leaving there won’t be enough information to process. And if the officer stays in the room too long they are open to danger.

This technique requires practice, practice, practice!

Another thing to remember is the rule of 3! This is an old war rule that says the first to light a cigarette gets the enemies attention. The second to light a cigarette zeroes the enemy onto location. And the third to light gets the bullet! Same goes here with lighting. If you need to do another quick peek DO NOT do it from the same position you just performed!

Displace to kneeling or even modified prone (if you’re really good at it) and look from a whole new area. Suspects believe you’re going to engage them from standing and can guesstimate where you will be coming through that door. You can light up from high while your head is low, or light up low while your head is high. Suspects are naturally attracted to the light so this technique should give even more protection for your noggin.

Coming up, the final installment on Flashlight Tactics.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

There have been tremendous advances in flashlight technology over that last decade, and law enforcement has greatly benefited from the many new features that can be found on relatively inexpensive flashlights. Along with those advances have come new techniques for using an old familiar friend.

Manufacturers like Streamlight, Surefire, Blackhawk, Maglite, Insight, and others have started making smaller, lighter flashlights with incredibly higher light output. These new lights are much smaller, usually only 4-5 inches long and about 1-inch in and no bigger than the average person’s palm. Instead of heavy D-cell batteries, cops went to AA and the new CR123 batteries. And the newer lights introduced a thumb-activated on/off switch on the tail cap.

Advancements in bulb technology has led in the direction of LED or similar bulbs that create even higher light output, with the benefit of longer lasting run time. With the LED advancement, flashlights have added different light settings including high output, low output, and even strobe and dimming functions on some lights.

In this article I hope to explore some of the benefits of the smaller “tactical” flashlights, and combine that with some low-light techniques that every patrol officer should be familiar with to succeed in the dark.

USING LIGHT FULL-TIME

There are times when having your flashlight on continuously is a benefit to the officer. Here are a few examples:

• Interviewing subjects on stops or calls . It allows officers to keep a clear view of the subjects hands and movements, while offering a distraction (by shining the light in the subject’s eyes) should the person become less cooperative.
• Writing citations or notes in the field.
• Searching for evidence or missing persons.
• Directing traffic at crash scenes.

Another great time to keep light on full-time is once a suspect has been located during a search. At that point, we need to use the light to its fullest ability to hamper our suspect’s ability to see us or adjust to the rapid changes from dark to light. Plus we want to see every movement that our suspect makes to identify signs of fight or flight.

Full-time light in this situation can have a paralyzing effect on people who are surrounded by darkness. Humans rely heavily on eyesight for external stimulus and information, so taking away a suspect’s eyes with full light is a very beneficial thing. Full-time light also provides us with our best sight picture in the event of a deadly force or other applied force situation.

When using light full-time officers should be keenly aware of using the light to its greatest advantage. What I mean is that the light should be used to blind the suspect or illuminate the suspect’s hands. Hands kill us so we have to know what they are doing or holding. Once we have established that the hands are empty than the officer should use the light to eliminate the suspect’s ability to see, and therefore eliminate their ability to develop an organized plan of attack, resistance, or escape.

Some officers have advocated turning all lights on during an interior check, and although there are some benefits to this method, there are also times where it leaves us at a disadvantage. For instance, if you turn a light on in a living room you are completely illuminated, but a suspect in the darkened adjacent kitchen or hallway may not be visible. In addition, officers have to cross completely lit territory in order to continue clearing the areas of uncertainty.

A good home defense technique is to leave a hallway light on so if an intruder enters your darkened room you have the complete advantage, being hidden, while they are completely backlit. The same thing applies to officers and can be used against us.

Officers that train and practice operating in the dark, can actually become quite comfortable being in the dark or semi-lit conditions. In these training scenarios, the darkness becomes our friend, and we are able to use it for our advantage.

PAINTING WITH LIGHT

Another way of using full-time light to our advantage is the method of “painting” the light. Instead of simply pointing the light in one general direction, think about painting a wall. There is a lot of up/down and side to side movement, and probably some diagonal movement too so that the whole wall is covered and there are no obvious signs of brush strokes. This same movement can be used in the full-time lighting method to confuse suspects.

Try keeping your flashlight on and then moving your flashlight in rapid and different directions. Nothing extreme, in fact shorter and more controlled movements are better, but changing the patterns continuously. This gives a great amount of light for the officer to examine their surroundings but is very confusing to the suspect because it does not allow them the ability to determine how far away you are with your light. In some situations it will even confuse the suspect from knowing where the light is coming from, because light will be hitting all the walls, ceiling and angles, creating confusing shadows and light patterns.

Try this with your fellow officers. Have them hide in a darkened room or down a hallway. Use the method as described above and ask them how well they could determine where you were. They might have a general sense of where you are coming from but not an exact distance. This is great in a hallway where a suspect may be hiding around the corner.

Using this method and being quiet may allow you to move in the hallway without the give-away signs of how close you are getting that happens by leaving your light on and pointed in one position down the hall. Noise discipline is important here too, because the more stimulus you give out the easier it is for the suspect to start triangulating position.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

This knife from Columbia River Knife and Tool (CRKT) is designed by Kit Carson. Kit Carson is famous in the knife building community for the quality of his knife designs. Carson retired as a Sergeant Major from the Army, and has been designing knives for over 30 years. He has been full-time in knife designing since 1993.

The M16-14ZSF is a progression of the CRKT M16 series of knives. There are several design features that stand out on this knife, but CRKT fans will see some similarities with other M16 knives as well. CRKT advertises this knife as Kit Carson’s “folding fixed blade”. This has a Desert Camo handle, but a similar knife (the M21-14ZSF) comes with a black handle. The overall weight of this knife is 6.4 oz. (6.3 oz. on the CRKT website). This knife really feels good in my hands, especially considering its size.

As you read you will find several differences in specifications for this knife. The reason for this is I’m comparing the CRKT packaging of this knife with information from the CRKT website. It is possible that since I purchased this knife on a military base that there are slight differences in the military version and the civilian model, though that is speculation on my part.

THE BLADE

According to the packaging the knife blade is made of AUS 8 stainless steel that has a non-reflective “bead blast” finish. The CRKT website says AUS 4 stainless steel. This is a sand blasted finish that makes the blade’s appearance unique, with a battleship gray appearance instead of shiny steel. The blade is a dual edge Tanto-style knife that also has the “Triple-Point” (TM) combination blade serrations at the base of the blade that are razor sharp. Although the blade is sharpened on both sides, there is a clearly heavier sharpening on the left side (inside for right-handed carry). This causes the blade to be mostly straight on the right side (outside for right-handed carry), with the blade tapering to that side.

According to the packaging the blade is 3.99” (101mm) in overall length, with one inch of serrations. The CRKT website says the blade is 3.875”. I measured mine with a paper-thin plastic ruler and found it to be 3 15/16” from the edge of the hilt to the tip of the tanto edge. Whatever the length, this makes the blade less than the 4” maximum legal length for pocket carry in most areas. Be sure to check the law in your local jurisdictions before you take the M16 out. The blade is 0.138” wide, or about 3.5 mm, and a 58-59 HRC (55-57 HRC on the website).

THE BLADE CATCHES

The blade also has two 0.25” cylindrical catches on the spine of the blade near the hilt, one on each side of the blade. Many knives have similar features that are used to assist in opening the blade. Although these catches have a criss-cross textured pattern, they really are not meant to assist in opening the blade. Although I was able to open the blade with these catches, the quick-assist levers are much easier to manipulate, and I would not recommend a user trying to use the catches to open the blade. These catches are there to stop the blade in the fully open position, as there are bilateral notches in the handle where the notches fit in to provide a strong block.

THE CARSON FLIPPERS

The blade also has two quick-assist levers at the base, for opening and closing the blade. The quick-assist levers, called “Carson Flippers” by CRKT, are about 0.5” long, and have a rough (gear teeth) texture at the tip for easy manipulation. These levers also have a 2mm hole drilled in the end should the owner want to attach a lanyard. When the blade is locked out these levers create a true hilt. CRKT advertises this knife for its “tactical” applications, so having a true hilt is a great benefit when the “dirty” work needs to be done. However, any thrusting type use of this knife will be greatly benefited as the true hilt made by the Carson Flippers will protect the user’s hands from slippage or accidental cutting.

THE HANDLE

The handle is 5.25” long and comes with the Desert Camo Zytel (R) scales. The handle has four large holes drilled in the center of the handle on the left side and three on the right side. In addition to providing a nice look, the holes provide a little extra grip when handling the knife. The M16-14ZSF comes with a stainless steel clip that has the same finish as the blade. The knife is designed for four different carry positions using the clip – blade down, blade up, right and left. CRKT does caution that this particular knife is not designed for tip up carry inside a pocket. That carry position should be done on exterior belts or other gear.

The holes are pre-drilled and the clip is attached with three small star-bit screws. To change positions the owner simply needs to take out the screws, move the clip to the new desired carry position holes, and re-screw the clip to the handle. My M16-14ZSF only had one clip, which was already attached when I bought the knife. The CRKT website advertises that the civilian models should come with two clips.

The interior of the handle is lined with 420J2 stainless steel and maintains the same sand-blasted finish as the rest of the metal on the knife. The pommel of the handle is slightly pointed and takes the shape of a short “J”. Though not specifically mentioned as a use, it appears sturdy enough that the pommel end could be used to break out windows or punch out other items in an emergency use.

THE BEARINGS

The CRKT M16-14ZSF knife comes with Teflon blade pivot bearings. The teflon coated bearings, when used in conjunction with the Carson Flippers, makes the opening of the blade so smooth that its almost like having a quick-assist opening mechanism on

the knife. There is also a very reassuring sound as the blade is being opened and locked into position that leaves no doubt about the knife’s readiness. These same bearings make closing the blade just as smooth. There is a slight catch to the blade at about 30 degrees of movement from locked out position. This is the final movement of the locking bar out of place, and also provides one last sensory warning to the user that the blade is closing. Once the stop lever is completely out of the way the blade closes with the slightest of effort.

THE SAFETIES

The M16-14ZSF has two safeties built into the knife’s mechanism. A feature that has become almost synonymous with folding knives, the M16-14ZSF has a tension locking bar on the inside of the handle. When the blade is fully extended the tension handle slides behind the blade preventing the blade from closing in most circumstances. This tension bar as gear teeth type serrations for sure manipulation. The M16-14ZSF goes further in safety design, however, by adding the patented “AutoLAWKS” safety to the knife. The AutoLAWKS is one of two patents that this knife holds, and provides one more assurance that in the locked out position the folding knife will perform as a fixed- blade knife. What the AutoLAWKS does is slide a blocking lever behind the tension lever lock when the blade is in the fully extended position. Now there is no chance that something might get caught on the tension lever and accidentally cause the knife to close.

To disable the AutoLAWKS safety there is a small lever on the right side of the knife that extends outward upon fully extending the blade. The lever is marked with a red dot. This lever will sit just behind the top Carson Flipper when the blade is fully open, to provide safety from the lever accidentally being engaged. To deactivate the AutoLAWKS the user pushes the small lever back, which removes the blocking lever from behind the tension lever inside the handle. While holding this small lever down, the user than can manipulate the sliding of the tension locking lever out of the way, making room for the blade to fold back into the closed position.

I have found that the easiest way for me to close the blade is to hold the M16-14ZSF in my right hand with the bottom facing up (so you can see inside the handle). I then extend my right pointer finger to the AutoLAWKS lever and pull it down. Now I can take my right thumb and push the tension lever out of the way of the blade at the same time as holding down the AutoLAWKS lever. Once this is accomplished I use my left hand to gently begin closing the blade, ensuring that my right thumb gets out of the way for final closing.

The added AutoLAWKS safety is a reassurance that the knife is truly locked open and I can be as tough as this knife was designed to be without worrying about accidental closure.

THE WARRANTY

CRKT offers a limited lifetime warranty on this knife that covers defects in materials or workmanship. That said, if the knife ever breaks or fails due to materials or

manufacturing defect, CRKT will replace the knife. This warranty if for life as long as you own the knife, but it will end if you sell or give away the knife, or if you modify the knife in some way. You are also responsible for maintaining your knife and failure to do so will void the warranty. CRKT stands behind their products and anyone who has investigated their selections knows that they make quality knives. As such, blade tip breakage or damage is not covered in the warranty, as the company has found that most breaks occur from using the knife for purposes other than what the knife was designed for – cutting.

PRICE

As I said, I “stole” a deal on a military base and got my knife for under $30. The CRKT website lists the MSRP for the M16-14ZSF at $69.99, but I’ve seen the knife advertised for as little at $40 on ebay.com. At either price you are getting an incredible knife with a full range of uses. I would highly recommend this knife for serious knife users, whether you’re in the field to hunt or play, or you are in the field “hunting” for terrorists in far away sand boxes. With its rather large size (9.25” long fully extended) I would think this might be a little much for a simple pocket knife’s normal uses, but having it in your vehicle for roadside assistance (know your laws for this type of carry) be a nice addition to your other tools on hand.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

[Ed. note: Defective ammunition is relatively rare, but it does happen.  Aaron's experience is not unique.  Make sure you check your ammo for damage to prevent potentially dangerous problems.]

Recently I attended an Advanced SWAT course that our regional Tactical Officers Association offers each year. During the week of training there are several different range courses that teams were put through. While training on the Tactical Pistol course our team we were being pushed hard to get through the 4-hour block of training. When the course of fire was completed we had just enough time to load magazines and get back on line.

To facilitate the ease of loading, our team emptied dozens of boxes of ammunition into a couple of military ammunition cans and an empty cardboard ammunition box. Grabbing loose ammunition, and trying to hurry on reloads just about created the perfect storm for a catastrophic failure.

The following pictures are of one such .40 caliber cartridge that I pulled out of the can and thankfully noticed before loading into a magazine. One side appeared fairly normal, the other side … well something went horribly wrong. This was Speer 165 grain FMJ training ammunition, but I’ve seen manufacturer’s defects on other rounds too.

Even major manufacturers occasionally have manufacturing defects. Quality control and quality assurance are usually top of the line, but there will always be times that something slips through. In this case there were two cartridges in similar condition. The first I tossed into the trash thinking it was a fluke. When I found the second one I kept it to illustrate the point of this article.

Regardless of if you are training, preparing your duty gun, or home defense gun, shooters need to examine every aspect of their equipment to ensure that everything is in operating condition. Most of us conduct periodic examinations of our firearms for just that reason, but I imagine that there are more than a few of us who simply grab ammunition out of the box and go to loading without much more thought to it.

And what about down-loading ammunition from your home defense gun, off-duty, and even duty gun every once in awhile. Exposure to the elements, especially for duty weapons, can play havoc on weapons that only get fired a couple of times a year. I’ve seen more than one officer go to download duty ammunition for a training exercise, only to find that ammunition showing signs of rust from exposure.

Ammunition is probably a serious contributor of failure to fire or failure to eject problems. Can you imagine the failure that this round could have caused if it had made it to the barrel?

Check your firearms, check your gear, and yes, check your ammunition before you put your life on the line. Mistakes happen even under the tightest of inspections. Catch it before it catches you!

This round appears undamaged and "good to go." However...

From this side of the round, significant damage to the cartridge case is obvious.

Another view of the damaged cartridge. This type of damage is relatively rare, but does happen.

Image courtesy of Jeffrey Smith

[Ed. note - This is the final part of a six part DUI Training series. Prior articles covered One Leg Stand, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk and Turn, Vehicle in Motion and Personal Contact.]

In my previous articles on D.U.I. investigations I tried to refresh and condense the basics of locating, contacting, and testing suspected impaired drivers. In no way should an officer read over my articles and feel like they’re trained up on NHTSA approved D.U.I. investigations. To get proper training you need to attend a 24 to 40- hour course that specifically teaches the NHTSA approved principles and includes practical exercises.

My hope is that the articles will encourage those who do not have that training to obtain it, and to renew the interest of those who have been trained to once again go on the hunt for those careless drivers that wreak havoc on our roadways.

This article is meant to look outside of the standard training and refresher information and consider officer safety and other important considerations when conducting D.U.I. investigations.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

It all starts with our first observations of a vehicle in motion (or not – think crash or the driver passed out behind the wheel at the green light) that begins our first suspicions that we may be dealing with an intoxicated driver. The decision to stop should be based upon observed violations, probable cause, or at a minimum reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. As I’ve said before, if you’re proficient with the administration of the SFST’s the defense attorney will attack the stop itself. If successful in attacking the reason for the stop, then anything after that will be fruit of the poisonous tree and will not be admitted.

If you haven’t noticed in recent years there is a very common question that is coming out of the State and Federal courts around the country. That question is – were the officers reasonable in their actions?

By now you should be very familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor (1989) and its implications on how law enforcement is viewed by the courts and the public. This case was a very important victory for law enforcement as it set the national standard that courts must view an officer’s actions based upon the objective reasonable test when viewed in the eyes of a reasonable officer faced with similar circumstances.

In essence the Supreme Court said that subjective (Monday-morning quarterbacking) by courts was not allowed. The decision of reasonableness is based on the totality of the circumstances, and it is viewed from the officer’s perspective at the time of action.

However, there is another “reasonable” test that has been around much longer than the Graham ruling. That test is called common sense. When officers take an objective and practical approach to everything they do, they can easily defend their actions using the common sense test. Sometimes common sense will cause officers to step outside of normal procedures because to stay within procedures would be considered unreasonable. A great example is handcuffing an elderly or injured person with their hands in front of their body instead of behind them.

ROADSIDE COMMON SENSE

In regards to DUI investigations the rule of common sense will come into play on a routine basis and should weigh heavily in an officer’s mind when making decisions. Throughout my training in DUI investigations a saying was repeated to help officers determine if conducting the tests were reasonable – “would I want my mother, sister, (etc.) tested under these circumstances”. Here are a few of the most common considerations and suggestions when conducting DUI investigations:

WEATHER – If the weather makes conducting the SFST’s roadside impractical or downright dangerous, than don’t do them roadside. An example is when its raining heavily, snowing, high wind gusts, extremely cold, etc. I have conducted SFST’s in a light rain, and can articulate why – if it’s lightly raining we all are going to get wet moving to and from our cars so it is not unreasonable to get a little wet doing the tests. I will document the conditions, including the fact that the surface of the test was wet but not overflowing in water.

NHTSA does recommend a hard, “dry” surface, so the amount of rain is a pivotal decision maker. In a moderate or heavy rain, performing the tests lacks common sense and an alternative location must be found. Same goes for other weather extremes. Where I’m from, winter temperatures can drop to below zero with wind chills in the negative temperatures. I don’t even want to be in that weather for long, so it is entirely unreasonable for me to expect my subject to. Richard and Randall live in sunny Florida, where hurricanes occasionally visit. I would not recommend administrating SFST’s in such conditions.

ROAD HAZARDS – I have the luxury of working in a medium size suburb of a large metropolitan area. As such, most of our roads provide ample and safe locations for testing DUI subjects. Many in law enforcement have to deal with rural roadways in less than ideal locations. As a general rule do not conduct SFST tests on hills (NHTSA says relatively flat surface), curves in roads, on bridges (creates a whole new meaning to “falling down drunk”), on dirt or gravel (NHTSA says relatively hard surface), or any other roadway condition that presents an obvious hazard to you and the subject.

Try to conduct the tests in a well lit area, but obviously in rural areas the lights from your patrol car and flashlight may be your only source of light. Another consideration about roadways is that most of them are not very level. There is an engineering feature of roads that causes them to be several inches higher in the center of the roadway than on the sides. This allows for greater water removal through the use of gravity. For some roads the rise is almost imperceivable, but others it is blatantly obvious. Consider using an adjacent sidewalk or parking lot.

TESTING LOCATION – There is a lot of debate about where we conduct the SFST’s when roadside. I always wanted to get the tests on video, which required the subject and I to be in front of my patrol vehicle, and usually behind their vehicle. For obvious reasons this becomes somewhat hazardous on highways due to the threat of rear-end collision.

To counter that threat I would always back my car 2-3 car lengths back, and have my backing officer do the same behind my patrol car. By doing so I provided two vehicles, and about 5-6 car lengths of distance between the testing site and a potential rear-end collision. On lower speed roadways the distances should not need to be so drastic. Highways are dangerous and officers need to consider what is reasonable when conducting SFST’s there.

I understand that some officers will not have a backing officer so they may need to go in front of the suspect’s vehicle to conduct tests. I would still back the patrol car up a bit to provide additional buffer. Losing video of the tests is better than losing a life. Be reasonable.

REMOVING SUSPECT FROM THE SCENE – This will probably be the most contentious of the safety considerations, but the topic must be discussed. I have heard many officers say that if any of the above safety issues arises that they will simply take the suspect to the station, or to a different location to conduct the tests. This is a very sticky legal consideration and I highly recommend officers consult their local prosecutors before making a final decision on this topic.

Constitutional law says that anytime a citizen reasonably feels that they are no longer free to leave because of an officer’s actions, than they are under arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that brief detentions for car stops or investigations are legal under the 4th Amendment, so long as they do not exceed the necessary time to conduct the investigation for which the person was stopped.

It is hard to articulate that taking someone to the station or even down the road would not lead a reasonable person to believe that their freedom to leave has been taken away. As such, if the person is under arrest, many jurisdictions say that evidence obtained after the arrest cannot be used as justification for the arrest. There must be probable cause for the arrest to be valid.

This is completely different than making an arrest, reading Miranda, and obtaining a confession. It is also different than making an arrest and later obtaining fingerprints, DNA, or hair samples. The justification for arrest is probable cause, and in the previous examples there should have been probable cause to arrest prior to obtaining the additional evidence.

The difference is the SFST’s are directly linked to establishing probable cause for an arrest. Therefore, judges will most likely not allow SFST evidence that was obtained after a subject was “arrested” to be used as evidence of their intoxication. In those situations your documentation of the other stages of DUI investigation had better be sufficient to make your case.

I have consulted my local prosecutor and found a solution to this dilemma. If I have reasonable belief that the suspect is DUI based upon vehicle in motion, and personal contact (perhaps even pre-exit tests or an initial HGN in the car), and there are safety considerations that prohibit SFST’s in the field, then I will arrest the driver for the original traffic violation.

Once at the station I begin a “new” investigation into the driver’s potential DUI condition and I am allowed to conduct SFST’s and include their results in making a determination to arrest the driver for the “new” offense of DUI. This solution is ONLY used as a last resort when conditions do not allow SFST’s to be conducted in the field.

Because the driver was not originally arrested for DUI, then the “new” investigation allows me to collect evidence in the subsequent charging of DUI. This would be like arresting a guy for stealing, and once at the station asking him questions about a burglary. Since the burglary is separate, if incriminating evidence is obtained, than the suspect could be charged based on that information. The officer is not, however, asking questions about the stealing after the arrest has already been made, and then using that information as the basis for arrest. Again, consult your prosecutors for guidance.

[Ed. note:  Many jurisdictions do not allow the arrest of a driver for a traffic violation, while others do.  Definitely consult your state's laws, department policies and local prosecutor's office.]

Another possible solution is to ask the driver if they would be willing to go to a different location for testing. This opens a pandora’s box as many drunks will say “no” and you’re right back in your original dilemma. However, if the driver says “yes”, than you have obtained consent to take the driver away from the stop scene, and therefore there is no arrest. SFST’s that follow will be legally allowed in court because of the consensual situation you’ve created. Consult your prosecutor on this one too, as the wording of this consent may need to be refined to ensure legal acceptance to the court.

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SUSPECT – In being reasonable we have to realize that our suspect may not be able to perform the tests due to physical limitations. When this occurs do not be the officer that is on video forcing the grandma holding a cane to do the One-Leg-Stand. Use alternative tests, and base your decision on the totality of the circumstances (vehicle in motion, personal contact, and SFST’s) not just one test.

The NHTSA approved tests were validated as tests that scientifically could show impairment in persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, the test subjects did not include elderly or extremely overweight persons. Because of this the tests are not validated for such groups of people and officers should use common sense when conducting tests on such people. The tests are good, and HGN is not influenced by age or weight. It simply means that nobody in those groups of people were tested so they cannot say that the tests are validated for those groups.

Using the common sense approach avoid testing someone who has obvious physical impairments. Use HGN and perhaps some of the other tests I’ve mentioned and then make a sound judgement based upon all of your observations. However, just because they have a handicap does not necessarily exclude them from being tested.

One Halloween night I stopped a guy dressed like a pirate – peg leg and all. Come to find out, underneath the fake wood the guy had a fake leg. He’d had the fake leg for 10 years or more. Using common sense and reasonableness I decided that a guy who had been walking on a fake leg for 10 years should be able to perform the tests. In fact, I reasoned that because he had to compensate for a fake leg, this guy should actually be more balanced than an average person because he had to overcome his handicap to get around. Obviously I had him stand on his good leg for the One-Leg-Stand test. My reasoning was accepted in court, the tests were admitted, and he was convicted.

In the final thought it is all about what makes sense, and what is reasonable. If you can document your thought process and leave a clear mark about why and how you did things, the reasonable judge or jurist will accept those decisions and you’ll be well on your way to making your case.

[Ed. note: The Need for the Patrol Rifle  is part three of a series on Tactical Patrol.  The prior articles are Tactical Patrol Mindset and Patrol Response to Critical Incidents.]

The use of a patrol rifle is not a new concept. In fact, when you think about the “old west” the image of a lawman with a trusty Winchester lever-action is the standard. The 20th century witnessed the creation of some of the most deadly criminals to ever prowl our country. Names like Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, and Al Capone. This was the era of the “Tommy” gun, even BAR’s, and of course shotguns. Those heavier weapons ended the careers of many criminals.

After WWII times were good, America was growing, the Baby-Boom generation was in full swing. Then the 1960’s came. The Civil Rights struggle, the progressively unpopular Vietnam War, and the emergence of radicals saw America suffer home-grown terror from groups like the KKK, the Black Panthers, and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

During this time America had its first, real taste of an active shooter when a murderer mounted the bell tower at the University of Texas in Austin and shot multiple victims before two brave patrolmen and an armed citizen raced up the tower and ended his reign of terror. The racial, political, and social violence led police departments to look for a way to counter this new era of deadly threat.

Former Inspector, Daryl Gates, of the Los Angeles Police Department is often credited with the formation of the first “S.W.A.T.” team in America in 1968.  However some teams were already in place across the country. Specially selected and trained police officers now had the skills and equipment necessary to respond to the most violent of situations that patrol officers were not trained or equipped to handle. S.W.A.T. spread across the country in a short time, and today most departments with more than 25 officers have some form of participation with a tactical team.

So where does the patrolman fit into this equation? Right at the forefront! Time and time again it has been shown that the only way to successfully end immediate deadly threats is by the rapid and decisive application of lethal force by the initial patrol officers. And the best way to ensure that success is to provide the patrolmen with the training and arms necessary to engage in the myriad of deadly threats we can expect to encounter.

Unfortunately, the invention of S.W.A.T. teams created an internal dilemma in law enforcement that was probably best exposed on February 28, 1997. Police Administrators had swallowed the need for S.W.A.T. because they hoped the use of teams would be sparse, and they could keep the focus on returning to the kinder “community policing” image of yesteryear. This actually led to the disarming of patrol officers. Some agencies didn’t even provide patrol officers with shotguns. Chiefs and government administrators wanted their police to look “friendly”.

S.W.A.T. is necessary and good, but in almost all jurisdictions the team takes significant time to gather forces. Even in the larger metropolitan police forces like Los Angeles, where S.W.A.T. is a full-time assignment, the response time can be lengthy. But on that day in 1997 two heavily armed criminals engaged police in a heavy weapons shootout that lasted 44 minutes outside of a Bank of America in North Hollywood, and exposed the error in police philosophy.

The first officers to observe the botched robbery were on “routine” patrol and just happened to witness the armed thugs enter the bank. Armed with only 9mm pistols and one shotgun, they were completely outmatched by the robbers who were armed with multiple rifles, handguns, and extensive body armor. Multiple responding patrol officers faced the same dilemma as the first officers. Some officers scrambled to a nearby gun shop to acquire AR-15 rifles. Wounded officers could not be evacuated because of the long range and heavy firepower of the criminals. It would not be until the arrival of a group of underdressed S.W.A.T. officers with MP-5 submachine guns and AR-15 rifles, that the nightmare would end.

Eleven officers and seven civilians were wounded, the two thugs were dead, and nearly 2,000 rounds were exchanged in that epic gun battle. Dozens of buildings and vehicles were shot up as well, and a nation was shocked at the images from news helicopters. The need to properly equip patrol officers was once again in the spotlight of national law enforcement. Patrol officers needed to be equipped and trained to give the best first response that was possible.

The response around the country was the beginning of the trend to re-arm patrol officers with rifles – mostly AR-15’s or surplus government M-16’s. In April, 1999, the violence at Columbine High School caused Active Shooter Response training to sweep the nation perhaps like nothing ever seen before. And then on September 11, 2001 America woke up to the reality that our world had changed forever. Terrorism had struck with such a magnitude that America would change its viewpoint on security and how we wanted our police to protect us. Remember, that the 9-11 terrorists were living among us. In that regard, we must be prepared for a Mumbai type attack from these radical Islamist terror groups.

We cannot change history, but we can change the present. By acting now to prepare ourselves for the rise in violence seen all across the nation, we can have an impact on our future. From small and rural communities to large metropolitan centers, patrol officers need to be prepared to effectively protect the innocent.

One of the most critical methods of providing the patrol officer with the tools necessary to accomplish this daunting task is to arm them with a long range weapon. Shotguns are great weapons for medium range and short range work, but quickly become limited in their effectiveness at ranges beyond 50 yards. Even with a slug round, the shotgun is limited at longer ranges. Many slugs begin to deviate several inches from point of aim at 100 yards. Some agencies only provide patrol officers with 00 Buck rounds, so an officer must be aware of the spread of the shot and the limited range that a subject can reasonably be engaged without having shot go past the target and hit unintended targets down range.

The obvious solution to the increasingly heavier armed threats that law enforcement is facing today is to arm patrol officers with rifles. One of the advantages and reasons law enforcement went to semi-auto handguns was the increase in firepower offered with a magazine fed weapon with as much as three times the capacity of a revolver. This was infamously demonstrated in the 1986 F.B.I. shootout in Miami where agents armed mostly with revolvers and two shotguns were outgunned by criminals armed with a Ruger Mini-14 and a shotgun. That incident left two agents dead, and five wounded. The apparent disadvantage of limited rounds and firepower caused the F.B.I. to move to semi-auto handguns, and much of the nation followed.

Eleven years later the officers in Los Angeles faced similar disadvantages, despite having semi-auto handguns, and the results were nearly as bad for law enforcement.

That same philosophy can be applied to the selection of rifles, and the reason a rifle can be more advantageous than a shotgun in some situations. Probably the most commonly used patrol rifle in American law enforcement is the AR-15. This weapon allows the officer to field up to 30 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition at the start of an engagement. Should the need arise, extra magazines are relatively easy to carry and quickly add to the officer’s ability to engage armed criminals, multiple adversaries, and even those who themselves are armed with rifles and maybe ballistic armor.

The benefit of a detachable magazine fed system is the quick reload of multiple rounds. A shotgun does not provide this same benefit, despite it’s awesome firepower, nor does a bolt action rifle or even a lever-action rifle.

The AR-15 also allows officers to deliver accurate fire at greater distances. This is a tremendous benefit to patrol officers as they are now capable of delivering lethal force to stop heavily armed criminals, but can afford to do so from distances that provide the greatest benefit of space and cover. With proper training a patrol officer could reasonably engage a suspect at distances of up to 200 yards with an AR-15, without negating the need for accuracy or the concept of knowing your target and beyond. With even more training and a proper optic, the AR-15 can even be used to engage adversaries at greater distances, but for most patrol officers this will not be an option so I’ll focus on the 0-200 yard range.

The AR-15 is not a difficult weapons platform to master, and there is an abundance of training across the country for this weapon. Parts are plentiful from a number of sources, as are the availability of Armor schools. Reputable manufactures are long and include big names like Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, Rock River Arms, CMMG, Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, and others.

Other reputable rifle choices can be found in the H&K G-36 (.223), or in the H&K 416 (.223) or H&K 417 (7.62 mm). The 416 and 417 take on the similar AR-15 style platforms, while the G-36 is uniquely H&K in function and style. One disadvantage of H&K is that they tend to be more expensive than American made AR-15 platforms, and getting parts and Armor training can be difficult. Outside of these choices there are other acceptable options such as the Ruger Mini-14, chambered in .223, or even an M1 Carbine chambered in .30 caliber. Other options are out there but far less popular.

Some agencies have selected to arm officers with various carbine rifles that are chambered in the same caliber as the officer’s pistol. There are obvious advantages to this decision, as some carbines allow for interchangeable magazines. And if an officer has a malfunction with one system, they are transitioning to the same caliber and have extra rounds available to them. The disadvantages to a carbine are found in the stopping power provided by a pistol cartridge. Though accuracy and distance are improved through the rifle platform, a pistol round maintains its limitations. In the instance of the LA bank robbery, the suspects were covered in ballistic armor from head to toe so a pistol round, even fired from a rifle, may not have been sufficient to stop the threat posed by those criminals.

For the purpose of this article I will focus on the highly popular AR-15 platform. For the patrol officer to be sufficiently armed with this rifle there are a few additions that I feel are critical to the successful deployment of a rifle.

First, the rifle should be equipped with a sling. For that matter, shotguns should be too. If you go into an armed conflict and cannot safely discard your long weapon (by leaving it slung) then you are not prepared to handcuff the suspect, or tend to the wounded. A proper sling will be a tactical sling that goes over the head and drapes over one shoulder. These allow for the shooter to use the sling to tighten unsupported shooting positions, and allows for the weapon to be fairly securely slung for hands-free operation.

Second, the rifle should be equipped with a light. Half of what we do is in the dark, and even if an officer works during the day they are likely to encounter dark basements or other spaces. This lighting system should allow the officer to manipulate the light on and off from the support hand so as to not interfere with the shooting hand. The light should also preferably be set up to cause the operator to engage the on/off switch with their thumb, or a full grip squeeze. This should help prevent any sympathetic reflex from using a finger squeeze.

Although not as critical as the first two are, I feel that a proper patrol rifle should be outfitted with an updated sight. Trying to use iron sights in the heat of battle could be tedious to say the least, especially if we’re in low light conditions. A better option is to use a hollo-graphic sight that displays a red dot or red targeting circle. There are plenty of good choices from such manufacturers as Aimpoint, Bushnell, and EOTech to name a few. An officer should be able to acquire targets in the fastest manner possible in a deadly force encounter.

Finally, I believe that a good patrol rifle should be outfitted with a collapsible stock. These forms of stocks are almost universal and standard issue in many AR-15 configurations so this should not become an issue. Although not absolutely necessary, a collapsible stock provides the shooter a greater deal of mobility in tight spaces, and also allows officers of different builds to set up the rifle to fit them.
Before a patrol officer enters the field with the rifle they must undergo an orientation and qualification training. Failure to do so opens agencies to liability for negligently providing equipment that an officer does not know how to use.

In this course the officers should be trained on the following critical areas:

• nomenclature of the weapon
• proper carry positions
• use of the sling
• use of the light
• use of the sighting system including iron sights
• field stripping for proper cleaning and maintenance
• safety features
• loading, unloading, and failure to fire drills
• transitioning to sidearms
• defensive tactics while a long gun is slung
• basic proficiency firing drills
• combat qualification course that includes different position shooting.

Hopefully this article is preaching to the choir, but I am keenly aware that there are still many agencies that do not arm their officers with patrol rifles. Whether this is due to image or budgetary concerns creative ways to overcome these obstacles must be found. Active shooters from around the country have struck in rural areas, not just major metropolitan centers. Armed robbers often target smaller communities due to lessor security measures and fewer cops. To maintain our professional image, the trust of the people, and to fulfill our sworn duty we must have the necessary tools to accomplish the tasks that we may face.

Ultimately we must recognize that the first line of defense in our struggle with armed criminals and terrorists, is the properly trained and equipped patrol officer. One of the best ways to prepare those officers is to entrust them with the patrol rifle.

Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Smith

The One-Leg-Stand (OLS) test is the final validated test in the NHTSA approved battery of three sobriety tests. Like the other two tests, the OLS is a divided attention test, meaning the subject being tested must divide their attention on several different instructions to successfully complete the test.

Operating a motor vehicle safely requires the driver to divide their attention (multi-task) on a continuous basis. You should familiarize yourself with with this concept as it helps a judge or jury understand that these tests are not meant to “fail” the tested subject, but are meant to gauge their ability to perform multiple tasks at the same time – something a sober driver does all the time.

STARTING POSITION

Like the other two tests the subject should be instructed to stand with their feet together, heels and toes touching, and their arms down to their sides. The subject should be instructed to remain in that position while the rest of the instructions are being given. Once they have assumed that position ask them, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” Be sure to get a verbal acknowledgment that they understand before moving on to the other instructions.

Like the other tests the NHTSA Manual states that this test should be performed on a relatively dry, hard, and level surface. Use common sense here and go out of your way to ensure the safety of the tested person – this is your duty, but it also looks great in court.

Keep the subject in this position during the entire instructions phase of the test. If they step out, stop your instructions and require them to regain the starting position. Remind them that their ability to follow simple instructions is paramount to establish their level of sobriety. Note each time they sway, hop, raise their arms or step out of the starting position for your report. These are not “clues” to be scored, but are observations to indicate their impaired state. More on that later.

If the tested subject is wearing awkward shoes (high heels, cowboy boots, etc.) you should ask them if they want to take the test in their shoes or take their shoes off. Let them decide and get a verbal commitment either way. This shows your impartiality in conducting the test, and a genuine allowance on behalf of the subject. Trust me, the impaired driver will give you plenty of clues of impairment without resorting to trickery.

BASIC INSTRUCTIONS

Like the other tests, I always start by giving the subject a basic description of

what I expect them to do. This looks great in court because the instructions are simple, and it gives me time to think about what I am saying and doing. If you ever get tongue- tied during instructions you can always pause and ask the subject “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” During this time I will position myself about 10 feet away from the subject so that they can clearly observe my demonstration, and I can clearly observe any clues that the subject exhibits.

The basic instructions should hit the main points of the test. I inform the subject that when I tell them to begin they will balance on one foot, while raising the other foot approximately six inches off the ground. They will then count out loud in a manner that I will describe, and continue to count until I tell them to stop. That’s it! Simple and too the point.

I then ask the subject, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” After getting a verbalacknowledgment that they understand I move on to the next part of the instructions. Remember, if the subject says they don’t understand, ask them specifically what it is they don’t understand. Do not repeat all of the instructions again, simply repeat and clarify the part of the instructions that they do not understand. Always end with asking them “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”

DEMONSTRATION

During the demonstration part of the instructions I will assume the same starting position that I have placed them into, about 10 feet in front of them. I will then explain that they will stand on the foot of their choosing and raise the other foot approximately six inches off the ground. At that time I will raise one of my feet about six inches off the ground. You need to practice this so that you know how to balance with all your duty gear on, and give an appropriate six inch example – this is important. I will also explain that they need to keep both legs straight during the test. Bending either or both legs during the test makes balancing much easier so you must watch for this and correct it if it begins to happen while you are scoring the subject.

Once I have my foot six inches off the ground I will explain and demonstrate that they need to point the toes of their raised foot so that the foot is parallel to the ground. This is a part of the divided attention test so do not let them cheat on this.

After placing my foot in the proper position I will advise the subject that they will begin counting in this manner, “one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three, and so on until I tell you to stop”. I will remind them that during the test they need to keep their arms down to their sides, and keep both legs straight. I will then ask them, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” After getting a verbal acknowledgment I will lower my raised foot and finish out the instructions.

Here’s a cheat for you to help you in your demonstration. If you find yourself off balance then slightly bend the leg you are standing on. Don’t make it obvious, but a slight bend will give you greater balance. Once you’ve done this, move your raised foot slightly towards the leg you are standing on, maybe even as far as directly in line with the leg your standing on. This will put your body more in line with itself and therefore more balanced. During the instructions you should be watching the subject – DO NOT LOOK DOWN. Looking up (on the horizon) makes it a lot easier to balance then looking down at your raised foot.

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Now you are ready to give the person the final set of instructions. Like the WAT

test, do not try to mix the final instructions into the demonstration. More officers fail doing this and lose confidence in themselves and the tests because they try to cram too much information in while trying to maintain their balance. Unless you have high-wire balance naturally you are bound to lose your balance or rush the instructions (forgetting some along the way). Either way it makes you look foolish and unprepared. By breaking the test instructions into four distinct parts you can avoid the overwhelming pressure to throw everything at them at one time. Dividing the instructions into these four parts is also incredibly powerful in the courtroom because it makes the test easy to understand for judge and jury alike.

The final set of instructions uses the “head-to-toe” method to remember what you are going to instruct.

HEAD – Instruct them to look down at their raised foot during the test.

MOUTH – Remind them to count out loud “just like I did”, until you tell them to stop.

ARMS – Their arms are to remain at their sides during the entire test.

FEET – Keep the raised foot pointed and six inches off the ground during the entire test.

From experience I have added an instruction about what to do if they put their foot down during the test. Too often when a subject drops their foot the first time, they simply stop performing the test – like the first time they step off the line in the WAT test. To remedy that problem I give this final instruction – “if you happen to put your foot down during the test, regain your balance, raise your foot back into position, and continue counting where you left off.”

Before starting the test I will ask them one more time “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” At a minimum I have asked them if they understand four different times, and I have not continued with instructions before getting four separate acknowledgments that they do in fact understand – great stuff in court. Be careful here. Do not accept head nodding or grunting as an acknowledgment. Request them to say “yes” or “I understand” or some other form of clear acknowledgment. Then the are locked in! At this point you are ready to have the subject begin the test.

The NHTSA Manual recognizes four (4) validated clues of impairment on the

OLS test. If you see two (2) or more clues then there is a high probability that the subject is impaired. All of the clues are found during the performance stage of the test, but if the subject exhibits lack of balance or the inability to follow instructions during the instructional phase those observations should be documented.

THE FOUR CLUES OF (OLS)

1. Sways while balancing – Being fair the sway should be more than one inch off center.
2. Raises arms for balance – more than six inches from their sides.
3. Hops – moving the foot they are balancing on is a “hop”.
4. Puts foot down – try to note on what count they did this, and how many times.

Swaying – you should stand in a position that allows you to observe the subject and some stationary object in the background. This could be a utility pole, a tree, a billboard, or even your patrol car. This gives you the basis of how you measured the sway the subject exhibited. I’ve been asked this in court so be prepared to have a solid answer. Note the type of sway as well – front to back, side to side, or circular (orbital).

Raises arms for balance – requires you to observe the subject raise one or both arms more than six (6) inches from their sides. Document on what count they raised their arms and how many times they raised their arms. If they raise their arms 30 times remember that it is only scored as one clue, performed 30 times.

Hops – is probably one of the most incorrectly scored clues simply because too many officers are looking for the “bunny hop”. The subject does not have to jump off the ground like a pogo stick to be scored for hopping. What is most often observed is the

subject begins shifting on the leg they are balancing on to try to counter the movement of their raised leg or body. Even if the foot doesn’t completely leave the ground, their body movement is causing their foot to temporarily lose traction and position with the ground. Think about what that looks like from a ground-level perspective. In order for the subject to move out of position their foot is coming up enough to allow movement, when their entire body weight is on that foot – that’s hopping, score it!

Puts foot down – No brainer here. Note on what count and how many times the subject puts their foot down. One thing to be careful of is to make sure the subject returns their foot to (6) inches with a pointed toe after they’ve put it down once. And make sure they look at their foot – the subjects will quickly start doing cheats once they realize their balance is poor.

By the completion of the three validated sobriety tests you should be more than comfortable with the arrest/no-arrest decision. If done properly these tests have been proven to be incredibly accurate in identifying driver’s that are at the .08% B.A.C. level or above. The sharper you hone your skills in administering these tests, the greater the success rate you will have in snatching the .08% and .09% impaired drivers off the road. Anyone can locate the .15% driver, but a true professional is required to remove the threats posed by drivers with lower B.A.C. levels.

One final reminder – from the first observation of the Vehicle In Motion you should start preparing yourself for the lawyer-savvy subject who will not talk to you or perform your tests. Tune in all your senses to document the many minor details that intoxicated drivers will give you during Vehicle In Motion and the Personal Contact phases of D.U.I. investigations. That way Mr. Refuse-all doesn’t slip by, and you’re detailed reporting of observed actions will be sufficient to gain the conviction in court.

Happy Hunting!

Photo courtesy of Trung Nguyen

[Ed. note: This is part two of a series on Tactical Patrol.  The first article is Tactical Patrol Mindset.]

In this article I’d like to discuss a few of the most common critical incident calls where understanding the priority of life is critical to making a proper police response, especially for the initial patrol officers on scene.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This is probably one of the most frequent calls police receive, and also one of the most dangerous. Patrol officers should understand that it is the priority of life, along with the exigency exemption to the 4th Amendment, that allows officers to force their way into a residence to investigate a domestic violence report should someone refuse their entry. The courts are saying that the “victim” is more important than any privacy rights a suspect might want to enjoy, even in his own home. Understanding the priority of life gives patrol officers the confidence to act and to act quickly to properly handle domestic violence calls, and provide assistance to victims.

If entry cannot be obtained then officers should determine the situation’s facts. Is this a hostage situation? Is this a barricade? Are there innocent lives present? Answers to these questions will determine the most appropriate response of the patrol officers on scene. If you know people are inside and not answering, perhaps the best course of action is to surround the house and call them out to you. If the suspect refuses to exit, then perhaps a breach & hold (kicking in the door, but waiting outside the threshold) could be attempted. However, absent evidence of an assault in progress, treat it as a barricade and perform the “Four C’s” of patrol response to critical incidents (contain, control, communicate, call SWAT). Remember though, just because SWAT is called does not alleviate patrol’s responsibility to have an immediate action plan to enter and save hostages should that contingency occur.

If the victim meets you at the door and there are no innocents in the house, officers shouldn’t feel compelled to walk right into the residence to contact the suspect. How about calling the suspect to you where you can be in a position of advantage instead of walking into his.

If there are innocents in the house (children, other family, neighbors, etc.) patrol should try to separate the victim and suspect as quickly as possible. If the suspect has fled to a deep part of the residence then have the victim and innocents leave the danger area, and when they are secure, attempt to call-out the suspect. During this time an arrest team should be ready in case the suspect decides to exit.

BARRICADED SUBJECTS (SUICIDAL)

This is probably the most misinterpreted and mishandled call that police respond to today. However, if you use the priorities of life scale, the understanding of how to properly handle these calls should be more clear.

The first consideration should be to determine if any innocent people are close to the suicidal subject. If yes, than we must act to deprive the suicidal subject the opportunity to turn those people into hostages, or victims. If the answer is no, then we have to determine if the person is in a capacity to endanger innocents.

If the suicidal is armed in a public place we have to do something, which is the protection of innocents. This does not mean we rush the subject or expose ourselves needlessly to danger, violating the priority of life scale. Officers who approach suicidal subjects unnecessarily, were threatened and as a result killed the suspect, have been found civilly liable for “creating” a deadly force situation. Instead, we need to contain them and use less lethal intervention as quickly as possible.

However, if the suicidal is alone at home we need to completely re-evaluate our response tactics. What happens if the suicidal subject refuses to come outside? Should we force entry because they’re threatening suicide? Should we make this a prolonged “barricaded” subject call? I think the answer is no to both questions, and the National Tactical Officer’s Association (N.T.O.A.) seems to support that idea.

The reasoning goes back to the priorities of life scale. Being alone in his house, the suicidal poses only a threat to himself. I understand that “suicidal = homicidal” but in this particular situation the subject is in their own home and not posing a risk to anyone other than themselves. That’s the key to our decision making. A homicidal person poses a risk to the innocents living around them so our tactics have to protect the innocents by removing the threat.

Recent court decisions look unfavorably on police when they burst into the homes of suicidal subjects to “save” them and end up killing them instead. If the subject commits suicide than they made that choice in the privacy of their own home. Perhaps a call from a C.I.T. officer, or a local mental health provider would be appropriate, but a full-scale S.W.A.T. operation will probably only end badly for the police. If “negotiations” fail, notify neighbors to call if something changes and have mental health personnel continue attempts at phone follow-up.

Leaving may seem impossible, but the 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment. Any breaching or entry tactic is going to be seen as an escalation of the danger created by the police, which may result in an unconstitutional seizure by the police. Handling it like a barricade may result in a successful outcome, but how many extended suicidal barricades can your agency afford to conduct.

BARRICADED SUBJECT (CRIMINAL)

This type of incident really bring into focus the priority of life scale. If there are hostages or innocents in the residence, then our response is dictated by those facts. In a hostage situation information should be gathered to determine if there is an immediate threat to the hostage. If the answer is yes, then an immediate action plan should be executed including distractions, gas, and perhaps multiple entry points. All of this should be committed with the singular goal of getting to the hostage as quickly as possible to ensure their safety. Obviously one of the ways to ensure this goal is to eliminate the hostage taker if immediate compliance is not gained.

If there are innocents inside that are not hostages then we need to begin procedures to surround, contain and call-out. This is the more frequent case as we go to serve a search or arrest warrant and the wanted party refuses to come out. We need to separate the innocents from the suspect, and then evaluate our options.

I just attended the S.W.A.T. Team Leader course offered by the N.T.O.A. Several scenarios were debriefed where officers forgot the priorities of life scale and went in on a criminal barricaded subject. Officers were killed or injured. We have other tactics to resolve those situations safely – gas, gas, and more gas into the house.

Back in 2003 my S.W.A.T. team responded to assist a neighboring agency on a barricaded suspect that had engaged officers and firefighters in a gunfight. The Vietnam-vet had a history of mental illness. He lived with his 80-year old mother, and apparently got mad at her and stabbed her on the neck and arms. When she left to call for help the first officers and firefighters came under rifle fire from the house almost immediately. Having one of the first Lenco Bear Cat’s delivered to police, we responded and began evacuating the pinned-down patrol officers, firefighters and then neighbors. Eventually we saturated the house with gas and the suspect committed suicide. Before that happened about 150-200 rounds had been fired at responders. This guy had a plan and knew his tactics because our snipers never saw him in the house. When we were relatively certain the suspect was dead we still didn’t rush in. We used the Bear Cat as a battering ram. We pushed a car through and out the back of the garage to open up an exterior wall of the house and allow our E.O.D. unit to send in a robot. Only after the robot found the suspect laying in a bathtub did an Entry Team enter and confirm he was dead. Had we conducted a “dynamic” entry while the suspect was alive I’m quite sure that one or more of my teammates would have been wounded or killed.

The concept of “dynamic entry” was around in the beginning of S.W.A.T. The concept was that if S.W.A.T. entered a house with surprise (usually early morning) and diversion (flash bangs) that they could rush through the house and seize everyone before they could catch up in their O.O.D.A. cycle and respond. I’ve been a part of dozens of raids that conformed to this flawed ideology. Sadly, it has taken multiple failed attempts at dynamic entry for the police community to realize that there are better tactics to accomplish the same goal.

Much of what drove that push to rush was the desire to save evidence from destruction. Are you kidding me? Property and evidence are even lower on the priority of life list than the suspect! In essence the law enforcement community (especially S.W.A.T.) was placing the need for evidence or seizing the suspect, above the need to protect officers. For nearly 15 years now the N.T.O.A. has NOT endorsed a dynamic entry method except for hostage-rescue or active shooter situations where there are hostages or innocents in harm’s way.

HOSTAGE-TAKER/ACTIVE SHOOTER

By now the law enforcement community is pretty well-versed in the appropriate response to active shooters: get there, get in, respond to the sounds of the shooter, and rescue the hostages/innocents by capturing or eliminating the threat. Often times, however, active shooter training only emphasizes getting to the shooter and killing the shooter(s). The real goal is to protect hostages/innocents. They are the reason we are rushing in, not for the shooter, because we definitely don’t lower ourselves any further on the priority of life scale.

However, we need to remember that the overall police mission in critical incidents is to save lives, including the suspects. The choice to eliminate the suspect must be made only when saving him can not be accomplished without unduly risking harm to a person higher on the priority of life scale. And yes, that decision may literally be made in micro-seconds, but overall our mindset must be on the priority of life – we went in there to rescue hostages/innocents. Understand that I am not advocating officers to stop and help injured along the way. In a hostage taker situation we must advance as rapidly as possible to the hostages, even overstepping wounded or innocents seeking help.

Remember “why” we do what we do, and it will guide you on the “how” to do what we do right.

In the event of a hostage taker several considerations must be made before action is taken. To successfully weigh our options we need to consider the definition of “Immediate threat” and “Imminent threat”.

Immediate threat – the suspect’s actions are currently causing a serious threat of death or serious physical injury to the hostage.

Imminent threat – the suspect is capable of lethal action and is in close proximity to the hostage creating a jeopardy that the hostage could at any moment be at risk of death or serious physical injury.

At first glance that might seem to be splitting hairs, but it really is not. The important concept for law enforcement to understand (supported by the “reasonable” test of Graham vs. Connor) is that hostages are always in “imminent” danger as long as they are in close proximity to the hostage taker. This means that if we can establish separation of the hostage taker from the hostages, and the hostage taker is not negotiating or surrendering, than police should seriously consider deploying lethal force to end the threat imposed on the hostages.

If the hostage-taker shows “immediate” threat to the hostages than an emergency action plan must be executed to enter and quickly rescue the hostages – often by eliminating the hostage taker. Patrol officers may have to act based on the circumstances presented to them, so it is critically important for the initial patrol officers on scene to correctly assess just what type of situation that they are dealing with.

If however, the hostage taker is negotiating and not presenting an “immediate” threat to the hostages, than perhaps the best course of action is to allow negotiators to work on a planned release of hostages and surrender of the suspect. This must still be done with an Emergency Action entry team ready to go on a moment’s notice.
Hopefully this review of some common critical incidents that patrol officers respond to, along with understanding the priority of life scale, will allow patrol officers to have the understanding to make the proper assessments at the scene, decide on the best course of action, and have the confidence to act.

Photo courtesy of Oregon DOT

This is the first article in a series that will focus attention on the needs of patrol officers to be tactically minded and response capable. At the same time I’m going to discuss current philosophies about the proper patrol response to critical incidents such as active shooters, and barricaded subjects.

One of the most basic tenets of law enforcement is the protection of life. “To serve and protect” is probably the most universal mission statement of American law enforcement. In that regard I want to examine the “Priorities of Life” and make sure that patrol officers understand the order and its significance when they are confronted with the most critical incidents we face.

Simply put the “Priority of Life” is demonstrated in this order:

1. Hostages/Victims
2. Innocent by-standers
3. Police/First Responders
4. Suspects/Subjects.

As sworn defenders we must recognize that we may have to endanger ourselves to save others in harm. I put the first responders (firemen and paramedics) along side police because they are also first responders. As such, they realize that their duty may place them into harm’s way, and as such our efforts to protect them cannot be accomplished at the expense of the first two groups of people.

A suspect is someone believed to have committed a crime. A subject usually refers to someone who is suffering mental illness, suicidal, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs that may still pose a serious safety threat, but their original intent was not criminal activity.

It is also very important to emphasize that police officers should not lower themselves on that priority list by unnecessarily exposing themselves to danger simply to capture a suspect. This will be addressed in greater detail in Part II when I cover the proper considerations for handling high risk warrants or barricaded subject calls.
In most critical incidents patrol officers have been taught the “Four C’s”:

• C-Contain
• C-Control
• C-Communicate
• C-Call SWAT

However, patrol officers may be called upon to take immediate emergency action because in some circumstances the need to act won’t wait for S.W.A.T.. To do so safely, patrol officers need to know the most common methods (tactics) for ending hazardous incidents in buildings or residences. This is not for routine calls, but for the high risk calls.

These are the tactics that S.W.A.T. teams train and perform on a regular basis. Patrol officers need to know more options than just knocking on the door, or kicking the door and rushing in. The most commonly recognized tactics are:

Take Down Away – (usually only used in ending hostage situations – officers allow the suspect to leave and then take him down in a pre-planned area away from the hostages or innocents)
Surround and Call-out – (containment on the outside while ordering the occupants to exit)
Breach & Hold – (opening a door or window, but staying outside of the threshold while giving orders for occupants to exit)
Limited Penetration – (Only entering to a pre-determined area of the residence)
Controlled Entry – (clearing the residence using the best practices of cover, light control & controlled movements – not slow and deliberate, but not “dynamic” either)

Patrol officers will still need to establish inner and outer perimeters to control the scene, select an arrest team in the event the suspect exits or an emergency entry is required, and assess the environment for other potential officer safety issues.

Finally, every officer must continually assess their ability to take another human being’s life. The taking of life should never be viewed lightly, but as professional law enforcement officers our duty may demand that we take a life to save a life. The priorities of life are just, reasonable, and morally and legally sustainable. Understanding the proper tactics for a given situation builds confidence into action. Having those foundations thoroughly thought out should allow the patrol officer to properly handle the critical incident that the citizens expect them to handle.

In future articles, I will discuss patrol options for responding to active shooters, barricaded subjects, and hostage situations. I will also discuss the need for patrol officers to be armed with patrol rifles and other tactical tools that will allow them to successfully resolve active tactical situations they are confronted with.

Stay safe!

Just the other night I was heading home to grab a bite to eat during shift. I was tired and the shift was only a couple of hours from ending – something I had my mind on. It was my first evening shift on the road in over two weeks after a bunch of classroom training. I had just entered my neighborhood when I observed two suspicious vehicles parked door to door on a dead-end street where no new construction had begun yet. “So there I was … minding my own business … when …!” Good enough for me. I pulled up and called out the vehicle checks.

I could see that the Honda was empty, and just as I came to a stop a female exited the passenger seat of the Lincoln Navigator in a surprised and nervous fashion. She was wearing a short cut silky dress and had a very embarrassed look about her as she tried to scurry to the Honda. My first thought was – booty call! And that was my first mistake.

As I confronted the female about being where she was I got the typical “I’m in trouble” answers – “I have to leave, I live nearby, my children are at home, I was just ‘visiting’ with a friend”, etc. Recognizing the the hype of these statements only furthered my thoughts of a “meeting of indiscretion”. That was my second mistake.

Although I was scanning the vehicles I really hadn’t paid enough attention to the Navigator or my positioning. In an attempt to prevent the female from entering her vehicle I had placed myself between her and her car, and the Navigator. Although I was towards the rear end of the Navigator I would quickly feel claustrophobic about my choice of position. That was my third mistake.

Just about the time I was allowing my guard to drop due to the “non-criminal” contact, a rather large (6’4”/230 lbs.) male exited the driver’s seat of the Navigator. Now I inherently knew that someone else was with the female, but the sheer magnitude of the male figure now only 5-6 feet away from me, left me feeling quite exposed. I’m about 6’1”/200 lbs. and I consider myself to be in reasonably good condition. However, these vehicle checks were taking place in a rural neighborhood about 10-15 minutes away from the heart of our city where the majority of our officers are concentrated. That was my fourth mistake.

Reviewing my video did not make me feel any better about myself. In an attempt to keep both vehicles in view I had pretty much placed myself in a squared-up position facing the front of the Navigator. The male was putting on his shoes … which should have been a HUGE red flag, much like someone who takes their hat or glasses off
during contact with the police. Instead, I continued to allow this new person’s entrance to disrupt my O.O.D.A. cycle. Yep, mistake #5!

At about the same time I began to smell the very strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the open windows of the Navigator. Oops! This “non-criminal” contact had suddenly taken on an entirely different look, and one that I had originally considered when I first observed the vehicles but allowed myself to discard. Unfortunately my 14+ years of experience did not immediately kick in and force me to reposition to a position of advantage. Instead, I remained in position and like a rookie officer or a Pavlovian dog (you decide) on his first dope arrest, I blurt out “who’s been smoking weed.” Deadly mistake #6!

Both suspects avoided the question entirely and continued their banter about just “visiting” with each other. Again I ask about the “weed” and finally the male admits that he’s been smoking and has more in his vehicle. He also begins the typical fight or flight behaviors of raising his hands to his head and pacing in circles saying “oh man”. Mistake #7. I asked for identification and got the female’s. The male said he had it in his car and reached for the door. Thankfully I wasn’t completely out of my wits and I ordered him to stay out.

Finally, I started to realize the gravity of the situation and take a few steps back, but I had my flashlight in my strong hand (my God what is wrong with me)! Thankfully the subconscious kicked in and that error only lasted a couple of seconds. My O.O.D.A. cycle began to kick in as I requested back-up, bladed my body position, positioned my strong hand on my duty belt for quick access of “tools”, and ordered the two to sit on the curb to the right of the Navigator. Thankfully big guy was a pretty decent citizen and didn’t want to duke it out.

Once the two were on the curb I still felt very leery about my situation, so I took a wide angle to come up behind the two and ordered the male to put his hands behind his back where I quickly handcuffed him from as advantageous a position as I could. I gave the guy a pretty standard warning when I confront big dudes or guys with prison time – “I’m alone, and you’re too big to fight, so if you move from that position I’m going to consider it a threat against my life and take appropriate action”. The message usually gets across loud and clear. The female was then handcuffed as my backing officer pulled up.

Mind you I have not cleared the Navigator of other occupants, but at the time I was focused on these two. Mistake #8. I was close enough to see that the Honda was empty. Thankfully the Navigator was empty now too. The guy was very polite and even told me how to find his dope bag.

What he did not tell me about was the loaded Glock 26 in his center armrest compartment. Thinking back now made me realize that I was heartbeats away from being a statistic in an armed encounter – had the male wanted to do me harm. First, he could have surprised me by exiting and shooting. I would be lucky if he was a bad shot or the shots at least hit my body armor. Second, if I was a little more off my game I would have allowed him to re-enter the vehicle allowing him un-viewed access to his pistol. Third, using his size advantage, if he had simply charge me from the get go my close proximity would not have allowed a reaction and I would have been in the fight of my life with that big guy.

Thankfully Mistakes numbering “eight” were not “too late” for me that night, but I assure you it was a very sobering wake-up call that the old Sarge needs to hone his patrol skills a lot more often. I’ve responded to the articles from my co-writers here at Bluesheep.com about our need to remain at Condition Yellow at all times in uniform, and to raise that awareness level to Condition Orange immediately on any type of enforcement call or investigation.

Use Boyd’s O.O.D.A. cycle for your advantage by creating tactical dilemmas to hinder the thought and act processes of your adversary, because I assure you that their actions vs. your reactions will do the same thing to you. By tactical dilemma I mean recognize that the suspect is already at “act”, and the only thing that is going to change that channel is you doing something that forces the suspect to go back to “Observe”. As soon as that change begins, hit them with 2-3 other “dilemmas” to distract them and prevent their brain from catching up to your plan.

Like Richard and Randall have said before – every activity you do is an armed activity because you brought a gun to the situation. We need to have the mindset that every call of a man with a knife is actually a man with a gun. Every call of a man with a gun is actually a man with long gun. And every call of shots fired is actually an active- shooter in progress. Go into those situations with that mindset and you’re likely to survive any lethal encounter because you’re mentally prepared.

Had I maintained my initial belief of “criminal” activity going on, I may not have been distracted to believe it was simply two adults in a sexual encounter. Hopefully my response to the stimuli would have been much more tactically sound – regardless I’ve learned my tactical edge isn’t as sharp as it used to be and its up to me to get back “in shape”.

Be safe, learn from the mistakes of others or your own, and prepare, prepare, prepare! The very next call may be “the one”!

[Ed. note - This is part IV of a DUI Training series. This training article is on the Walk and Turn test.  Prior articles covered Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Vehicle in Motion and Personal Contact.]

In this fourth article on the standardized field sobriety tests (SFST), I will review the Walk-and-Turn (WAT) test which is the second test in the NHTSA approved 3-test battery. The final SFST is the OLS – One Leg Stand test, and I’ll have a future article on that test soon.

The WAT is another important test in determining sobriety or lack thereof. As with the other NHTSA tests this test has a strict way of instructing and performing an example of the WAT. As with any of the tests I recommend to officers I instruct to take their time, focus, and learn to move right through moments of memory loss like it was a planned event. There is probably nothing more intimidating and frustrating to an officer than to appear flustered to a suspect. It WILL happen – let me teach you to overcome that fear and nail these tests.

The first requirement of the WAT is to position the subject in the proper STARTING POSITION.

This position will be maintained by the subject until the instructions are ended and they are ready to begin the actual performance test. First, I have the person stand with their feet together – heels and toes touching, and their arms down to their side (same as all the other tests). I then stand approximately 10 feet in front of the subject and ask them if they can imagine a line from the tip of their left foot to my foot. Almost without fail they will say yes. I will then instruct them to place their right foot on that line, directly in front of their left foot and touching heel to toe. I then instruct them to remain in that position until I tell them to begin and ask them “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” Get a verbal acknowledgement! If at any time the subject says they do not understand, then find out exactly what it is they don’t understand and then only repeat instructions for that part – do not start repeating all of the instructions.

This simple instruction is critical for three reasons. If you just tell a person to walk a line (and there is no line) then a defense attorney can always create doubt by saying their client (who was scared and nervous) did not know what line you meant. By the subject acknowledging their own line and then placing their foot on that line they have sealed their fate – it was THEIR line. When the defense attorney gets smart and asks “officer how big was this line in the dark?” you can respond “you’ll have to ask your client, because it was the line that they imagined.” Defense destroyed.

The second important reason for this instruction is that NHTSA requires the subject to maintain that position until all instructions are completed and they actually begin walking. Don’t let them get out of that position during your instructions, and if they do then score a clue.

The third reason is that the test requires the person to start walking by taking a step with their left foot. This is so the turn will be properly performed on step #9, so make sure you get them in the correct starting position – it matters!

The first two recognized clues of impairment are found during the Instructions Phase of the WAT:

• STARTS WALKING TOO SOON (BEFORE INSTRUCTIONS ARE COMPLETE)
• FAILS TO MAINTAIN HEEL-TO-TOE STANCE.

Each clue is ONE clue, but that one clue may be observed multiple times. This understanding is important because NHTSA says that if you observe 2 or more clues on the WAT than the subject is likely impaired. If they start too soon five times that is NOT five clues. That is one clue observed five times, and should be documented that way.

Something else that is critically important at this point of the test. Raising the arms for balance during the instructions, or bending the legs, or swaying, or hopping, etc. ARE NOT clues that can be scored! Note them for the report, but don’t score!

Be reasonable! If the person steps out of position numerous times gauge their balance and if needed – STOP THE TEST! If they’re minor steps out then you can probably get them back in position and continue. If they’re about to fall down – STOP THE TEST! Make sure you document that you stopped the test for their safety.

If a person can’t stand in the starting position because their balance is effected so badly … you’ve made your case for impairment! It doesn’t matter that you didn’t get the test completed. Videos from patrol cars will help make your decision conclusively valid. Having someone fall down may seem like a slam dunk for your case, but a judge or jury may see it as a failure of duty to protect this suspect from foreseeable injury!

BASIC TEST INSTRUCTIONS.

This is simply a way for the officer to gather their thoughts and give the simplest explanation of what they are going to expect the subject to do.

I will be in the same starting position with my left side facing the subject in a perpendicular position about 10 feet away for good reactionary distance. You can give these instructions outside of the starting position, but I do it (on video) to dispel defense claims that the surface made it impossible to stand in position during the instructions.

The instructions should be as simple as this – “what I’m basically going to have you do is walk 9 heel-to-toe steps down that line, turn using a small series of steps like I’ll show you, and walk 9 heel-to-toe steps back down that line. “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” Get a verbal acknowledgement.

WALKING (or DEMONSTRATION) INSTRUCTIONS.

Regardless of if you are a left-handed officer you need to start with your left side facing the subject. When you provide an example, including the turn, you will expose your back to the subject unless you start with your left side towards them. Turning to the left will actually turn you towards the subject. You have already given a basic description of what the subject is going to do, so at this point simply focus on actually showing them what they are going to do. Wait to give the final instructions until after the walking demonstration.

I tell the subject “this is what the test will look like.” I then start walking heel-to- toe and counting my steps “one, two three.” Now the NHTSA manual actually instructs the officer to stop at step “three” and explain that the you have only taken three steps but the subject will continue until taking nine steps. They will then perform a turn in the manner that you will verbalize and demonstrate.

“Leave your left foot down, while taking a small series of steps to turn around, just like I’m doing.” For my example turn I usually take 3 partial steps in a semi-circular motion with my right foot.

Now I must admit a slight variance that I do compared to the NHTSA instructions. We are supposed to be instructing and giving an example just as we expect the subject to do. By stopping during our walking instructions we are providing an example of a clue that we will score against the subject if they do the same. The NHTSA videos even show the stop during instructions – ugh! So to avoid this problem I have practiced my instructions to coincide with a continual movement of 3 steps, a slow series of steps to turn, and then 3 steps back.

To accomplish this I say as I’m making my third step “on down to nine steps”. At the same time I’m beginning my semi-circle steps with my right foot. Then in the same movement I point to my left foot and explain “leave that foot down and make a series of small steps to turn around”. By that time I’m usually done with my turn and I immediately go into my return walk – just like I expect them to do. I count those steps out loud and finish with “on down to nine steps. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”

It is a slight variance from NHTSA but I feel it is more then reasonable and actually eliminates a defense claim if they stop and I score that clue. Your call.

THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Don’t try to give detailed instructions while you are performing your example! It is the surest way for you to screw up, get flustered, and then forget critical components of the instructions. Screwing up and embarrassing yourself is also likely to cause you to avoid investigating DUI in the future, and that’s bad for everyone on the road.

The last instructions can best be remembered by the Head-to-Toe method:

Head – “I want you to look down and watch your steps” Mouth – “I want you to count your steps out loud like I did” Arms – “I want you to keep your arms down to your side at all times” Legs – “Once you’ve started the test don’t stop until the test is finished”.

These instructions are necessary because most are going to be clues that are scored if the subject doesn’t perform them. I will admit that through experience I have realized that many subjects that step off the line once will simply stop the test at that point. I add on the Legs instruction – “if you step off the line, regain your balance, and keep walking where you left off.” Again, this is NOT a part of the NHTSA instructions, but I have never been challenged on that, because an instruction that goes above and beyond to explain the test is not one that the defense will want to attack. If you give incorrect or incomplete instructions – that’s a different story.

CLUES THAT ARE SCORED – TOTAL = 8, IMPAIRMENT = 2 OR MORE

Instructions Phase Starts before instructions are completed Fails to maintain heel-to-toe stance during instructions

Walking (Performance) Phase Steps off the line – (I’m a stickler – if part of their foot is on and part off – its off. Misses heel to toe – more than 1/2” (if you see a distinguishable gap you’re there) Raises arms for balance – more than 6” from sides Stops while walking – stop by definition is any cessation of movement Improper turn – quick pivot, turn to the right, walking backwards, etc. Incorrect number of steps – 9 down, and 9 back – anything else is wrong

Not looking at feet, or not counting out loud are NOT clues to be scored, but their failure to do so should be noted because you instructed them to do so. I will also re-instruct them during the test if they are not doing them. These are divided attention tests (divided attention is critical to safe driving). If they cheat, even on those “small” things, they are making the test much easier for themselves.

You will notice that during the test I have instructed you to ask the subject a minimum of four (4) times “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”. A positive response four times is pretty much an impossible hill to overcome with a “didn’t understand” defense.

And here’s a great hint – Anytime you feel like you’re getting lost in the instructions, pause to think and ask “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”. If you ask it four or fourteen times it’s all good, and hopefully will give you time to regain your composure. And it’s OK to have brief pauses in the instructions for the same reason. Trust me, it’s more fluid than you might think and it looks totally natural and planned.

Remember that there are 8 separate clues on this test. Observing multiple violations of a clue still only gets scored once for that clue. Document the number of times each clue is violated to build your case’s strength.
Practice makes perfect on these tests. There is a lot to remember and perform, but if you break it down in the four sections I’ve laid out you should be able to remember everything and be confident.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

The large media outlets have covered the weather event that on Sunday evening, May 22, caused an EF-5 tornado (the most powerful form of a tornado) to strike the heart of Joplin, Missouri. Joplin, a town of about 50,000 in southwest Missouri, has seen tornadoes in the past as it sits in that horrible part of the country known as tornado alley. But even being in the alley doesn’t mean that you can fully comprehend the devastation of an EF-5 tornado.

When the tornado hit, Joplin had eight police officers on patrol. To the full credit of the professionalism of the Joplin Police Department, one hour after the tornado strike, more than 100 officers had reported for duty, accounting for about 95% of the department. Since that dreadful night hundreds of brothers and sisters in uniform from dozens of agencies have responded to assist.

Sadly, Officer Jefferson Taylor of the Riverside, MO Police Department was killed during the recovery efforts after being struck by lightning only one day after the tornado. Weather was still a concern at that time, as severe thunderstorms were still in the area. Apparently he was riding an ATV and had just dropped off a Fire official at the Command Post when lightning struck very close to him, knocking him over 15 feet away.

Initial reports had been positive for his recovery, as Officer Taylor successfully went through skin graft surgeries to treat his burns. However, on June 3, Officer Taylor succumbed to his injuries becoming the only Riverside Police officer to die in the line of duty, and the only officer to die from the Joplin tornado. Officer Taylor had served for the Webb City, MO Police, a city close to Joplin, before accepting a job at Riverside, which is just north of Kansas City.

Here are the facts as of June 9:

• 151 dead
• hundreds of others injured
• estimated over 2000 structures destroyed
• as many as 14,000 vehicles destroyed
• tens of thousands of people displaced

The 8-story St. John’s Hospital on the southwest side of town was reportedly moved 7 inches off its foundation. Every window was blown out of the hospital and parts of the building collapsed. It is a total loss and will need to be demolished. Six persons died inside. It is one of only a handful of significant structures that still remains on the landscape in the tornado affected area.

Thankfully the last of the “missing” has been accounted for, but they believe some of the injured may die in the days and weeks that follow, raising the numbers of dead on a near record killing tornado for the entire United States. It is estimated that it will cost at least $3 billion to rebuild Joplin.

As a part of the relief efforts in the devastated city of Joplin, Missouri my department has sent me and four other officers to the city to help with patrolling the tornado-stricken areas. We are the third “strike team” from our department to serve in Joplin, and I can say that it has been one of the most profound experiences of my career. Our Strike Team served June 3-5 and were assigned patrol duties during the 12- hour night shift.

When the first Strike Team arrived the situation was very chaotic. Thunderstorms were still rampant in the area, and our first strike team even had to take shelter from what was feared to be another tornado coming into the area. Their duties were mostly to secure key infrastructure, and to man checkpoints at critical intersections to provide traffic control. They also checked identifications to ensure that only residents and approved help was getting into the area.

The next Strike Team saw the operations a little more organized. In addition to monitoring checkpoints, those officers went on patrol in the devastated area. Residents were checked on, and suspicious activities were investigated. Sadly, in the first couple of weeks after the storm looters from all over came to pilfer on the piles of rubble that were all that was left of many Joplin resident’s homes. It was a metal scrappers paradise in the midst of utter destruction.

Looters weren’t the only parasites to arrive. Towing services from out of state and all over Missouri came to “help” residents remove their vehicles from the damaged area.

When we arrived, Joplin still had a curfew imposed in the devastated area during the night hours due to the concern over looters. In two weeks Joplin had made around 320 arrests!

In a sign of solidarity to their city, Joplin bonding agencies refused to post bonds for anyone arrested for stealing or other offenses in the tornado affected area.

On our first night, however, the Joplin Police decided to lift the curfew. Residents had been given two weeks to remove valuables and many of the looters realized that Joplin had no desire for their foul presence. Gratefully we did not see an influx in looting, however we did make one arrest in the affected area.

The sight-seers were still present during the day but the night returned to an ominous quiet. The tornado affected area was nearly pitch black surrounded by the unaffected areas that were brightly lit as any other large city in America. Utility crews had done an amazing job of restoring power poles, and the major intersections even had traffic signals re-established. Sprint and AT&T brought mobile cell towers (trucks with expandable towers) to the area and cell service was almost completely restored.

The relief effort was so strong that in the first week after the tornado the American Red Cross put out a broadcast asking that no more bottled water be delivered to Joplin. I could see why when we arrived. Two weeks after the tornado there were literally stacks of bottled water on street corners and at relief stations.

Here are some of the other amazing sights we saw:

• Packages of bottled water on nearly every major street corner.
• A tractor trailer wrapped around two trees like a twist tie for a loaf of bread.
• A house completely lifted off its foundation and laid into the adjacent street.
• A city park play set that looked completely untouched.
• A church completely laid bare except for a large metal cross standing firm.
• Enough smashed cars to stock several U-wrench it lots.
• At least one vehicle that landed on top of a building.
• Schools with their walls collapsed to expose the inside classrooms.
• Wal-Mart and Home Depot nearly leveled.
• Almost every tree in the area reduced to a shattered stub.

Insurance disaster response teams set up all around the devastated area. American flags everywhere! Including on the side of the destroyed St. John’s Hospital. People helping people, shaking hands, thanking everyone and God. Relief workers by the thousands, and sadly looters by the hundreds.

It is impossible to fully describe the scene in Joplin. Trying to put in words what it looks, feels, and smells like is an act of futility. The tornado obliterated a path of this city that runs about 18 city blocks wide and nearly 50 blocks long. An area over one mile wide and about five miles long through the heart of Joplin. Easily 35-40% of the city has been leveled.

Imagine looking for well over a mile in every direction, of what used to be a thriving city, only to see what looks to be an active trash dump or landfill. Many have compared the scene to the pictures of Hiroshima after the atomic detonation during WWII.

Worst of all is the fact that after two weeks the stench of death is still very strong in the air. Though the humans have been accounted for, animals and rotten food remain on every block.

The emergency agencies report that asbestos and other chemicals are strong in the area.

When we left, the Joplin Police and Incident Command were preparing to cordon off sections of the devastated area to allow heavy equipment to come in and completely remove any remaining debris. Hundreds of Missouri National Guard had already been assisting relief efforts and were being prepared to guard intersections during this event.

Due to the incredible response from Missouri law enforcement agencies, and the strict enforcement in the affected area that severely reduced criminal activity, our Strike Team was released early from our week-long assignment. It was a bittersweet declaration. On one hand we were glad that our efforts had helped establish order out of chaos. On the other hand we felt the enormity of the situation and wanted to do more.

The clean-up efforts will probably take months, and the rebuilding will take years, but from the residents of Joplin we encountered the strength of this community remains solid and the will to overcome will prevail.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

In the In-line and Off-set methods of patrol car placement the officer has full, or at least partial use of the take-down lights on the light bar. In the Angled or Canted method the officer can only count on a minimal amount of light from the take-downs, however the overall lighting effect may still be blinding to the violator.

If you use the Angled/Canted method like I do, where do you put your spotlight? I’m personally a fan of putting the spotlight on the rear window of the violator’s vehicle. This method provides me the greatest idea of what is going on inside, especially when there are multiple occupants.

From training I find that position to be the most invasive method and really shuts down the occupants ability to see what I’m doing. I know that leaves the driver’s mirror open, which is usually the other method used for the spotlight, but that’s why I carry a flashlight. I’ve found that if I do put the spotlight on the driver’s mirror, and then conduct a driver’s side approach, that I end up walking into my own beam and thus eliminate any benefit from the spotlight. I can accomplish the mirror blinding with my flashlight and still blind occupants and illuminate the interior by placing the spotlight on the rear window.

If I do a passenger side approach, the spotlight on the driver’s mirror does me little good, but illuminating the rear window can have great effect. These considerations should be made whenever making stops. Regardless or your preferred method we should aim at giving ourselves the greatest advantage in every tactical situation, and any enforcement action is a tactical situation.

How many of you use your spotlight during daylight hours? Why not? Even during the day that light is bright and powerful, and can provide at least a minimal amount of interference to the violator. If that violator is Joe-Citizen it is a minor inconvenience. If that violator is Joe-Rag-the-Dirtman than you’ve just provided one more barrier that could interfere with Dirtman’s desire to do you harm.

I have to admit that I don’t always remember to use the spotlight during daylight hours, but I’m almost always approaching the car with a flashlight in my off hand. Even during daylight hours a flashlight can have amazing effects on a violator who may appear to be turning into a threat. Many flashlights today have over 100 lumens of light, and when that light is “painted” over the suspect’s eyes, even for a short time, it gives a momentary blindness and disorientation that plays right into our game, and takes the edge from our potential adversary.

Now what about body positioning? I think most officers are taught to stand at the pillar between at the rear of the driver’s door. This provides us a good view of the interior while at the same time forcing the driver to maneuver awkwardly to turn towards us in the event of a threat. Precious seconds count, and that extra movement may be the difference we need to respond to a threat.

I’ve also seen some officers approach to the driver’s door pillar, and then re- adjust to stand in front of the A-pillar at the front of the driver’s door. The thought here is to be able to view the driver and occupants, but also keep our peripheral vision on any wayward approaching motorist. I’ve seen many Highway Patrolman use this technique and I’ve tried it a few times as well. Although, there are some advantages to this position, I personally feel that it should only be used occasionally and for short durations of time. There’s just too much exposed to the driver from that position.

Richard has touched on the passenger side approach and I will again emphasize the great tool that this is.  If able to, try the passenger side approach, and you might find that it becomes your preferred method of approach.

Society (and bad guys) is programmed for officers to approach on the driver’s side. Showing up on the passenger side has a very disarming effect on the bad guy, and usually causes all sorts of confusion to Joe Citizen. You will probably not get a better, and safer in my opinion, view of the interior of the vehicle than from the passenger’s side. I can attest to standing outside of a suspect vehicle for several minutes without anyone inside knowing that I was observing them hide dope and beer. Once contact is made, it is so devastating to the occupants’ OODA cycle that confessions and confiscations are usually very easy.

On one recent stop I observed a passenger lighting up her dope pipe. I made a passenger side approach and immediately contacted her. She stuttered so badly from being contacted first that she was all too ready to retrieve her crotched dope and pipe – ouch!

Finally, we need to tactically withdraw from a vehicle while still protecting ourselves from traffic. Obviously easier done on the passenger side, but from the driver’s side we can still take measures to provide us the greatest tactical advantage. There are really two trains of thought here: walking backwards and walking at an angle.

By walking backwards the officer maintains a full view of the occupants and is in an immediate shooting/defensive stance should the need arise. However, walking backwards is dangerous for even those who practice it a lot. And should bad man exit with intent to do harm, our first reaction may be to create distance, which makes walking backwards that much more difficult to maintain footing.

The other thought is to turn and walk almost directly back to our patrol car, but with our head and maybe shoulders slightly turned to watch the occupants on the walk back. This is a more normal walking method, but the twisting of the head and shoulders can also have an imbalanced feel to it.

Simply turning and walking back to the patrol car is unacceptable. Our busy highways and roadways would easily cover a door opening, and if we’re not aware than it’s too late.

Regardless of your withdraw method an officer should practice, practice, practice, until movements become second nature and we avoid running into vehicles, tripping or worse – walking into traffic.

Once we’re at the patrol car we can re-enter to conduct checks and complete citations, or we can stand outside of the car. If we stay in the car we need to keep our eyes on the suspect vehicle. Obviously, writing citations will take our eyes away, but those times should be brief.

As an FTO I instructed all my officers to not write more than one line on the form before looking up, and when they looked up I wanted them to take time to observe what was really going on – not just going through the motions. This seemed to work well and kept us in the loop of activities in the car in front of us.

I also instructed officers to check their mirrors frequently. There is nothing worse than having Joe Citizen who’s lost rap on your window while your dealing with Sir-Thug-A-Lot in the car ahead. Besides scaring the you know what out of you, it’s an immediate recognition of a failure of officer safety. What if that was Thug’s friends who pulled up behind you.

If you choose to stay out of the vehicle, the rear passenger side is probably the safest and most tactically sound. However, with that position on-coming traffic must be a constant concern, so I would advocate facing your patrol car and maybe using the trunk as a writing platform. That way peripheral vision may pick up that idiot about to smash your patrol car, and give you time to get out of the way. And if you use the same guidelines above, you should be looking at the suspect vehicle quite often and that should keep you on top of things.

This ideas and concepts aren’t new or innovative, but the revisiting of often neglected techniques may be the difference we need to win the violent encounter or survive the dangerous roadways. There is no magical moment when we no longer need to learn, or re-learn. The moment we stop, we actually start to lose those things we thought we knew. Think about your safety, your brothers and sisters, and get home safe to your families.