Ask the Expert

Todd,

Based upon a reading of a separate email, I understand that you just returned to work after having done a tour of duty overseas: I sincerely appreciate your service, both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, such call-ups can be disrupting to both our personal and professional lives. Getting back in the patrol game after a period of time away can be difficult, whether the sabbatical is due to promotions, job transfers, convalescent matters, or military activation. Combine this with a job that is continually changing, and it's going to be a challenge; add in a seven-man department just getting its feet wet in serving 10,000 citizens, and it can be damned difficult.

You've already taken the first step in asking what you should do - and that's no small feat considering the machismo defensiveness that can inhibit others. The next thing is to narrow down your concerns and identify just what issues are bothering you and their order of priority.

On the one hand, you express concern about returning to patrol status with an agency that you've worked before; on the other, you are considering transferring elsewhere. I hope you won't mind me observing that if you're experiencing anxiety in your current capacity, then you may be complicating things even more by taking another job elsewhere. Such transfers not only entail learning new laws, new policies, new ways of doing things, but may also carry with them the stressors associated with starting a new life in a new city: Moving, getting settled, diminishing contacts with friends, establishing new ones, etc. It sounds like you may have enough on your plate already.

So let's start there. Do you feel rusty about law and procedure? If so, find two or three people that you like and trust enough to be candid with (admittedly, your options may be limited with such a small pool). Get with them not only during breaks and lunch, but show initiative in backing them up on calls and t-stops. Watch and learn. Pick their brains. I don't care how long you're in law enforcement, you will NEVER stop learning.

Second, have YOU changed since your tour of duty? Are you dealing with any residual issues as a result of it? While service to one's country can be rewarding, anyone who says that it doesn't leave its mark may be deluding themselves.

You mentioned being lucky to be part of a department that was still in its infancy. Has the department succeeded in getting established training programs and clear-cut policies? While many cops may bemoan policies, their absence can be a source of concern, too. Officers need and want to know how to go about doing things. In any event, it might be helpful for you to check and see how other departments go about doing everything from handling calls, to making arrests, to writing paper. You might just find a new and improved way to streamline things.

Consider supplementing your training with a variety of seminars and classes. They may be academic, tactical, or forensic - the point is, the more that you know on different fronts, the more that you can do in various areas, too.

Work out. It not only keeps you in shape but clears the mind.

Finally, do what you can to retain your enthusiasm for the job. You've just succeeded in completing a tour of duty which undoubtedly had its own set of challenges and obstacles. You can take pride in your accomplishments. They should assist you in overcoming your law enforcement career challenges. And remember that you're not alone out there, and there are those who genuinely appreciate what you do.

Thanks for the question and be safe!

Answer by: Dean Scoville @ Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:02 PM

The following is the Miranda rights in English and Spanish as given by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

ADMONITION AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS

1. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand?

2. Anything you say may be used against you in court. Do you understand?

3. You have the right to an attorney during questioning. Do you understand?

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you, before any

questioning. Do you understand?

(Note: If you desire an expressed waiver, ask a (yes) or (no) question,

such as, ''Do you want to talk about what happened?'')

AMONESTACION Y RENUNCIA DE DERECHOS

1. Usted tiene el derecho de no hablar. Entiende?

2. Lo que usted diga podra ser usado contra usted en la corte. Entiende?

3. Usted tiene el derecho de tener un abogado aqui presente mientras

que hablamos. Entiende?

4. Si quirere un abogado, pero no tiene dinero, la corte le dara uno antes

de que hablamos. Entiende?

(Note: If you desire an expressed waiver, ask a (yes) or (no) question,

such as, ''Quiere hablar acerca lo que paso?'')

Answer by: Dean Scoville @ Monday, June 23, 2008 11:49 AM

I appreciate the question, and deem it important enough that I've made it the subject of my patrol column for the week. Please refer to the Patrol Channel Column of June 6, 2008.

Thank you.

Answer by: Dean Scoville @ Thursday, June 05, 2008 8:31 PM

I'm not sure what the problem might be. Not knowing you-or which agencies you've dealt with (although I'm reasonably sure it doesn't include the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; we had a "if it's free, it's for me" philosophy)-I'm left to speculate.

The reticence of some officials to work with you can be indicative of everything from concerns about matters of propriety, getting scammed, unwittingly assisting in the scamming of someone else, or simply not knowing how you can best assist them. 

Also, some cops are just naturally shy, self-effacing wallflowers who feel uncomfortable being lionized or appreciated (OK, admittedly, they're damned few and far between, but maybe you're defying the odds).

Couple these factors with the fact that many l.e. agencies already have a "public relations" guy-either someone cultivated in-house, or a professional media person who's been hired to assist them-and you can see where you have your work cut out for you.

Unless you have one of those overly intense personalities that raises concerns about the local drinking water, I don't see why someone wouldn't want to be more accommodating of your overtures.

My advice: Pose this same question to the watch commander of whatever agency you want to assist. He or she will know the best means for you to help out, and refer you accordingly.

Answer by: Dean Scoville @ Sunday, May 04, 2008 1:07 PM

Interesting question, Donald. While I can think of many reasons why you might want to temporarily mute the audio recording at a scene, I think that – should something go down – the absence of the audio track could raise questions. If I was formulating a policy for my department, I would probably leave it to the officer's discretion, but require an explanation in a notation appended to the report of the incident. Officers should understand that it's not a blank check to turn off the recorder whenever they want to.

As far as storage length, barring some critical need to save the material, I think at least 30 days is appropriate. Go beyond that, and you'll probably develop a storage problem.

Answer by: Steve Ashley @ Monday, October 01, 2007 3:29 PM

First off, I can understand the reticence of members of the POA when it comes to deploying the cameras. But to be adamantly opposed to their deployment is to betray a lack of prioritization and reveals a lack of security about their own performance, as well as a lack of faith in their own ability to justify their actions. True, thanks to haphazard prosecutions and jury nullification practices, some good cases have gone by the wayside leaving civil suits in their wake.

However, any jury that is so predisposed as to not take an objective appraisal of whatever a camera reveals is apt not to buy anything that any officer has to document in the first place. Dashboard videotapes have aided in the successful prosecution of all manner of felonious suspects, including--and perhaps most importantly--cop killers. They have been used to successfully rebut defense attorneys, justify officers' actions, and mitigate prospective liability. Videos provide a readily accessible means for officers to refresh their memories and document accurate descriptions of events, thus heightening the likelihood of prosecutorial success while lowering the likelihood of any litigation against the officer or his employing agency.

Cameras do help to foster behavior modification: nobody wants to be caught on film acting like an idiot. As an added incentive, perhaps more officers will actually find themselves performing better in their jobs. True, there will be times when emotionally charged rhetoric and commands will be heard, but I suggest that any department that is so anal retentive so as to not temper justice with mercy when reviewing such footage is not deserving of the "go get 'em" officers it employs.

You will do things that will be Monday morning quarterbacked, but are they in line with what a reasonable officer would do? I believe that such video monitoring of police activities is far more of an asset to both the individual police officer and our law enforcement community, in general. Also, remember that we live an age when everyone has some sort of videotaping capability--from citizen-held video cameras and cell phones with video capability to freelance news videographers, aka stringers. Partial video documentation of incidents have been controverted to the detriment of involved officers. Bottom line: the same technology that bit us in the ass with Rodney King can save our ass by providing an objective and chronologically accurate depiction of events as they unfolded in front of the patrol car. 

Answer by: Dean Scoville @ Friday, July 27, 2007 2:10 PM