As I watched the Bob Costas' interview of Jerry Sandusky (Penn State) , I had a flashback to an arrest I made in about 83 or 84 in Hollywood. I was walking a foot beat (most fun I've ever had in my life!) on Hollywood Blvd. when a young boy of about 10 pointed to a guy in an arcade and told me that the guy had touched his genitals. My partner and I went into the arcade, and after a brief struggle arrested the guy. Back at the station I interviewed our arrestee at length. He said, "You know what they do to people like me in prison." Of course, I pursued that line of thought - as in "What kind of person are you?" But the arrestee clammed up and refused to talk.
When I reported to work the next day, I was met by the legendary LAPD Lt. Higbie and his OIS team. It seems my pervert-arrestee hung himself - successfully - in the Hollywood Jail. (Investigators later found the typical stash of photos of little boys in the decedent's hotel room.)
Jerry Sandusky sounded just like my arrestee. Flat affect, little emotion, monotone, not fully admitting, but not fully denying either. If Sandusky were in jail, and I were the Watch Commander, I'd definitely make sure he was on suicide watch.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Legalize Marijuana article: My response
The November 2, 2011 edition of Detroit's Metro Times contained an article by Larry Gabriel titled "Top Cop Changes his Mind." (http://metrotimes.com/mmj/top-cop-changes-his-mind-1.1226308) In the article, former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon was quoted as saying marijuana should be legalized. In response to this article, I emailed the following letter to the Metro Times.
Dear Editor:
Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon said "I can't think of anybody who has died from marijuana." I also can't think of a case where somebody died from an overdose of LSD. The problem with marijuana, and LSD for that matter, is its effect on thinking and behavior. And it's this behavioral toxicity, such as impaired ability to pay attention while driving, that's the real problem with marijuana. The only reason marijuana is used in the first place is because it has a primary effect on the brain, the central nervous system. After all, people don't use marijuana because they like to have bloodshot eyes. The CNS effects include impaired attention, impaired depth perception, amotivation, and more. Knowing these effects, I certainly do not want my doctor, dentist, police officer, child-care worker or professor to use marijuana.
And frankly, to suggest that almost all the "problems and violence" associated with drug use result from the laws is indicative of pharmacological ignorance. Stimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine mimic the body's activation of the Sympathetic nervous system. It's this system that's responsible for the body's fight or flight response. In fact, they are correctly termed "sympathomimetics." These drugs cause the user to feel that they are in danger. But the user is responding to the drug, and not the environment. And people who feel threatened, feel paranoid, are dangerous and often violent. PCP ("angel dust") has similar effects.
Like Ike McKinnon, I also am a retired police officer. I also know and respect Dr. Michael Whitty. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mike Whitty was one of my U of D professors many years ago.) But when it comes to drug legalization, including that of marijuana, Professors McKinnon and Whitty are wrong.
Thomas E. Page, M.A.
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Dear Editor:
Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon said "I can't think of anybody who has died from marijuana." I also can't think of a case where somebody died from an overdose of LSD. The problem with marijuana, and LSD for that matter, is its effect on thinking and behavior. And it's this behavioral toxicity, such as impaired ability to pay attention while driving, that's the real problem with marijuana. The only reason marijuana is used in the first place is because it has a primary effect on the brain, the central nervous system. After all, people don't use marijuana because they like to have bloodshot eyes. The CNS effects include impaired attention, impaired depth perception, amotivation, and more. Knowing these effects, I certainly do not want my doctor, dentist, police officer, child-care worker or professor to use marijuana.
And frankly, to suggest that almost all the "problems and violence" associated with drug use result from the laws is indicative of pharmacological ignorance. Stimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine mimic the body's activation of the Sympathetic nervous system. It's this system that's responsible for the body's fight or flight response. In fact, they are correctly termed "sympathomimetics." These drugs cause the user to feel that they are in danger. But the user is responding to the drug, and not the environment. And people who feel threatened, feel paranoid, are dangerous and often violent. PCP ("angel dust") has similar effects.
Like Ike McKinnon, I also am a retired police officer. I also know and respect Dr. Michael Whitty. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mike Whitty was one of my U of D professors many years ago.) But when it comes to drug legalization, including that of marijuana, Professors McKinnon and Whitty are wrong.
Thomas E. Page, M.A.
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Guard against Anchoring and Confirmation Biases
I just came across two interesting articles that deal with bias in forming opinions and beliefs. It's a basic tenet of DRE training that an opinion should not be reached until the evaluation has been completed. Further, the DRE's opinion must be based on the totality of the the evaluation (and of the entire investigation for that matter).
The October 15, 2011 issue of Bottom Line/Personal contained a front page article about misdiagnoses in medicine. It struck me that DRE's face many of the same issues and challenges that medical doctors do in reaching opinions. According to the article, "Doctors routinely take a mental shortcut known as 'anchoring.' They quickly latch onto an idea about what's causing your symptoms." "Anchoring" is definitely something that DRE's have to guard against. For example, anchoring may be caused by what the arrestee says he/she has taken (true or not), what the arresting officer believes the person is under the influence of, or the substances and paraphernalia that were in the arrestee's possession. Guard against "anchoring" by asking yourself whether something else, including a medical condition, may be causing the signs and symptoms. Continually challenge yourself by asking yourself if there are alternative explanations. (As an aside, the article says that in US autopsy studies, "doctors misdiagnosed illnesses between 20% and 40% of the time.")
The July issue of Scientific American contained a column by Michael Shermer titled "The Believing Brain." Shermer wrote that "anchoring bias" occurs when one relies too heavily on one piece of information to make a decision. A DRE who decides that a person is under the influence of, say cannabis, because the person had bloodshot eyes, is an example of "anchoring bias." Shermer also writes about another type of relevant bias called "confirmation bias," in which one seeks and finds "confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence." Sort of like reaching an opinion first, and then gathering evidence to support the opinion.
The best defense against bias in your DRE opinions is to continually remind yourself that there could be alternative explanations for each sign and symptom, and to not reach a final opinion until the entire evaluation has been completed.
The October 15, 2011 issue of Bottom Line/Personal contained a front page article about misdiagnoses in medicine. It struck me that DRE's face many of the same issues and challenges that medical doctors do in reaching opinions. According to the article, "Doctors routinely take a mental shortcut known as 'anchoring.' They quickly latch onto an idea about what's causing your symptoms." "Anchoring" is definitely something that DRE's have to guard against. For example, anchoring may be caused by what the arrestee says he/she has taken (true or not), what the arresting officer believes the person is under the influence of, or the substances and paraphernalia that were in the arrestee's possession. Guard against "anchoring" by asking yourself whether something else, including a medical condition, may be causing the signs and symptoms. Continually challenge yourself by asking yourself if there are alternative explanations. (As an aside, the article says that in US autopsy studies, "doctors misdiagnosed illnesses between 20% and 40% of the time.")
The July issue of Scientific American contained a column by Michael Shermer titled "The Believing Brain." Shermer wrote that "anchoring bias" occurs when one relies too heavily on one piece of information to make a decision. A DRE who decides that a person is under the influence of, say cannabis, because the person had bloodshot eyes, is an example of "anchoring bias." Shermer also writes about another type of relevant bias called "confirmation bias," in which one seeks and finds "confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence." Sort of like reaching an opinion first, and then gathering evidence to support the opinion.
The best defense against bias in your DRE opinions is to continually remind yourself that there could be alternative explanations for each sign and symptom, and to not reach a final opinion until the entire evaluation has been completed.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph on DRE, 1989
In cleaning out some file cabinets, I stumbled across a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph titled "Drug Recognition Program," dated April 1989.
On the cover page, Charles P. Smith, the Director of the BJA, wrote in part:
"The Drug Recognition Process is a non-intrusive, standardized and systematic method of examining a person suspected of impairment due to alcohol and/or other drug abuse. Because of its promise for local law enforcement, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has supported the efforts of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate pilot site demonstrations of this new technology."
The twenty-four page document provides a nice history of the development of the DRE program. It points out that the results of the Johns Hopkins Study (1984) and the LA Field Validation Study (1985) prompted NHTSA to work with the LAPD to develop a standardized curriculum for DRE training. It identifies the four pilot sites that were selected to establish DRE programs based on the LAPD program: metropolitan Phoenix, Denver and Boulder, Colorado, Nassau County, New York, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Three additional pilot sites were selected in 1988: Indiana, Utah, and an expansion of the Los Angeles program to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and agencies in Yolo County. "The California site is an expansion of the original Los Angeles program..." Thus, this Federal Monograph clearly recognizes the fact that the Los Angeles DRE program was recognized by the Federal Government as a useful tool in 1987. "The Drug Recognition Program will prove useful in many jurisdictions. It is an effective means of dealing with drivers who imperil others by getting behind the wheel while incapacitated by drugs."
As of the publication of this document, April, 1989, the program was called the "Drug Recognition Program." In subsequent years the program became known as the "DECP."
On the cover page, Charles P. Smith, the Director of the BJA, wrote in part:
"The Drug Recognition Process is a non-intrusive, standardized and systematic method of examining a person suspected of impairment due to alcohol and/or other drug abuse. Because of its promise for local law enforcement, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has supported the efforts of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate pilot site demonstrations of this new technology."
The twenty-four page document provides a nice history of the development of the DRE program. It points out that the results of the Johns Hopkins Study (1984) and the LA Field Validation Study (1985) prompted NHTSA to work with the LAPD to develop a standardized curriculum for DRE training. It identifies the four pilot sites that were selected to establish DRE programs based on the LAPD program: metropolitan Phoenix, Denver and Boulder, Colorado, Nassau County, New York, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Three additional pilot sites were selected in 1988: Indiana, Utah, and an expansion of the Los Angeles program to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and agencies in Yolo County. "The California site is an expansion of the original Los Angeles program..." Thus, this Federal Monograph clearly recognizes the fact that the Los Angeles DRE program was recognized by the Federal Government as a useful tool in 1987. "The Drug Recognition Program will prove useful in many jurisdictions. It is an effective means of dealing with drivers who imperil others by getting behind the wheel while incapacitated by drugs."
As of the publication of this document, April, 1989, the program was called the "Drug Recognition Program." In subsequent years the program became known as the "DECP."
Monday, July 25, 2011
Support for tough sentencing of "first-time DUI offenders"
On July 24 and 25, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published a two-part series on DUI-sentencing disparities in the Detroit, Michigan area. The July 25th article highlighted the tough sentencing practices of an Oakland County (just north of Detroit) judge. Here is a link to that article.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/NEWS06/107250334/Part-2-Judge-among-toughest-nation-1st-time-DUI-offenders?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
I support tough sentencing for even so-called "first time" offenders. As law enforcement officers know, rarely is a DUI driver caught the first time they drive while under the influence. Here is the letter I sent to the Detroit Free Press editor in support of the Judge's tough sentencing practices:
Dear Editor:
I applaud 48th District Court Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called "first-time DUI offenders." If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable. That if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned. That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive," to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive." Defense attorney Hall damns Judge Small with faint praise when he says "It's so she can say she's tough on crime." Unfortunately, Hall's statement suggest that DUI isn't a "real crime." I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Rd., will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, Detroit
On July 31, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published the following edited letter:
I applaud 48th District Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called first-time DUI offenders. If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable -- that if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned.
That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive" to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive."
I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Road, will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, Detroit
http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/NEWS06/107250334/Part-2-Judge-among-toughest-nation-1st-time-DUI-offenders?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
I support tough sentencing for even so-called "first time" offenders. As law enforcement officers know, rarely is a DUI driver caught the first time they drive while under the influence. Here is the letter I sent to the Detroit Free Press editor in support of the Judge's tough sentencing practices:
Dear Editor:
I applaud 48th District Court Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called "first-time DUI offenders." If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable. That if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned. That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive," to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive." Defense attorney Hall damns Judge Small with faint praise when he says "It's so she can say she's tough on crime." Unfortunately, Hall's statement suggest that DUI isn't a "real crime." I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Rd., will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, Detroit
On July 31, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published the following edited letter:
I applaud 48th District Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called first-time DUI offenders. If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable -- that if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned.
That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive" to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive."
I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Road, will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, Detroit
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Neudexta (Avanir): newly approved drug contains DXM
For over 20 years, I have subscribed to The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. This nonprofit publication does not accept advertising. Its subscriber base is primarily medical doctors. Occasionally, I'll cite a Medical Letter article (www.medicalletter.org) on new drugs.
The June 13, 2011 issue has an overview of newly FDA- approved Nuedexta / Avanir. This new drug contains dextromethorphan and quinidine sulfate, and is indicated for the oral treatment of pseudobulbar affect in patients with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and multiple sclerosis. "Pseudobulbar affect, also known as pathological laughter and crying or emotional lability, is common in ALS and MS." Some of the side effects noted in The Medical Letter of this drug combination are nausea, headache, diarrhea, fatigue and dizziness.
Remember to interview your suspect/arrestee about medical conditions, and the treatment they are receiving for the condition (s). Better to learn during the investigation phase, rather than be surprised in court!
The June 13, 2011 issue has an overview of newly FDA- approved Nuedexta / Avanir. This new drug contains dextromethorphan and quinidine sulfate, and is indicated for the oral treatment of pseudobulbar affect in patients with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and multiple sclerosis. "Pseudobulbar affect, also known as pathological laughter and crying or emotional lability, is common in ALS and MS." Some of the side effects noted in The Medical Letter of this drug combination are nausea, headache, diarrhea, fatigue and dizziness.
Remember to interview your suspect/arrestee about medical conditions, and the treatment they are receiving for the condition (s). Better to learn during the investigation phase, rather than be surprised in court!
More on the importance of Report Writing
The June, 2011 issue of The Thin Blue Line, the publication of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, contains a nice article by Detective Tyler Inzen. Detective Inzen emphasizes that "You can only control what you can control." How true. One can't fix all the wrongs of society, or stop all the crime in one's community. But as a police officer, you can control what you put down in writing. And as Gary Ingemunson has pointed out in The Thin Blue Line, short of testifying in court, writing a report may be the most important thing an officer does. As I have emphasized in prior posts, be scrupulously accurate and honest in all of your reports. Thoroughness must preempt brevity.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Cell phones and "behavioral toxicity"
Neil Rubin, a Detroit News columnist, wrote an article on cell-phone dangers that was published in the June 16, 2011, edition of the paper. Mr. Rubin pointed out that there really is no proof of danger from cell phone radiation. As I read the article, I thought of a term in the drug abuse field that is relevant to cell-phone dangers: "Behavioral Toxicity." I e-mailed the following letter (in part) to Mr. Rubin.
There are few, if any, documented cases in which an individual has died due to an overdose of marijuana (spelled "marihuana" in Michigan's legal code) or LSD. However, if an LSD user thinks he can fly like Superman and jumps off the Penobscot Building, that person will assuredly die. And if a driver who has used marijuana doesn't "think" to stop at a railroad crossing and strikes a passing train, that person will also die. Similarly, the cell phone radiation may not cause brain tumors. If a driver, however, talks on a cell phone (and/or texts) while driving, that person has a much higher liklihood of being involved in a crash, possibly a fatal one. This is an example of what can be called "behavioral toxicity."
There are few, if any, documented cases in which an individual has died due to an overdose of marijuana (spelled "marihuana" in Michigan's legal code) or LSD. However, if an LSD user thinks he can fly like Superman and jumps off the Penobscot Building, that person will assuredly die. And if a driver who has used marijuana doesn't "think" to stop at a railroad crossing and strikes a passing train, that person will also die. Similarly, the cell phone radiation may not cause brain tumors. If a driver, however, talks on a cell phone (and/or texts) while driving, that person has a much higher liklihood of being involved in a crash, possibly a fatal one. This is an example of what can be called "behavioral toxicity."
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Your report must match the video!!
This is an update to this incident. On March 17, 2011, Sergeant Maniere pleaded "no contest" to the charge of filing a false police report. He stated that he still hopes to obtain another job in law enforcement. The original post follows.
As we approach the 20th anniversary of the so-called Rodney King incident, we will certainly be bombarded with media retrospectives on the significance of the video-taping of King's arrest. Since March of 1991, audio and video recordings of police-citizen encounters have become ubiquitous. As I teach officers, you must assume that everything you do is being recorded. And that defense attorneys, and even Internal Affairs investigators, may pore over your report to see if every detail matches the recording of the incident or encounter.
Today's (February 23, 2011) Detroit News reported on the firing and probable prosecution of a suburban Detroit patrol sergeant. Apparently, on two separate occasions, the sergeant's written report, that detailed the seizure of drugs from motorists, did not match the video recording of the incidents. In fact, in one of the cases, the sergeant was accompanied by a television reporter with a camera. The reporter's camera recorded the finding of drug's in an arrestee's vehicle. I know it's hard to believe, but this sergeant, even though he knew he was being filmed by a reporter, wrote a report that was at odds with what had occurred. According to a television news report, the primary issue in one of the cases was that the recording showed that the drugs were in a closed glove box. The sergeant's report said the drugs were in plain view on the vehicle's front seat. The newspaper report follows this blog entry. Be scrupulously honest in every report. And if your partner writes the report, and puts your name on it, it's your report too.
Discrepancies in arrest reports, video cited in Warren cop's firing
Decorated veteran patrol sergeant may face criminal charges
Christine Ferretti / The Detroit News
Warren — Criminal charges are being evaluated for a decorated road patrol sergeant who was fired over discrepancies between written reports and patrol car footage involving two separate traffic stops that resulted in drug-related arrests.
Warren Deputy Police Commissioner Louis Galasso said Sgt. Tim Maniere was terminated Friday following an internal investigation the department launched in January.
Galasso said internal affairs uncovered two separate cases last year where Maniere's written reports didn't match patrol cruiser video.
Each incident resulted in felony drug arrests.
"The cases had nothing to do with importing or planting any type of narcotic or drug," Galasso said. "However, it did have something to do with the evidentiary steps that would follow a normal search of a vehicle. The steps were improper."
Findings from the department's internal investigation were turned over to the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office on Tuesday for review.
A telephone number listed for Maniere was disconnected.
Galasso said the investigation began after Maniere failed to appear for an evidentiary hearing in Macomb County Circuit Court related to one of the arrests in question. A TV Warren journalist was doing a ride-along with Maniere on the July evening when a suspect was arrested on a felony narcotics charge. Galasso said footage from the patrol car and video captured by the television crew was to be viewed at the hearing.
Maniere's absence led to the case's dismissal.
Galasso said Maniere was placed on paid administrative leave several days later while officials looked into the claims the video footage didn't match his written report. Galasso said a second arrest conducted by Maniere in mid-August appeared to have similar circumstances. That case was handled through a plea deal, he said.
Galasso said the incidents have shocked and saddened the department.
Maniere, who'd been a supervisor for about three years, has always been an employee in good standing, earning awards and commendations, Galasso said.
"He was a very hard-working, dedicated officer. It was a very difficult separation that we had," Galasso said of the 15-year veteran. "This guy really was not the type of officer that did anything for personal gain or satisfaction. It was just a certain zeal that he had for law enforcement. Unfortunately, he may have been a little too overzealous."
The Warren Police Command Officers Association hasn't decided whether to challenge Maniere's dismissal.
cferretti@detnews.com
(313) 222-2069
As we approach the 20th anniversary of the so-called Rodney King incident, we will certainly be bombarded with media retrospectives on the significance of the video-taping of King's arrest. Since March of 1991, audio and video recordings of police-citizen encounters have become ubiquitous. As I teach officers, you must assume that everything you do is being recorded. And that defense attorneys, and even Internal Affairs investigators, may pore over your report to see if every detail matches the recording of the incident or encounter.
Today's (February 23, 2011) Detroit News reported on the firing and probable prosecution of a suburban Detroit patrol sergeant. Apparently, on two separate occasions, the sergeant's written report, that detailed the seizure of drugs from motorists, did not match the video recording of the incidents. In fact, in one of the cases, the sergeant was accompanied by a television reporter with a camera. The reporter's camera recorded the finding of drug's in an arrestee's vehicle. I know it's hard to believe, but this sergeant, even though he knew he was being filmed by a reporter, wrote a report that was at odds with what had occurred. According to a television news report, the primary issue in one of the cases was that the recording showed that the drugs were in a closed glove box. The sergeant's report said the drugs were in plain view on the vehicle's front seat. The newspaper report follows this blog entry. Be scrupulously honest in every report. And if your partner writes the report, and puts your name on it, it's your report too.
Discrepancies in arrest reports, video cited in Warren cop's firing
Decorated veteran patrol sergeant may face criminal charges
Christine Ferretti / The Detroit News
Warren — Criminal charges are being evaluated for a decorated road patrol sergeant who was fired over discrepancies between written reports and patrol car footage involving two separate traffic stops that resulted in drug-related arrests.
Warren Deputy Police Commissioner Louis Galasso said Sgt. Tim Maniere was terminated Friday following an internal investigation the department launched in January.
Galasso said internal affairs uncovered two separate cases last year where Maniere's written reports didn't match patrol cruiser video.
Each incident resulted in felony drug arrests.
"The cases had nothing to do with importing or planting any type of narcotic or drug," Galasso said. "However, it did have something to do with the evidentiary steps that would follow a normal search of a vehicle. The steps were improper."
Findings from the department's internal investigation were turned over to the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office on Tuesday for review.
A telephone number listed for Maniere was disconnected.
Galasso said the investigation began after Maniere failed to appear for an evidentiary hearing in Macomb County Circuit Court related to one of the arrests in question. A TV Warren journalist was doing a ride-along with Maniere on the July evening when a suspect was arrested on a felony narcotics charge. Galasso said footage from the patrol car and video captured by the television crew was to be viewed at the hearing.
Maniere's absence led to the case's dismissal.
Galasso said Maniere was placed on paid administrative leave several days later while officials looked into the claims the video footage didn't match his written report. Galasso said a second arrest conducted by Maniere in mid-August appeared to have similar circumstances. That case was handled through a plea deal, he said.
Galasso said the incidents have shocked and saddened the department.
Maniere, who'd been a supervisor for about three years, has always been an employee in good standing, earning awards and commendations, Galasso said.
"He was a very hard-working, dedicated officer. It was a very difficult separation that we had," Galasso said of the 15-year veteran. "This guy really was not the type of officer that did anything for personal gain or satisfaction. It was just a certain zeal that he had for law enforcement. Unfortunately, he may have been a little too overzealous."
The Warren Police Command Officers Association hasn't decided whether to challenge Maniere's dismissal.
cferretti@detnews.com
(313) 222-2069
Monday, January 24, 2011
Effective Courtroom Testimony, Part 4
Credibility: What you say and how you say it!
It's a fact of human nature that the veracity, the truthfulness of a statement, is assessed by not only listening to (or reading for that matter) words, but by evaluating the individual's non-verbal clues. These non-verbal clues include the person's appearance, such as the clothes he/she is wearing, and the person's demeanor, which includes their body language. If during the course of our duties we ask a suspect if he/she has any drugs in his/her possession, we watch very closely, even below the level of consciousness, how the person responds. A "no" by the person isn't accepted as fact! Even the United States Congress interviews witnesses in person, rather than reading written interrogatories. Physicians want to see the patient, rather than just reading the chart.
And jurors, since they are human beings, will judge your credibility, your believability, not just on what you say on the witness stand, or what you wrote in the report, but on your appearance and demeanor. You should strive to use this fact to enhance your credibility.
As the dictum goes, first impressions are lasting. Even before you have taken the stand, the jury is evaluating your credibility, your fairness, your professionalism. Here are some basic guidelines for appearing in court. Some may seem quite humorous, quite self-evident. But trust me, officers do these things!
I know that different jurisdictions have different policies regarding courtroom attire, particularly regarding duty uniforms. I certainly do not intend to conflict with your department's policy. Wear what your department says to wear.
Regardless, however, I suggest you think of appearing in court as appearing for a promotional interview. If you wouldn't wear something for the interview, then it's probably not a good idea to wear it in court. Generally, dress conservatively and be well-groomed. Avoid fancy and ostentatious jewelry, big belt buckles, cowboy boots (unless you are in Texas of course!), NASCAR-style logo wear, and dark sunglasses. Avoid lapel pins and tie bars , such as those depicting pigs, handcuffs, and religious or political symbols, that may distract from your credibility. Finally, avoid jangling keys and jangling coins in your pockets.
In a future blog entry I will discuss the importance of your demeanor on the witness stand itself.
It's a fact of human nature that the veracity, the truthfulness of a statement, is assessed by not only listening to (or reading for that matter) words, but by evaluating the individual's non-verbal clues. These non-verbal clues include the person's appearance, such as the clothes he/she is wearing, and the person's demeanor, which includes their body language. If during the course of our duties we ask a suspect if he/she has any drugs in his/her possession, we watch very closely, even below the level of consciousness, how the person responds. A "no" by the person isn't accepted as fact! Even the United States Congress interviews witnesses in person, rather than reading written interrogatories. Physicians want to see the patient, rather than just reading the chart.
And jurors, since they are human beings, will judge your credibility, your believability, not just on what you say on the witness stand, or what you wrote in the report, but on your appearance and demeanor. You should strive to use this fact to enhance your credibility.
As the dictum goes, first impressions are lasting. Even before you have taken the stand, the jury is evaluating your credibility, your fairness, your professionalism. Here are some basic guidelines for appearing in court. Some may seem quite humorous, quite self-evident. But trust me, officers do these things!
I know that different jurisdictions have different policies regarding courtroom attire, particularly regarding duty uniforms. I certainly do not intend to conflict with your department's policy. Wear what your department says to wear.
Regardless, however, I suggest you think of appearing in court as appearing for a promotional interview. If you wouldn't wear something for the interview, then it's probably not a good idea to wear it in court. Generally, dress conservatively and be well-groomed. Avoid fancy and ostentatious jewelry, big belt buckles, cowboy boots (unless you are in Texas of course!), NASCAR-style logo wear, and dark sunglasses. Avoid lapel pins and tie bars , such as those depicting pigs, handcuffs, and religious or political symbols, that may distract from your credibility. Finally, avoid jangling keys and jangling coins in your pockets.
In a future blog entry I will discuss the importance of your demeanor on the witness stand itself.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Effective Courtroom Testimony, Part 3
The Pre-Trial Conference
Over the years, I've conducted a number of informal surveys of prosecutors and officers regarding testifying in court. The number one item on each group's "wish list" is for a bona-fide pre-trial conference. By "bona-fide," I mean an actual face-to-face sit-down in advance of the anticipated testimony date, and NOT the all-too-common two-minute discussion in the courtroom itself.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties should thoroughly discuss all aspects of the case. The officer should point out possible weaknesses in the case, including omissions, errors, and inconsistencies in the report. The prosecutor may identify some potential defense challenges,including challenges to the officer's credibility. The pre-trial conference is also an opportunity for the parties to build rapport and trust.
The prosecutor prepares the witness-officer for the trial by providing an overview of the direct examination process. Usually, the prosecutor will remind the officer to avoid jargon and slang while testifying, to maintain a calm demeanor (particularly when challenged by the defense), not to volunteer information when on the stand, to create charts or other visuals, and pick-up evidence as needed.
The pre-trial conference is a perfect opportunity for the officer to provide the prosecutor with an up-to-date copy of his/her curriculum vitae (resume), including a one-page summary.
Finally, it's a common tactic for a defense attorney to ask the officer if he/she had a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor. Do not hesitate to honestly answer this question. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with having a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor. In fact, jurors expect it.
Over the years, I've conducted a number of informal surveys of prosecutors and officers regarding testifying in court. The number one item on each group's "wish list" is for a bona-fide pre-trial conference. By "bona-fide," I mean an actual face-to-face sit-down in advance of the anticipated testimony date, and NOT the all-too-common two-minute discussion in the courtroom itself.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties should thoroughly discuss all aspects of the case. The officer should point out possible weaknesses in the case, including omissions, errors, and inconsistencies in the report. The prosecutor may identify some potential defense challenges,including challenges to the officer's credibility. The pre-trial conference is also an opportunity for the parties to build rapport and trust.
The prosecutor prepares the witness-officer for the trial by providing an overview of the direct examination process. Usually, the prosecutor will remind the officer to avoid jargon and slang while testifying, to maintain a calm demeanor (particularly when challenged by the defense), not to volunteer information when on the stand, to create charts or other visuals, and pick-up evidence as needed.
The pre-trial conference is a perfect opportunity for the officer to provide the prosecutor with an up-to-date copy of his/her curriculum vitae (resume), including a one-page summary.
Finally, it's a common tactic for a defense attorney to ask the officer if he/she had a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor. Do not hesitate to honestly answer this question. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with having a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor. In fact, jurors expect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
