January 2012 Leb

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

1/36

January 2012

Emotionin Predicting

Violence

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

2/36

1

25

Departments

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

endorsement by the FBI for any policy,program, or service.

The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodicalis necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use

of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved by the director of theOffice of Management and Budget.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(ISSN-0014-5688) is publishedmonthly by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paidat Washington, D.C., and additional

mailing offices. Postmaster:Send address changes to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Associate Editors

Eric A. DOrazio

Linda L. Fresh

David W. MacWha

Art Director

Stephanie L. Lowe

The Training DivisionsOutreach and Communications Unit

produces this publication withassistance from the divisions

National Academy Unit.Issues are available online at

http://www.fbi.gov.

E-mail [email protected]

Cover Photoshutterstock.com

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135.

January 2012Volume 81Number 1

Understanding and predictingindividual or group behavior startswith recognizing the importanceof emotion.

Agencies must recognize howto conduct entrapment-freeinvestigations.

The Role of Emotion in

Predicting ViolenceBy David Matsumoto,

Hyi Sung Hwang, andMark G. Frank

Avoiding the Entrapment

Defense in a Post-9/11 WorldBy David J. Gottfried

23 Crime Data

Crime Statistics for 2010

24 Leadership Spotlight

Learning

12 Technology Update

eGuardian GainsMomentum

16 Bulletin HonorsSedgwick County, Kansas

17 Police Practice

Training Mexican PoliceOfficers and City CouncilMembers

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

3/36

January 2012 / 1

Emotion, one crucial as-pect of human behavioroften overlooked by re-

searchers, operators, and policy-makers who often view it as toosoft for serious considerationor research, serves a crucialpurpose in understanding anyindividual or group behavior.For the individual, emotions areevolved information-processing

systems that aid in survival.1

These transient, fleeting reac-tions to events can impact apersons welfare and requireimmediate response.2 Emotions

The Role of Emotionin Predicting

ViolenceBy DAVID MATSUMOTO, Ph.D.,

HYI SUNG HWANG, Ph.D.,and MARK G. FRANK, Ph.D.

prime behaviors by initiatingunique physiological signaturesand mental structures, aid inbonding memories and cogni-tions, and, most important,serve as a motivator of humanbehavior.3

Group emotions arisewhen a sufficient proportion ofmembers share similar emo-tions about their group (the

ingroup) or another group(the outgroup), although nodefinition or consensus in thefield exists about what thatproportion may be. As in

individuals, groups have emo-tional reactions to events thatimpact their perceived welfareand survival. Group-level emo-tions motivate members behav-iors as a whole. Woven into thegroups overarching narrativesof life, they provide guidelinesand bases for making attribu-tions about ingroups and out-groups. They aid in regulating

social behavior and preventingsocial chaos.4 Thus, a completeunderstanding of individualor group behavior starts withrecognizing the importance of

iStockphoto.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

4/36

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

emotion, which is motivation.5The authors assert that this isimportant for recognizing the

behavior of individuals andgroups in predicting acts ofhostility or violence.

THEORETICALFRAMEWORK

Emotions as DiscreteConstructs

Many methods exist ofunderstanding and categorizingemotions. For instance, a simple

waypopular among layper-sons, as well as those in aca-demic psychologyis to clas-sify emotions simply by theirvalence (positive versus nega-tive) or intensity (strong versusweak); its simplicity meritsattention.6 But, much literature

Dr. Hwang is a visiting scholar at

San Francisco State Universityand a research scientist at aprivate research, training, andconsultingfirm in California.

Dr. Matsumoto is a professor of

psychology at San Francisco StateUniversity and currently is directorof a private research, training, andconsultingfirm in California.

Dr. Frank is a professor of

communication and director ofthe Communication ScienceCenter at the University atBuffalo in New York.

demonstrates convincingly thatnot all emotions are the same,nor should they be reduced to

such simple dimensions as va-lence or intensity.7 This frame-work is known as a discreteemotions perspective in whichdifferent categories of emotionare qualitatively and uniquelydistinct from each other.

For example, consideringanger and fear, most law en-forcement agencies have heardthe phrase fight orflight todescribe these emotions. Ev-

ery emotion activates separateareas of the brain and producesdifferent patterns of nonverbalexpressions and body reactions(e.g., sweat, surface vaso-constriction vs. dilation), andlaypeople do not confuse thesubjective sensations

associated with them. Some-ones expression of fear versusanger has major implications for

the persons well-being; inmateswho show fear are assaulted,while those who express angerare not. Yet, a valence/intensitymodel would label both angerand fear similarly as negativeand intense.

However, when comparinganger, contempt, and disgust,all, perhaps, negative in termsof valence, important differ-ences among these emotions

clearly show that they are notalike, which raises major practi-cal implications. Anger, con-tempt, and disgust have differ-ent physiologies, mental states,and nonverbal expressions,implying different behaviors.8Angry people have an increased

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

5/36

January 2012 / 3

heart rate, and their blood flowsdifferentially to their arms andhands; this prepares them to

fight because anger functionsto remove obstacles.9 However,disgust causes an individual toeliminate or reject contaminatedobjects. As a primary function,contempt makes someone com-municate their evaluations ofanothers actions vis--vis statusand hierarchy. Therefore, angerfocuses on persons or groupsactions, while contempt anddisgust focus on who theyare.

Laypersons often do notrecognize the important distinc-tions among emotions. In partic-ular, for several reasons, disgustplays a special role in under-standing terrorism and violence.First, studies of emotions ininterpersonal conflicts indicatethat disgust (and contempt), notanger, contributes to the break-down of relationships (whichalso could represent a compo-nent of hostile acts betweengroups).10 Second, disgust is abasic, primary emotion elicitedby the perception of contami-nation or disease agents. It isuniversal, not only in its signalproperties but also in terms ofits elicitors.11 Third, disgust isa moral emotion often used tosanction persons moral beliefsand behaviors.12 Fourth, anec-

dotal observations of the videosof terrorists, such as Usama BinLadin or Virginia Tech shooterCho Seung Hui, as well as thespeeches and writings of world

leaders (e.g., Hitler, Milosevic)who incited wars, revealed anescalation of disgust, as seen in

facial expressions, leading up toviolent acts. Disgust drives in-dividuals to kill without discre-tion. For instance, terrorists donot differentiate between men,women, or children; infidels (orvermin) must be eliminated.

Although research on ag-gression has focused on anger,the authors believe, in todayscontext of terrorism as a globalphenomenon, that disgust must

of a situational attribution to anact to a dispositional attributionto the person. Consequently, if a

person or group does somethingbad, anger focuses on the act,but the person or group may ormay not be considered bad and,in fact, may be rehabilitatedsomehow in the future. Evalua-tions resulting in contempt anddisgust, however, indicate thatthe person or group is inher-ently bad and there is no chancefor rehabilitation; thus, thelogical recourse is to eliminate

them. Elimination can occurin various ways, from extremeforms of violence to shunning,avoiding, or simply dissociatingthem.

Intergroup Emotions

While the scientific studyof emotion traditionally has fo-cused on the individual, in re-cent years, it increasingly hascentered on group emotions.Most studies have examinedthe types of emotions felt bymembers of groups toward out-groups. For instance, studiessuggest that intergroup anxietytoward outgroups may occur be-cause of potential embarrass-ment about not knowing whatto do with the outgroups mem-bers, apprehension about nega-tive behavioral consequences,

fear of disapproving evalua-tions, past negative intergrouprelations, minimal previous con-tact with the outgroup, largestatus differences between the

represent a central emotion tostudy on the group level. There,it represents a shift towardmaking an assessment of theinherent characteristics ofthe other group, rather than atemporary judgment about anact committed by that group.Disgust transforms aggression

(sometimes constructive) intohostility (usually not) and angerinto hatred. The transformationof anger to contempt and thendisgust resembles a conversion

Laypersons oftendo not recognize the

important distinctionsamong emotions.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

6/36


ingroup and outgroup, or high-er ratios of outgroup memberscompared with ingroup mem-

bers (more of them thanus).13 Studies on the Stereo-type Content Model suggestthat group members have dif-ferent emotions toward out-groups based on the dimen-sions of perceived warmth andcompetence.14 The IntergroupEmotions Theory suggests thatingroup members feel anger to-ward an outgroup it is in con-flict with when the ingroup

view is that of the majority;this anger will lead to confront-ing, opposing, or attacking theoutgroup.15

Studies also have exam-ined the emotions attributed toingroup and outgroup mem-bers. For example, the Infra-humanization Theorysuggeststhat ingroup favoritism andoutgroup derogation leads tothe attribution of more humancharacteristics, including emo-tions, toward the ingroup.16Thus, ingroups more likely willattribute the more human emo-tions of compassion, shame,serenity, bitterness, or contemptto ingroup members. At thesame time, ingroups attributemore basic (or primary) emo-tions, such as surprise, anger,pleasure, fear, attraction, or

disgust, to outgroups. Research-ers consider these emotionsshared between humans andprimates.17 Thus, the dehuman-ization of outgroups involves

the attribution of emotionsassociated with animals to theoutgroups, and intergroup emo-

tions keep such attitudes aboutoutgroups connected. Withouttheir emotional bases, these at-titudes would have little mean-ing or practical consequence.But, intergroup relations arecomplex and potentially deadly,especially among ideologicallybased groups, precisely becauseoutgroup cognitions are associ-ated with strong emotions.

become associated with dif-ferent intergroup behaviors. Inthe authors view, violence and

hostility directly result from theplanned inculcation and care-ful, methodical nurturing ofhatred in terrorist groups. Thistheoretical framework is basedon a view of discrete emotions,most notably those related tomorality.18 Although such emo-tions as shame and guilt havereceived considerable attentionas moral emotions in the past,more recent work has focused

on anger, contempt, and disgustand their relationship to auton-omy, community, and divinity.19Specifically, some experts haveproposed that anger, contempt,and disgust often result fromviolations of community,autonomy, and divinity, respec-tively known as the CAD TriadHypothesis.20

Another expert has pro-posed a triarchic theory of ha-tred based on anger, contempt,disgust, and fear.21 He proposesthat hatred is based on 1) a ne-gation of intimacy (originatingfrom disgust); 2) passion (re-sulting from anger and fear);3) and decision-commitmentderiving from the devaluationand diminution of others (basedon contempt). According to hismodel, different kinds of ha-

tred can exist based on differ-ent combinations of these threecomponents. Because thereare three components, theycan yield seven different

EMOTIONS ANDESCALATION TOVIOLENCE

Cultures of Emotion-BasedHatred

Because emotions functionprimarily to motivate behav-ior on both the individual and

group levels, not only are theyinstrumental in creating andmaintaining intergroup attitudesand relations but changesinthose emotions over time may

shutterstock.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

7/36

January 2012 / 5

combinations of hatred: cold,cool, hot, simmering, boiling,seething, and burning.

An interesting aspect of histheory is that hatred is propa-gated via stories or narratives.22Stories serve an important andinteresting purpose, bringingto life the various componentsof hatred in a concise, easy-to-understand and easy-to-com-municate method. They providegroup leaders with a platformby which shared emotions canbe developed, fostered, main-

tained, or extinguished; in turn,group members communicatethose stories to others. Manydifferent types of hate storiesachieve this purpose.23

Strangers

Impure others (versuspure ingroup members)

Controllers (versuscontrolled)

Faceless foes (versus indi-viduated ingroup members)

Enemies of God (versusservants of God)

Morally bankrupt persons(versus morally soundindividuals)

Death (versus life)

Barbarians (versus civilizedingroup members)

Greedy enemies (versus

financially responsibleingroup members)

Criminals (versus innocentparties)

Torturers (versus victims)

Murderers (versus victims)

Seducer-rapists (versusvictims)

Animal pests (versushumans)

Power-crazed individuals(versus mentally balancedpersons)

Subtle infiltrators (versusinfiltrated)

Unique cultures character-ize terrorist groups. Culturalsystems provide guidelines for

normative behavior, the basisfor the nature and function ofattributions, communicationsystems, and intergroup rela-tions. Sacred values and be-liefs also characterize terroristorganizations but, then again,also many ideologically-basedorganizations.25 Research onterrorists and other ideologi-cally based groups suggestscomparability to each other

in their social-psychologicaldynamics.26 A culture of dis-dain permeated throughoutthe group facilitates hatred ofothers, and future generationsare similarly enculturated.Emotionally laden narrativescolor the perception of all newdata; group members acceptat face value information thatconfirms the narrative and dis-miss details that disconfirm thenarrative through accusationsof bias, conspiracies, or evenflat-out logical fallacies.27 Onceestablished, narratives becomeself-perpetuating.

Emotions Leadingto Violence

Building on these theo-retical frameworks, the authorspropose that emotions trans-

form over time, often via sto-ries, to inculcate cultures withhatred and violence. Specifi-cally, this emotional transfor-mation follows three phases.

Comic characters (versussensible ingroup members)

Thwarter-destroyers ofdestiny (versus seekers ofdestiny)

Stories also serve the im-portant function of providingmembers a way to communicateattitudes, values, beliefs, and

opinions across generations, acentral component of culturethat refers to a shared meaningand information system trans-mitted across generations.24

While the scientificstudy of emotiontraditionally hasfocused on the

individual, in recentyears, it increasingly

has centered on groupemotions.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

8/36


Phase 1: OutrageBased on Anger

This involves the group

identifying events that obstructgoals or stem from perceivedinjustice. It also may involvethe group identifying threats toits well-being, physical safety,or way of life. These interpreta-tions and attributions lead to orare fueled by feelings of angertoward the outgroup.

Phase 2: Moral SuperiorityBased on Contempt

Groups begin to reinterpretanger-eliciting situations andevents identified in Phase 1 andtake the high road. That is, theyreappraise the events from a po-sition of moral superiority andidentify links between similarbehaviors or events, no matterhow tenuous, thus, making theattribution that the outgroup ismorally inferior. These reap-praisals and attributions lead toor are fueled by the emotion ofcontempt.

Phase 3: EliminationBased on Disgust

A further reappraisal ofevents and situations leads tothe conclusion that distanceis necessary (the mild form ofelimination) between the in-group and outgroup or that theoutgroup needs to be removedaltogether (the extreme form).These ideas are promulgated bythe emotion of disgust.

This perspective helps tounderstand that groups can hate,but that not all hatred leads to

violence or hostility. Hatredbased primarily on anger orcontempt likely will notbeassociated with violence or hos-tility, but hatred that involvesdisgustthe emotion of repul-sion and eliminationlikelywill be. Groups can be angry orcontemptuous but, when alsodisgusted, they may become

to group emotions. Leaders dothis by creating stories basedon their appraisals or reapprais-

als of critical events and situ-ations and by communicatingthe emotions associated withtheir reappraised stories to theirfollowers and subordinates. Thecommunication occurs throughspecific types of emotion-ladenwords, metaphors, images, andanalogies, as well as nonverbal-ly through their faces, voices,gestures, and body language.That is, emotions are not com-

municated directly to groups(e.g., we perceived an obstacle,so we must be angry). Instead,emotions are communicatedindirectly via the associationsmade to groups with emotion-laden words, metaphors, analo-gies, and nonverbal behaviors.Through the careful use of lan-guage and nonverbal behaviors,leaders can motivate, escalate,or defuse situations and inciteactionor notthroughemotion.

Empirical Evidence

Recently, the authors con-ducted an initial test of theseideas by examining the emo-tions expressed by world lead-ers and heads of ideologicallymotivated groups in archivedspeeches about outgroups theleaders despised. There neverhad been a formal analysis ofthe emotional content of suchstatements, and archives served

dangerous. Further, interesting-ly, many definitions of hatredinvolve concepts of intenseaversion related to the emotionsof disgust or intense animosity,which has its roots in animalsand also relates to disgust.

How do these apprais-als and reappraisals occur andgroup emotions get created ortransformed? Powerful lead-ers set the tone for groups tointerpret or reinterpret eventsin certain ways that then lead

iStockphoto.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

9/36

January 2012 / 7

as a rich source of informationthat allowed the authors to testthe hypothesis that verbal ex-

pressions of anger, contempt,and disgust toward outgroupsover time lead to violence andhostility against that group.

The authors anchored thesespeeches to an identified actof aggression and selected foranalysis those speeches avail-able at five specified pointsin time (3, 6, 12, 18, and 24months) prior to the acts ofaggression. They also included

for comparison a small groupof acts and speeches of ideo-logically motivated groupsthat focused on hated out-groups but did notresult inviolence.

The authors analyzed thespeeches for their emotionalcontent and tested the differ-ences in that content, separat-ing the ones from groups thatcommitted an act of aggressionfrom those that did not, whichthey labeled acts of resistance.The authors hypothesized thatacts of aggression would becharacterized by an increase inanger, contempt, and disgust asspeeches toward the outgroupsneared the event, whereas actsof resistance would followwhere there was no increase inthese emotions.

As predicted, acts of ag-gression were associated withincreases in anger, contempt,and disgust in the time periods

immediately preceding the actof aggression. Interestingly,acts of resistance followed

decreases in these emotionsduring this same time period.There were no differences inany other emotions for acts ofaggression or resistance. Thesefindings were not affectedby the time when the eventsoccurred as separate analysesof only events within the last50 years produced the sameresults.

along with anger, allows groupsand individuals to make emo-tional dispositions about the

moral character of others. Whenpeople and groups feel con-tempt and disgust toward others,they are evaluating the target oftheir contempt and disgust asinherently bad or contaminated.No chance for rehabilitationexists; the only logical recourseis elimination. Anger focuses onactions, but not necessarily theunderlying morality of the actor the individuals or groups per-

forming it. Martin Luther King,Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and theDalai Lama all have been angryand, perhaps, even contemptu-ous, but they did not becomedisgusted with their outgroups.

Although the findings fromthe authors study demonstratedthat the emotions expressedin the language used by lead-ers of ideologically motivatedgroups determined groupsviolence, emotions expressed inthe words may constitute onlypart of the overall emotionalmessage delivered. Nonverbalbehaviors, such as facial ex-pressions and tones of voice,that accompany the emotion-ally laden language probablyamplify the overall emotionalmessages delivered. Therefore,quite possibly, when emotion-

ally laden language is imbed-ded within a rich repertoire ofnonverbal behaviors that alsoportray emotions, the overall

These findings demonstratedhow an analysis of specificemotions of anger, contempt,and disgustnot just any nega-tive emotionproves especiallymeaningful in terms of under-standing how group emotionscontribute to aggression orhostility. As mentioned, angeris about what an individual or a

group did; however, contemptand disgust focus on who peo-ple or groups are. The combina-tion of contempt and disgust,

emotionstransform over

timeto inculcatecultures with hatred

and violence.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

10/36


emotional message to the listen-ers may hold substantially morepower than simply reading the

words. The authors currently areresearching this possibility.

FACIAL EXPRESSIONSOF EMOTION ANDAGGRESSION

Signs of ImminentAggression

Another line of the authorsresearch program has attemptedto identify the nonverbal signals

of imminent aggression. Thiswork holds the view of emo-tions as evolved, rapid informa-tion-processing systems that en-able humans to adapt to changesin their environment with mini-mal conscious intervention.28When elicited, emotions recruita host of physiological, cogni-tive, and expressive behaviorsorganized and coordinated witheach other.29 Facial expressionsconstitute part of this coordi-nated response package. CharlesDarwin claimed, in his principleof serviceable habits, that facialexpressions are the residualactions of more complete,whole-body responses thatprepare individuals for actionby priming the body to act.30Thus, people express angerwhen furrowing their brow and

tightening their lips with teethdisplayed because these actionsform part of an attack response.Individuals show disgust withan open mouth, nose wrinkle,

and tongue protrusion as partof a vomiting response. Recentresearch has suggested that dif-

ferent facial expressions (e.g.,those showing fear and disgust)facilitate the acquisition or re-jection of sensory information.31

This important theoreti-cal perspective suggests a linkbetween specific facial expres-sions of emotion and sub-sequent behavior. Althoughdisgust may energize the nar-rative to produce violence at adistal level, anger energizes the

primes the body to aggress, andfacial expressions are part of theanger-response package. Given

that assassinations, shootings,and physical violence often oc-cur in a matter of seconds, theexistence of such facial signs isa distinct possibility and has im-portant practical ramifications.

In the authors studies,a single Caucasian maleaprofessional actordemon-strated an array of faces for lawenforcement officers (LEOs)in five countries. Each expres-

sion depicted a variant of thefull-face, prototypic version ofanger found in stimulus sets,such as the Pictures of FacialAffect or the Japanese andCaucasian Facial Expressions ofEmotion stimulus sets.32 That is,all expressions included at leastsome of the muscles identifiedby the Facial Action CodingSystem (FACS) involved in thefull-face prototype; the expres-sions differed in the amount andintensity of those muscles andin the presence or absence ofzygomatic major(the smilingmuscle).33

The expressions weregenerated by first asking theactor to produce the face seenin previous videos involvingassaults, attacks, and assas-sination attempts. Additional

expressions then were portrayedwhen the actor demonstrated asmany different kinds of angeras he knew. This resulted ina preliminary selection of 16

physical action of assault at theproximal level. Recently, theauthors examined the possibil-ity that variants of the facialexpression of anger represent a

reliable association with acts ofimmediate, subsequent violentbehavior. Logically, signs ofanger may arise prior to acts ofaggression or assault if anger

shutterstock.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

11/36

January 2012 / 9

expressions. Pilot testing witha separate group of AmericanLEOs indicated that some of

the expressions almost neverwere selected in the proce-dures; 4 expressions were,thus, dropped, resulting in afinal stimulus set of 12 expres-sions, which the authors placedin a random array andnumbered.

LEOs in each of the coun-tries selected a face from the12 that they saw momentsbefore either a premeditated

physical assault or an assaultdue to a momentary loss ofimpulse control. Prior to thistask, the LEOs were asked ifthey ever were involved insuch attacks, if they remem-bered the face of the attacker,and if they could recall theface if they saw it again. TheLEOs identified 2 faces1 forpremeditated assaults and 1for loss of impulse controlat high agreement rates.Moreover, LEOs in differentcountries, two of which werenon-English speaking, identi-fied the same faces.

University students shownthe same set of faces and en-gaged in the same experimen-tal procedures did notselectthe same faces at the previouschance rates, suggesting that

the authorsfi

ndings did notresult from a process of elimi-nation among the 12 provided.More recently, the authors rep-licated the findings with LEOs

and university students using adifferent array of faces, ensur-ing that the initial findings were

not limited to a single expresser.

Potential ResearchPossibilities

The authors hope to expandthe notion of violence from thespontaneous and planned toinclude the special category ofsuicide bombers, particularlythose who believe they havedivine dispensation to conduct

Moreover, additional ques-tions can follow on this lineof research. For example, the

authors have developed tools tohelp train individuals to iden-tify the two types of dangerousfaces identified by LEOs in theirstudies; as of this date, however,they have no data concerning itsefficacy either as a training toolor in the field. Such data are amust. The authors have devel-oped the necessary experimentalprotocols and plan to conducttheir research within a relatively

short period of time.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings to date havesignificant potential implica-tions for national defense andsecurity, intelligence, and lawenforcement operations. Forexample, the elucidation ofthe role of emotion in leadingto acts of aggression by mem-bers of ideologically motivated

groups suggests the existence ofsigns that can serve as markersof escalation toward hostility.This, combined with the cre-ation of sensor technologies thatcan recognize those markers,either through the analysis ofthe emotional content of verbalstatements, nonverbal behav-ior, or the emotional profilesof groups, leads to the interest-

ing potential for these markersto predict hostile acts beforeenacted, allowing for evasive orpreemptive action that may savelives.

their attack. The authors haveno data concerning the facialsigns of this type of imminentaggression and have no reasonto believe that the face of thesuicide bomber is the same asthat of the person carrying outa premeditated attack or wholoses control and attacks. Theywould like to study additional

video footage prior to a violentevent for signs of impending at-tack through both facial expres-sions and bodily movements,such as gait or tension.

Emotionsserveto motivate. Gainingan understanding

can help predictacts of hostility and

violence.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

12/36


Technologies that analyzethe verbal content of speechescan identify emotions associ-

ated with this escalation, allow-ing for the production of auto-mated detectors of aggressionpotential based on ramp-ups ofdisgust across time. The samepotential exists for automateddetectors of aggression ramp-ups based on video analysesof faces or voices. Thesetechnological advances all arepredicated on the establish-ment of empirically validated

signs of aggression escalationbased on emotion, which havebeen found preliminarily butrequire further validation. Theidentification of facial signsof premeditated assault leadsto the interesting possibilitythat automated expression-recognition technologies can bedeveloped to scan crowds forsuch faces to identify individu-als of interest; this capabilitysurely would be useful for thosein the protective services. And,the identification of the facedisplaying a loss of impulsecontrol is important for anyonewho interacts with individualswho may explode to violenceat any time.

CONCLUSION

Emotions are essential tounderstanding individual and

group behavior as they serveto motivate. Gaining an under-standing of this behavior can

help predict acts of hostility andviolence.

In todays world, agencies

need as many tools as possibleto carry out their mission ofprotecting the public. The au-thors offer theirfindings in thisregard. Knowing what signs tolook for is important for anyonepotentially in harms way.

H.H. Goldsmith (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2003), 212-214; G.H.

Bower, Mood and Memory,American

Psychologist36, no. 2 (1981): 129-148;

J.P. Forgas and H.G. Bower, MoodEffects on Person-Perception Judg-

ments,Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 53, no. 1 (1987): 53-60; S.S.

Tomkins,Affect, Imagery, and Conscious-

ness (Vol 1: The Positive Effects) (New

York, NY: Springer, 1962); and S.S. Tom-

kins,Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness

(Vol 2: The Positive Effects) (New York,

NY: Springer, 1963).4 D. Matsumoto, S.H. Yoo, S. Na-

kagawa, J. Alexandre, J. Altarriba, M.

Arriola, A.M. Anguas-Wong, and L.M.

Bauer, Culture, Emotion, Regulation,

and Adjustment,Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 94, no. 6 (2008):

925-937.5 Tomkins,Affect, Imagery, and Con-

sciousness (Volumes 1 and 2).6 J.A. Russell and L. Feldman Barrett,

Core Affect, Prototypical Emotional

Episodes, and Other Things Called Emo-

tion: Dissecting the Elephant,Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 76, no.

5 (1999): 805-819.7 P. Ekman, Basic Emotions, in The

Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, ed.

T. Dalgleish and T. Power (Sussex, UK:

John Wiley and Sons, 1999), 45-60; C.E.Izard, Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds,

Emotion Schemas, and a New Paradigm,

Perspectives on Psychological Science

2, no. 3 (2007): 260-280; and J. Pank-

sepp, Neurologizing the Psychology of

Effects: How Appraisal-Based Construc-

tivism and Basic Emotion Theory Can

Coexist,Perspectives on Psychological

Science 2, no. 3 (2007): 281-296.8 Ekman, Basic Emotions, 1999,

45-60.9 Levenson, Autonomic Specificity

and Emotion, 2003, 212-214.10

J. M. Gottman and R.W. Levenson,A Two-Factor Model for Predicting

When a Couple Will Divorce: Exploratory

Analyses Using 14-Year Longitudinal

Endnotes

1 L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, Evolu-tionary Psychology and the Emotions,

inHandbook of Emotions, ed. M. Lewis

and J.M. Haviland-Jones (New York,

NY: Guilford Press, 2000), 91-115; and

C. Darwin, The Expression of Emotion in

Man and Animals (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 1998).2 P. Ekman,Emotions Revealed(New

York, NY: Times Books, 2003); and R. La-

zarus,Emotion and Adaptation (New York,

NY: Oxford University Press, 1991).3 R.W. Levenson, The Intrapersonal

Functions of Emotion, Cognition and

Emotion 13, no. 5 (1999): 481-504; R.W.Levenson, Autonomic Specificity and

Emotion, inHandbook of Affective Sci-

ences, ed. R.J Davidson, K. Scherer, and

Powerful leadersset the tone for

groups to interpretor reinterpret eventsin certain ways thatthen lead to group

emotions.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

13/36

January 2012 / 11

Data,Family Process 41, no. 1 (2002):

83-96; and J. M. Gottman, R.W. Levenson,

and E. Woodin, Facial Expressions Dur-

ing Marital Conflict,Journal of Family

Communication 1 (2001): 37-57.11 P. Ekman, Facial Expression and

Emotion,American Psychologist48, no.

4 (1993): 384-392; P. Rozin, J. Haidt, and

C.R. McCauley, Disgust: The Body and

Soul Emotion, inHandbook of Cogni-

tion and Emotion, ed. T. Dalgleish and

M.J. Power (Sussex, UK: John Wiley and

Sons, 1999), 429-445; and P. Rozin, L.

Lowery, S. Imada, and J. Haidt, The CAD

Triad Hypothesis: A Mapping Between

Three Moral Emotions (Contempt, Anger,

Disgust) and Three Moral Codes (Com-

munity, Autonomy, Divinity),Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 75, no.4 (1999): 574-585.

12 H.A. Chapman, D.A. Kim, J.M. Suss-

kind, and A.K. Anderson, In Bad Taste:

Evidence for the Oral Origins of Moral

Disgust, Science 323 (2009): 1222-1226.13 P.M. Niedenthal, S. Krauth-Gruber,

and F. Ric,Psychology of Emotion:

Interpersonal, Experiential, and Cognitive

Approaches (New York, NY: Psychology

Press, 2006); and W.G. Stephan and C.W.

Stephan, Intergroup Anxiety,Journal of

Social Issues 41 (1985): 157-175.14 A.J.C. Cuddy, S.T. Fiske, and P.

Glick, The BIAS Map: Behaviors fromIntergroup Affect and Stereotypes,Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology

92, no. 4 (2007): 631-648.15 D.M. Mackie, T. Devos, and E.R.

Smith, Intergroup Emotions: Explain-

ing Offensive Action Tendencies in an

Intergroup Context,Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology 79, no. 4 (2000):

602-616.16 B.P. Cortes, S. Demoulin, R.T. Rodri-

guez, A.P. Rodrigues, and J.P. Leyens, In-

frahumanization or Familiarity? Attribu-

tion of Uniquely Human Emotions to the

Self, the Ingroup, and the Outgroup,Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin

31, no. 2 (2005): 243-253; S. Demoulin,

J.P. Leyens, M.P. Paladino, R. Rodriguez

Torres, A. Rodriguez Perez, and J.F.

Dovidio, Dimensions of Uniquely and

Nonuniquely Human Emotions, Cog-

nition and Emotion 18 (2004): 71-96;

and R. Rodriguez Torres, J.P. Leyens, B.Cortez, A. Perez Rodriguez, V. Betancour

Rodriguez, M.N. Quiles del Castillo,

and S. Demoulin, The Lay Distinction

Between Primary and Secondary Emo-

tions: A Spontaneous Categorization?

International Journal of Psychology 40,

no. 2 (2005): 100-107.17 J.E. LeDoux and E.A. Phelps,

Emotional Networks in the Brain, in

Handbook of Emotions, ed. M. Lewis,

J.M. Haviland-Jones, and L. Feldman

Barrett (New York, NY: Guilford Press,

2008), 159-179.

18 Ekman, Basic Emotions, 1999,45-60; P. Rozin and A.E. Fallon, A

Perspective on Disgust,Psychological

Review 94, no. 1 (1987): 23-41; Rozin,

Haidt, and McCauley, Disgust: The

Body and Soul Emotion, 1999, 429-445;

and J. Tangney and K.W. Fischer, ed.,

Self-Conscious Emotions: The Psychol-

ogy of Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment,

and Pride (New York, NY: Guilford

Press, 1995).19 R.A. Shweder and J. Haidt, The

Cultural Psychology of the Emotions:

Ancient and New, in The Handbook of

Emotions, ed. M. Lewis and J.M. Havi-land (New York, NY: Guilford Press,

2000), 397-414; Tangney and Fischer,

Self-Conscious Emotions, 1995; and Ro-

zin et al, The CAD Triad Hypothesis,

1999, 574-585.20 Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley,

Disgust: The Body and Soul Emotion,

1999, 429-445.21 R.J. Sternberg, A Duplex Theory

of Hate: Development and Application

to Terrorism, Massacres, and Genocide,

Review of General Psychology 7, no. 3

(2003): 299-328.22

Sternberg, A Duplex Theory ofHate, 2003, 299-328.23 Sternberg, A Duplex Theory of

Hate, 2003, 299-328.

24 D. Matsumoto and L. Juang, Culture

and Psychology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

2007).25 S. Atran and R. Axelrod, Sacred

Barriers to Conflict Resolution, Science317 (2007): 1039-1040; S. Atran and R.

Axelrod, Sacred Barriers to Conflict Reso-

lution, Science 317 (2007): 1039-1040;

and J. Ginges, S. Atran, D. Medin, and

K. Shikaki, Sacred Bounds on Rational

Resolution of Violent Political Conflict,

Proceedings from the National Academy of

Sciences 104 (2007): 7357-7360.26 A. Stahelski, Terrorists are Made,

Not Born: Creating Terrorists Using Social

Psychological Conditioning, Cultic Stud-

ies Review 4, no. 1 (2005).27 R.E. Nisbett and L. Ross,Human

Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings ofSocial Judgment(Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall, 1980).28 Ekman, Basic Emotions, 1999,

45-60; Lazarus,Emotion and Adaptation,

1991; and J. Tooby and L. Cosmides, The

Evolutionary Psychology of the Emotions

and Their Relationship to Internal Regula-

tory Variables, inHandbook of Emotions,

ed. M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, and L.

Feldman Barrett (New York, NY: Guilford

Press, 2008): 114-137.29 Levenson, The Intrapersonal Func-

tions of Emotion, 1999, 481-504.30

C. Darwin, The Expression of Emo-tion in Man and Animals, 1998.

31 J.M. Susskind, D.H. Lee, A. Cusi, R.

Feiman, W. Grabski, and A.K. Anderson,

Expressing Fear Enhances Sensory Ac-

quisition,Nature Neuroscience 11 (2008):

843-850.32 P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen,Pictures

of Facial Effect(Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, 1976); and D. Matsu-

moto and P. Ekman, Japanese and Cau-

casian Facial Expressions of Emotion and

Neutral Faces (JACFEE and JACNeuF);

available from http://humintell.com.33

P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen,FacialAction Coding System: Investigators Guide

(Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press, 1978).

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

14/36


With the ever-present threat of another

serious terrorist attack occurring onAmerican soil, law enforcement agencies mustremain vigilant and resist complacency. The mainadvantage for law enforcement personnel now, asopposed to before 9/11, is that there are more toolsin place to detect and disrupt such an attack fromhappening. One such tool, eGuardian,has provenan ideal collaborative solution in bridging the gapthat formerly existed in the law enforcement infor-mation sharing realm.

Information sharing has been discussed exten-sively at law enforcement conferences and men-tioned by several politicians and law enforcement

officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller,Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Ba-rack Obama.1 What exactly is information sharing,

though, and how was eGuardianborn out of sucha vague term?

Sharing Information

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, reformsbegan to take place within the American federallaw enforcement community. In 2007, as detailedin the National Strategy for Information Shar-ing (NSIS), the National Security Council underPresident George W. Bush directed the FBI toshare more informationnamely terroristwithlaw enforcement agencies.2 In this case, terrorism

information includes four main categories: specificthreats, actual events that already have occurred,encounters between law enforcement and indi-viduals on a terrorism watch list, and suspiciousactivity reports (SARs), which document observedbehaviors that may indicate the preoperationalplanning of a terrorist attack.3 As a response to theNSIS, the eGuardian system was created, provid-ing three critical functions that are unprecedentedin terms of information sharing.

First, the system allows local law enforcementagencies to put terrorism-related information in a

database where it has a direct electronic path tothe FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). TheJTTF then can investigate the incidents in conjunc-tion with state and local authorities.

Second, eGuardian allows the FBI to share itsunclassified terrorism information with the rest ofthe domestic law enforcement community. In thepast, the FBI put all of its terrorism-related reportsthat required further assessment into a classified,in-house system called Guardian. The only peoplewho could see them were FBI personnel and lawenforcement officials assigned to the JTTF. Al-though the FBI still inputs most of its terrorism

eGuardian Gains MomentumBy Colin Durner

Technology Update

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

15/36

January 2012 / 13

information directly into Guardian, the majority ofit now also is passed electronically to eGuardian.This system feature directly resulted from receiv-

ing feedback from local law enforcement agencies.In fact, many of eGuardiansnew system enhance-ments, which constantly are being added, haveresulted from suggestions received from policeagencies across the United States.

Third, information entered into eGuardiancanbe seen nationwide by all law enforcement enti-ties with system access. System users also havethe ability to add information to all incidents.For instance, this would allow a local officerin New York to attach an old police report involv-ing a person who is the main

subject of a new incident en-tered by a police departmentin California. This type ofcollaboration within eGuard-ian can lead to patterns beingestablished and help connectthe ever-elusive dots withregard to potential terrorismactivity.

Having RemarkableSuccess

The pilot program foreGuardian ended in December2008, and the system was putto the test during the inau-guration of President Barack Obama on January20, 2009. As eGuardian approaches its third anni-versary, its success is evident. Using informationreceived through eGuardian, the FBI has initiatedover 106 new terrorism cases and enhanced ap-proximately 388 cases already in existence. Thesystem has allowed federal, state, local, and triballaw enforcement agencies to actively share andexchange terrorism-related information at an un-precedented level.

For example, a woman in California suspectedthat her son had become obsessed with jihad afterhe began voicing support for al Qaeda and stock-

piling weapons illegally. Based on the motherscomplaint, the local sheriffs office could justifyentering the information in eGuardian based uponthe presence of a potential nexus to terrorism. Theinformation passed through one of Californiasstate fusion centers and to the JTTF. An investiga-tion subsequently was opened.

In another instance, a man was discovered tobe in the possession of extensive explosive-mak-ing materials after police responded to a report offire at his residence. The FBI put the incident into

eGuardian while simultane-

ously opening a JTTF inves-tigation. The subject since hasbeen indicted and currentlyawaits trial.

In the past, quite possi-bly, no one outside the JTTFwould have been privy toeither of these incidents un-til the story appeared on theevening news. eGuardianhaschanged all that through itscollaborative functions.

Gaining Access

Sworn law enforcementofficers or persons (e.g., a

crime analyst or dispatcher for a police depart-ment) working in direct support of a law enforce-ment agency can use eGuardian. However, theyfirst must obtain a free account from Law Enforce-ment Online (LEO) at http://www.leo.gov. LEO isa secure, unclassified network that not only hostseGuardianbut also is home to many other usefuland free law enforcement services and online tools.LEO prompts all potential users to verify their sta-tus within the law enforcement community. This is

The system hasallowedlaw

enforcement agenciesto actively share

and exchangeterrorism-relatedinformation at an

unprecedented level.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

16/36


the first check to ensure that only appropriate lawenforcement personnel gain access to the system.Users can register for eGuardian access once their

LEO account is established. Their law enforce-ment credentials will be verified again, and theywill be placed in a custom account created for theirrespective agencies.

Once users gain access and agree to theterms of use, they will have the abil-ity to search for, read, add to, andcreate new incidents. Anynew incidents will be sentto the agencys local fu-sion center or similarentity for approval per

policy standards be-fore they are pushedout for systemwidedissemination. Inci-dents also are elec-tronically passed tothe Guardian system,which ensures thatthey will be sent toand assessed by theappropriate JTTF to de-termine whether or notthey will be converted to aninvestigation. The FBIs Guard-ian system also provides automaticupdates to eGuardian users regarding thestatus of any referred incidents once they are beingassessed by a JTTF.

Protecting Civil Liberties

Whenever a U.S. government system is usedto collect information on American citizens orU.S. persons, scrutiny may arise from both the

public and the media with regard to civil liberties.4

From the day eGuardian was envisioned, it wasapparent to the FBI that there needed to be a robustsystem of checks in place to assure that eGuardian

would protect the civil liberties guaranteed by theConstitution.

All eGuardianusers must abide by the system

user agreement, which contains language specificto civil liberties protection, in keeping with theU.S. Department of Justices privacy policies. Inaddition, all information entered into eGuardian

must pass from the entering agency to a statefusion center (or similar approving

agency) where policy checksare conducted. FBI JTTF and

FBI headquarters personnelalso constantly monitor

eGuardian incidents toassure policy compli-

ance. Instruction oneGuardian systemusage and policyis provided for us-ers via Web-basedtraining.

Conclusion

The eGuardiansystem began its offi-

cial program pilot withfewer than 40 law en-

forcement agencies. Afterits pilot ended, 95 incidents had

been entered and shared within thesystem. As of November 2011, eGuard-

ian has a customer base of 4,050 individual usersrepresenting 1,227 law enforcement agencies.The system contains 10,435 incidents that can besearched, analyzed, and enhanced by any systemuser. These incidents now come from three dif-ferent sources: individual eGuardian agenciesand fusion centers, the FBIs internal Guardian

system, and the National SAR Initiatives (NSI)Shared Space tool, which gathers SARs and otherterrorism information from 13 fusion center sitesacross the country.5

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

17/36

The FBI is an official partner of the NSI, acollaborative effort to promote an effective, stan-dardized SAR sharing process.6 The NSIs efforts

are partially reflected in the Web tutorial, whichnow mandatory for all eGuardian users, addressesthe preservation of civil liberties while using aninformation system, such as eGuardian.

In the future, eGuardianwill continue to de-velop new features that will incorporate geospa-tial software and allow for even more advancedincident analysis. This continually upgraded tech-nology will aid in discovering trends and patternsof behavior when identifying terrorist threats.

Endnotes1 FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, The Importance of

Partnerships (speech presented at the International Association

of Chiefs of Police Conference, Orlando, FL, October 25, 2009);

Attorney General Eric Holder (speech presented at the Bureau

of Justice Assistance National Conference, Washington, DC, De-

cember 7, 2010); President Barack Obama, Classified Informa-

tion and Controlled Unclassified Information, memorandum to

the heads of executive departments and agencies, May 27, 2010,

Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC.2 White House National Security Council,National Strategy

for Information Sharing(Washington, DC, 2007).3 Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment,

Information Sharing Environment,Functional Standard, Suspi-

cious Activity Reporting, Version 1.5 (Washington, DC, 2009).4 American Civil Liberties Union, Spy Files: More About

Suspicious Activity Reporting, http://www.aclu.org/spy-files/

more-about-suspicious-activity-reporting(accessed June 29,

2010).5 Nationwide SAR Initiative, Implementation Map, http://

nsi.ncirc.gov/implementation_map.aspx#(accessed February 10,

2011).6 Nationwide SAR Initiative, NSI Overview, http://nsi.

ncirc.gov/documents/NSI_Overview.pdf(accessed February 02,

2011).

To learn more about obtaining access to eGuardian, law

enforcement personnel can visithttp://www.fbi.gov/eGuardian.

Colin Durner, a staff operations specialist in the FBIsCounterterrorism Division, prepared thisTechnology

Update.

January 2012 / 15

Wanted:Photographs

heBulletin staff alwaysis looking for dynamic,T

law enforcement-related im-

ages for possible publicationin the magazine. We are in-terested in those that visuallydepict the many aspects ofthe law enforcement profes-sion and illustrate the vari-ous tasks law enforcementpersonnel perform.

We can use digital pho-tographs or color prints. Itis our policy to credit pho-tographers when their workappears in the magazine.

Contributors sending printsshould send duplicate cop-ies, not originals, as we donot accept responsibility fordamaged or lost prints.Send materials to:

Art DirectorFBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135

[email protected]

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

18/36

Bulletin Honors

After her husband was killed in an explosion while working on the bomb squad, MaryGalvin approached the police chief and sheriff in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Even though there

was a national memorial to fallen officers in Washington, D.C., and a state memorial in Topeka,Kansas, she felt that Sedgwick County should memorialize its local heroes. In 2002, a volunteercommittee was formed to plan the memorial.

On April 2, 2011, the Law Enforcement Memorial of Sedgwick County, Kansas, was of-ficially dedicated. The memorial is designed to honor fallen law enforcement officers and tobe a public work of art. Twenty-nine officers, dating from 1871 to 2009, are honored on thememorial. The centerpiece of the memorial is a life-size bronze statue of two lions, one maleand one female, watching over the community. The lions stand at the base of an eternal flamecomprised of a bronze frame and blue glass, which is illuminated. Bronze replicas of the UnitedStates and Kansas flags stand between the lions. Behind a wall there is a meditation area whereeach of the 29 fallen Sedgwick County officers is represented with a plaque and a pair of bronzeboots or shoesin many cases, a casting of the fallen officers actual footwear. When viewedfrom above, the memorial looks like a badge with a black granite bench representing the blackmourning band officers wear in remembrance of a fallen comrade.

Sedgwick County, KansasLaw Enforcement Memorial


7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

19/36

January 2012 / 17

Since 2005, members of the College of Edu-cation Study Abroad Program at West Texas

A&M University (WTAMU) in Canyon have trav-eled to San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. Facultyand students in the WTAMU Criminal Justice De-partment also have visited San Miguel de Allendeto study the Mexican criminal justice system. Asa result of these programs, criminal justice facultymembers have worked with San Miguel de Al-lendes training director and police chief to createan exchange program for officers in San Miguel

de Allende; the first exchange occurred in August2010. The author offers insight into developing,implementing, and evaluating the training of po-lice officers, as well as city council politicians,from San Miguel de Allende.

Developing the Training Agenda

During the summer of 2010, the WTAMUdean of education; two criminal justice professors;one Amarillo, Texas, Police Department SWATcommander; and a warden from the Texas StatePrisons Clements Unit discussed developing anexchange program between WTAMU and SanMiguel de Allendes police department and citycouncil. San Miguel de Allendes assistant policechief and a group of city council members pre-sented various needs to the WTAMU professors

visiting the city. As a result, the San Miguel de Al-lende police administration and city council mem-bers inquired about the possibility of their policeofficers and a few city council representatives trav-eling to WTAMU for a 1-week, intensive training

Police Practice

Training Mexican Police Officers and City Council MembersThe West Texas A&M University ModelBy Harry Hueston, Ph.D.

West Texas A&M University San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

shutterstock.cPhoto courtesy of Rik Anderson

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

20/36


program in August 2010. Endorsing this concept,the WTAMU dean of education and members ofthe criminal justice department identified topicsto meet the needs of the department as defined bythe assistant chief. In follow-up conversations withSan Miguel de Allende city council members, thetraining agenda was revised to include additional

sessions to meet the needs of the council membersin charge of the citys public safety and victimservices.

Community policing

Special weapons use and firing opportunities

Dignitary protection

Organization and structure of police depart-ments (city, county, state, and university)

Role of the local district attorney

Visits to and reviews of the regional policeacademy

SWAT

Gang recognition

Understanding of the U.S. criminal justicesystem

Prison and county jail operations

Prisoner tracking

Crime scene investigation techniques Emergency center operations

Building and parking lot security measures

Facing the Challenges

Bringing international visitors to WTAMUpresented challenges. The participants needed avisitors visa from their government to enter theUnited States, as well as permission from theTexas A&M University System (TAMUS). Withthe support and endorsement of the dean of the

education department and the WTAMU president,TAMUS granted permission. A TAMUS legaldepartment liability release form was translatedinto Spanish and signed by each Mexican guestprior to participation in the intense trainingschedule.

Once the visa and liability issues were re-solved, numerous logistical details related toplans for visits and discussions with the local lawenforcement community to implement the finaltraining schedule were addressed. Specifically,the professors coordinated activities or scheduled

visits with representatives of the Clements PrisonUnit; Texas Department of Public Safety; RandallCounty Sheriffs Department and District Attor-neys Office; SWAT, gang, and bomb squads ofthe Amarillo, Texas, Police Department and city

Trainees processingfingerprints at the RandallCounty, Texas, Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory

Classroom training by PANTEX personnel on buildingsecurity

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

21/36

January 2012 / 19

Training Schedule for Visitors from San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

Sunday

4:00 p.m. Arrive in AmarilloDinner at a local, well-known restaurantHotel check-in

8:00 p.m. OrientationMonday

7:30 a.m. Breakfast at the hotel

8:30 a.m. Travel to Clements Prison Unit

9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Tracking demonstration and participation, prison gang orientation, andupdate by Clements Criminal Investigations

12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch at the prison

1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Visit various police agencies, beginning with an Amarillo College PoliceTraining Academy and staff presentation

3:30 p.m. WTAMU Police Department site visit

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Cookout with students (invited current and former students for discus-sions and updates on pending changes in the criminal justice system andthe roles of police and district attorneys in Mexico)

8:30 p.m. Hotel

Tuesday


8:30 - 4:00 p.m. Amarillo Police Department firearms range, SWAT participation, shoothouse, and weapons training and tactics

6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Baseball game

11:00 p.m. Hotel

Wednesday


8:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Amarillo Police Department dignitary protection, communicationscenter, crime prevention (student participation)

11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Community-oriented policing, emergency operations center, gang

orientation and training (student participation)

4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Hotel

6:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. Dinner and play

11:00 p.m. Hotel

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

22/36


Training Schedule (Continued)

Emergency Operations Center; Panhandle Re-gional Police Training Academy; Texas Court ofAppeals; a large Texas facility that maintains thesafety and security of the nations nuclear weap-ons; and WTAMU Police Department. A criminal

justice professor contacted each agency via letter,then followed up with several phone calls. In ad-dition, the Clements Unit warden, the SWAT com-mander, and other specialty teams of the AmarilloPolice Department assisted in coordinating the

Thursday


8:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Lecture on building security, protection, and other security issues bysecurity managers of a large Texas facility that maintains the safety and

security of the nations nuclear weapons (student participation)11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Lunch

12:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Randall County Sheriffs Department tour and presentation, includingjail and patrol operations, communications, helicopter tour, and crimelaboratory exercises (student participation)

6:00 p.m. Dinner

8:00 p.m. Hotel

Friday


8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. District Attorney James Farrin, explanation of local court practices, roleof the district attorneys office, and relationship with police on crimescene investigation and prosecution (student participation)

10:30 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. Judge John Boyd, retired court of appeals judge, explanation of the U.S.criminal justice system (student participation)

12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Homicide scene. This is a homicide class presentation where the policeofficers/guests get involved in handling the criminal investigation of ahomicide. These actions include crime scene photography; video; and

location, documentation, and collection of evidence. The use of bloodcollection and latent print collection also is included. Event is scheduledin a WTAMU classroom (student participation).

6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Awards dinner at a local museum

9:30 p.m. Hotel

Sunday

1:35 p.m. Depart Amarillo

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

23/36

January 2012 / 21

demonstrated their learning accomplishments atone of the SWAT training sessions. On the secondtraining day, the Amarillo SWAT team began anall-day session with participants. In the morning,they had the opportunity to shoot a variety ofsniper rifles, automatic weapons, and handguns.During the handgun training, the SWAT teamdirected each person to shoot at a paper target,aiming at the square in the middle. During thistimed exercise (one bullet for every 10 seconds),everyones shots were clearly outside the squareor off the silhouette. The SWAT team immediately

noticed that the officers lacked sight picture, trig-ger squeeze, and proper sight alignment (front andrear sighting). Once these issues were discussedand new strategies were applied and practiced, of-ficers scores rose by 100 percent during follow-uptimed exercises. Next, the SWAT team moved theparticipants to exercises that involved shootingmetal targets. Again, the officers and officialspracticed their sight picture, alignment, and triggersqueeze, successfully hitting over 90 percent ofthe targets in under 30 seconds. The improvementand understanding by the participants continued

numerous times during more training sessions.The use of a translator was another important

factor in the programs success. The translator wascritical in helping the Mexican officers and officialsbecome comfortable in their new environment. The

Trainees under the state of Texas seal in the supremecourt

various functions in each of these large facilities. Afinal training schedule resulted from the dedicatedefforts of many individuals who made numerous

contacts to adjust times, locations, and visits.The international visitors enjoyed cultural ex-

periences and activities unique to the Panhandleregion of Texas. Because the majority of the visi-tors never had been to the United States, the eventsreflected the local flavor of the region:

cookout with faculty and students who visitedSan Miguel de Allende during the past severalyears as part of the study abroad program;

attendance at a baseball game featuring alocal team in Amarillo;

dinners at well-known, local restaurants; attendance at a musical drama performed in

an outdoor amphitheater; and

visits to local shopping areas.

Evaluating the Results

Because this was the first time WTAMU im-plemented an exchange program of this nature andduration, it received a great deal of media interest.Two of the three local television stations requestedinterviews in which one criminal justice professor

and several Mexican police officers and council-women participated. The local Spanish-speakingtelevision station also conducted an extensive in-terview with the assistant police chief, city councilmembers, and the WTAMU criminal justice pro-fessor coordinating the exchange activities. Areanewspapers published articles on various segmentsof the training, as well as numerous pictures ofthe Mexican guests engaged in classroom trainingactivities.

During the week, debriefings were held to as-certain if the training programs met the expressed

needs of the San Miguel de Allende police officersand city council members. The criminal justicefaculty sought input directly from participantsto gauge their learning comprehension and toanswer questions about any of the topics. They

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

24/36


bilingual, nontraditional students previously hadparticipated in the summer study abroad programin San Miguel de Allende. The translator possessed

exceptional interpersonal skills and had interactedwith many of the police officers and city councilofficials while she was in San Miguel de Allende.She bonded easily with the officers and officialsand made them feel comfortable by explaining theactivities for each day, encouraging participants toask questions on topics they did not understand,and assisting instructors with their questions. At

times, the translator and guests were comfortablylaughing and joking about the area, Panhandlegeography, and other cultural nuances.

One unintended but critical area of learningresulted during the training: The two city council-women learned a great deal about the complexityof the job their officers face every day. The councilmembers also received practical hands-on experi-ence shooting weapons, observing equipment inpolice vehicles, and learning techniques used to in-vestigate a homicide scene by taking photographsand latent fingerprints and collecting evidence.Both officials commented on how much theylearned and how grateful they felt to their officersperforming duties in San Miguel de Allende.

The training also highlighted the San Miguelde Allende Police Departments funding chal-lenges. The economic plight with regard to salary,equipment, training, and preparation for violencewas a main topic of conversation during most ofthe training discussion sessions. Budget concernsare one of the biggest problems facing the SanMiguel de Allende Police Department.

Conclusion

The summer 2010 exchange program betweenWest Texas A&M University and the San Miguel

de Allende Police Department and city councilobviously was a success. The WTAMU ProvostCollege of Education dean, faculty in the criminaljustice department, and all police executives andcriminal justice officials involved believe this ex-change program could serve as a model for similarones in the future. As WTAMU criminal justicefaculty members continue to travel with students toSan Miguel de Allende each year, they hope a newgroup of officers and city council officials will visitthe campus for another exchange program.

Dr. Hueston, a retired police chief, is an associate professorof criminal justice at West Texas A&M University in Canyon.

San Miguel de Allende police officers viewing the

Armarillo Police Departments SWAT van

San Miguel de Allende police officers handling an

automatic rifle used by the WTAMU Police Department

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

25/36

Crime Data

January 2012 / 23u ry201 /23

Crime Statistics for 2010

According to the FBIs report Crime inthe United States, 2010, the incidence ofcrime nationwide decreased again. Overall,the estimated volume of violent crimes in2010 dropped 6 percent compared with the2009 figure, the fourth consecutive year ithas declined. For the eighth consecutive year,the volume of property crimes also wentdown2.7 percent. Violent crime offenses

decreased across the board; the largest dropwas for robbery, down 10 percent. Propertycrime offenses went down, as wellthe larg-est decline, 7.4 percent, was for motor vehiclethefts.

Crime in the United States, 2010, wascompiled from data submitted by more than18,000 city, county, university and college,state, tribal, and federal law enforcementagencies from around the nation. It containsinformation on the number of reported mur-ders and nonnegligent manslaughters, forciblerapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglar-ies, larceny-thefts, motor vehicle thefts, andarsons. Highlights include the following:

total number of crimes reported10,329,135 (1,246,248 violent crimesand 9,082,887 property crimes);

most common violent crimeaggravatedassault (62.5 percent of all violent crimesduring 2010);

top three crimes for which law enforce-ment reported arrestsdrug abuseviolations (1,638,846), driving whileintoxicated (1,412,223), and larceny-theft(1,271,410);

most common property crimelarceny-theft (68.2 percent of all property crimesduring 2010);

total number of arrests, excluding traf-fic violations13,120,947, including552,077 for violent crimes and 1,643,962for property crimes (the number ofarrests does not reflect the number ofindividuals arrested as some persons mayhave been arrested more than once);

most common characteristics of arrest-ees74.5 percent were male, and 69.4percent were white;

prevalence offirearms use in crimes

67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4percent of reported robberies, and 20.6percent of aggravated assaults; and

total losses for victims of propertycrimes, excluding arsonsan estimated$15.7 billion.

The full report is available online. To ac-cess Crime in the United States, 2010, visithttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

26/36

Leadership Spotlight


Can we learn leadership? Many per-spectives differ as to whether or not

we can. Some people view leadership assomething that simply comes naturally, whileothers believe that individuals can developand learn it through life experiences and cru-

cibles. One thing remains certain in my view:We can learn leadership if we will open ourminds, be self-reflective, and strive for con-tinuous improvement. Our minds operate likea parachute: They only work if open.

I feel extremely humbled to serve as aleadership instructor in the FBI NationalAcademy. In this role, I often view myselfmore as a learnerthan an instructor. I striveto facilitate discussions with the goal of allof us learning from each other. Leadershiptruly is behavior driven, and it is observ-

able. Unfortunately, poor leadership also isobservable and something we can learn fromas well.

I find that I continually observe othersbehavior for leadership in action. How dothey treat others? Are they concerned aboutthe welfare of their team? Do they lead byexample? Do they model the behavior theyexpect from other personnel? How do theymake decisions? Do they take risks? Some-times, the best lessons of leadership are notin classrooms or textbooks. Rather, they exist

all around us, and we can observe and learnfrom them. If you are committed to becominga better leader, do not miss the daily lessons

of those around us. What I often find fascinat-ing is that, frequently, persons who do noteven hold positions of authority display thebest leadership.

In their recent bookPick Up Your OwnBrass: Leadership the FBI Way, former FBI

executives Kathleen McChesney and WilliamGavin explore leadership by providing real-world examples demonstrated by action.1 Asthe title depicts, sometimes, the little thingsspeak volumes about persons character andtheir desire to lead.

The best leaders are lifelong learners.Whether we observe a law enforcement ex-ecutive, government official, military leader,or corporate official, we constantly see lessonson leadership. Perhaps, you are reading thelatest leadership article or book or studying

at a university. There are so many ways todevelop yourself. But, do not miss the greatestopportunity to learnreflectively observingyour own behavior and that of those aroundyou.

Endnotes

1 Kathleen McChesney and William Gavin,Pick Up

Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way (Washington,

DC: Potomac Books, Inc., 2011).

Learning

Being a leader is like being a lady, if you have to tell someone you are, youre probably not.

Margaret Thatcher

Special Agent Michael O. McAuliffe, an instructorin the Leadership Development Institute at the FBIAcademy, prepared thisLeadership Spotlight.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

27/36

January 2012 / 25

Michael, a 19-year-oldcollege student, wasborn and raised in

middle America. According tohis roommate, Michael has de-veloped a peculiar fascination,almost an obsession, with alQaeda and its cause. The room-mate watches over the next sev-eral months as Michael makesnumerous comments indicatingsupport for violence against theUnited States and, in particular,its military forces. This concern

increases when he sees an orderMichael placed on the Internetfor a how-to guide to buildinga homemade explosive device.Unnerved with Michaels re-cent attraction to al Qaeda andsupport for the use of violence,the roommate approaches thelocal police department to sharehis observations.

The Joint Terrorism TaskForce (JTTF) begins looking atopen-source information aboutMichael. A 20-year-old JTTF

informant makes contact withMichael at a fraternity party,and the two men engage in aconversation about the need toteach America another lesson.Michael proudly announces thathe willingly would become amartyr in the name of jihad, butthat he lacks money with whichto pull off a glorious event. Afew weeks later, the informanttells Michael that, through hisfather, he could come up with$50,000 and that he has a source

Avoiding the EntrapmentDefense in a Post-9/11 WorldBy DAVID J. GOTTFRIED, J.D.

Legal Digest

Thinkstock.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

28/36


willing to provide enough mate-rials to take out a city block.Michaels face lights up, and

they agree to make a plan.This fictional scenario bears

a striking resemblance to anemerging trend in the UnitedStates. Young people, some stillin their teenage years and oftenfrom upper-middle-class fami-lies, have developed a fervor foranti-American sentiment. Since9/11, law enforcement agen-cies have identified many suchcases, causing a chilling revela-

tion: If these cases represent theones authorities have becomeaware of, how many remainundetected?

PROACTIVE APPROACH

Given this trend, law en-forcement agencies face adifficult task. In the aftermath

of 9/11, it no longer provessufficient to solve crimes afterpeople have committed them.

Rather, a top priority of lawenforcement is preventinganother terrorist attack againstU.S. interests. The Americanpeople expect federal, state, andlocal law enforcement officersto proactively prevent anotherterrorist attack, and even onefailure is unacceptable. Lawenforcement officials cannotafford to wait for a terrorist plotto mature before they break it

up. A delay could enable anunidentified plotter to launch anattack. In other words, law en-forcement must, in a controlledmanner, divert someone deter-mined to harm the United Statesand its people into a plot boundto fail from the outset, insteadof one that might succeed.

Assistant General Counsel Gottfried is an instructor at the FBI Academy.

it no longer provessufficient to solve crimes

after people havecommitted them. Rather,

a top priority of lawenforcement is preventing

another terrorist attackagainst U.S. interests.

This approach of proactive-ly identifying criminal activ-ity in its infancy raises unique

concerns. Can law enforcementofficials exploit an individualsmere desire to kill tens ofthousands of innocent peopleand even facilitate the com-mission of the crime right upuntil the last second, controllingthe unfolding events to ensurethat the perpetrators remainunaware they are dealing withundercover agents? Where isthe line between an individuals

thoughts and desires and crimi-nal activity?

The answer to these ques-tions requires an understandingof an important legal princi-pleentrapment. Prosecutorswill attempt to refute claims ofentrapment in the courtroom,but, actually, cases are won orlost in the planning stages of theinvestigation. In other words,law enforcement officers playa critical role in conducting aninvestigation in a manner thatprevents the successful asser-tion of entrapment. The conse-quence of a successful entrap-ment defensethe acquittal ofan otherwise guilty defendantis unacceptable. Understandingthe contours of the entrapmentdefense and factoring this intothe planning phases of an inves-

tigation can make the differencebetween a successful attack onthe governments case and aguilty plea.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

29/36

January 2012 / 27

Certain investigative tech-niques used by law enforce-ment raise the likelihood of

the assertion of an entrapmentdefense. Perhaps, the highestprobability of an entrapmentdefense arises in undercoveroperations. Law enforcementagencies need not shy awayfrom using undercover opera-tions, but they must structurethem carefully. Terrorist re-cruits susceptible to undercoveragents also will be susceptibleto real terrorists. This shows

the importance of undercoveragents recruiting these individ-uals first. Executed properly,undercover operationseventhose in which law enforce-ment provides both the meansand the opportunity for anindividual to succeed in com-mitting a terrorist actareentrapment proof. This articleexamines the history of theconcept of entrapment anddemonstrates the importance ofstructuring an investigation inanticipation of an entrapmentdefense.

ENTRAPMENT

In its most basic form, en-trapment occurs when govern-ment authorities induce personsto commit a crime they werenot predisposed to commit. A

successful claim of entrapmentin the legal system can resultin defendants acquittal regard-less of whether they actually

committed the alleged crime.More precisely, to successfullyassert an entrapment defense in

federal and most state courts,defendants must show by apreponderance of the evidence(hence the characterization ofentrapment as an affirmativedefense) that officers inducedthem to commit the crime.1 As-suming defendants make theirshowing of inducement, theburden of proof moves to theprosecution, which must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt thatthe defendant was predisposedto commit the crime.2 Thus,the entrapment defense canfail in one of two ways: 1) thedefendant cannot show induce-ment; or 2) despite a showingof inducement, the governmentcan prove predisposition.3

While federal and most statecourts follow the definitiondescribed above (also knownas the subjective test), a few

states still follow the objec-tive test, which focuses solelyon the governments actions and

the degree of inducementinother words, how coercive andpersuasive the authorities were.4The key to the objective test iswhether the degree of govern-mental persuasion would haveinduced an innocent person toengage in the criminal activity.

For example, in the 1973case ofPeople of the State ofMichigan v. Turner, the defen-dant had a 3-year friendship

with an undercover agent whoserved as a part-time sheriffsdeputy and a part-time truckdriver.5 The defendant respond-ed to the undercover officersconcern about falling asleep atthe wheel by providing caffeinepills. Believing that Turnersaccess to caffeine pills meant healso had access to narcotics, theagent concocted a story that hisgirlfriend, a drug addict, wouldbreak off their relationship un-less he provided her with someheroin. After repeated refusals,Turner provided $20 worth ofheroin and $17 worth of mari-juana. Turner refused to providemore, but offered to bring theagent to his source. The Michi-gan Supreme Court overturnedTurners 24- to 40-year sen-tence for possession and sale of

heroin and marijuana,fi

ndinglaw enforcements actions soreprehensible that a convictionshould not be tolerated.6

This approachof proactively

identifying criminalactivity in its infancy

raises uniqueconcerns.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

30/36


Origin

In 1932, the Supreme Courtfirst recognized the defense of

entrapment in Sorrells v. UnitedStates, a prohibition-era case.7 Aprohibition agent learned frominformants that Sorrells, a fac-tory worker, had a reputation asa rumrunner. The agent andthree acquaintances of Sorrellsspent 90 minutes reminiscingwith them about World War Iand then asked him if he wouldbe so kind as to get a fellow sol-dier some liquor. Initially, Sor-

rells refused, but later provideda half-gallon bottle of whiskeyin exchange for $5. He then wasarrested for violating the Na-tional Prohibition Act.

In his defense, Sorrellssaid he told the agent severaltimes that he did not fool withwhiskey before finally givingin and producing the bottle ofliquor. In the majority opin-ion, Justice Hughes wrote, itis clear that the evidence wassufficient to warrant a findingthat the act for which defendantwas prosecuted was instigatedby the prohibition agent, that itwas the creature of his purpose,that defendant had no previouspredisposition to commit it butwas an industrious, law-abidingcitizen, and that the agent lureddefendant, otherwise innocent,

to its commission by repeatedand persistent solicitation inwhich he succeeded by tak-ing advantage of the sentiment

aroused by reminiscences oftheir experiences in arms in theWorld War.8 As a result, the

entrapment defense was born.

Inducement

The first prong of the en-trapment defense requires ademonstration of inducement bylaw enforcement. A successfulshowing of inducement gener-ally requires more than merelyestablishing that an officer

approached and requested adefendant to engage in criminalconduct. While evidence thatthe officer engaged in persua-sion, threats, coercive tactics,harassment, or pleas based onsympathy or friendship mayprove sufficient in showinginducement, most courts alsorequire the defendant to demon-strate that law enforcements ac-

tions led an otherwise innocentperson to commit the crime.9

Inducement generally canbe categorized in one of two

ways. The first involves a situ-ation in which a law enforce-ment officer makes an essential

contribution to the commissionof the crime. The second type ofinducement involves repeatedrequests, sometimes made in anatmosphere of camaraderie, thateven may include coercion toinduce criminal behavior.

In 1973, the Supreme Courtpermitted the government toparticipate in the illegal actionsin United States v. Russell.10 JoeShapiro, an undercover agent

for what later would becomethe Drug Enforcement Agency,was assigned to locate an illegalmethamphetamine productionlaboratory in Washington state.His investigation led him toRichard Russell and John andPatrick Connolly, the labora-torys proprietors. Shapiro wentto Russells home where helearned that the men had beenmaking methamphetaminesfor 6 months and already hadproduced 3 pounds of it. Thelaboratory recently had beendormant because, as Russelltold the undercover agent, hehad difficulty procuringphenyl-2-propanone (P2P), a legal butrare and essential ingredient inmethamphetamines. Shapirosaid he could procure P2Pand would do so in exchange

for half of the laboratorysproduction. Shapiro providedP2P and, later, received hisshare of the finished product.

Law enforcementofficers play a criticalrole in preventing a

successful entrapmentdefense.

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

31/36

January 2012 / 29

At trial, defendants assertedthe entrapment defense, callingattention to the fact that Shapiro

affirmatively had participated inthe plot, even going so far as topoint out that without Shapirosinducement and contribution ofP2P, no illegal drugs could havebeen produced.

The Supreme Court ruledthat entrapment had not oc-curred, noting that neither thefact of deceit (through the un-dercover operation) nor the factthat government officers afford-

ed an opportunity or facilitatedthe commission of the offensewould defeat the prosecution.11The Court stated that only whengovernment deception actuallyimplants criminal design in themind of a defendant does thedefense of entrapment comeinto play.12 Simply put, theentrapment defense prohibitslaw enforcement officers frominstigating criminal acts by oth-erwise innocent persons to lurethem to commit crimes and thenpunish them for the acts.13

In 1992, the Supreme Courtfurther examined this issue inJacobson v. United States.14 Inthis case, a middle-aged Ne-braska farmer with no criminalrecord lawfully ordered froman adult bookstore two maga-zines containing photographs

of naked teenage boys. In 1984,Congress passed the ChildProtection Act of 1984 (CPA),which made it illegal to receive

such materials through the mail.The U.S. Postal Service ob-tained Jacobsons name from a

mailing list seized at the adultbookstore and, in January 1985,initiated an undercover opera-tion targeting him. Governmentagents, using fictitious organiza-tions and a contrived pen pal,contacted Jacobson by mail,making available the opportu-nity to purchase additional childpornography. The communica-tions also contained disparagingremarks about the legitimacy

and constitutionality of effortsmade by Congress to restrict theavailability of sexu-ally explicit mate-rial and, ultimately,offered Jacobson theopportunity to orderillegal child pornog-raphy. More than 2years after the initialcontact, governmentagents sent Jacobsona brochure advertis-ing photographs oftwo teenage boysengaged in sexualactivity. In responseto this solicitation,Jacobson placed anorder. After govern-ment agents effectu-ated the delivery ofJacobsons order,

law enforcementofficers searchedhis house, revealingonly the magazine

the government provided andtwo other magazines lawfullyacquired before the CPA was

passed.Jacobson was charged with

receiving child pornographythrough the mail in violation offederal law.15 He was convicted,but the Supreme Court, ulti-mately, overturned the convic-tion based on Jacobsons claimof entrapment. The SupremeCourt held that law enforce-ment officers may not originatea criminal design, implant in

an innocent persons mind thedisposition to commit a criminal

Thinkstock.com

7/31/2019 January 2012 Leb

32/36


act, and then induce commis-sion of the crime so that thegovernment may prosecute.16

The inducement inJa-cobson in and of itself did notperfect the successful entrap-ment defense. The prosecu-tion still had an opportunity toprove that the defendant waspredisposed to commit thecrime. However, this exampleclearly demonstrates that themore forceful the inducement,the more critical the showingof predisposition becomes.

Predisposition

While inducement focuseson the conduct of law enforce-ment, predisposition focuseson the defendants actions andstatements. Predisposition is awillingness to commit a crimeprior to the introduction of anylaw enforcement inducement.It often is demonstrated byshowing a reasonable indica-tion that the defendant hasengaged or intends to engagein criminal activity.17 How-ever, predisposition also canbe shown through an overalleagerness to participate ingeneral criminal activity, or aquick response to law enforce-ments inducement.

Documents

January 2012 Leb