Here’s what going on this month to start off your new year:
Interviews From the Field-Be sure to check out my interview with Steve Baker, a decorated 28 year veteran patrol officer, where he discusses patrol work, policing, the public, and the challenges facing police officers.
Research Briefs-Going back a few years this month with some articles you may have missed including an examination of legal challenges to fingerprint and DNA evidence, a more accurate way of determining the source of blood stains, discussing the development of a school shooter profile, factors contributing to deaths in law enforcement use of chokeholds, and the use of gaze tracking in officer shooting scenarios suggests a new approach to firearms training.
Original Research-Is there a difference between sociopaths, psychopaths, and people with anti-social personality disorder? How can they be recognized? Find out by checking out this academic examination of the issue in Differentiating and Diagnosing Sociopathy, Psychopathy, and Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Under the Microscope: Legal Challenges to Fingerprints
and DNA as Methods of Forensic Identification
Wise, International Review of Law, Computers, &
Technology, 2004
Wise discusses the advent
of both fingerprint and DNA technology, and addresses the legal challenges
they’ve faced as well as how the determination of legal validity will affect
emerging biometric identification means. He notes that Galton, a 19th
century scientist, proclaimed that fingerprints were unique to each individual
and permanent, as well as developing a system to identify the unique characteristics
of a fingerprint (called Galton points). Sir Edward Henry, a contemporary of
Galton took an interest in fingerprints, and with consultation from Galton,
developed the Henry Classification System to catalog fingerprint data, thus
ushering in the modern era of fingerprint science The classification system is
still used today and has enjoyed worldwide acceptance and use.
Challenges to the
admissibility of latent prints are based on established standards of evidence
admissibility. The 1923 case, Frye vs the United States, originally set a
standard for expert testimony (in this case, in the admissibility of lie
detector results), in that experts
should only testify if their testimony is based on “general
acceptance” in the scientific community. This standard was widely utilized
until the 1993 case, Daubert vs Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals. This case set out
new, comprehensive criteria which included, whether the scientific theory has
been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review and publication,
whether it has a known error rate, whether it has widespread acceptance, and
whether there are operating standards. It was from the establishment of the
Daubert standard that questions about the admissibility of latent prints arose.
In 1999, the case United States vs Byron Mitchell, was the first to challenge the admissibility of fingerprint evidence, and while the judge dismissed the challenge, the issue came up again in 2002, with United States vs Carlos Ivan Llera Plaza. The judge ruled that while the analyst may testify to some components of the analysis such as the methodology and the number of matching points between the latent print evidence and the defendant, he would not be allowed to testify as to whether the evidence matched the print of the defendant. The judge ruled latent print analysis did not meet the Daubert standard, because of a lack of known error rate and differing standards on how many Galton points signifies a match. However, the judge later reversed his ruling after reviewing US and UK data, concluding that there was a clearly established standard of analysis in the scientific community to satisfy the Daubert standard. Since the Mitchell case there have been 40 challenges to the admissibility of latent print evidence but in all the cases, fingerprint evidence was allowed.
In 1984, Dr. Alec Jeffreys,
a researcher studying gene structures determined that DNA sequences are unique
to individuals and two years later was helping law enforcement utilize DNA to
identify a serial killer in the UK., which both exonerated an innocent man and
was able to match DNA from a suspect to the evidence. Jeffreys’ RFLP method has
been refined since then to an STR technique where only a small amount of DNA is
required for analysis, as well as developing the use of mitochondrial DNA
testing that utilizes a different methodology that works especially well on
degraded DNA evidence, and in cases requiring the identification of family
members.
The first challenge to RFLP
DNA evidence occurred in the late 80’s in the case of United States vs Bonds.
The District Court ruled that the DNA evidence was admissible based on the
“general acceptance” standard of Frye, however the US Court of
Appeals ruled in 1993 that the DNA evidence was admissible under the Daubert
standard, despite the laboratory not conducting external blind proficiency tests
or referencing a known error rate. The judge determined that if the scientific
community was accepting of the
technology, it must also then be accepting of the error rate as well. RFLP DNA
analysis was also challenged in the NY case of the People vs Castro. In this
case, the court used a three prong Frye test to determine if the theory, and its
techniques and experiments, could produce reliable results that were generally
accepted by the scientific community, and whether the laboratory performed the
accepted scientific techniques in analyzing the sample in the particular case.
The court ruled the first two prongs were met,, in that the science was sound, but
that the laboratory failed to the meet the accepted scientific testing
standards.
STR DNA analysis was also
challenged in many courts. For example in State vs Traylor, although Traylor
argued the validity of commercial DNA tests are unknown because of the use of
proprietary regents used in the analysis, the MN Supreme Court, in 2003, ruled
that the DNA Advisory Board and its established guidelines developed by the FBI,
met the admissibility criteria and validated the science. While challenges to
mtDNA are relatively new to the courts, recent challenges have established that
mtDNA analysis constitutes a
“scientific knowledge based on reliable methods and principles”.
Newer DNA analysis technology,
like Low Copy Number (LCN), while accepted, may face challenges as well. LCN
DNA techniques can utilize very small samples of DNA and produce 17 billion
copies to allow for analysis. However the concern is that as the original
sample gets smaller in this process, any contamination in the sample will have
a larger effect on the results of the analysis. Other concerns are the transfer
of LCN DNA from casual contact and the lack of scientific evidence available as
to how long this casual contact DNA could remain. While “shedder indexes” are being investigated
to determine the rate at which an individual donates potential DNA material (i.e.
skin cells, hair, sweat), researchers have reported that DNA can be detected
after transfer to an object for nearly three months in some cases and in one
case for 2 years. Even more importantly, with such a small sample size of LCN
DNA, there typically is no material left
over after testing for an outside source to run its own analysis and produce
data. The FBI, with the
exception of the limited application in human remains identification, remains
skeptical of LCN DNA. Their official position is that any profiles obtained
from LCN DNA should not be entered into the Combined DNA Index\System (CODIS)
database of offenders and suspects. They also issued a caution against a rush
to re-examine old cases on the hopes that LCN DNA would offer better analysis
or change a verdict, mainly because of the risk of evidence contamination from
repeated handling.
While fingerprints, and now
DNA, are classic biometric measures, new measures of identification are being
developed like ear prints, facial and voice recognition, iris, retina, and vein
patterns, and hand geometry. The newer technologies will likely face challenges
as they are introduced into the courtroom. Part of what drove the acceptance of
latent print admissibility is that the scientific standard had been developed
over a 100 years of use. Newer technologies will need to demonstrate that they
can meet the Frye or Daubert standards and this also puts a burden on the judiciary,
highlighting the situation created by Daubert,which requires judges,
who are often not trained in the sciences, to act as gatekeepers of evidence
admissibility. Even if these new technologies become “generally
accepted”, criminal defense attorneys can still criticize the application
of the method by the individual laboratory, and if the laboratory demonstrates
they meet the scientific standards, the training or performance of the
individual analyst can still be called into question.
Wise, J. (2004). Under the
microscope: Legal challenges to fingerprints and DNA as methods of forensic
identification. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology,
18(3), 425-434.
Recognizing the challenges faced in determining admissibility
is important for defense attorneys as well as prosecutors, criminalists, and detectives.
Being able to present solid, scientific based identifying evidence is crucial
for prosecutions, as is producing accurate evidence data from other sources at
the crime scene. Knock and Davison
developed a methodology that they believe will produced more detailed,
accurate information on the source of blood stain evidence.
Predicting
the Position of the Source of Blood Stains for Angled Impacts
Knock
& Davison, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2007
The authors note that in the field determining the
source of blood splatter evidence
typically involves the “stringing method. As the authors explain “This
technique uses the fact that the width to length ratio of a blood stain is
approximately related to its impact angle. Using the calculated angle of
impact, a straight line is drawn back from the stain along the line of the impact
angle. Where the lines from several stains intersect is assumed to be the
source of the stain.” They also note though that the effect of gravity on the
flight path of blood droplets isn’t taken into account in making this
determination. Knock and Davison experimented by dropping blood droplets of
varying sizes at different height and angles against a hard surface. From this
data, they produced one equation relating stain size to drop size and velocity
for all impact angles, and a second equation, relating the number of spines
(blood fingers extending from the center of the drop caused by impact) to drop
size, velocity, and surface slope for all impact angles. The authors
demonstrated that by combining these two equations, impact velocity can be accurately
calculated and thus the true position of the blood stain’s source.
Knock, C., & Davison, M. (2007). Predicting the
position of the source of blood stains for angled impacts. Journal of
forensic sciences, 52(5), 1044-1049.
Revising and refining scientific methodology can
improve the forensic investigative ability of detectives and criminalists but
its also necessary to re-evaluate perceptions we hold about certain criminal
activity and the perpetrators. Ferguson, et al reminds us that conventional
wisdom is not always correct and that the analysis of data is necessary for the
proper assessment of contributing and causal behavior in determining who might
be at risk for perpetrating a school shooting.
Psychological Profiles of School Shooters:
Positive Directions and One Big Wrong Turn
Ferguson, Coulson, & Barnett, Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 2011
The authors contend that the stereotype presented by
the media and typologies produced both by the American Psychiatric Association
and the FBI are simply inaccurate, or too overly broad and vague, to be of use.
While conceding that first hand data from shooters who often die in the
incident is hard to come by, a more evidence based typology can be utilized.
School shooters are typically portrayed as loners, involved in the Goth subculture or other out-groups, who enjoy violent video games, were bullied, and had disruptive or negligent home lives. When school shootings increased in the’90’s the public, academics, politicians, and activists demanded answers, despite their relative rarity and the overall general decline of youth violence.
In 1999, the FBI provided a threat assessment profile
for school shooters cautioning against its use other than in assessing the
credibility of a threat already made by an individual. Some criteria seem
reasonable like “injustice collector, dehumanizes others, and lacks empathy”
while others were vague in definition like an “unreasonable interest in
sensational violence” and overly broad like “a failed love relationship, a
sense of superiority, exaggerated need for attention, externalizes blame,
closed social group, a fascination with violence filled entertainment”.
As of 2010 the APA maintained a warning signs list for
serious youth violence including obvious signs like “enjoying hurting animals, detailed
plans to commit acts of violence, and announcing threats or plans for hurting
others” but like the FBI’s threat assessment, others are vague in definition
like “frequent physical fighting” while others could apply to great numbers of
mentally-well juveniles like, “feeling rejected or alone, poor school
performance, and access to or a fascination with weapons, especially firearms”.as
well as including ideas that have been discredited by research like “violence
is a learned behavior” and linking violent media, like video games, with
violent behavior.
These attempts at recognizing school shooters will result in over-identification and misidentification and while empirical evidence on characteristics of school shooters is scant, a 2002 report from the Secret Service and Dept. of Education does provide a more data derived (albeit descriptive) picture of school shooters. The reported analyzed 37 attacks, involving 41 perpetrators from 1974 to 2000 and utilized school and court records, mental health and legal documents as well as interviews with the ten surviving perpetrators. The report made clear that with the wide difference among perpetrators that no profile for school shooters existed, though there were some features that tended to be more widespread. The report also demonstrated that the stereotypical school shooter image is inaccurate. The SS/DOE report found that video game playing was relatively low, only 15% expressed “some interest in violent video games” and just 59% expressed “some interest in violent media in other forms”, with the authors noting these figures are lower than those found for non-shooter males in other studies. However, 37% were exposed to media violence through their own poems, essays, and journals.
Social isolation was not found to be common with
school shooters. Most had friends, 41% belonged to a mainstream social groups,
(27% were part of fringe groups but also had friends). In categories that were
not mutually exclusive, only 12% had no friends and 34% were described as
loners. School and family background also did not figure prominently into school
shooters’ behaviors. However mental health issues were a factor. 98% of perpetrators
experienced some kind of major loss right before the incident, 78% had a
history of suicide attempts or ideation, 71% percent of then perceived
themselves as wronged, bullied, or persecuted by others, and 61% had a
documented history of significant depression. However very few of the perpetrators
had received any mental health care in the past, suggesting a failure of our
mental health system that has contributed to these incidents, Two prominent
warning signs noted in the SS/DOE report were that 81% of perpetrators warned
an uninvolved person prior to the attack and that 93% had already engaged in
behaviors that alarmed peers, teachers, parents, or mental health
professionals.
These factors have been identified in research on
adult perpetrators of mass homicide as well as figuring into youth violence in
general. Ferguson noted his upcoming study revealed that violent media was not
a factor in youth violence, however current levels of depressive symptoms
coupled with antisocial personality traits, were highly predictive of youth
violence. The authors suggest that reducing school shootings should focus on preventative
measures however, reform in addressing mental health needs is long overdue, and
funding for adequate at-risk youth and adults services will be slow in coming. They
also note that because of the likelihood that perpetrators may signal their
violent intent before the action, that prevention can take the form of peers
acting upon what they hear or see and informing law enforcement or school officials.
Ferguson, C. J., Coulson, M., & Barnett, J.
(2011). Psychological profiles of school shooters: Positive directions and one
big wrong turn. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11(2),
141-158.
Officers are often called upon to confront resistant
and/or violent individuals and by necessity have a choice of non-lethal options
they can employ in these encounters. One technique that has caused controversy
over its application and the potential for harm to suspects is the chokehold,
both historically and as recently as last year. Below, Dr. Koiwai examines
factors that may be contributing to deaths in the application of choke holds.
Deaths Allegedly Caused by the Use of “Choke
Holds” (Shime-Waza)
Koiwai, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1987
Author Koiwai, MD, stated that the chokehold technique
used by police officers is the same chokehold (Shime-Waze) used in Judo. Yet
while officers have been involved in the deaths of suspects following
application of the hold, Koiwai notes that since the sport of Judo was
established in 1882, there have been no fatalities associated with the use of
the hold in Judo.
Koiwai briefly discusses the control techniques used by the police which are similar to Judo chokeholds, including the carotid control hold (fig. 1) the locked carotid control hold (fig 2), as well as the bar arm control hold, where the left hand is placed on the back of the subject’s head forcing it down. All of these holds are finished by using the hold to take the subject down to a seated position and applying the hold until the subject becomes unconscious or ceases resisting.
Koiwai examined the autopsy reports of 13 cases
between 1975-1985 which involved a law enforcement chokehold being applied. The
decedents were males, Black and White, between the ages of 19 and 58, though
the majority were under 40, and their weight ranged from 120-220 pounds, though
in only one case did the decedent weigh over 170 pounds. While in all but one
case the decedents were violently resisting arrest, which necessitated the use
of the chokehold, the case narratives indicate that in six of the cases, the decedents
were very violent and combative. In three of the 13 cases, acute intoxication
from alcohol or drugs was involved, two other cases involved decedents suffering
from psychosis, as well as the findings that in three other cases, pre-existing
heart conditions contributed to the death. In almost all the cases medical
attention was provided in a timely matter, though in all the cases,
asphyxiation was a primary factor, including in some cases, aspiration of vomit,
and brain death from oxygen deprivation.
In all 13 cases, the author noted evidence of injuries
to the structures of the neck ranging from bruises, lacerations, hemorrhages,
and vascular compression, as well as fractures of the cartilage of the neck in
five cases, and intervertebral discs in one case. Submucosal or mucosae
injuries are noted in the larynx in five cases. All these findings indicate
that tremendous force was exerted on the necks of the decedents. Koiwai noted
that only a relatively small amount of pressure is necessary to close off the
carotid arteries and that unconsciousness should occur in only 10-20 seconds,
with regaining consciousness occurring in about the same time length. Koiwai
stated that the force applied to collapse the airway, as occurred in these
cases, is 6 times greater than necessary to effectively apply a chokehold,
which resulted in the injuries seen in the autopsy reports. Properly applied
the chokehold puts pressure on the superior carotid triangle, closing off the
carotid artery but leaving the vertebral artery unobstructed. (fig 5) Completely
obstructing the blood flow to the brain or asphyxia by closure of the trachea
can lead to irreversible damage or death.
Koiwai suggests that police
department training manuals should emphasize that control holds should be used
only when necessary to stop a suspect’s resistance and not necessarily to cause
unconsciousness. If police officers are to use the choke holds to subdue
violent suspects as a last resort, they should be properly trained and
supervised by trained, certified judo instructors to ensure that there will be
less misuse or abuse of the technique which when used improperly results in
fatalities. These fatalities could be reduced if (1) choke holds are taught by
trained and certified instructors (2) if officers become familiar with the
anatomical structures of the neck and where the pressure is to be applied (carotid triangle), (3) if they
understand the physiology of choking, in that only a small amount of pressure
is needed to cause unconsciousness; (4) if officers are taught to recognize immediately
the state of unconsciousness and to release the pressure immediately, (5) learn
proper resuscitation methods if unconsciousness is prolonged; and to prevent the
aspiration of vomit and not to place the restrained suspect face down, (6) and
keep the subject under constant observation. (7) Additionally, police training
manuals should be revised to emphasize the above procedures and principles, all
of which will prevent deaths from chokeholds.
Koiwai, E. K. (1987).
Deaths allegedly caused by the use of “choke holds”(shime-waza). Journal of
Forensic Science, 32(2), 419-432.
Police officers face
challenges in recognizing when to apply force and the level of force itself. Proper
training in different techniques makes for better, more professional officers,
as well as decreased injuries and fatalities for suspects. However, having a
means to assess officer performance when they face potentially violent
encounters is crucial to understanding their behavior and decision making in
those encounters. Those observations can then be used to improve officer
performance and public safety as well. Vickers and Lewinski examine the
differences between elite and rookie police officers in their preparation for
use of a firearm in a violent confrontation.
Performing under pressure: Gaze control, decision
making and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers
Vickers & Lewinski, Human Movement Science,
2011
The authors discuss that currently
most firearms training programs teach officers to focus their gaze on two
locations, first on the sights of their gun, and secondly on the target before pulling
the trigger. This gaze strategy works very well in training with rookies
achieving high accuracy scores in initial firearms training, but once on the
street and faced with a violent firearms encounter they shoot poorly, averaging
between 10 and 60% accuracy. The high pressure states that shooters face tend
to cause more visual fixations of a shorter duration and reduced ability to
detect peripheral information.
When elite shooting
athletes were studied they found that they tended to fixate on the target, and
kept that sight gaze as they aligned their firearm sights with the target,
rather than switching gaze from sights to target; this allowed for a longer
final fixation on the target leading to greater accuracy, and the reduction of
pressure, anxiety and psychological stress. The authors tested 11 elite
Emergency Response Team members and 13 rookie officers nearing the end of their
training period, with gaze tracking software, putting them in a role-playing scenario
where they are informed a threat may appear in the area they are monitoring. An
upset male enters the location and becomes increasing agitated with an
individual playing the role of a receptionist. In the final two seconds of the
encounter, the male quickly pivots and draws on the officer who is seven yards
behind him, drawing either a gun or a cellphone. Officers were assessed on
their gaze duration, gaze location, amount of gaze shifting, speed, accuracy
and locations of shots fired, time involved in the unholstering, draw, aim, and
fire phases, and the rate that they inhibited firing in the cellphone scenario.
Following data analysis, statistically
significant differences were revealed.
Elite
Officers
Rookie
Officers
Hit on
assailant
74.5 %
53.9 %
Decision
making (fired on cellphone)
12.3 %
61.5 %
Fired before
assailant
92.5 %
42.2%
High
Performance (meeting all above criteria)
75.0 %
52.9 %
Fixated on
more locations where gun could be concealed
50.3 %
30.6 %
Fixated on locations
where gun couldn’t be concealed
42.1 %
51.1 %
Fixated on
areas off the assailant
7.6 %
18.1 %
Unholstered
weapon after assailant entered
1.77 sec. avg
6.28 sec.
avg.
Statistically significant
differences were also found in the final phases of the scenario between the
onset times of the different phases based on officer status.
Onset
Elite
Rookie
Draw
4.63 sec.
6.04 sec.
Hold
4.81 sec.
6.26 sec.
Aim
5.83 sec.
6.36 sec.
Fire
6.87 sec.
6.93 sec.
There were also statistically
significant differences between elite and rookie officers in their visual
fixations during the final two seconds of the scenario.
Fixations
Elite
Rookie
Increased
visual fixation on assailant weapon
From 18 % to
71 %
From 18 % to
34 %
Decreased
fixation on non-weapon locations
From 78 % to
7 %
From 62 % to
16 %
Increased
fixation on officer’s weapon to
20 %
39 %
Fixations off
assailant
4 %
13 %
Final
fixation on officer weapon not assailant
32%
84 %
Final
fixation time on assailant before
firing
.32 sec.
.27 sec
Final
fixation time on ofcr. weapon before firing
.12 sec
.24 sec
In reacting to the threat, rookie
officers performed the final phase actions in the last second of the scenario versus
elite officers who performed the actions in the last 2.5 seconds, starting the
process earlier, taking more time to focus on the assailant and less time
focusing on their own weapon. The elite officers’ earlier draw was also
preceded by more time spent focusing on assailant weapon locations than
rookies. Elite officers maintained more visual focus, drew sooner than rookies
in anticipation of the threat, and thus gave themselves more time in the final
aim and fire phases for increased fixation focus, which accounted for their better
hit and discrimination rates. The authors stated that their results suggest
that firearms training should change from a process that inadvertently teaches rookies
to fixate on the sights of their own weapon first and the target second, to a
type of training that establishes the line of gaze on the target from the
outset, followed by alignment of the sights of the weapon to the line of gaze.
This change in gaze control would lead to a longer final visual fixation
duration on the target prior to pulling the trigger and should contribute to
better decision making and performance. If these changes in firearm’s training
were implemented, then the gaze control of novice officers should be similar to
that of elite athletes and elite officers from the first day of training, which
should decrease errors in decision making and improve shooting accuracy.
Vickers, J. N., &
Lewinski, W. (2012). Performing under pressure: Gaze control, decision making
and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers. Human movement
science, 31(1), 101-117.