fbpx
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In 2013, Force Science News shared the story of a Grover Beach (CA) police officer who was fired after attempting to use his Taser on a kidnapping suspect. After forcing entry into a garage, officers found the man sitting in a car with the baby in his arms. With only the light from his Taser to illuminate the “pitch black” garage, one officer watched and listened as the baby had to be “forcefully pulled away” from the suspect. The officer later described the suspect as noncompliant, “using his size and arm muscles” to resist arrest.

To quickly end the “struggle,” and without warning, the officer fired his Taser at the suspect’s back. Although nobody was hurt during the arrest (the Taser failed to shock the suspect), there was still a problem. The video captured by the Taser camera did not show any resistance by the suspect—not when the baby was taken from his arms and not during the final arrest. Believing the officer had lied to justify his excessive force, the city (with the Chief’s support) fired the officer.

Readers familiar with the 2010 Grover Beach case may recall that the officer was ultimately reinstated, but not before three years of back and forth administrative hearings and litigation. The question facing the Grover Beach agency, community, and court was whether inconsistencies between an officer’s report and video evidence necessarily means that the officer is lying. As the court concluded, it does not.

Explaining the Differences

It is undoubtedly true that one reason an officer’s report might be inconsistent with video evidence is that the officer has made the conscious decision to lie. That said, the question remains whether there are other, less sinister explanations for these inconsistencies. As it turns out, there are plenty.

In a 2016 Lexipol training program titled “Point/Counterpoint: The Debate over Officer Viewing of BWC Video Footage,” Ken Wallentine, senior attorney and graduate of the Advanced Force Science Specialist program, noted: “Cameras don’t track with an officer’s eyes. They don’t capture tactile cues, such as when a suspect flexes muscles and starts to resist. They don’t reveal a suspect’s prior history known to the officer. They don’t record at the speed of life. They don’t capture images in 3-D or represent distances accurately. They don’t accurately reproduce what the human eye sees, and they don’t reproduce the subjective fear an officer feels.”

It seems the judge in the 2010 Grover Beach case made similar observations when she rejected the allegations that the officer made intentionally false or misleading statements: “While in hindsight, and with a calm viewing of a videotape that does not record at the same rate and perception of a human eye, it may appear that the struggle was not as serious as the officer described,” the judge wrote. However, the judge continued: “There clearly, based on the testimony, was more happening at the scene than is viewing on the video and the Court cannot say that the use of the Taser, in this situation, was unreasonable.”

The idea that there could be “more happening at the scene” than what an officer might remember is supported by Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. “It is the focus of attention and not the operation of the senses that determines what information is perceived. No matter what is occurring at the scene or captured on the video, if something is not perceived, it cannot be remembered.” Dr. Lewinski continued: “[O]nce our attention is focused on an object, or even a thought, we have a limited capacity to attend to other tasks or stimulus. The resulting attentional tunneling [focused attention] and attentional blindness have been well-researched for decades. These concepts are not usually considered controversial until law enforcement officers fail to report every detail that occurs at a scene.”1

The Nature of Inaccuracy

Even though research continues to provide reasonable explanations for memory gaps and perception distortions, trying to distinguish lies from “honest but not accurate” police reporting is an issue that continues to incite controversy and division across the country today.

More than any other time in our history, police leadership and politicians feel immense pressure to restore confidence in communities that have been convinced that American police are not to be trusted. In response, officers are losing their jobs, and in some cases, being prosecuted simply because their version of events is “contradicted” by video evidence.

But what if these contradictions are not actually evidence of intentional deception and instead reflect the predictable outcome of comparing imperfect video against imperfect humans? How do we prevent agencies, courts, and communities from presuming that “inaccurate” or “incomplete” must mean “untruthful?”

Perhaps, we start by attempting to understand the meaning of untruthfulness.

Honest Belief

At the most fundamental level, it is expected that for something to be “true,” what we believe or say must correspond to the way things actually are; this is the concept of coherence.2 “Untruthful” then is the character of a belief or statement that is merely inconsistent (incoherent) with objective facts.

Now compare “untruthful” with “deceptive.” Deception requires a person to believe or think one thing and consciously express another.3 “Honest belief” then is what distinguishes “untruthful” from “deceptive.” It leaves room for the inconsistencies that can result from human performance factors—including attention, memory, and perspective.4

Honest Accountability

It is critical for police that agencies distinguish between inaccurate (but nonetheless honest) beliefs and deception. In some cases, even the allegation that an officer was “untruthful” can trigger a required disclosure under Brady and effectively destroy the officer’s perceived credibility and challenge the profession’s legitimacy.5

While dishonest officers should be culled from the profession, unfairly labeling an officer as dishonest based on the inconsistencies that can result from known, and often unpreventable, human performance factors is itself dishonest and unethical.

Communities are demanding police transparency and accountability. To instead offer them an overly simplistic view of human performance and sacrifice the complexity, nuance, and reality of policing—is patronizing to the community and immoral toward the officers.

About Dr. John Black, DBA:

After a 30+year career in the US Army & US Army Reserves and 23 years with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office (OR), Dr. Black is a seasoned, data-driven leadership and training expert. With the majority of his tenure in the US Army and law enforcement aligned with such unconventional activities as counterterrorism, special operations, peacekeeping, and specialized intelligence units, Dr. Black is a highly experienced expert witness for police practices, police training, and officer-involved shootings. Now, as Owner and President of Aragon National, Dr. Black delivers strategic consulting, sensemaking, intelligence and insight generation to law enforcement, civil/military operations, and private businesses to improve decision-making.

  1. Lewinski, B. (2008b). The attention study: A study on the presence of selective attention in firearms officers. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 8(6), 107-139. []
  2. Glanzberg, M. (2018). Truth. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2018 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth/ []
  3. Shibles, W. (1988). A revision of the definition of lying as an untruth told with intent to deceive. Argumentation, 2(1), 99-115. doi: 10.1007/BF00179144 []
  4. See Artwohl, A. (2003). No Recall of Weapon Discharge. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 3(2), 9; Artwohl, A. (2008). Perceptual and Memory Distortions During Officer Involved Shootings (2008 Update). Paper presented at the AELE Lethal & Less Lethal Force Workshop; and Hope, L., Human Factors, F. C. F. D. B., Gabbert, F., Sauer, J., Lewinski, W., Mirashi, A., & Atuk, E. (2015). Memory and the Operational Witness: Police Officer Recall of Firearms Encounters as a Function of Active Response Role. Law and human behavior, 40. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000159 []
  5. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding that the prosecution in a criminal trial has a duty to disclose to the defense, upon request, material information that is exculpatory of the defendant). []
8 Responses
  1. Matthew S

    Good article, I agree completely. Do you have any advice for differentiating between inaccurate and untruthful? Perhaps in a upcoming subsequent article?

  2. Chris Flanagan

    Great article. We still fall short on educating many of our own senior law enforcement leadership and the general public. Too often premature uninformed conclusions are drawn, and excepted, without response resulting in having to later defend actions instead of simply providing a comprehensive objective account of the event to allow informed conclusions. Keep up the good work educating!

  3. Robert Satkiewicz

    This article needs to get out to all of the Police Departments across the country and our politicians need to be educated by you guys.

  4. Pete Ebel

    With the huge push to implement body camera program in agencies across the country, this information has never been more important. I’ve been a Lewinski/Force Science student for many years, and have ascribed to this school of thought for more than a decade. Yet many in the business of OIS investigations have failed to avail themselves of this information. It is shameful, as it could cost an honest law enforcement officer his or her career or freedom. And there are instances where it has. Thanks for this article. Keep spreading the word.

  5. Christopher Hosein

    Excellent article and on point with what the BWC actually captures etc, and can’t capture the officers feelings, adrenaline etc. in real time as opposed to hindsight or Monday morning quarterback. Please keep these articles coming to make us become better officers.

  6. Governor Davis

    Excellent article!! I agree with others that it should be taught to our command staff, District Attorneys throughout the nation and our community leaders. Please keep the articles coming and thank you for your work! It is extremely essential!!

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.