Officer-Involved Shootings: A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

aSection

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law

Enforcement Leaders

This project was supported by cooperative agreement / grant number 2013-CK-WX-K018 awarded by the

Oce of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the ocial position or policies of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice. References to specic agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered

an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to

supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and

websites are in constant ux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Oce can vouch for their current validity.

Recommended citation:

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2016. Ocer-Involved Shootings: A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders.

Washington, DC: Oce of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Published 2016

iii

Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. Pre-Incident Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Policies, procedures, and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Prepare ocers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Appoint response teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Develop relationships with appropriate agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Mental health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Small agency options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

II. Incident Scene Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Use of deadly force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Involved ocer responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Incident command responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

III. Post-Incident Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Incident scene responsibilities of the criminal investigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Administrative investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Investigator’s responsibilities during criminal investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Interviewing ocers who were at the scene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Appropriateness of the use of force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Force review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

IV. Ocer Mental Health and Wellness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Ocer reactions to the incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Problematic recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Recommended responses following an ocer-involved shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

V. Media Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Social media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Post-incident media considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

IACP Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Appendix. Community Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Citizens police academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Citizen advisory groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VIPS (Volunteers in Police Service) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Business roundtables/coee clubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Neighborhood Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Faith-based organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

About the International Association of Chiefs of Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

About the COPS Oce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Introduction

Though few ocers will be directly involved in a hostile shooting situation during their careers, many

more may experience the impact of one; the eects of such events touch not only the ocer involved,

but the department and the community as well. Because of the gravity of ocer-involved shootings,

it is vitally important to ensure that the agency and its ocers are prepared in advance for such an

event. This guide is intended to provide guidance for preparing ocers and departments prior to

an ocer-involved shooting, suggested incident scene actions and procedures, recommended pro-

cedures for conducting criminal and administrative investigations, suggestions for working with the

media, and mental health and wellness considerations and procedures.

I. Pre-Incident Preparations

Ocer-involved shootings (OIS) are emotionally charged events. These incidents require rapid re-

sponse, leaving little time for deliberation. Therefore, it is important for a law enforcement agency (LEA)

to prepare police ocers in advance for the physical and emotional reactions they may experience in

such an incident, so that they will be better prepared to handle the situation. Ocers should also be

familiar with standard post-shooting investigative protocols so that they will be equipped to assist in

these eorts.

In addition to training individual ocers, LEAs should also be prepared at an agency level to address com-

munity inquiries and potential concerns that may arise following OIS events. Such preparations should

ensure the agency’s transparency during the investigation and demonstrate its commitment to conduct

and report, in a timely manner, the outcome of a complete and professionally conducted inquiry.

Policies, procedures, and training

LEAs can design policies, procedures, and training to ensure that personnel know exactly how to re-

spond when a shooting incident occurs. Clear and concise policies and procedures relating to the use of

force, ocer-involved shootings, video evidence, post-incident leave, and mental health and wellness,

among other issues, should be documented, updated regularly, and presented to all ocers through

recruit and in-service training. LEAs should fully train all sta on the contents of these policies and proce-

dures to ensure they understand what is required of them and the steps that the department will take.

On-scene checklists are particularly helpful for those responding to ocer-involved shootings. These

same policies should be made available to the public, to the degree reasonably possible, as part of the

department’s eorts to promote transparency of departmental operations within the community.

Prepare ofcers

Ocers should be familiar not only with agency policies and procedures, but with their individual

rights, including the Law Enforcement Ocers’ Bill of Rights (if applicable) and departmental rights and

privileges that may be conferred. It is also important that ocers understand the dierences between

criminal and administrative investigations and their rights during each of these processes.

The LEA should maintain an up-to-date list of the names and contact information of family members

and signicant others who should be notied in the event of an on-duty injury or other emergency.

Ocers should also identify, in order of preference, two or three fellow ocers whom they would like

contacted to assist their family or signicant others, in the event they are unable to do so themselves.

Appoint response teams

Ocer-involved shootings require rapid department response and thorough investigation. These

undertakings can be complex, and accurate and complete investigations require agency planning and

following established protocols. The rst step in the planning process is the designation of an investiga-

tive team. The team may be comprised of ocers from units such as Internal Aairs, Homicide, Special

Investigations units, Force Investigation units, or other entities. Once the team is identied, all mem-

bers must be fully trained and prepared to handle multiple scene requirements, including those at the

shooting site, the department, and potentially at an emergency medical care facility. The investigative

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

team should also receive additional training in the science of human performance factors that inu-

ence all human behavior during high-stress, time-pressured deadly force confrontations. A designated

and trained agency response team can conduct the investigation both thoroughly and promptly,

which benets both the community and those involved in the incident.

In some cases, particularly in smaller departments with limited personnel, organizational leaders may

call upon outside LEAs or state investigative agencies to investigate shootings, particularly those that

cause death or serious bodily harm or that garner broad media and community attention. Agencies

must make these arrangements in advance to ensure that all parties agree to established protocols and

responsibilities.

If the department wants to develop peer support counselors to assist involved ocers, it should orga-

nize these individuals and train them in crisis intervention and the rules of condentiality.

Develop relationships with appropriate agencies

Many outside agencies can play a role in addressing ocer-involved shootings and assisting the LEA

in investigating the event. It is advantageous to formulate relationships with potential support groups

and other criminal justice agencies, which can help ensure a smooth, thorough, unbiased, and impar-

tial investigation.

It is also important to establish a relationship with one or more qualied, licensed mental health profes-

sionals, experienced with law enforcement culture and critical incident debriengs. These individuals

are indispensable in helping involved ocers work through the emotions and potential trauma associ-

ated with shooting incidents.

Mental health

Personnel should be aware of specic mental health and wellness services that are available to them

following an incident. The department should train its members in the residual emotional, psycho-

logical, and behavioral eects often associated with ocer-involved shootings and other potentially

distressing critical incidents. Agencies are encouraged to train all personnel in both normal and prob-

lematic post-traumatic reactions and in appropriate responses to employees who have been involved

in a shooting or other traumatic incident. See Section IV on page 23 for a detailed discussion of mental

health and wellness.

Media

A public information ocer (PIO) or other designated sta should be prepared to address critical

incidents involving the department. Sta assigned to this role should be aware of the considerable

sensitivities surrounding an ocer-involved shooting and be prepared to provide consistent messag-

ing throughout the incident and in its aftermath. See Section III on page 15 for a detailed discussion of

media considerations.

5I. Pre-Incident Preparations

Small agency options

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Oce of

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Oce), are sensitive to the needs of small agencies and

those working with budget constraints. It is important to know that the best practices outlined in this

guide are applicable to all departments, although small agencies may achieve them dierently. To

ensure thorough, complete, and unbiased investigations, small agencies may benet from partnerships

with larger agencies, including, as appropriate, sheris’ departments, state police, and state criminal in-

vestigative agencies. Agencies can formalize these partnerships through memoranda of understanding

that outline the ways in which the agencies will work together and share resources. These partnerships

are consistent with the ndings of the Presidents’ Task Force on 21st Century Policing (the Task Force),

which recommends the use of outside investigative agencies “in cases of police use of force resulting in

injury or death, or in-custody deaths.”

It should be mentioned that the use of outside agencies to con-

duct or assist in OIS investigations is not limited to smaller LEAs. To ensure and demonstrate an LEA’s

commitment to a fair and impartial investigation, some medium and larger sized agencies call upon

others to conduct or assist in investigations to help demonstrate integrity and impartiality.

1. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Washington DC:

COPS Oce, 2015). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_nalreport.pdf.

II. Incident Scene Procedures

Use of deadly force

A 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics study

estimated that police in the United States make 63 million face-

to-face contacts with the public annually.

Only one percent of these citizens report that the police

subjected them to the threat or use of force, and the majority of those cases involve levels of force at

the lower end of the spectrum.

Ocers need to be provided with the training and equipment that will allow them to choose from response

options, rather than having to resort to higher levels of force. Ocers who use command presence, verbal

direction, and persuasion, and whom agencies train in de-escalation techniques, are better prepared and

equipped to avoid the use of higher level of force. To determine the most appropriate policies, equipment,

and training on use of force for a given LEA and its community, the LEA can benet from a comprehensive

review and analysis of each use of force incident. Such a review may illuminate patterns in these incidents,

or reveal ocer behaviors that have important implications for the development or renement of policies,

procedures, and training to reduce or mitigate use of force incidents.

While police use of deadly force is a relatively infrequent occurrence, its impact in some situations

resonates throughout the community. If managed improperly, the post-event investigation can even

exacerbate ocer trauma and misinformation. Aside from the possible physical and emotional ram-

ications of the police shooting itself, a police ocer who improperly or excessively employed force

also faces the prospect of criminal liability. Family members, as well as some community groups,

may challenge the ocer’s decision to use deadly force, and in some cases may initiate civil litigation

directed at the ocer, LEA, governing jurisdiction, or all of these entities. Therefore, it is imperative that

ocers thoroughly understand their responsibilities, rights, and limitations regarding the use of force.

The department should review these issues with each ocer in conjunction with scheduled rearms

qualications, or at another appropriate juncture, at least annually.

When an incident of deadly force occurs, civil disturbance or unrest is possible, especially when there

is a perception of excessive use of force or injustice. The incident itself and the events that follow

can form a continuum of potential ash points or triggering incidents that may lead to civil unrest or

disorder. These ash points include the incident itself, the investigation, the release of the investigation

results, decisions of grand juries or courts, and overall reaction of LEAs to civil disorder. LEAs should

release timely updates regarding active investigations, as long as releasing the information is legally

permissible. In doing so, LEAs can help dispel misinformation and potentially mitigate unrest.

Several variables may inuence the type or degree of public response, including the following:

• Pre-existing conditions: the overall quality of police-community relations, including those of trust

and LEA transparency

• The nature of the incident itself: the type and nature of force used, especially if it was deadly force

or was excessive by community standards

2. Oce of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Police Behavior During Trac and Street Stops. (Washington, DC: Oce of

Justice Programs, 2011). http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4779.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

• The circumstances surrounding the incident: the age and mental condition of the victim, the race

of the ocer and the victim, and the reaction of witnesses

• The concurrent police action: the actions of the other police ocers at the scene and the actions

taken or statements made by the department

• The accuracy of media reporting on the incident

• City leadership actions: what the elected ocials and other community leaders say or do

• Initial community response: whether there is an immediate community reaction or escalating racial

tensions

Members of the community, including the media, can benet from information regarding police proce-

dures, protocols, and human performance factors related to police use of force, especially OIS encoun-

ters. However, disseminating this information cannot wait until a high-prole incident occurs; rather, it

should be part of an ongoing program of LEA transparency through police-community interaction and

communication. Such a program should provide, at minimum, information about ocer safety issues,

citizens’ rights, relevant laws, and police policies and procedures, through a variety of mediums such as

community meetings, civic associations, citizen advisory groups, citizens police academies, community

newsletters, local government access cable television programming, websites, bulletin boards, social

media, and LEA webpages. Further, the Task Force report recommends that LEAs make OIS and the use

of deadly force incident data available to the public on a routine basis.

Following an incident, it is important that LEAs provide the community with as much information as

possible on a timely basis. The LEAs spokesperson must ensure that information released by the agen-

cy is factual and will not serve to jeopardize the investigation or provide the basis for establishment of

premature conclusions. LEAs should not feel compelled to dispel every rumor that may arise within the

community, but should ensure that enough information is available to overcome untruths, exaggera-

tions, and stories that are known to be factually incorrect. Developing a strong working relationship with

the media, community leaders, and other prominent agencies before an incident is vital to this eort.

Involved ofcer responsibilities

The initial responses of involved ocers at the scene, and the steps taken and decisions made thereafter

by rst responders, supervisors, and investigative personnel, often determine whether an accurate and

complete investigation occurs. As such, it is critical to have protocols in place that agencies can immedi-

ately activate should an OIS, other deadly force, or in-custody death incident occur.

Despite the incredibly stressful nature of an ocer-involved shooting event, it is important for ocers

involved to take initial steps to protect their safety and the safety of others, preserve evidence, and

when possible, to perform those actions that will help the investigation of the incident. If the ocer is

physically capable and circumstances permit, there are four areas of concern which require immediate

attention after the confrontation has ended.

9II. Incident Scene Procedures

Welfare of the ocers and others at the scene

The safety and well-being of the involved ocer(s) and innocent bystanders is the rst priority. On-

scene personnel should ensure that the subject is not a threat, to include disarming, handcung, or

otherwise securing the person. An ocer should never assume that because a subject has been shot or

otherwise incapacitated, he or she is unable to take aggressive action. Ocers should render medi-

cal aid as circumstances allow and to the degree reasonably possible, pending the arrival of trained

medical personnel. Ocers should handcu all suspects, unless doing so would hinder the performing

of emergency life-saving activities; in this event, an armed ocer must be present at all times. Ocers

must secure in place all rearms and other weapons in the vicinity. If an ocer must physically secure a

weapon, its exact position should be marked. Ocers must secure in place all rearms and other weap-

ons in the vicinity, marking their exact positions.

If the primary ocer has not already done so, on-scene personnel should summon emergency service

providers, regardless of whether or not any ocer or subject is injured. Injuries may not always be ap-

parent, and the rush of adrenaline under these circumstances can mask them. Additionally, the stress of

such an incident creates severe elevations in blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration, and body tempera-

ture, all of which can be dangerous.

Apprehension of suspects

In general, it is better for the ocer to remain at the incident scene than leave it to pursue suspects,

unless the ocer can apprehend the subject readily. Even if the ocer was not injured, actions such

as foot pursuits are taxing and inherently dangerous, especially when compounded by the stress of

the incident. By remaining at the scene, the ocer can summon backup, await emergency medical

assistance, assist the injured, protect evidence, and identify witnesses. Instead of pursuing the subject,

the ocer should provide the agency’s communication center with information on any subject or sus-

picious persons who may have left the area, including their physical description, mode and direction of

travel, and whether they were armed.

Preservation of evidence and protection of the incident scene

After an incident, many, if not most ocers, will experience a period of mental confusion and disorien-

tation. Under such conditions, it is often unreasonable to expect an ocer to perform all but the most

essential of duties required. Therefore, to the degree reasonably possible and appropriate, the ocer

should attempt to focus on just a few key matters. For example, he or she should note immediate sur-

roundings and conditions, such as lighting; persons and vehicles present or recently departed from the

scene; potential witnesses, suspects, or accomplices; and other factors. When possible, the involved of-

cer should protect the scene from incursion by bystanders and secure in place or mentally note items

of evidentiary value. The involved ocer should also be aware of emergency medical personnel and

reghters as they arrive, as they who may unknowingly move or even inadvertently destroy evidence

while performing their duties.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Principal among evidentiary items are rearms. The ocer should ensure the safety and securing of his

or her rearm until investigators examine it. The rearm should not be moved if dropped, nor removed

if holstered, nor opened, reloaded, or tampered with in any manner. Ideally, ocers should ensure that

all weapons and expended cartridge casings remain in place undisturbed.

Identication of witnesses

When possible, the ocer should identify potential eyewitnesses, separate them, and ask them to re-

main present to provide a brief statement. If a witness wishes to leave, the ocer should obtain contact

information for future communications, or provide their supervisor’s contact information and request

that they contact him or her. If capable of doing so, assisting ocers may use photographic or video re-

cordings to document any onlookers present for possible future identication and questioning, should

they leave the incident scene.

Incident command responsibilities

If capable, the ocer involved in the shooting should assume the responsibility of incident commander

(IC) until relieved by a senior ocer at the scene or a senior responding ocer, supervisor, or investiga-

tor. The ICs job is to initiate the incident command system, a strategy employed to deal with situations

requiring performance of multiple and often simultaneous tasks. Where necessary, the IC should assign

individual responsibility for the completion of tasks.

The involved ocer, acting as the IC, should, where possible, begin taking actions outlined below.

Upon arrival of a senior ocer or ranking supervisor, the ocer will turn over IC responsibilities to that

individual, who will take responsibility for performing or assigning responsibilities for these actions. The

rst task of the IC is to assess the situation and ensure the safety and security of ocers and others at

the scene. The IC must eliminate potential threats from assailants, ensure the arrest or detention of sus-

pects, and secure identied evidence. If not already done, the IC should summon emergency personnel

and necessary backup and equipment.

It is the responsibility of the IC to complete the tasks not handled by other ocers and to ensure that

actions taken prior to his or her arrival were adequately completed. The IC is also accountable for

ensuring that all necessary department notications occur. These may typically include some or all

of the following depending on the signicance of the shooting: the chief of police or sheri, watch

commander, patrol commander, homicide shooting team, internal aairs, evidence technicians, public

information ocer, coroner or medical examiner, police legal advisor, assistant district attorney, depart-

ment chaplain, police union representative, and peer support program coordinator.

Securing the scene

The IC should take measures to secure the incident scene and maintain its integrity until the investiga-

tion team arrives. As personnel arrive and the IC makes assignments, the perimeter should be clearly

marked and protected. Senior command sta and other ocers who are concerned or have self-

initiated a response will often arrive at such critical incidents. The response of some ocers may

be important or even essential, but the IC should direct these personnel to the command post for

11II. Incident Scene Procedures

assignment of a specic duty or task, rather than allowing them unrestricted entry to the crime scene.

The IC should assign available ocers to control the perimeter and record the identities of all ocer(s)

and other emergency responders who enter. This should be accompanied by assignment of an event

recorder who is responsible for documentation of actions taken at the crime or incident scene. This can

be dicult in situations where the crime scene is not contained to a singular or small area. However,

on-scene personnel should make every eort to safeguard potential evidence and actions taken by

responsible personnel. For example, in the event that emergency re or medical responders need to

move persons or items in order to administer medical assistance or perform other emergency func-

tions, the original position and condition of evidence should be marked and recorded.

To assist with evidence preservation and crime scene reconstruction, when time permits and when-

ever possible, the IC should ensure that the crime scene is photographed and videotaped. As noted,

photography or videotaping of any onlookers may also be valuable in later identication of witnesses

or possible accomplices. Additionally, it can help to capture other factors such as the weather, lighting,

and related conditions and surroundings. Finally, it is important to take complete color photographs of

the involved ocer, including physical appearance, wounds, and injuries, if he or she is still at the scene.

These photographs provide evidence of the nature and impact of the incident, and may prove useful

at a future juncture. If not done at the scene, investigators should take photographs at the hospital or

other emergency medical facility.

Witness statements

It is important for the IC to be mindful of potential witnesses. When possible, the IC, in conjunction with

the ocer involved, should identify persons who may have been at or within close proximity to the in-

cident scene. The IC should facilitate the separation of potential witnesses, so that statements obtained

regarding their personal perceptions do not inuence the opinions and observations of others. The IC

should, where possible, ensure collection of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of witnesses

and others who may have been in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. Investigators should collect

this information from those at the scene even if they claim that they did not see anything. Investiga-

tors should ask witnesses to remain on hand until they provide a preliminary statement. Investigators

should record all interviews whenever reasonably possible. In addition, some witnesses may not want

to provide statements in a public space for fear of retribution or the perception that they are collab-

orating with the police. In these instances, investigators should contact these persons following the

incident to get a statement.

Public safety statement

If the law, collective bargaining agreement, or agency policy do not prohibit it, the ocer involved

should provide a brief public safety statement to the ocer in charge at the incident scene. The public

safety statement is intended to establish the level of danger that may still exist, aid the initial opera-

tional response to locate suspects, and focus the initial stage of the investigation. If allowed, and if the

ocer is still on the scene and is physically and emotionally capable of providing it, investigators

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

should collect this information as soon as possible. If the ocer has been removed from the scene due

to injury or related reasons, other ocers or witnesses who were present may be able to provide some

or all of the pertinent public safety statement information. Questions to elicit this information should

be straightforward and limited to details of the incident, including:

• The type of force used by the ocer and threat presented by other involved parties

• The direction and number of shots red by involved parties

• The location of any unsecured weapons

• The location of injured persons

• A description of at-large suspects and their mode and direction of travel, time elapsed since they

ed, and weapons that were available to them

• A description and location of known victims or witnesses

• Any information that would help ensure ocer and public safety and assist in the apprehension of

suspects.

Incident scene walkthrough

Again, depending on the ocer’s physical and emotional condition, the IC should ensure that a prelim-

inary basic walkthrough of the incident scene is conducted with the involved ocer to help gather the

foregoing information, if not prohibited by law, collective bargaining agreement, or department policy.

As soon as possible, the lead criminal investigator should replace the patrol supervisor or other ocer

as the IC. From that point on, all police personnel at the scene, including supervisory ocers, should

answer to the lead investigator/scene IC. The role of the criminal investigator is to determine ultimately

whether the actions of the involved ocer(s) were in compliance with the law.

The initial walkthrough should normally be conducted by criminal investigative personnel (who, de-

pending upon the completion of other incident scene tasks, may assume the role of the IC) to collect

very basic information. Investigators should not confuse this with information solicited later in a formal

statement of the incident. If a walkthrough is conducted with the involved ocer, he or she may be

accompanied by a union representative or an attorney, depending on local law, agreements, or agency

policy. Investigators should not solicit or record any formal statement from the involved ocer at

this point of the investigation. Agencies should exercise caution in reference to videotaping or audio

recording initial walkthroughs, as the physical or emotional status of the ocer may not be optimal;

at this stage, the ocer may be unable to recall events fully or accurately. In addition, if investigators

videotape the walkthrough, the recording is discoverable at trial and could be introduced and used to

impeach ocer testimony, formal reports, statements or depositions. As the ocer’s memory becomes

clearer and more detailed, information provided during the initial walkthrough may conict with recol-

lections documented in later statements.

13II. Incident Scene Procedures

Medical evaluation

Where available, a trained peer counselor should be summoned to the scene to provide the involved

ocer with emotional support. If multiple ocers were involved, they should be separated, and a

companion or peer counselor should be assigned to each. Agencies should direct all involved ocers

not to discuss any aspects of the shooting with fellow ocers, their peer counselor, or anyone other

than their attorney, qualied mental health professionals, or authorized investigative personnel. When

the involved ocer has provided responders or investigators with a public safety statement and any

other relevant information, he or she should be taken to a hospital or other emergency care facility and

accompanied by the peer counselor where available. Peer support should be ancillary to and not used

in place of a qualied mental health provider.

Even if the involved ocer does not have obvious injuries, it is good practice to transport any involved

ocer to an emergency medical facility. Medical personnel can then evaluate and monitor the o-

cer(s) for delayed physical or emotional reactions that may require medical attention. At the same time,

investigators should ensure that testing is performed to document whether alcohol or drugs are in

the ocer’s system, if such testing is not prohibited by law or union contract. Some agencies do not

require testing for drugs or alcohol without reasonable suspicion; some contend this is an overt or

subjectively accusatory action, which conveys the agency’s lack of trust in in the ocer or suspicion of

wrongdoing. These are legitimate concerns. However, medical personnel can perform tests for alcohol

and drugs easily, and these tests are a part of any thorough investigation of an ocer-involved shoot-

ing. Additionally, the results can serve to counter any contention that such substances impaired the

ocer’s judgment.

At the hospital, the companion ocer should provide all reasonable support to the involved ocer and

act as a liaison between the ocer and the hospital. If the ocer is injured and not capable of contact-

ing his or her family, the IC should assign this responsibility to the individual the ocer has designated;

if the ocer has not made such a designation, the ocer’s supervisor should nd the best person to

perform this duty.

The individual contacting the family should provide them with information on the ocer’s status and

well-being. Even if the ocer is uninjured, a designated person should contact family members to alle-

viate their concerns. If the ocer has sustained an injury or has been taken to the hospital for medical

examination and testing, the IC should designate an ocer who was not involved in the shooting to

transport immediate family members to the hospital. In the event of an ocer’s injury, the ocer’s su-

pervisor may provide the family with this information. In the case of an ocer’s death, the chief, sheri,

or in their absence another police executive, should make contact with the family in person. Death no-

tications by ocers in these situations are often best delivered with additional support as appropriate

from clergy, an ocer who is close to the family, or other support personnel. Any notications should

conform to the department’s death notication policy. In the event the involved ocer is injured or

killed, an ocer or peer support counselor should also be assigned to the ocer’s family to provide

security, emotional support, and assistance in handling visitors, media inquiries, and steps that need to

be taken both in preparation for and following a funeral.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Other duties

For agencies that have not adopted and implemented the Incident Command System (ICS), the fore-

going and the following activities and tasks must still be undertaken. Use of ICS provides agencies with

a full array of necessary steps, systematically organized and managed, to address a wide array of critical

incidents and enhances their ability to manage ocer-involved shootings eciently comprehensively.

For example, when it appears that on-scene investigative activities will take an extended period of time,

it may be necessary to establish a command center to better coordinate the personnel involved. For

events of this complexity, it is a good idea to appoint an on-scene recorder—someone who will docu-

ment the event and maintain a chronological record of activities and actions taken. If signicant media

attention is expected, it is also advisable for the IC to designate a staging area. In most cases however,

the IC should postpone statements to the media until investigators have veried the facts surrounding

the shooting and prepared properly for release of this information. Sometimes it is sucient to indicate

simply that the incident is under investigation and that investigators will provide details as soon as

possible. This publication includes additional media procedures and considerations in a later section.

III. Post-Incident Investigation

Investigations of ocer-involved shootings are critically important; the results aect not only the

involved ocers, but also the department and the community. The ndings of the investigation inform

any criminal charges or administrative discipline that may ensue, as well as liability that may attach

to the ocers, the department, or the parent jurisdiction. Ultimately, the impact of the investigation

extends well beyond the single incident, aecting department-wide risk management strategies.

The persons responsible for investigations of ocer-involved shootings vary by department. If depart-

ment capability permits, investigations may occur internally. As previously noted, teams may comprise

ocers from Homicide, Internal Aairs, Special Investigations, or other divisions or units. Veteran homi-

cide detectives make ideal investigators for ocer-involved shootings, as their experience allows them

to skillfully identify, organize, and evaluate relevant details. Regardless of their primary assignment, the

department must designate and specially train investigators in advance of an incident.

If needed, it is appropriate to elicit the assistance of, or turn the investigation over to, an outside agen-

cy, such as the state police, state criminal investigation authority, or county sheri’s department. Some

departments also conduct investigations in cooperation with the local prosecutor’s oce. It is important

to note that regardless of who conducts the investigation, the initial burden for evidence preservation and

protection of the incident scene is the responsibility of the involved ocer, the IC, and the rst responders.

Therefore, it is essential that all ocers understand the importance of taking appropriate initial actions.

Incident scene responsibilities of the criminal investigator

Accurate and complete OIS investigations require agencies to follow established protocols when an

incident occurs. The careful collection and examination of evidence, in conjunction with witness state-

ments, will help piece together the full picture.

The investigator should be briefed and then ensure that all previously mentioned on-scene tasks have

been or are being completed and that all essential details of the shooting have been or are being doc-

umented, including the following:

• the nature of the call to which the ocer responded;

• the time it was received and dispatched, the time of arrival, and the times of dispatch and arrival of

backup ocers;

• whether the ocers were in uniform or, if in plainclothes, whether they were identiable as police

ocers at the time of the shooting;

• the general circumstances in which the subjects were encountered, including the time of day of

the incident and the weather and lighting conditions;

• the full identities and assignments of all involved ocers;

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

• the identities of all persons who had access to the shooting scene, including emergency medical

services (EMS) personnel and reghters;

• the types of vehicles on the scene, including those of ocers and suspects;

• the identities and backgrounds of all suspects, witnesses, and others involved in the shooting if

available.

If someone on-scene has not already done so, the IC should ensure collection and replacement of the

rearm of the ocer involved. In some cases however, it may not be advisable to replace the ocer’s

rearm, particularly if the ocer is injured and transported to an emergency room, or is of such an

emotional or physical state that it would not be safe to rearm the ocer at that time. Investigators

should inspect the primary and backup rearms of all ocers at the scene during the incident to de-

termine whether they have been discharged. When appropriate, investigators should record the serial

number, make, model, and caliber of all ocer and suspect weapons found at the scene.

The IC should ensure full recording and documentation of the shooting scene and the surrounding

area. Investigators should manually diagram or map the entire scene using surveying or mapping

equipment, indicating the location and relative distances between key points and items of evidence.

After the manual diagram is completed, investigators should photograph and, where possible, make

a video recording of the scene and all evidence. It is important to record both video and still images,

because video evidence provides added perspective and dimension that photographs cannot capture.

The IC or a designated individual should also determine if video recordings were made by in-car

cameras, electronic control weapons, public or private surveillance cameras, or body-worn cameras,

and, if so, secure them as evidence as soon as reasonably possible.

The investigator should ensure the collection of the clothing worn by persons shot, including ocers.

Clothing can often provide critical information about the shooting, and preservation is important.

Often the shooting victim’s clothes can provide evidence of the shooter’s proximity to the victim, the

position of the victim’s arms (either up or down), the distance and trajectory of the shots red, or the

entrance and exit points.

Administrative investigations

Unlike a criminal investigation, an administrative investigation intends to determine whether the in-

volved ocer’s actions were justied, in accordance with agency policy, procedures, rules, and training.

Investigators or a force review board may use this information to make recommendations for changes

in these areas. While an administrative investigation may lead to disciplinary charges based on

breaches of LEA policies, it does not intend to delve into potential criminal behavior. Questions in

an administrative investigation are specically addressed to an ocer’s actions or inactions based

on the agency’s administrative rules and regulations.

17III. Post-Incident Investigation

The rights of ocers subject to an administrative investigation may vary according to state and local

law, or the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Several states have also enacted legislation

known as the Law Enforcement Ocers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR), enumerating the rights guaranteed to

law enforcement ocers during their employment, including while under investigation. These statutes

may provide, for example, a right to counsel during questioning. Given the variability among states,

agencies should consult with local counsel for details.

During an administrative investigation, the department may grant an ocer Garrity use immunity

rights.

Though ocers have protections during an administrative investigation, the ultimate goal is

to uncover the truth of what happened. As such, departments retain the right to question employees

about matters relating to possible misconduct while on duty.

Law enforcement ocers are required to

answer such questions when they are germane to an administrative investigation. However, in an-

swering these questions, ocers may make statements or admissions that could result in termination

of their employment. Using such compelled testimony in a criminal investigation is a violation of the

Fifth Amendment. By conferring Garrity rights, the agency can compel the ocer to truthfully answer

questions, so long as they are specically, directly, and narrowly tailored to the performance of his or

her duties.

The ocer’s statement is a critical component of an OIS investigation, but, by conferring immunity

from self-incrimination, a department that provides Garrity rights becomes unable to use any evidence

from that statement during a subsequent criminal investigation. However, granting use immunity

under Garrity is not required, and departments should oer it on a case-by-case basis, and only after

deliberating with the prosecuting attorney.

Agencies need not grant Garrity use immunity automatically, since responding to questions and

providing any statement are part of an ocer’s routine job duties, just as is the ling of an incident,

arrest, or other report. In addition, whether verbal or written, there is a presumption of voluntariness

and truthfulness associated with ocer statements. If it is demonstrated during the investigation that

statements were not truthful, an ocer is subject to discipline up to and including termination. The

intent of an administrative investigation does not relate to gathering evidence of criminal acts. There-

fore, automatic invocation of Garrity warnings is not necessary in many cases. Criminal prosecutions

of ocers for actions taken during shooting incidents are not a commonly anticipated outcome, and

automatic provision of Garrity rights may not be needed.

Departments must ensure that administrative and criminal investigations occur separately from each

other. The internal aairs authority normally conducts the administrative investigation, while criminal

investigators conduct the criminal investigation; the investigations are not comingled.

The complexity of OIS incidents dictates, to some degree, the length for completion of the investiga-

tions. Some agencies place time limits on these investigations, but such restrictions can potentially

impose an obstacle to completion of a full and accurate investigation.

3. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).

4. Kruger, Karen J., “When Public Duty and Individual Rights Collide in Use-of-Force Cases,” The Police Chief, vol. LXXVI, no. 2,

February 2009 citing Aguilera v. Baca, 210 F. 3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2007).

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Investigator’s responsibilities during criminal investigations

The investigator’s responsibilities begin at the scene and continue until the investigation of ocers

involved in the OIS is complete. There is considerable information beyond the physical evidence that

can inform the investigation.

Law enforcement ocers subject to criminal investigation have the same legal protections as per-

sons who are not in law enforcement. These protections, provided by the U.S. Constitution, include

provisions of the Fourth Amendment (addressing unreasonable search and seizure), the Fifth Amend-

ment (protecting against compelled self-incrimination), the Sixth Amendment (providing the right to

counsel), and the Fourteenth Amendment (ensuring procedural due process). Unlike its administrative

counterpart, in a criminal investigation, investigators should precede all ocer questioning by Miran-

da rights. Ocers invoking those rights may not be disciplined for doing so. Upon completion of the

criminal investigation, investigators should submit ndings to the department’s chief executive ocers

and, subsequently, to the oce of the prosecuting attorney or similar agency.

Voice transmissions can provide important information and potentially serve as evidence. Investigators

should secure and review all data and voice transmissions associated with the incident, including logs

or information from mobile data terminals and video and audio recordings captured by in-car cameras,

electronic control weapons, body-worn cameras, and commercial or governmental surveillance cameras.

Witness interviews are a key way to obtain information regarding the shooting. The investigator should

contact the individuals identied on-scene in an attempt to uncover as much information as possible

about the incident. Interviews should be audio and video recorded where possible. Investigators should,

however, be mindful that memory and perception are fragile and may be inuenced, particularly if

witnesses have had an opportunity to confer with each other about the incident. As a result, eyewitness

accounts may be inaccurate or contradictory. Though lying is one potential cause, it is important for

investigators to be aware that myriad factors can color and inuence perception and memory, including

an individual’s background, experiences, and predispositions, as well as the turmoil and emotional im-

pact of a shooting incident. There is ample research demonstrating the contribution of all these factors

to the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. To avoid inuencing eyewitness accounts, investigators must

remain completely neutral and impartial during interviews and focus on gathering, verifying, and cor-

roborating eyewitness statements. Investigators should never share their opinions or disclose investiga-

tive information in an eort to elicit responses or statements from witnesses.

When obtaining statements during the course of the investigation, investigators should identify and

interview the complaint taker and dispatcher if there is reason to believe that they can share import-

ant information. Investigators should also solicit information and observations made by emergency

medical personnel. Often, these individuals are the rst responders to the scene and deal directly with

the ocers and other involved parties immediately following the shooting. Their initial impressions

concerning the circumstances of the incident upon their arrival, what those involved may have said,

actions taken at the scene, and other matters, can be valuable to the investigation.

19III. Post-Incident Investigation

When time permits, investigators should follow up on leads and additional points of contact. Investiga-

tors should obtain all information relevant to all involved parties, including prior criminal records and

parole or probation history. Investigators should obtain search warrants for suspect residences, vehicles,

containers, or any other areas potentially housing evidence.

In the event of the death of a suspect, bystander, or ocer, it is important to work closely with the

coroner or medical examiner’s oce, including attending autopsies. During the autopsy, investigators

can make several important determinations, such as entrance and exit wounds, estimates of shooter

positions, and the presence of controlled substances in the decedent’s blood.

As soon as the preliminary results of the investigation are established, the lead investigator should brief

the agency chief executive. With the chief executive’s approval, the investigator should then prepare

a sta memorandum that provides the general facts of the incident. The department should post or

distribute this memo to all personnel as soon as possible; as long as it will not jeopardize the investi-

gation, it should also provide this information to the media. In this way, the department can keep sta

rumors to a minimum, resolve concerns over unknown circumstances of the event before speculation

supplants fact, and provide the public with the knowledge that the agency is actively pursuing the

investigation and is forthcoming about what it has found.

In addition to the agency’s chief executive, investigators should brief the prosecutor’s oce in a timely

manner following the incident. In some instances, a member of the prosecutor’s oce will respond to

an ocer-involved shooting as a matter of policy. The police agency should continue to work closely

with that oce throughout the investigation.

The issue of when to release the name of the ocer(s) involved in a shooting has been widely debated

without providing a denitive answer. It is clear however, that a police shooting, particularly when the

death of a civilian or ocer is involved, garners intense interest and scrutiny among the media and the

public. In addition, the longer the law enforcement agency withholds this information, the greater the

appearance that the agency is protecting its own personnel at the expense of transparency within the

community. Some departments have come under serious criticism for failure to release the names of

ocers in OIS incidents.

Other agencies have implemented standard release policies, such as 48 hours

following the incident—sucient time to notify the shooting subject’s next of kin, and allow ocers

enough time to notify their families and make arrangements for secure accommodations if they fear

threats or retaliation.

Failure to release ocer names risks criticism and public dissent. At the same

time, release of an ocer’s name in this time of heightened police scrutiny and public dissent has also

become a matter of greater concern for ocer safety.

While the law enforcement community has not reached consensus on this issue, the timely release of

an ocer’s name following an OIS incident serves to enhance public trust in the investigative process,

and adds to the transparency and perceived integrity of the investigation. Nevertheless, the agency

5. Drew J. Tracy, “Handling Ocer-Involved Shootings,” The Police Chief 77, no 10 (2010). http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/

magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2213&issue_id=102010.

6. Tristan Hallman, “Dallas Police Association wants department to stop releasing ocers’ names after shootings,” Dallas Morning

News, September 8, 2015, http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/09/dallas-police-association-wants-department-to-stop-

releasing-ocers-names-after-shootings.html/.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

must weigh this decision on a case-by-case basis against the need to shield involved ocers and their

families from dangers of threats and reprisals. Ocers’ names will become public eventually, so it is a

matter of when, not if, an agency should release ocer names.

Interviewing ofcers who were at the scene

Interviews with other ocers who were at the shooting incident but who may not have discharged

their rearms are integral to both the administrative and criminal investigations. At a point following

the incident, investigators should conduct an interview with each involved ocer. Some LEAs require

these interviews to be conducted as soon as is practical. The IACP Police Psychological Services Section

recommends delaying personal interviews from 48 to 72 hours in order to provide the ocer with

sucient recovery time to help enhance recall. This interval is particularly recommended for ocers

who were directly involved in the shooting, but it may also be necessary for ocers who witnessed the

incident but did not discharge their rearms.

It is important to obtain individual statements as opposed to group interviews. Group dynamics may

negatively inuence individual recall and judgment. Individual ocers may also not be inclined to oer

opinions that dier from the majority of the ocers present.

Upon providing a statement, each involved ocer must le a use of force report detailing the incident.

The investigator should then prepare a separate overall use of force report, which, along with the indi-

vidual reports, will be part of the investigative report provided to the agency’s chief executive.

More than one investigator may conduct administrative interviews, but interviewers should

designate one person as the lead; this person will conduct the questioning, while the other is

primarily responsible for note-taking. Although some departments permit questioning by more

than one investigator, this practice risks taking on the appearance of an adversarial interrogation,

rather than a non-confrontational eort to elicit the facts surrounding the shooting.

The department should allow an ocer to bring a personal representative into an administrative inter-

view, subject to state law and any union contract that addresses the issue. The personal representative

may be an attorney, union representative, supervisor, or other person chosen by the ocer, as long as

the person has no connection with the incident under investigation in any way. The role of the inter-

viewee’s representative is that of observer; the interviewer should advise the observer not to intervene

unless the interviewer or employee requests them to, or if the interview leads to issues of criminal

activity. Legal representation of ocers during the criminal investigation is essential. For the record, all

persons present during questioning should be documented.

All interviews, whether administrative or criminal, should be audio, and when possible, video recorded

in their entirety. If there is a break taken during the interview, the interviewer should make a notation,

including the time of the break, who requested it, and the time at which the interview resumed.

The issue of whether to permit ocers to view videotape of shooting incidents, and if so, whether this

should occur before or after providing a verbal statement or ling a report, remains unresolved. Some

argue that allowing an ocer to view a videotape before making a statement may allow him or her to

adjust the statement to conform to the video. Others contend that this process enhances an ocer’s

memory and allows the ocer to better recall actions or events that took place. Agencies that allow

21III. Post-Incident Investigation

viewing prior to making a statement may make exceptions in some circumstances. For example, if a

video indicates that an ocer appeared to commit a violation of department policy or law knowingly

and willingly, the department should provide the video following the statement, in order to solicit a

response or clarication from the ocer.

Videotapes shown following a statement or report, avoid to some degree, the perception that the

ocer adjusted his or her statement to t the video recording. An ocer who has already given a state-

ment can use the video to clarify discrepancies and to elaborate, where necessary, on actions taken and

recorded. Departments should also remember that video recordings have inherent limitations. They

generally have a narrow eld of view and may vary in quality. In addition, a video recording cannot cap-

ture all of the events, actions, and surrounding circumstances of which an ocer may have been aware;

they cannot record all that an ocer knew, or reasonably believed, at the time of the shooting. The

department should apply any legal analysis or assessment of an ocer’s actions under this “reasonable-

ness” standard enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor,

in which the court made it

clear that judgment of the reasonableness of a particular use of force must rely on the perspective of a

reasonable ocer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Further, they stated that “the

calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police ocers are often forced to

make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about

the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Situational factors, as discussed in the

following section, enter into the judgment of what was reasonable or unreasonable when investigators

are comparing ocer statements with video recordings or similar evidence and making conclusions

about ocer actions.

Appropriateness of the use of force

As noted above, in determining the appropriateness of a shooting, both criminal and administrative

investigations should explore situational factors. These factors may include the following:

• The conduct and behavior of the subject at the time of the incident

• The relative age, size, strength, and physical capability of the ocer compared to the subject

• Any opportunities for, and attempts by, the ocer to de-escalate the situation

• Force options available to the ocer

• The experience of the involved ocer, including years of service, types of assignments, and training

• Number of ocers present

• Presence (or likely presence) of drugs or alcohol used by the subject

• Mental status of the subject if known or if probable

• Weapons in possession, or within reach of the subject, and threats of violence (if any) made by the

subject

• Seriousness of crimes suspected to have been committed by the subject

• Subject’s criminal history if known

7. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

• Whether it was reasonable to believe that the subject was, or would present, a danger to the public

if he or she escaped, and the risk of escape

• Manner and degree in which the subject resisted arrest or otherwise used force against the ocer

• Types of restraints used on the subject

Force review

Once the investigation is complete, some agencies present the results to a Force Review Committee,

Shooting Review Committee, Board of Inquiry, or similar entity that convenes on an ad hoc basis to re-

view such ndings. This approach is strongly recommended, as it adds an additional level of review. The

committee should be comprised of command-level ocers, personnel at the supervisory level who

were not involved in the incident or investigation, and any other agency specialists who can provide

insight. Some LEAs also include citizen representation on these review boards. These forums intend to

bring together all elements of the investigation in a risk management context to determine whether

they have potential implications for the department’s training, policies, and procedures. Their ultimate

aim is to improve the agency’s response to such critical incidents and to make any corrections needed

in the agency’s policies, procedures, training, supervision, and discipline that will help avoid identied

problems in the future.

IV. Ofcer Mental Health and Wellness

An ocer-involved shooting is perhaps the most traumatic event an ocer will encounter during

service. Such incidents trigger complex psychological and emotional eects; all too often, the normal

coping strategies employed by individuals are inadequate for such an extreme event. Law enforcement

ocers are human, and react to such traumatic events in dierent ways. A simple formula cannot ex-

press the impact of circumstances on a specic individual. Accordingly, in helping ocers navigate this

incredibly dicult time, it is critically important that sta, especially supervisors, understand and recog-

nize possible reactions, and that they are prepared to refer ocers to the appropriate assistance. This

section describes some common responses to critical incident; however, supervisors and other person-

nel must realize that each individual manifests stress dierently. There is no one right way to react.

Ofcer reactions to the incident

An ocer-involved shooting aects many people beyond the ocer directly involved. Agencies should

be mindful that ocers who were at the scene and did not or could not re their weapon are often

strongly impacted and may experience intense emotional reactions. Additionally, personnel not at the

scene, such as dispatchers or investigators, may be aected to some degree.

Ocers involved in critical incidents, including shootings, may experience a multitude of physical, cog-

nitive, emotional, and behavioral responses in the immediate aftermath and in the weeks and months

to follow. The following information and recommendations are drawn from research compiled by med-

ical and mental health practitioners of the IACP Police Psychological Services Section.

Immediate reactions

Immediate responses to a critical incident are physiological, and may include muscle tremors, nausea,

chills, vomiting, rapid heart rate, hyperventilation, faintness, crying, or sweating. All of these responses

represent the body’s attempt to mobilize for extreme stress. Physical reactions are the body’s way of

mitigating or coping with the stress triggered by a high-impact situation. These reactions are not a

sign of weakness. If not acknowledged or dealt with in a healthy manner, these reactions can become

problematic for the ocer. Some physical reactions are delayed and may manifest in several days or

sometimes even weeks following the incident. Delayed physical reactions may include increased thirst,

fatigue, twitches, chest pains, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, profuse sweating, headaches, stom-

achaches, indigestion, diarrhea, sore muscles, and an increase in the occurrence of colds and u.

Cognitive and emotional reactions

Initially, an involved ocer may be dazed and upset and have feelings of disbelief. The ocer may

have diculty comprehending the reality or signicance of the critical incident. From a few hours

to a few days later, he or she may show signs of depression, tension, agitation, irritability, and fatigue.

This may cause the ocer to sleep too much and have less energy; the ocer may become with-

drawn as a result.

8. “Ocer-Involved Shooting Guidelines,” IACP Police Psychological Services Section (Philadelphia, 2013). http://www.theiacp.org/

portals/0/documents/pdfs/Psych-OcerInvolvedShooting.pdf.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

There is also a shock reaction period where the emotions concerning the incident become blunted.

Psychological defenses, such as denial, automatically intervene to temporarily shield the individual from

thoughts and feelings that might otherwise be overwhelming. The involved ocer may feel emotion-

ally detached and numb, but also experience occasional anxiety attacks. The ocer may feel that he or

she is just going through the motions. Additional emotional reactions may include confusion, impaired

decision making, loss of judgment, and slowness of thought.

Typically within several days of the incident, the full emotional impact of the situation is realized,

though this can be delayed by as much as six months to a year or more. The involved ocer will typi-

cally experience an emotional and physical letdown. The individual may have feelings of vulnerability

and helplessness stemming from a perceived lack of control over the incident. Generally, the more

vulnerable the ocer felt during the incident, the greater the emotional impact of the situation.

At this stage the involved ocer may experience many kinds of cognitive or emotional reactions that,

although normal human reactions, make him or her feel they are losing emotional control. Some of the

more common reactions are fear, anxiety, anger, rage, or blaming those responsible for the outcome of

the critical incident. There are also other ways the individual might signal he or she is having a dicult

time processing the critical incident; for example, some may describe reliving the event over and over.

It is not uncommon for an ocer to feel sorrow, guilt or remorse if they know or believe their actions

caused injury or death. Departmental training in this area will help personnel realize that these are

normal reactions to an abnormal situation, not signs of mental illness.

Behavioral reactions

The involved ocer may obsess about the shooting and seem to talk about nothing else. The ocer

may make poor decisions or show signs of inattention which were not previously exhibited. Supervi-

sors may notice an increase in absenteeism or a drop in work productivity. It is not unusual for cowork-

ers to notice increases in aggression in situations resembling the critical incident. Family or relationship

problems may suddenly develop. Substance abuse problems are a clear sign of an ocer in distress

and need to be handled delicately and with compassion. Sleep diculties—whether oversleeping or

undersleeping—may begin when the individual attempts to avoid emotional reactions to the shoot-

ing. The ocer may also exhibit restlessness, confusion, sudden changes in hobbies or activities, short-

fused anger, and excessive behaviors.

These reactions usually last several days, but may last a week or longer depending upon the individual.

For this reason, it is important to evaluate personnel in order to ensure that they can safely and eec-

tively return to their typical work duties. Individuals determined to be experiencing extreme stress re-

actions should be placed on administrative leave and not be allowed to return directly to normal duty

assignments, even if they express a desire to do so. An ocer experiencing a denial of emotion should

not be on active duty, particularly in a street enforcement capacity, during these periods.

25IV. Ofcer Mental Health and Wellness

Acceptance resolution

At some point an ocer generally begins to understand, work through, and come to terms with the

emotional impact of the incident. It may take longer depending on the incident, the legal or adminis-

trative aftermath, the amount of peer and family support, and the ocer’s coping skills. Once achieved,

the ocer understands and accepts what happened. Even after an ocer has reached this point, it is

normal to have the occasional nightmare, ashback, and anxiety attack, particularly when triggered by

situational reminders.

Supervisors should also be aware that not all ocers experience a serious or even moderate reaction

following a shooting. This does not suggest that they are uncaring or insensitive.

Problematic recovery

All of the reactions described above are completely normal human responses for anyone who ex-

periences a highly tramatic incident. In a normal recovery, the ocer eventually returns to a healthy

and balanced emotional state, understands the reactions he or she has been experiencing, and learns

productive ways to handle them. However, some ocers do not progress normally and become stuck

in the process. Supervisors should be aware of the signs of stalled recovery, including the following:

• Continuation and intensication of post-incident symptoms

• Excessive stress and anxiety reactions

• Continued obsession with the incident

• Increased absenteeism, burnout, and decreased productivity

• Increased anger and irritability

• Underreaction

• Risk taking

• Increase in family/relationship problems

• Alcohol/drug abuse

• Inordinate amount of focus on critical comments made by coworkers

• Uncertainty, suspiciousness, and poor problem solving

• Poor attention

On becoming aware of these problems, a supervisor should refer the ocer to an appropriate mental

health provider.

Recommended responses following an ofcer-involved

shooting

In order to reduce the likelihood of problematic recovery and debilitating long-term eects, depart-

ments should take immediate steps to ensure the well-being of the ocer. Though this report previ-

ously noted some of the steps described below, here we revisit the concepts, with added explanation,

from a mental health perspective.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

At the scene and immediately following

Immediately following the incident, the department should provide physical and psychological rst aid

to involved personnel, including assignment of a companion ocer or peer counselor. This focus of this

support should be on calming stress and reinforcing the ocers’ sense of safety.

Upon providing a statement about potential outstanding threats, the department should transport

ocers directly involved to a safe and supportive environment along with the companion ocer,

chaplain, or a supportive peer; this ensures the ocer is not isolated. Often the best support person is

a fellow ocer trained in peer support, or one who has also experienced an ocer-involved shooting.

If the involved ocer needs to talk about the incident, he or she should be encouraged to do so only

with individuals who have privileged communication, including attorneys, chaplains, licensed mental

health providers, and, in some states, trained peer support personnel.

Ocers may feel vulnerable if unarmed. Since the department must collect the ocer’s rearm as part

of the investigation, the department should replace it promptly, as a sign of support, condence, and

trust. If there is an articulable basis for deviating from the procedure, the department may do so, but

the department should provide security for the ocer while on scene, and keep the ocer informed

as to when they will get their weapon, or a replacement weapon, back. In training, the department

should inform ocers that during an ocer-involved shooting incident, their rearm becomes a piece

of evidence, and will be taken as a matter of policy.

Ocers involved in an OIS should have the opportunity to contact their families as soon as possible

after the incident. This may reduce the likelihood of families receiving incomplete or inaccurate infor-

mation from other sources, such as the media. The conversation should be limited to their well-being,

and not the facts of the incident. If the ocer cannot personally make the call, someone should do so

on his or her behalf, preferably someone that knows the family, someone the ocer previously chose,

or someone serving as the companion ocer.

The investigative process and potential consequences can be the most stressful aspects of the incident

for involved ocers, and the rst few hours after an incident are often emotional and confusing. When

practicable, the department should inform the ocer of the investigation protocol and of any potential

actions by the grand jury or review board, as well as potential media inquiries. Again, these aspects of

an OIS or similar investigation should be part of ocer training so that ocers know in advance what

to expect.

Following a shooting, it is helpful to provide ocers and their signicant others with written informa-

tion that explains the physical and psychological reactions they may be experiencing. The materials

should provide guidance on how to support each other, coping strategies, resiliency strategies, and

whom to contact for further assistance.

Investigative period

In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, the department should place any involved ocer on ad-

ministrative leave pending counseling by an agency-designated mental health provider. This meeting

and any subsequent meetings that may be deemed necessary are not an evaluation of tness for duty,

but a conversation regarding the ocer’s mental wellness. Agencies should have a policy addressing

mandatory leave, crafted in a way that accounts for variation in ocer reactions. While some ocers

27IV. Ofcer Mental Health and Wellness

may need an extended period of leave, others will nd it unnecessary or even counterproductive.

Waiting for days to tell one’s story of the shooting can be psychologically harmful for some ocers. In

such cases, agencies may want to make allowances in policy, whereby an ocer may make a statement

after he or she has consulted with and retained counsel. Agencies should also be mindful of ocers

who were at the scene but did not discharge their weapon. In some instances, the incident may emo-

tionally aect these ocers, and they may benet from a period of administrative leave, particularly if

they witnessed a serious injury or death. It is important for ocers and the public to understand that

administrative leave is a routine procedure and not a disciplinary action.

It can also be very helpful for an involved ocer to speak with a trained peer counselor who has been

through a similar experience. Often such individuals respond immediately to the scene to provide

support and psychological rst aid. Family members of involved ocers, particularly those who have

previously been involved in a shooting or other life-threatening event, may also benet from contact

with a mental health professional or peer support counselor. In high-prole shootings, the department

should prepare ocers for the possibility of inaccurate, negative or inammatory comments in social or

mass media, and from within the community. The department should establish peer support and out-

reach teams before an event occurs, especially since only those who have received specialized training

in crisis intervention and the rules of condentiality should fulll this role.

High-ranking administrators can provide an extra measure of support to involved ocers through

timely conveyance of their personal concern via telephone or in person. A show of concern is the ob-

jective; it is not necessary to comment on the situation or departmental resolution of the investigation.

Post-shooting interventions

The initial post-shooting debrieng should occur within one week of the incident, with the initial goals

of reducing stress, assessing and normalizing any problematic post-incident reactions, and providing

education regarding the management of reactions. The debrieng should focus particular attention on

maintaining healthy sleep habits, assessing social support, and avoiding excessive alcohol use.

Only qualied mental health professionals trained and experienced in working with law enforcement,

and familiar with ocer-involved shootings in particular, should conduct post-shooting psychological

debriengs. In selecting such persons, the department should take care to ensure that the mental

health professional is knowledgeable about the full range of human reactions to critical incidents and is

competent in the treatment of trauma in a law enforcement environment.

Given the choice, some ocers would opt out of participation in a post-shooting debrieng with a

mental health professional. Some may be unaware of the potential impact of the shooting on their

mental health, and some may be hesitant because of the potential stigma of such a meeting. However,

in agencies that require such debriengs, many ocers nd them to be very helpful. As such, best prac-

tices suggest that ocers be required to participate in one post-shooting debrieng with a qualied

mental health professional. At the very least, this meeting will provide the ocer with basic education

and coping skills to better manage his or her reactions and help minimize worry, anxiety, and nega-

tive self-assessment. Any participation beyond the initial session, while encouraged, should be at the

ocer’s discretion.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Because delayed reactions may occur, all ocers receiving an initial post-shooting debrieng should

receive follow-up contact from the mental health professional, via phone or email, within one month

following the incident, and then again at four months. The mental health practitioner should make a

third and nal contact just prior to the one-year anniversary of the event.

The department should make it clear to the ocer that the post-shooting debrieng is a condential

communication between the ocer and the mental health professional. The mental health practitioner

may not release any information about the content of these sessions without the written consent

of the ocer. Prior to the debrieng, the mental health provider should include an informed consent

process that includes a description of the possible benets and risks of counseling. In the case of

an agency-required debrieng, the informed consent should include a limited release so that the

mental health professional can verify the ocer’s attendance and conrm the ocer’s readiness for

return to work.

Department members and leaders should not question an ocer’s tness for duty solely on the basis of

involvement in a shooting. Although the department may request a tness-for-duty evaluation, based

on an objective concern about an ocer’s ability to perform his or her duties, it is separate and distinct

from any post-shooting interventions. In the event that the department requires a tness-for-duty

evaluation, the mental health professional who provided the post-shooting intervention should not

conduct it.

A shooting incident has the potential to greatly impact not only the involved ocer, but also his or her

family and signicant others. Since these individuals often provide valuable support following an inci-

dent, it can be benecial to involve them in the intervention process. If these individuals are included,

mental health professionals should be sensitive to the ocer’s concerns and preferences for individual

or joint sessions.

Group psychological interventions may be benecial following incidents involving multiple personnel,

though all ocers should still receive an initial individual session before the group is convened. Qual-

ied mental health providers can jointly facilitate group sessions. Participation should be limited to

those involved in the incident, and attendance should be encouraged, but voluntary. Agencies should

also consider the impact of deadly force incidents on other involved emergency personnel, including

dispatchers and rst responders, and provide appropriate interventions if necessary. The department

should ensure and respect the condentiality of these group sessions. Some jurisdictions provide a

degree of legal privilege to sanctioned peer support groups. Regardless of local laws, the risk of breach

of condentiality increases in a group setting.

V. Media Relations

It is vital for every law enforcement agency to have an established media-relations function and a writ-

ten policy governing the agency’s media relations. A written policy is critical to ensuring that all agency

employees understand the importance of good media relations and the importance of the role they

play. Eective media relations will help build positive community relations, which will translate into

public support for the agency. The development and adoption of procedures for addressing

an incident with the aid of the media cannot wait until an incident occurs that garners widespread

public attention. The history of a law enforcement agency within the community will also determine,

to a large degree, how the public reacts to a single incident. Mitigation of negative eects of an

ocer-involved shooting must begin far in advance of the incident by establishment of positive

police-community relations in partnership with sources of community inuence such as the media.

The media can be one of an agency’s greatest assets, thanks to its ability to reach a large audience; for

example, media coverage can increase a department’s ability to solve crimes by publicizing information

about suspects or other wanted persons. For media outlets, law enforcement agencies are important

sources of news, and should expect to come under scrutiny. Positive media relations can help make

reporting fairer and more accurate, and the media will be much more willing to help an agency when

there is a history of cooperation and a positive relationship between them.

It is advisable for the agency and local news media to work together in advance of an incident, to

create an agreement establishing voluntary guidelines for coverage of critical incidents. The agreement

can stipulate, for example, that the media will refrain from showing live pictures and broadcasting

certain information about these events when it is reasonable to assume that a suspect or suspects may

have access to such coverage. In return, law enforcement can oer close access to the scene, taking

into account the safety of all parties, and timely dissemination of information.

Multi-agency investigations can be a special challenge during ocer-involved shootings. When multi-

ple agencies are involved, they must speak with one voice. If this does not happen, the media will likely

report the discrepancy, thus increasing the likelihood of premature release of information or misinfor-

mation that could compromise the investigation. Once the lead agency is determined, that agency

should choose the spokesperson(s). Selection of a spokesperson does not preclude other agency

heads from participating in news conferences or other media opportunities as long as they provide

other involved LEAs the same courtesy. Likewise, PIOs from the other agencies can provide support.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Social media

Social media allows for valuable information to be shared directly and quickly between the police

and citizens. During the chaos and terror of the Boston Marathon bombing event, the Boston Police

Department used Twitter to provide citizens with accurate and up-to-date information. The citizens

referred to the police department’s tweets over the media’s coverage of the event, as much of the

media’s information was inaccurate.

This shows the level of trust that can be attained between a police

department and its community through eective use of social media. In the case of an ocer-involved

shooting incident, in order for social media to truly assist both the police and the public, it needs to be

responsive and current. False or incorrect statements made via social media can be very damaging.

Departments should prohibit involved ocers from referring to the incident on social media venues

such as Facebook and Twitter while the investigation remains active and should ensure all information

comes from the ocial spokesperson for the agency. The department should also remind ocers of

the potential risks of merely viewing social media, as there is likely to be negative commentary, which

may complicate post-incident thoughts and emotions.

Post-incident media considerations

Given the amount of media attention an ocer-involved shooting is likely to garner, it may be sensi-

ble to set up a media staging area at the scene. The agency’s PIO should remain at the staging area to

manage media representatives and provide them with information as available and appropriate. All

information should ow from this person. If the agency does not have a PIO, the IC should designate an

ocer or spokesperson at the scene to fulll this role. The department should provide basic informa-

tion regarding the incident to the press as soon as practicable, assuming it will not inhibit or undermine

the investigation. Doing so will discourage the press from speculation or uninformed commentary that

could be detrimental to the involved ocer and the agency alike. However, it is important to exercise

caution in releasing any information at the scene prior to a full investigation.

9. Edward F. Davis III, Alejandro A. Alves, and David Alan Sklansky, Social Media and Police Leadership: Lessons from Boston,

New Perspectives on Policing (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2014). http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/

download/67536/1242954/version/1/le/SocialMediaandPoliceLeadership-03-14.pdf.

10. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report.

IACP Resources

The IACP Police Psychological Services Section’s 2013 Ocer-Involved Shooting Guidelines are available at

http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/documents/pdfs/Psych-OcerInvolvedShooting.pdf.

For more in-depth information on the topics discussed in this report, the IACP have

compiled the following resources. IACP members may access these via the IACP website:

http://www.iacp.org/Model-Policy-List.

Critical Incident Stress Management: Concepts and Issues Paper

Investigation of Employee Misconduct: Concepts and Issues Paper

Ocer-Involved Shootings, In-Custody Deaths, and Serious Uses of Force: Concepts and Issues Paper

Ocer-Involved Shootings, In-Custody Deaths, and Serious Uses of Force: Model Policy

Police-Media Relations: Concepts and Issues Paper

Post-Shooting Personnel Support: Concepts and Issues Paper

Post-Shooting Personnel Support: Model Policy

Appendix. Community Resources

Acts of crime disrupt and destabilize life in communities daily. Just as law enforcement’s role is to pre-

vent crime, each community resident also has a responsibility to contribute to community safety. The

community’s role in crime prevention is enhanced by the development of trust between the commu-

nity and law enforcement. Getting law enforcement organizations and community organizations to talk

with each other is a good starting point, but the day-to-day relationships law enforcement forges in the

eld are among the most important factors for success. A cohesive community has healthy relation-

ships with law enforcement based on individual interactions, be that ocers talking with people on

the streets, residents attending citizen police academies, or both groups coming together to celebrate

National Night Out.

Consider the following questions when you think about your own community:

• What programs does the department have that assist ocers in understanding the community

and vice versa?

• Do ocers engage in interactive meetings with community groups and leaders?

• Does each ocer consider himself or herself responsible for building police-community trust?

• Are there existing mechanisms for “taking the pulse” of the community on key issues involving

police-community relations?

• Does the department periodically schedule formal meetings with community groups and leaders

to review the issue of police-community relations?

These questions can help identify areas or concerns that should be addressed in managing

police-community relations and partnerships. The management of these partnerships will,

to some extent, dictate the degree of success the police department can expect.

Here are some recommendations for being active partners with the community:

• Organize public meetings that include local community organizations, faith groups, businesses,

and civic associations and discuss how law enforcement can work together with them. This allows

community members to get to know their local ocers and learn about problems facing their

communities.

• Conduct information sharing sessions.

• Participate in local speaking opportunities—at the local school, at neighborhood association meet-

ings, and allow time for questions and discussion from community members.

• Use social media as a tool to engage and inform the community.

Following are several examples of programs that bring law enforcement and community together.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Citizens police academies

The role of law enforcement has always been of interest to the average citizen. The television media

has capitalized upon this curiosity with shows such as Cops, CSI, and Law and Order. Numerous police

agencies have also beneted from the curiosity that citizens have about the police by forming Citizens

Police Academies (CPA) as an expansion of their community-based eorts.

CPA programs open the lines of communication between the community and the police department.

To the citizen, it may frequently appear that the police are not doing their job or are exceeding their

boundaries. By allowing citizens a rsthand look at what rules, regulations, and policies the police fol-

low, some of these misunderstandings may be alleviated.

The objective of the CPA is not to train individuals to be “reserve police ocers” but to produce in-

formed citizens. Citizens and police ocers meet each other face-to-face in a neutral, friendly setting,

and each becomes a person to the other. In the past, citizens have simply seen a uniform, but with

CPAs they develop an understanding about the person behind the badge.

More information about CPAs is available from the National Citizens Police Academy Association,

http://ncpaa.us/.

Citizen advisory groups

Members of the community selected to serve on Citizen Advisory Groups (CAGs) function as liaisons

between the police department and community. The group mediates problems or conicts and serves

as an advocate for programs, ideas, and methods to improve the relationship between the police and

community.

CAGs enhance communication between residents and the police department and oer residents a

chance to talk with members of their local police departments. Community members are kept in-

formed about signicant safety matters in their neighborhoods and are encouraged to bring any issues

or questionsto the attention of local police commanders.

CAGs may do any of the following:

• Provide feedback regarding community interests and opinions

• Aid the sta on tasks and requests

• Serve as a positive representative for the department in community relations

• Make recommendations on public safety issues and delivery of service and provide feedback on

whether the police department is meeting the community’s expectations

• Serve as a community advocate for department outreach to all citizens

• Volunteer in a variety of dierent areas of expertise to assist in meeting the goal of exceeding

community expectations

• Participate in specialized training

35Appendix. Community Resources

VIPS (Volunteers in Police Service)

Volunteers can be an important part of any organization and are proven to be a valuable asset to law

enforcement agencies. Volunteers help to increase police responsiveness, service delivery, and informa-

tion input, and they provide new program opportunities. In addition, volunteers can bring new skills

and expertise to the job and prompt new enthusiasm. Police departments use qualied volunteers for

specied tasks and duties in order to create eciencies for the department and improve services to the

community. Volunteers are intended to supplement and support, rather than supplant, sworn ocers

and civilian personnel.

Police volunteers perform services for the department without promise, expectation, or receipt of com-

pensation for services rendered. This may include unpaid chaplains, unpaid reserve ocers, interns, and

persons providing administrative support.

The Volunteers in Public Service program (VIPS) provides support to agencies and citizen interested in

starting or maintaining police volunteer programs. It is jointly managed by the IACP and the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Oce of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. More information can be

found at the IACP website, www.theiacp.org/VIPS.

Business roundtables/coffee clubs

Coee clubs are a great way for the citizens of the community to get to know local ocers. Usually

set in a casual environment, often with beverages and snacks provided, these gatherings encourage

citizens to ask questions andbecome familiarwith the ocers who serve their community. Events can

be held either monthly or weekly andare sponsored or hosted by local businesses.

Neighborhood Watch

Neighborhood Watch is one of the oldest and best-known crime prevention concepts in history. While

the modern day concept of neighborhood watch came into prominence in the late 1960s, its roots in

America can actually be traced all the way back to the days of colonial settlements when night watch-

men patrolled the streets.

Since 1972, the Neighborhood Watch Programs have united law enforcement agencies, private organi-

zations, and individual citizens in a nation-wide eort to reduce crime and improve local communities.

Originally devoted to disseminating information on how to secure residential property and make it less

vulnerable to break-ins, the program has evolved into promoting the establishment of ongoing local

Neighborhood Watch groups where citizens work in conjunction with their law enforcement agen-

cies in an eort to reduce burglaries and other neighborhood crimes. The success of the program has

established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobiliza-

tion program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America in street signs, window decals,

community block parties and service projects.

Through its website, Neighborhood Watch provides training, technical support and resources to local

law enforcement agencies and the citizens they serve.

Ofcer-Involved Shootings

A Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders

Faith-based organizations

Law enforcement agencies are now experienced in, or at least open to, working with faith-based orga-

nizations (FBO) and other groups to jointly address crime prevention and related issues. FBOs oer an

anchoring community force, an extensive understanding of social issues that underlie crime, estab-

lished infrastructure for addressing human needs, and a voice of moral and secular authority. Many

faith leaders today can rally their congregations to work toward lasting solutions to problems related to

crime and violence.

About the International Association of Chiefs

of Police

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is a nonprot membership organization that sup-

ports law enforcement leaders around the world. With more than 25,000 members in over 120 countries,

the IACP serves chief executives and law enforcement professionals of all ranks at the state, local, tribal,

municipal, and federal level, as well as non-sworn leaders across the criminal justice system. As the larg-

est and longest-standing law enforcement leadership association, IACP continues to launch historically

acclaimed programs, conduct ground breaking research, and speak out on law enforcement issues.

Today, the IACP continues to be recognized as a leader in law enforcement program development

through the eorts of its divisions, sections, committees, and professional sta. The IACP supports law

enforcement through advocacy, training, research, and professional services, and enhances communi-

cation and collaboration through various specialized forums including the IACP Annual Conference and

Exposition. By engaging in strategic partnerships across the public safety spectrum, the IACP provides

members with the tools and resources they need to educate the public on the role of law enforcement

and help build sustainable community relationships.

Learn more at www.theiacp.org.

About the COPS Ofce

The Oce of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Oce) is the component of the U.S.

Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s

state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.

Community policing begins with a commitment to building trust and mutual respect between police

and communities. It supports public safety by encouraging all stakeholders to work together to address

our nation’s crime challenges. When police and communities collaborate, they more eectively address

underlying issues, change negative behavioral patterns, and allocate resources.

Rather than simply responding to crime, community policing focuses on preventing it through strate-

gic problem solving approaches based on collaboration. The COPS Oce awards grants to hire com-

munity police and support the development and testing of innovative policing strategies. COPS Oce

funding also provides training and technical assistance to community members and local government

leaders, as well as all levels of law enforcement.

Another source of COPS Oce assistance is the Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance

(CRI-TA). Developed to advance community policing and ensure constitutional practices, CRI-TA is an

independent, objective process for organizational transformation. It provides recommendations based

on expert analysis of policies, practices, traini xng, tactics, and accountability methods related to issues

of concern.

Since 1994, the COPS Oce has invested more than $14 billion to add community policing ocers

to the nation’s streets, enhance crime ghting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and

provide training and technical assistance to help advance community policing.

• To date, the COPS Oce has funded the hiring of approximately 127,000 additional ocers by more

than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies in both small and large jurisdictions.

• Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have

been trained through COPS Oce-funded training organizations.

• To date, the COPS Oce has distributed more than eight million topic-specic publications,

training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs.

• The COPS Oce also sponsors conferences, roundtables, and other forums focused on issues

critical to law enforcement.

The COPS Oce information resources, covering a wide range of community policing topics—from

school and campus safety to gang violence—can be downloaded at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website

is also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms.

As the authors of this guide note, an Ocer-Involved Shooting (OIS) is probably the most traumatic

event a police ocer will ever experience in his or her career. If the reaction to such an event is not

handled properly, it can not only take an emotional toll on the individuals involved, but spark anger in

the community and create negative fallout for the rest of the department.

To provide practical guidance for handling the wide range of challenges that follow an OIS, the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the COPS Oce collaborated to produce

this detailed report. A must-read for all law enforcement agencies, it provides incident command

and investigation procedures, guidance for selecting mental health professionals for post-shooting

debriengs, suggestions for familiarizing ocers with their rights, recommendations for working with

the media, and expert advice in many other areas.

U.S. Department of Justice

Oce of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Oce programs,

call the COPS Oce Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Oce online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

e051602754

Published 2016

International Association of Chiefs of Police

44 Canal Center Plaza

Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22314

http://www.iacp.org/