This area is for our membership to post news, events, information etc. that you feel would be important for our membership.  Please keep the content of your posts professional and clean.
  • October 03, 2017 4:25 AM | Lynn Brown

    For the past 15 years, I have had the opportunity to train with one highly motivated and dedicated officer our Northern Sgt. at Arms Lynn Brown.  My passion is to be like him one day with his mental and physical preparedness for duty, and the pride he takes in the profession that we all love. 

    I am not confident I will ever reach my goal, but as long as we continue working together, hopefully I will get there in the future.


    Richard Chandler

    President of MLEOA 


    Mississippi Law Enforcement Officer's Association

    14 Southgate Road

    Hattiesburg, MS 39401



  • Hi

    April 27, 2017 4:44 PM | Brad Sutherlen

    Captain Chandler and I say Hi! 

  • July 31, 2016 5:36 PM | Brad Sutherlen

      I have not heard from anyone about the Escort Training at this time.  I know time is slowing closing in on the Governors Run.  Please let me know the areas I need to show anyone that will be attending.  We need to work on this soon so everyone will be on the same page.

    Thank You,

    Brad Sutherlen 

  • December 31, 2014 3:42 PM | Charlie Sims (Administrator)

    Fernandez v. California
    In Fernandez v. California, the Court had to resolve the question as to whether the Fourth Amendment prohibited warrantless searches when a defendant undefined who previously objected to a consent search undefined was no longer present and the co-tenant subsequently consented. The 2006 Court decision in Georgia v. Randolph provided the “disputed permission rule” which said the police could not search a home when one physically present resident consents and the other does not. 

    So what does Fernandez add to the Court’s consent jurisprudence? Going back to 1974 in United States v. Matlock, the Court said there was no Fourth Amendment violation when the police obtained consent to search a location from a third party who had common authority over the location. A co-occupant of a home could give police consent to search if another occupant was out. The non-present occupant would not have a Fourth Amendment claim if contraband or other incriminating evidence was discovered. Randolph modified the rule to require consent of all occupants, allowing for one non-consenting occupant to nullify other occupant consent.  

    Fernandez further modified the Randolph “disputed permission rule” by saying the ultimate rationale under the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. If there are two tenants the unreasonableness to search based on the refusal of one is reasonable when the disputing co-tenant leaves the premises. For Mr. Fernandez, his exit from the premises was not voluntary since he was arrested. It was after his arrest and removal from the premises the police were then able to obtain a valid consent from the remaining occupant.

    Navarette v. California
    The Court’s April opinion in Navarette v. California held that an anonymous 911 call reporting drunken or reckless driving can, without more information or further corroboration, provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. This was a marked departure from the Court’s 2009 denial of certiorari in a similar case (Virginia v. Harris) wherein Chief Justice Roberts took the rare approach of writing a dissent to a denial of certiorari.  

    In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the problem of DWI and public safety on the roadways dictates a different result than strict reliance upon the Court’s 2000 opinion in Florida v. J.L. which “suppressed evidence seized by police after receiving an anonymous tip alleging that a young man, wearing a plaid shirt and waiting at a particular bus stop, was carrying a gun.” 

    Police acted on the tip alone and without any further corroboration approached J.L., searched him and found a gun. Similarly, in Harris, a state trooper received the description of a motor vehicle being driven in an erratic manner suggesting the operator was DWI. The trooper quickly located the vehicle on the highway and pulled it over without making any independent observation corroborative of the vehicle’s operation. For this reason, based on Florida v. J.L., the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the conviction and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. 

    However, when it came to be Prado Navarette’s turn at the Supreme Court, he would not have the same legal good fortune. The Court’s 5-4 majority opinion, of which Roberts was a member, was written by Justice Thomas to create a totality of the circumstances approach to the reasonable suspicion standard, independent of what was personally observed by the officer. While the totality of circumstances in this instance provided the officer reasonable suspicion to make the stop, Navarette should not be read to no longer require independent corroboration of alleged illegal or suspicious activity when provided by an anonymous caller. 

    Nor should it be assumed the Court created a DWI exception to the corroboration requirement. The tenuous legal ground this decision rests upon is illustrated by the fact of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Navarette despite his joining with Roberts in the dissent to the denial of certiorari in Harris. 

    Plumhoff v. Rickard 
    The Court in May once again weighed in on the nature of qualified immunity defenses in civil actions brought against police officers. In the case of Plumhoff v. Rickard the Court considered undefined among other things undefined whether the number of shots fired by officers at a fleeing vehicle was excessive as a matter of law. 

    In a unanimous 9-0 decision Justice Alito wrote that once deadly physical force is justified in responding to a threat to public safety, the continued use of deadly force is justified until the threat has ended. The Court held that in 2004, when the incident occurred, there was no clearly established right which the officers could be found to have violated; therefore they were entitled to qualified immunity.

    Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie
    The final cases to make the year end law enforcement review are the June decisions in the companion cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. Both of these cases involved the question of whether police need a warrant to search a cell phone incident to arrest.  

    I devoted special attention to these cases since the petitioner’s brief in Riley v. California cited one of my columns from 2012 and I knew from writing the column there was a split opinion among the federal circuits and state courts.  

    On June 25th the Court provided its answer to the questions posed when Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 9-0 unanimous panel that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to search an arrestee’s cell phone. The warrantless search incident to arrest exception is for officer safety and the preservation of evidence. The Court said neither of these concerns is present with digital data, since the data cannot harm the officer and preservation of evidence can be maintained by disconnecting the phone from its network or placing the phone in a protective “Faraday” bag. 

    Chief Justice Roberts likened today’s smart phones to mini-computers which contain much more than dialed and incoming telephone numbers. Even though the Court said a warrant was required, it did not foreclose all searches of phones upon arrest. There are emergency situations, the Court acknowledged, during which a warrantless search would be permissible. These situations would be case-specific exceptions.

  • March 27, 2014 4:01 PM | Charlie Sims (Administrator)

    Sponsored by:
    Charles Remsberg 10-8: Life on the Line
    with Charles Remsberg

    How this one interview technique can beat lying suspects

    Subjects seeking to be deceptive overwhelmingly prefer closed-ended questions that let them get by with abbreviated statements whereas truthful individuals will mine their memories for the truth

    As an investigator, you may find a serving of ‘TEDS PIE’ to be helpful when you’re taking statements about a shooting from involved officers and witnesses.

    That acronym is offered as a questioning tool by Dr. Edward Geiselman, co-developer of the cognitive interviewing technique and a faculty member for the Force Science Certification Course.

    The letters stand for various prompts you can use to probe deeper into a subject’s memories.

    Open-Ended Questions
    Cognitive interviewing is a method for gathering descriptive recollections of an event by encouraging an uninterrupted, free-flowing narrative from the person being questioned. In contrast to the stereotypical interrogation approach, the subject in a cognitive interview does about 80 percent of the talking, while the investigator speaks only about 20 percent of the time, primarily by posing open-ended questions that keep the interviewee supplying needed, detailed information.

    “Closed-ended questions require only short answers and can signal to the officer or witness that his or her role is to speak only when spoken to during the interview. This can stifle meaty responses,” explained Geiselman, a psychology professor at UCLA.

    “Responses to open-ended questions tend to be more extensive and are more likely to be accurate,” Geiselman added.

    During the subject’s “grand narrative,” Geiselman said, the cognitive interviewer notes areas that require follow up when the initial story is concluded. “The strategy then is to ask the interviewee to focus his memory and elaborate about one segment of the narrative at a time.

    “This follow-up questioning begins with your asking an open-ended question: ‘Can you tell me more about...’ whatever element of the grand narrative — people, places, objects, conversations, etc. — you want to explore in greater depth at that moment.

    “The problem is that if you ask this same question over and over as you move through the various sections you want to follow up on, the interview may begin to seem stilted, stale, and predictable, and the subject may become annoyed, fatigued, or disinterested.”

    Deploying TEDS PIE
    That’s where TEDS PIE comes in.

    It’s a means of prefacing follow-up questions that Geiselman says he learned from investigators with the London Metro Police, an agency that has worked on a number of research projects with the Force Science Institute.

    TEDS stands for:

    • “Tell me...”
    • “Explain to me...”
    • “Describe for me...”
    • “Show me....”

    PIE stands for:

    • “Precisely...”
    • “In detail...”
    • “Exactly....”

    “By pairing a term from TEDS with a term from PIE, you have a different way of introducing the same open-ended question as you go through the segments you want the interviewee to expand on,” Geiselman said. “You’re still making the same inquiry repeatedly, but it doesn’t appear that way to the subject.”

    As a reminder of the effectiveness of cognitive interviewing, he added, “Truthful subjects generally like answering open-ended questions and will work hard to mine their memories for as full an account as possible. Not so much those subjects who need to be deceptive. Overwhelmingly, they prefer closed-ended questions that let them get by with abbreviated statements.”

    About the author

    Charles Remsberg co-founded the original Street Survival Seminar and the Street Survival Newsline, authored three of the best-selling law enforcement training textbooks, and helped produce numerous award-winning training videos. His nearly three decades of work earned him the prestigious O.W. Wilson Award for outstanding contributions to law enforcement and the American Police Hall of Fame Honor Award for distinguished achievement in public service.

    Buy Charles Remsberg's latest book, Blood Lessons, which takes you inside more than 20 unforgettable confrontations where officers' lives are on the line.

  • January 30, 2014 3:16 PM | Charlie Sims (Administrator)
    January 30, 2014
    From PoliceOne.com

    Louis C. Senese Interrogation Themes
    with Louis C. Senese

    As John Reid told me, “A good interrogator is a good actor” undefined you have to convince the suspect that you’re on his side

    During the past 40 years of applying the art of interrogation, one question repeatedly surfaces from investigators undefined particularly from those who are just beginning their professional careers in this field.

    “How do you suppress your personal feelings when interrogating someone that you know has committed such a horrific crime?”

    My response is simple: “It’s not personal. It’s business.”

    Being a Good Actor
    I then remind them that the investigator’s goal is to obtain the truth, and that a fundamental element of the Reid Technique http://www.reid.com/ in eliciting the truth is to establish rapport with a suspect. No matter how disgusting or repulsive the crime, the professional interrogator must maintain a demeanor of being outwardly non-judgmental while displaying no personal aversion towards the suspect or the suspect’s actions.

    By adopting a mental discipline of suppressing all signs of adverse emotions during an interrogation undefined anger, disgust, revulsion, sarcasm, revenge, etc. undefined the trained investigator has a better chance of developing rapport with a subject and thereby greatly improve the probability of obtaining the truth through a fully corroborated confession.

    Many years ago upon entering the training program at Chicago based John E. Reid and Associates, I was counseled by my mentor undefined John Reid himself undefined “A good interrogator is a good actor.”

    This admonition has been indelibly etched in my mind, even though I didn’t fully “get it” during the early stages of my career.

    I asked myself, “What does this mean, be a good actor?”

    After having interviewed and interrogated hundreds of suspects, his words began to crystallize. I began to understand that he was telling me to mask my personal feelings undefined a task that is sometimes easier said than done.

    The Three Channels
    During our interrogations, we’re always reading the suspect’s behavior for signs of truth, deception, motive, and the like. We also assess the suspect’s behavior to determine whether we’ve successfully established rapport (which is essential for the elicitation of truth and the development of corroborating evidence).

    We accomplish this by evaluating three channels of communication undefined the suspect’s verbal, paralinguistic, and nonverbal behavior.

    Whereas the trained interrogator systematically evaluates a suspect’s behavior symptoms, most suspects intuitively evaluate an interrogator’s verbal, paralinguistic, and nonverbal behavior for signs of the interrogator’s credibility, self-assurance, confidence and attitude toward the suspect and the suspect’s criminal conduct.

    Experienced and successful investigators have learned the value of projecting a neutral attitude undefined or even an understanding and empathetic demeanor undefined toward the suspect and the suspect’s criminal conduct by disguising his or her personal feelings during interrogation.

    Channel #1: Verbal
    The first channel is verbal communication. Words we choose and their arrangement send a distinct message. Semantics or the meaning of words selected by the investigator can minimize or maximize the uniqueness or horrific nature of the suspect’s crime.

    In a theft or embezzlement case some of my counterparts in the financial industry tend to initiate the interrogation by saying: “You were involved in the defalcation of all the funds from our institution.”

    The preferred choice of language would be to simply say, “Our investigation indicates you took the missing money.”

    If I were the suspect, hearing the word “defalcation” would maximize the serious nature of my crime (after all, there are four syllables in that word!) and lead me to believe that I’m probably looking at jail time.

    Conversely, the more benign language used undefined that I “took” the money undefined psychologically minimizes the severity of my conduct and alters my perception of the interrogator’s attitude toward me.

    Likewise, in a sexual harassment investigation, it would be preferable to initiate the interrogation with a statement that refers to the suspect “sexually touching” or “making a sexual comment” rather than accusing the suspect of “sexual harassment” to describe the same event.

    Similarly, accusing a suspect by stating, “Our investigation clearly indicates that you raped Mary” would not have the advantage of a softer statement such as, “Our investigation clearly indicates that you did force Mary to engage in sexual intercourse.”

    Raping and forcing mean the same thing, but utilizing the term force results in a more palatable phrase for the suspect.

    By telling a suspect, “You realize that you molested Johnny, a five-year-old child, don’t you?” an interrogator recreates the abhorrent behavior of being a child molester and raises the specter of severe punishment associated with the act.

    A better choice of words during an interrogation might be to suggest “You sexually touched John” undefined avoiding the harsh words “five-year-old,” “child,” “molest,” and even “Johnny.”

    The second option allows the suspect to save face and dignity in the eyes of an experienced interrogator, who is thereby effectively masking his true feelings toward the suspect’s conduct.

    Channel #2: Paralinguistic
    The second channel we convey to the suspect is paralinguistic. This would consist of the characteristics of speech that fall outside of the verbal response. The investigator could respond to the suspect’s denial of committing the crime using sarcasm, mockery, cynicism, or scorn.

    For example: “Yeah, sure, right!”

    Paralinguistic behaviors also include a myriad of displays by an interrogator such as snickering, laughing, changing tone or pitch of speech in a derogatory fashion, etc. Such behavior by an interrogator alienates the suspect and erodes the prospect of successfully establishing rapport.

    Channel #3: Nonverbal
    The third channel is nonverbal behavior, which includes the interrogator’s gestures or postures. Let’s say the investigator is telling the suspect undefined as part of the interrogation theme undefined that he believes the suspect’s act was totally out of character, but the interrogator’s posture is one of leaning back with legs and arms crossed. What message does this convey?

    It clearly conveys that the investigator is insincere and does not believe what he is saying to the suspect.

    There’s a disconnect between the interrogator’s spoken word and the accompanying nonverbal behavior. The investigator needs to drop the barriers and lean forward in an open posture during the interrogation process. The resulting compatibility between the interrogator’s verbal and nonverbal behavior intuitively validates the credibility of the interrogator’s words in the suspect’s mind.

    Another example might include the investigator trying to verbally empathize with the suspect while nonchalantly leaning back with hands behind neck or engaging in significant body posture changes. Nonverbal miscues to the suspect can be as subtle as the investigator briefly looking at his or her watch during the interrogation.

    Doing so may telegraph that the investigator is bored and has something more important to do. Under those circumstances, most street-sharp suspects will simply wait out the interrogation with continued denials.

    All The World’s a Stage
    It is incumbent upon the professional interrogator to recognize that criminals most often admit their crimes because they truly like, trust, or feel comfortable with the interrogator.

    To that end, the interrogator’s mindset should be to “act” undefined to conceal his or her personal feelings about the suspect and the suspect’s criminal conduct.

    Remember, “It’s not personal, it’s business.”

    Empathy is a key element within the context of the communication process. Always treat the suspect the way you would want to be treated: with dignity and respect.

    About the author

    Louis C. Senese, VP of John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. and has been employed at the firm since 1974.  He received his BS in business from Northern Illinois University and his MS from Reid College. After nine years as a staff polygraph examiner, he became Chief Polygraph Examiner and vice president being responsible for overseeing seven to eight thousand interviews and interrogations for each of the next eight years. Lou has personally conducted in excess of eight thousand interviews and interrogations and has testified in federal and state courts as well as employment hearings. He is a past president of the Illinois Polygraph Society.

    Additionally, Lou has conducted hundreds of interrogation training seminars on the Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation®. He has presented specialized training programs for corporations as well as federal, state and local law enforcement, military and governmental intelligence agencies throughout the United States, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Kuwait, Mexico, the Netherlands, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and the U.A.E.

    In 2005, Senese authored the book, Anatomy of Interrogation Themes which was translated into Spanish in 2008 (Anatomia de los Temas del Interrogatorio) and has published many articles. Lou’s sense of humor as well as his practical way of instruction has made him one of Reid’s most sought-after speakers.  


Mississippi Law Enforcement Officer's Association

P.O. Box 534

Southaven, MS 38671



Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software