Blue Alerts can be transmitted to television and radio stations; to cellphones and wireless devices; to overhead highway message signs; and other secondary alerting mechanisms – in the same way that AMBER Alerts are commonly issued. There are currently 37 states with Blue Alert plans. The COPS Office provides resources and technical assistance to states, territories, law enforcement agencies, and tribes seeking to establish or enhance Blue Alert plans, including voluntary activation guidelines, examples of legislation, policies, and forms gathered from around the nation in a central Blue Alert data repository.

The COPS Office has announced a new video resource introducing the National Blue Alert Network. The video explains how Blue Alerts work: Authorized agencies submit requests when specific criteria are met and critical information is quickly distributed through FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) across mobile devices, television, radio, and highway message signs.

The resource highlights the importance of speed, coordination and public awareness in helping law enforcement locate suspects and protect communities. It also outlines how states can participate in the Blue Alert Network at no cost, with support from the COPS Office to develop and implement effective alert plans.

For more information about Blue Alerts, including fact sheets, guides and additional resources, visit the National Blue Alert Network webpage at cops.usdoj.gov/bluealert

Operation Eclipse: When the World Gets It Right

Is there any crime worse than that which hurts a child?

I’ve asked myself that question more times than I can count and I’ve never arrived at a satisfying answer – because I don’t believe one exists. In 21 years of working homicide in Miami-Dade County, I encountered nearly every variety of human cruelty imaginable. I saw what people do to one another in moments of rage, greed, jealousy, and desperation. And, over time, I came to understand – not condone, mind you, but understand – why adults sometimes kill one another…two men arguing over a drug corner; a domestic dispute which boils past the point of no return; or a robbery gone sideways in the blink of an eye. I could trace those threads back through poverty, addiction, anger, circumstance. I could follow the logic, as twisted and tragic as it was, and find some frayed human thread connecting action to motive.

But, a child? I could never wrap my head around that.

In all my years behind a badge, working scenes which would turn the strongest stomach, sitting across interrogation tables from men who had done unspeakable things, I never found the thread which explained how any human being could deliberately damage, abuse or exploit a small child. There is no logic or viable thread. There is only a depravity so complete that it defies every framework I’d spent a career building. So, when I read about Operation Eclipse, I felt something I don’t always feel when I read the news these days: a deep, bone level satisfaction.

Here’s what happened: Between February 2025 and January 2026, INTERPOL coordinated a yearlong international operation spanning nine countries across Central America, North America and the Caribbean. The participating nations – Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the Dominican Republic – worked in concert to target the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material. When it was over, 60 individuals had been arrested and 65 child victims had been identified and rescued. The majority of those victims were between the ages of five and 13. Let that sink in for a moment – five years old…13 years old – approximately 80 percent of them were girls.

The operation was coordinated by INTERPOL with support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and an organization called the Child Rescue Coalition. Law enforcement agencies across Latin America synchronized their investigations, executed targeted interventions, and shared cross border evidence in real time. That kind of international cooperation doesn’t happen by accident. It takes years of relationship building, trust and painstaking organizational work. That work deserves every bit of recognition it gets.

What struck me most about Operation Eclipse, as a retired investigator, was its emphasis on cold cases – specifically, the meticulous work of going back and identifying victims who had appeared in INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation database for years, even decades, without ever being named or found. Think about that for a moment. There are images of children – children being victimized – sitting in a law enforcement database for ten-plus years, and nobody could put a name to the face or an address to the location. That database, by the way, currently contains nearly five million images and videos of child abuse and has helped identify more than 42,000 victims worldwide. The scope of this problem is almost incomprehensible.

In Panama, investigators finally cracked a case in which a victim’s images had circulated in INTERPOL’s system for over a decade without identification. Through the INTERPOL Victim Identification Task Force for Latin America and the Caribbean, specialized officers came together, pooled their expertise and solved it. In Costa Rica, a suspect had posed online as a celebrity, using that false identity to make initial contact with a young victim before pivoting to grooming, sexual blackmail and threats against the child’s family. That case, too, had gone cold for years before Operation Eclipse brought it back to life. Then, there was a case in the Dominican Republic involving two minors, ages ten and thirteen. Their abusers? One was a transnational sex offender who had been living in the home with them. The other was their mother.    

I’ve been out of law enforcement for nearly 20 years and I still had to put the article down for a minute after reading it to fully absorb that last fact. In all my years working homicide, there were cases which stayed with me – cases where the perpetrator was someone the victim should have been able to trust with their life. Those were always the hardest. And, they never got easier.

One of the things I always appreciated about working in a major metropolitan homicide unit was the breadth of expertise on the squad. When I came up through the ranks, the veterans didn’t just hand you a case and wish you luck – they mentored you, challenged you and held you to a standard. Operation Eclipse reminds me of that same culture of expertise applied on a global scale. INTERPOL provided real-time intelligence sharing and strategic guidance. The UNODC provided training and technical support to investigative and prosecutorial units across the region. These aren’t just bureaucratic functions; they’re the architecture of a successful investigation. When you get the structure right, the results follow. The suspects arrested in this operation were not a monolithic group of strangers lurking in the shadows. Investigators noted that the alleged perpetrators came from across the spectrum of a child’s social world: relatives, friends, neighbors, educators, online predators, and foreign tourists. There is no single profile. There is no easy checklist. And that, frankly, is what makes this crime so devastating and so difficult to prosecute – the offender is often the person the child’s own family trusted.

Cyril Gout, INTERPOL’s Acting Executive Director of Police Services, said something which resonated with me as a former detective: Pursuing older cases isn’t only about delivering justice – it’s about preventing further harm. That’s an important principle. A cold case isn’t a closed case, nor is an unidentified victim a forgotten one. If you walk away from the unsolved ones, you’re not just letting a perpetrator walk free – you’re leaving a door open for the next victim. The detectives and investigators who worked Operation Eclipse clearly understood that.

As I write these columns, I find myself toggling between pride in law enforcement – what it can accomplish when it operates at its best – and genuine worry about the world these children are growing up in. I teach high school criminal justice now. My students are juniors and seniors, many of them are the same age as some of the older victims in this case. I think about that. I think about how many of them are online, trusting, accessible – and how predators know that, too. The INTERPOL database holding nearly five million images of child abuse didn’t fill up overnight. It filled up one child at a time, one crime at a time, across years and decades – and, for most of those children, help was very slow in coming, if it came at all. Operation Eclipse chipped away at that backlog in a meaningful way: 60 arrests; 65 children identified – cases which had gone cold for a decade, or more, finally resolved.

Is it enough? Of course it’s not. It’s never enough when we’re talking about children. But, it’s something. It’s the work being done the right way, by dedicated professionals operating across borders and languages and legal systems, driven by the same purpose: Protect the child.

I started this column with a question. Is there any crime worse than that which hurts a child? I’ve sat with that question through two decades in homicide and another decade and a half of teaching young people who would never fully understand why I asked it with such feeling. The answer, every single time, is the same: No, there isn’t. And, the men and women who got up every day for a year and worked Operation Eclipse knew that, too.

My hat is off to every one of them.

Ramesh Nyberg retired from law enforcement in November 2006 after 27 years of police work. He lives in Miami and teaches criminal justice at a local high school. He also teaches regional law enforcement courses through Training Force, USA. He enjoys getting feedback from readers and can be reached at ramesh.nyberg@gmail.com. Also, Ram has written a new book, Badge, Tie and Gun: Life and Death Journeys of a Miami Detective, which is available on Amazon in both Kindle eBook and paperback. You can find it by visiting amazon.com/dp/B0CTQQKQTV

What Supervisors Should Reinforce Before, During and After Commercial Vehicle Stops

Law enforcement has seen too many recent examples of officers grabbing onto moving vehicles, reaching into driver compartments or physically attaching themselves to vehicles to keep someone from driving away. The intent may be understandable. The result can be catastrophic.

That risk increases sharply when the vehicle is a tractor-trailer (a recent example can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/2n73vzpw).

No officer can physically stop a 30,000 pound commercial motor vehicle with body weight, strength, urgency, or determination. Whether the vehicle is a sedan, pickup, box truck, or big rig, grabbing on, jumping on or placing yourself in the path of movement is a losing tactic.

Supervisors and trainers should say this plainly: Disengaging from a moving vehicle is not weakness. It is sound tactics. It preserves life, reduces agency exposure and keeps officers available to continue the investigation safely.

There is also a legal and administrative concern. When officers place themselves in danger through actions which did not need to occur, they create risk for themselves, the public and the agency. This is often discussed as officer-created jeopardy or officer-induced jeopardy. The issue is whether the officer’s actions escalated the encounter. That concern can surface in civil claims, workers’ compensation reviews, internal investigations, and insurance matters. The better answer is planning, positioning, communication, and discipline.

Initial Considerations

The initial steps for stopping a tractor-trailer are similar to any other motor vehicle stop. The officer must be able to articulate the legal reason for the stop; know the location and direction of travel; assess roadway and traffic conditions; and advise dispatch of the intended stop, vehicle description, direction, and any risk factors.

The differences begin with size, weight, stopping distance, blind spots, and terrain. A tractor-trailer cannot safely stop or reposition like a passenger car. The driver may need additional time and distance to find a safe place to stop, whether that is a shoulder, ramp, rest area, or parking lot large enough to accommodate the rig and keep everyone clear of traffic.

This is where supervisory messaging matters. Officers should be trained to think ahead before activating emergency equipment. Where will this stop occur? Is the shoulder paved and stable? Is traffic heavy? Is there an off-ramp, weigh station, rest area, truck stop, or large parking lot nearby? A few extra seconds of planning can prevent a dangerous roadside contact.

Choosing the Stop Location

The stop location is one of the most important tactical decisions in any commercial vehicle encounter. Whenever possible, look for a flat, paved, stable surface. A soft shoulder can create problems quickly. A tractor-trailer may sink into dirt, gravel, mud, or grass. In worse conditions, the vehicle may become stuck, lean or create a rollover risk. That can quickly become a traffic, safety and liability issue.

Officers assigned to highway details often wait until the vehicle reaches a safer location, such as a rest area, off-ramp, weigh station, or wide paved shoulder. That is usually the better choice when circumstances allow.

If the initial stop occurs in a poor location, the officer is not locked into that decision. If the driver is cooperative and conditions allow, direct the driver to move to a safer place, such as a well-lit parking lot, an off-ramp lane or a wider shoulder. The first stopping location does not have to be the final one.

Getting the Driver’s Attention

Because of the height, length and blind spots of a tractor-trailer, the driver may not immediately see the patrol vehicle. The officer may need to move where the driver can see the emergency lights, but this must be done with caution.

Avoid driving alongside the tractor-trailer and remaining there. The area next to a big rig is hazardous. The officer may be in a blind spot, exposed to traffic and vulnerable if the driver makes a sudden lane movement.

Once the driver becomes aware of the stop, do not assume noncompliance simply because the vehicle does not pull over immediately. Many commercial drivers understand the limitations of their vehicles and may be avoiding a narrow shoulder, bridge, curve, construction zone, or area with no safe escape path. Officers should remain alert, but evaluate the totality of the circumstances before deciding the driver is fleeing or resisting.

Respect the High Ground

The driver and any passengers in a tractor cab sit above the officer. That creates an immediate tactical disadvantage. The officer is looking up, often from a position where the driver’s hands are difficult to see.

For that reason, standing directly beside the cab door may not be the best option. One safer alternative is to move forward of the cab, where the officer can look through the front windshield and better observe movement inside the cab. A driver could fire through the windshield, but the same threat exists at the door, where the officer may have even less visibility. The goal is to improve visibility, control distance and avoid unnecessary exposure.

If conditions allow, the officer can direct the driver to exit and walk back to a safer contact position. This keeps both out of the traffic lane and gives the officer a chance to evaluate body language, compliance, balance, and demeanor.

Officers who work commercial vehicle enforcement may sometimes be trained to step onto running boards to inspect documents, observe the cab or check a logbook. That practice deserves careful review. The value of seeing a logbook entry or minor contraband does not outweigh the risk of falling, being trapped, being dragged, or losing reaction time at the side of the cab.

Positioning the Patrol Vehicle

There is no single patrol vehicle position which works for every tractor-trailer stop. Roadway design, traffic, shoulder width, lighting, weather, terrain, and the officer’s objective all matter. The primary factor is officer safety. A sound position should provide protection from passing traffic, give the officer a view of the driver and create options if the encounter changes.

The Left Offset Position

In a left offset position, the officer stops behind the tractor-trailer with the patrol vehicle offset slightly to the driver’s side. A distance of about 15 to 25 feet behind the trailer provides a wider field of view and avoids crowding the vehicle. As with cover, crowding limits visibility, movement and reaction time.

From the left offset position, the officer may choose a driver-side approach, passenger-side approach or call-out. If using a passenger-side approach, the officer can move around the rear of the patrol vehicle and approach from the side which best reduces exposure to traffic. Some officers may choose to move between the patrol vehicle and trailer to get to the passenger side. This should be done only when it is safe and necessary. If a position limits visibility, movement or safety, it is the wrong position for that stop.

The Call-out Option

A call-out can be a strong option on tractor-trailer stops, especially when traffic, visibility, cab height, driver behavior, or officer safety concerns make an approach undesirable.

If traffic noise is manageable, use the public address system and direct the driver to exit the cab and walk back to the officer’s location. Tell the driver what to do, where to walk and where to stop. Keep the driver out of traffic and away from areas which expose the officer unnecessarily.

A call-out allows the officer to observe the driver before direct contact. Are the hands visible? Is the driver steady on his/her feet? Is he/she angry, confused, compliant, or looking around for an escape route? These observations help the officer decide how to proceed.

If the PA system is not working (which happens all too often), the driver may still be watching through the side mirrors. Once positioned near the rear of the trailer on the safer side, the officer can use hand gestures to direct the driver back. The officer should not rush into a poor position simply because the first communication method failed.

The Parallel Position

The parallel position places the patrol vehicle directly behind the tractor-trailer, aligned with the curb or shoulder. This may be necessary because of roadway design or limited space. The advantage is simplicity. The officer remains behind the rig and can maintain a view of the vehicle. As with other positions, increased distance can improve visibility.

The disadvantage is that this position does not create much of a protected area for a driver-side approach. For that reason, a passenger-side approach or right-side call-out is often preferable, depending on traffic and shoulder conditions.

The Pull-around Position

The pull-around position can provide a high level of officer safety in the right environment, but it is not appropriate everywhere. After the rig has stopped, the officer pulls around on the left when safe, then parks approximately 45 to 50 feet in front of the rig at an angle, outside traffic. From there, the officer can stand behind the patrol vehicle and call the driver forward or back to a controlled contact position.

The advantage is distance and frontal control. A tractor-trailer is slow to accelerate from a dead stop which gives the officer more time to react and reposition if needed. The patrol vehicle may also provide some cover if the officer comes under fire.

The drawback is traffic visibility. Vehicles approaching from the rear may not see the patrol vehicle or emergency lights until they are alongside the tractor-trailer. That makes this position unsuitable for high traffic roadways, narrow shoulders, curves, hills, and other locations where approaching drivers have limited warning. This tactic depends on preplanning and is best reserved for open areas, rest areas, ramps, parking lots, or locations where traffic exposure is minimized.

Supervisory Priorities

Middle managers shape how officers handle these stops. Policy, training and culture should send the same message.

First, officers should not use their bodies to stop vehicles. This includes grabbing door frames, reaching through windows, standing in front of vehicles, jumping on running boards during movement, or otherwise placing themselves where vehicle movement creates an immediate deadly threat.

Second, officers should be trained to preplan commercial vehicle stops. The safest stop often begins before the emergency lights are activated.

Third, supervisors should review body-worn camera and dash camera footage not only for mistakes, but for teachable moments. Good tactics should be reinforced. Unsafe habits should be corrected early before they become accepted practice.

Finally, commercial vehicle stops should not be treated as rare exceptions. Big rigs are involved in traffic violations, impaired driving, stolen property movement, human trafficking, drug transportation, and other enforcement concerns. Officers should not be intimidated by the size of the vehicle, but they must respect it.

Final Thoughts

A tractor-trailer is not mysterious. In many ways, it is a very large motor vehicle with a professional driver who is required to have a valid license, valid registration documents for the tractor and trailer, and proof of insurance. The stop may begin with a simple violation and develop into something more, just like any other traffic stop.

The difference is consequence. A poor decision around a passenger car can be dangerous. A poor decision around a tractor-trailer can be unforgiving.

The officer’s mindset should be simple: Slow down, think ahead, choose the location carefully, communicate clearly, use distance, and do not create unnecessary jeopardy.

There are heroes in law enforcement. None of them are bulletproof and none of them can stop a big rig by hand.

Michael T. Rayburn has been involved in law enforcement since 1977 and is the author of five books. He is a former Adjunct Instructor for the Smith & Wesson Academy and is the owner of Rayburn Law Enforcement Training. He can be reached at combatgunfighting.com

Off duty carry offers critical protection, but safe, effective use depends on judgment, training and knowing when to intervene.

A unique aspect of American law enforcement is that officers may carry a firearm while off duty. This practice has long been supported by police unions, administrators and officers themselves. Unions back it because officers may be called upon to take enforcement action even when off the clock. Administrators have also favored the idea, recognizing the value of armed trained professionals in the community. For individual officers, however, the primary reason is personal protection, since encountering dangerous individuals from past interactions remains a very real possibility.

A rite of passage when one begins a law enforcement career is getting that first off duty gun. You quickly come to terms with the fact that you not only have the power of life and death while on duty, but on your own time as well. Make no mistake about it, this is a huge responsibility and, in fact, requires a few lifestyle changes. It could include the clothing you wear, places you go and the consumption of alcoholic beverages. But, with some minor adjustments, you can still go about your routine as long as you pay attention to some details.

The World Is a Dangerous Place!

Although today’s officers are better trained and equipped than ever before, violent crime and attacks on police have spiked and there is still an element of risk when off duty. When it’s least expected, an officer could get caught up in a violent confrontation while defending themselves or others. Consider for a moment the following recent incidents:

Van Nuys, CA – A Beverly Hills officer driving down a road encounters two men fighting, one armed with a pipe and the other with a gun. He attempts to control the situation, but is threatened by the man with the gun. The subject is killed and the man with the pipe flees the scene, but is located later.

Chicago, IL – An off duty officer intervenes in a fight between a man and a woman. The man, armed with a knife, stabs the women and the officer fires two shots, striking the subject. The subject leaves the scene, but is found a short time later dead in a vehicle. Unfortunately, the woman also dies as a result of her injury.

Jacksonville, FL – A 24 year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office was fatally shot after trying to intervene in a violent argument between a man and woman at a Northside truck stop. Authorities said the officer was off duty when he arrived just after 1:15 a.m. and heard the dispute near a Ford Mustang^®. After he stepped in, the man told him it was a “family matter,” then struggled with the woman and pointed a gun at the officer. Police said the suspect fired as the couple drove away. The veteran officer later died at a hospital.

Prince Georges County, MD – A police officer attempts to come to the aid of a neighbor in the midst of a heated domestic incident. The subject produces a gun and fires at the officer. This intervention saved the woman’s life, but both the subject and officer are killed.

Without question, we can uncover numerous incidents when an officer took action which saved someone’s life. Unfortunately, many of these stories do not end well. Even more disturbing are off duty incidents when an officer crossed the line and used deadly force when it was not justified, with some examples originating from road rage or incidents in bars. In some cases, this has resulted in a movement to disarm off duty police. These sorts of incidents often paint the involved agency in a bad light and result in termination, criminal prosecution and incarceration for the involved officer. Don’t be that guy!

Training and Policy

Does your department have a policy relative to officer actions while off duty? Policies need to be crystal clear as to what sort of events in which an officer should or should not get involved. I’m not suggesting that we turn a blind eye, but there are certain instances when intervention could be dangerous to the officer or bystanders.

In those situations, it might be best to act as a trained observer, take in as much information as possible and summon the uniformed troops. However, in situations when a subject has used, or is about to use, violence, the game changes 180 degrees. But, before jumping in with both feet, ask yourself, “Is my intervention likely to result in a good outcome?”

As distasteful as it might seem, observing some sort of illegal behavior when off duty and letting it go for the moment can be a bitter pill to swallow. This might include certain types of property crimes, motor vehicle violations, disorderly persons, or other less serious offenses. Violence directed at you or others is a whole different ball game. But, before getting involved, consider the following.

Do you have the proper safety equipment? As we all know, confronting people for even the most minor offenses can set them off and spiral out of control. You might have your handgun, but what about handcuffs, a less-lethal weapon, body armor, and a way to summon backup?

Agency policy should also include a statement on what sort of firearms may be carried, holsters, ammunition, and standards for qualification. I’m often bewildered by departments who allow officers to merely drop a smaller handgun in their duty holster, run through the mandatory qualification course and call that training. Clearly, there is much more to the picture than that and realistic training will incorporate drawing the concealed handgun from the holster and the clothing worn by the officer on their own time.

Another element often neglected in training is how to interact with responding officers should you be involved in any sort of shootout. You might think you are emitting some type of good guy aura, but, more than likely, responding officers don’t know you from the man in the moon. All they see is a possible threat holding a gun. I am familiar with one incident when an off duty officer produced a firearm in an attempt to control a group of gangbangers inside a fast food restaurant. When uniformed officers responded, the off duty officer (who was not known to them) made a move they interpreted as threatening and he was shot and killed. Training should include how to react to responding officers so they do not appear to be a threat. In short, do exactly what they say!

And the Best Off Duty Gun Is…

When I entered law enforcement, the revolver was the near universal duty weapon and off duty, snub revolvers dominated. In the 1980s, agencies began shifting to semiautomatic pistols, prompting officers to rethink what they carried off duty. Although small pocket pistols had been around for some time, I never considered them especially reliable and the rounds they fired were not particularly impressive. As a result, my backup/off duty gun remained a snub revolver until retirement.

But, technology marches on and today’s officers have far better choices from which to select. In my estimation, the best choice for off duty is a compact, subcompact or micro version of the pistol you carry on the job. No doubt, you have invested quite a bit of time training with your duty pistol. Having a system with the same grip angle and placement of vital controls flattens out the learning curve. Industry leaders such as GLOCK^®, SIG SAUER^®, S&W^®, and Springfield Armory^® all make downsized versions of their duty pistols and these would be an ideal choice for carry in soft clothes.

Carry the biggest gun you can effectively conceal when dressed in the type of clothing you normally wear. Ideally, your off duty gun should be chambered for a service cartridge as it affords the greatest potential for stopping a determined adversary.

Carry Modes

I prefer to carry my concealed handgun on the strong side hip. This is the same familiar location where I carried my duty gun for years and it simplifies the process of getting into action quickly. Other than clearing your clothing away, the draw stroke is very similar to drawing from a duty holster. Reality often gets in the way and, depending on the weather, type of clothing, or even the social setting, I may have to make an adjustment. Truth be told, I probably have three or four different holsters for everyday carry pistols.

Strong side belt holsters can be worn either inside or outside the waistband and can be had in different styles and made from different materials. Much of this comes down to personal preference and qualities such as comfort, ride height, angle, weapon security, and the ability to effectively hide the gun come into play. Inside the waistband rigs remain the most discreet, but I remain very particular in what sort of holster I can wear in relative comfort. Appendix inside the waistband holsters have become very popular as they boast very fast weapon access and concealment qualities. I will confess to having some misgivings about placing a short trigger-action pistol down the front of my pants, but ultimately that’s your decision.

There are of course other styles such as shoulder, pocket, crossdraw, and ankle holsters, but these remain a distant second choice to a good belt holster. They may be a good choice when dressed in some types of clothing, but ready access can be problematic in extreme close quarters.

A complication we often face is how to carry a pistol in hot, humid weather or when dressed in athletic clothing. While bags aren’t nearly as efficient as a belt holster, you will have your gun on your person and, with practice, you can get into action fairly quickly. When going on my boat or for a bike ride around the neighborhood, I have grown fond of the Vertx^® Everyday Fanny Pack. This small bag doesn’t shout gun and I have affixed a KYDEX^® holster to the VELCRO^® loop panel for stability. Another possibility from the Vertx line is the Long Walks Multipurpose Waistpack which features a front storage compartment and quick access pull tab. My Long Walks bag can accommodate a larger handgun which is secured by Tactigami to the back panel and has proven to be a great companion.

Other Gear

If you carry a handgun, you need to carry spare ammunition. Although the need to reload is very remote, you certainly don’t want to be caught short. Magazine pouches for both the pocket and belt are available from a wide variety of sources. Just be advised that a magazine pouch printing through your shirt will give you away just as easily as that pistol in your holster. You may want to check out the Magna-Clip Magazine Carrier by N8 Tactical. This innovative carrier is available from Crossbreed Holsters and enables you to securely carry a spare magazine tucked inside the waistband.

When dressed in uniform, most officers have at least one lethal force option, but that all changes when off duty. A small impact weapon or OC unit is a possibility, but I doubt if most officers would bother. I make it a point to carry a small tactical flashlight which can be used for illumination purposes or personal defense like a yawara. Likewise, I doubt if many officers would burden themselves carrying handcuffs.

By all means, carry your police identification and have it someplace where you can get to it quickly. In addition to my ID folder, I clip my retired badge just forward of my holstered pistol to avoid any misunderstandings and minimize the possibility of being mistaken for a bad guy.

Final Thoughts

Today, departments generally take a neutral stance or encourage off duty carry (I fall into the latter camp). In some situations, especially minor offenses, not taking action may be the best choice, particularly if friends or family are with you and could be affected by your intervention. Still, most officers would find it hard not to act when confronted with certain crimes, especially violence against others. At the top of the list, however, is personal defense, whether against random street crime or an unsavory person from your past seeking payback.

Avoiding risky places, people and late-night situations can reduce the chances of a violent encounter, but sometimes bad luck puts you in one anyway. In those moments, being armed, using sound tactics and thinking clearly may give you the means to prevail. A firearm remains that final ring of safety.

Captain Mike Boyle served with New Jersey Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Law Enforcement, and has been active in use-of-force instruction for over 40 years. He is an instructor in multiple firearms and less-lethal disciplines and has been a police academy assistant director, instructor and rangemaster. He is the author of three books; three training videos; and hundreds of magazine articles on firearms, training and tactics. Mike served 21 years on the Board of Directors of IALEFI and is a member of NLEFIA and ILEETA. He continues to work part-time as a law enforcement training specialist and resides in Forked River, NJ.

Crime Known to Law Enforcement, 2024 presents national and subnational estimates of crime offenses and victimizations for violent and property crime. Findings in this report, the second in an annual series, are based on BJS’s and the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Estimation Program. NIBRS collects detailed information on crime incidents reported to law enforcement throughout the United States.

A copy of this publication can be found at https://tinyurl.com/yc8ewp89

The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, 2015–2024 presents rates of violent and property crime from BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the NIBRS Estimation Program’s Summary Estimates for the most recent ten year period (2015 to 2024). The NCVS measures nonfatal criminal victimizations, reported and not reported to police. The NCVS and NIBRS collections have different purposes; use different methods; and measure a set of criminal offenses which are similar, but not identical. Taken together, the information they produce provides a comprehensive understanding of crime in the United States.

A copy of this publication can be downloaded at https://tinyurl.com/4hzv6twe

Too often, law enforcement firearms training is built around passing a test instead of surviving a violent encounter.

Protection means shielding yourself from injury, danger or loss. For many people, that means buying a firearm, installing cameras or reinforcing a home. Those measures may create a sense of security, but they require limited skill. Defense is different. Defense is active. It means responding to a real attack and fighting through a violent encounter. To survive that kind of situation, a person needs realistic instruction from a qualified experienced trainer.

Most people think about protection. Far fewer think seriously about what defense requires. In my experience, defense has two sides: physical and psychological. The body must be trained, but so must the mind. Anyone who may be forced to fight, or even take a life to save one, has to confront the emotional and moral weight of that reality. Some people simply could never do it.

Over the past four decades, I have trained thousands of law enforcement officers, military personnel, military police, and legally armed citizens. Officers are required to complete a basic firearms course and qualify before they can carry a service handgun on duty. After that, they must continue to qualify, usually at least once a year, to keep carrying that weapon. What has always puzzled me is how many officers (roughly 90%) only go to the range when policy requires it. They treat lifesaving skills as an obligation instead of a priority. In my view, part of the problem is the gap between qualification and realistic training.

Qualification

A qualification course is a standardized test. Its purpose is to measure basic marksmanship and safe firearms handling with issued or approved weapons. The conditions are controlled. Targets are unobstructed, directly in front of the shooter and usually presented under ideal lighting.

A typical law enforcement qualification still resembles the old FBI Practical Pistol Course developed in the 1950s. That course involved 60 rounds fired at silhouette targets from seven, 25, 50, and 60 yards with a double-action revolver. Shooters fired from positions which included one-handed hip shooting, two-handed standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, and barricade work on both sides. At the time, it was advanced training. Today, stripped-down versions of that same structure are still used annually, biannually or quarterly, depending on the agency. But, qualification remains a repetitive marksmanship exercise. It has little to do with deploying a firearm effectively in a fast, chaotic, life-or-death encounter.

For many officers, tests create stress. That stress gets worse when they struggle with the material. Officers who have trouble qualifying often put it off or avoid it because they fear embarrassment and possibly losing their jobs. What they need is not repeated attempts until they barely pass. They need added instruction from a capable instructor who can build confidence, improve skill and replace fear with competence.

Most qualification courses have almost nothing to do with an actual gunfight. If someone is trying to kill you and you respond with a firearm to protect yourself or another person, that is a gunfight. Qualification mainly serves an administrative purpose. Agencies want documentation that an officer passed, usually with a minimum score of 70 percent. That score sheet often matters more to administrators and attorneys than whether the course actually prepared the officer for a real-world shooting. In court, shooting scores are among the first records attorneys ask to review after an officer-involved shooting.

During qualification, officers operate in what I call range mode. They follow commands from range staff step-by-step, with very little thinking required. They are told when to fire, how many rounds to fire, from what position, and when to stop. Decision-making is almost entirely removed from the process. But, on the street, there is no instructor standing beside the officer giving calm directions when a sudden, violent attack unfolds.

A score means very little in a real gunfight. Traditional qualification measures whether an officer can hit a large paper silhouette from certain distances and positions within a time limit. That is only a small part of real defense. Modern instructors and rangemasters need to build programs which balance officer safety with the threats officers are likely to face.

Competitive shooting sports such as IPSC, IDPA and Steel Challenge can help officers improve gun handling and shot placement. Those sports build useful physical skills, but they are still games. Shooters know the course in advance, can watch others run it and often get to practice it beforehand. Real-world gunfights offer none of those advantages.

Realistic Training

Law enforcement is one of the few professions which trains people to protect life through a use-of-force continuum which begins with presence and can end with deadly force. It is also a profession in which the instructor’s competence can directly affect whether officers and civilians live or die. Today’s instructors must not only teach well, but also document exactly what was taught and why because those records may later be examined in court.

The quality of a department’s training is only as strong as the people delivering it. It is rare to find one instructor who is truly competent across every discipline, but any instructor responsible for teaching weapon systems should have a deep mastery of each one. That means more than familiarity; it means being able to explain details, teach safe and effective deployment and understand each system well enough to prepare officers for actual use. Dedicated firearms instructors should constantly seek out the best training available and bring that knowledge back to their departments.

Any program which claims to be realistic and progressive must include psychological preparation. Defenders cannot be conditioned to stand still and fire on command. They must be trained to think. The mind is the most important weapon a person has.

I believe a serious firearms program should apply one standard to all sworn personnel, without exception. Officers should train with handguns, shotguns and rifles as they actually carry them on duty. Realistic training builds the mindset and control needed to manage both less-lethal and lethal encounters with discipline and competence. Survival-oriented courses which introduce physical and psychological stress should be central, not optional. Officers need training which forces movement to cover, demands realistic choices and builds the mindset needed to survive.

There are many real-world topics which should be covered and supported by relevant case law and liability standards. Law enforcement officers are expected to make reasonable decisions and agencies are expected to create policies and practices which protect the public as safely as possible. Departments are also expected to anticipate recurring risks and take reasonable steps to reduce harm. When a certain type of officer-citizen encounter can be reasonably foreseen, failing to train officers for it may be viewed as deliberate indifference. Well-trained officers are one of the strongest defenses an agency has against liability.

Documentation Matters

Whenever a firearms training course is created, several elements must be included in writing for legal reasons. If training is not documented, it may as well not have happened. The nature, scope and quality of the instruction must be recorded and its connection to job performance must be clear. Budget limitations usually do not hold up as a valid excuse for failing to train. Proper documentation shows not only that instruction took place, but that the program was relevant and appropriate for the work officers actually do.

A sound training record should include the date the course was presented, the equipment used, the purpose of the training, the objective, the performance standards, and a course narrative explaining how the training was conducted. For example, if the course teaches officers to draw safely while seated, the documentation should show the duty gear used, the expected outcome, the performance standard, and the exact scenario under which the officer performed the drill.

Psychological Effects of Elevated Heart Rate

Realistic, street-relevant training must also address how stress affects the human body. There is typically a performance zone between 115 and 145 beats per minute in which survival and combat effectiveness are at their peak. Within that range, visual reaction time, psychological response and many performance functions tend to work best.

This applies to fear- or hormone-induced increases in heart rate caused by sympathetic nervous system arousal. A heart rate elevated by physical exercise does not affect the body in exactly the same way.

Training should include instruction on the physical and psychological effects of stress and elevated heart rate. The Inverted U Model explains that increased arousal improves performance only up to a point. After that point, especially as tasks become more difficult, added stress causes performance to deteriorate rapidly.

At 60 to 80 beats per minute, heart rate is generally normal and at rest. At 115 to 145 beats per minute, survival and combat performance tend to be optimal. At around 115, fine motor skills begin to decline. By 145, complex motor skills begin to decline. At around 175, mental processing deteriorates and tunnel vision, reduced depth perception, loss of near vision, and auditory exclusion can occur. Above 175, flight, freeze, submissive behavior, involuntary voiding, and heavy reliance on gross motor skills may occur.

How strongly these effects are felt depends largely on two things: the defender’s physical condition and the quality of the training received. Mere qualification does little to prepare a person for a real fight. The most effective response to a personal attack is usually an immediate, aggressive counterattack.

Skillset Groups

The categories below are only a sample of what law enforcement officers need, but they focus on situations officers are especially likely to face during a normal tour of duty. Any technique taught should promote economy of motion and reduce wasted time in dangerous moments.

Vehicle Ambush: Officers must learn how to fight in and around patrol vehicles. Shooting through vehicle glass from the inside out requires advanced study, careful planning and strong instructor oversight. Drawing a handgun while seated and belted inside a police vehicle presents safety concerns which must be addressed before training begins. Using a vehicle as cover also raises tactical issues. A dedicated training vehicle on the range is essential.

Up Close and Personal: When an officer is attacked by someone armed with a gun or knife from within seven yards, the response has to be immediate and decisive. Officers need to master quick draws, lateral movement and accurate close-range hits.

Use of Cover and Concealment: Officers need a clear understanding of what cover and concealment are and how to use both effectively. I teach officers to move to cover whenever possible and to move laterally when it is not. Standing exposed in a direct exchange with an armed attacker is a losing choice. My standard for cover is simple: It should stop the caliber being used against me. Concealment is not the same thing, but it can still be valuable when used correctly.

Rifles and Shotguns: Long guns are often neglected because they are stored in patrol vehicles and not routinely deployed. Realistic training requires officers to practice retrieving those weapons from locked mounts and using them under realistic conditions. They also need training on what to do if the weapon malfunctions or runs dry during an incident.

Low Light Tactics: Much of police work happens in poor lighting. Yet low light training is too often ignored, despite being an obvious operational need.

One-handed Gunfighting: Officers need training in one-handed drawing, shooting, reloading, and malfunction clearing with both the dominant and support hand.

Off Duty and Backup Carry: Many agencies provide little or no off duty firearms training which is a serious gap. Officers need guidance on suitable handguns; holsters; carry methods; caliber selection; and safe, efficient draw techniques. The same principles apply to backup weapons.

Physical Condition: Agencies have a responsibility to ensure officers remain physically fit and to provide ways for them to maintain that condition.

How Often Should We Train?

Case law makes clear that firearms training for law enforcement must be continuous, relevant to job performance and properly documented. Annual, biannual or quarterly qualification is only a marksmanship test. It is not true training. For training to be considered continuous, it must be ongoing, uninterrupted and tied directly to the job.

During my 31 years as a law enforcement rangemaster, instructor and armorer, I spoke with judges in both lower and higher courts about what they considered continuous firearms training. Their view was consistent: annual, biannual and quarterly qualification did not meet that standard.

Advantages of Realistic Firearms Training

The biggest advantage of realistic firearms training is that it builds skill instead of merely measuring it. These courses are not tests. They improve officer proficiency and strengthen confidence in both the officer and the weapon carried. Over time, they can also reduce the need for remedial training, qualification days, overtime costs, and unnecessary ammunition spending which helps stretch the training budget.

In the medium-sized Southern California police department where I managed range training, along with three outside agencies, every sworn member trained monthly, from the chief of police to the newest recruit. Each year, I wrote 11 distinct firearms training courses following the documented structure described earlier. In the 12th month, I conducted an armorer’s inspection of every personally owned and department-issued firearm used on or off duty.

Street real training does not require excessive ammunition or large blocks of time. Monthly courses were also run at night for officers assigned to night shifts. Our outdoor range operated two nights per week and every sworn officer had to complete a nighttime course twice a year. Each session usually required only six to 20 rounds and about 15 minutes per officer. Once a year, officers fired their old duty ammunition on an emotionally charged course, after which I issued fresh duty ammunition.

Officers typically attended these monthly sessions while on duty which made the training more realistic. They were in body armor, carrying the same weapons and gear they used on the street, and training under duty conditions.

For a street real program to work and last, two things are essential. First, command staff must support it and take part in it. Their participation gives the training credibility and shows the entire department that firearms instruction matters. It also allows leaders to see the program’s value firsthand. The standards must apply equally to all sworn personnel. Second, the rangemaster and instructors must be competent and committed. The quality of a department’s training will never exceed the quality of the people delivering it.

The greatest liability for any law enforcement agency is the improper use of physical force by its officers. Yet despite that reality, agencies often devote too little time to use-of-force training. Too often, training is the first thing cut when budgets tighten. Law enforcement has relied on qualification, with only modest results, for decades. I believe it is time to move beyond that model and embrace truly street real firearms training.

Larry J. Nichols retired in 2011 after 27 years of honorable service as Senior Rangemaster and Armorer for the Burbank, California, Police Department. Before that, he spent five years with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in California as a Firearms Instructor and Armorer.

He brings more than 40 years of experience as a professional firearms instructor, including over 31 years as a law enforcement instructor in lethal, less-lethal and less-than-lethal force. He is widely recognized internationally for his innovative and pioneering work in designing, developing and implementing realistic firearms training programs for law enforcement.

Patrol vehicles don’t live the same life as civilian cars. For many agencies, that makes hybrids less of a compromise and more of a practical fleet tool.

One of the most encouraging things for any writer is learning that people are actually reading their work and, better yet, putting some of those ideas to use.

I have been writing about police vehicles and, more recently, the EV debate, for years. During that time, the discussion has often generated more heat than light. Industry experts have argued with environmental advocates; fleet vendors have promoted their preferred solutions; and public officials have looked for ways to modernize. Nearly everyone seems to have an opinion about what law enforcement should drive next.

Too often, though, the people with the most day-to-day experience are the ones least consulted: the officers who spend entire shifts inside these vehicles and the fleet professionals responsible for keeping them in service. That’s why Police and Security News hired me over 25 years ago – I’m that guy. 

After driving and wrecking police cars, chasing scores of violators, making countless emergency runs, being stranded in them with flat tires and stalled engines, locked out and pissed off – I’m that guy. I spent 27 years in assigned city, county and federal cars, marked, unmarked and undercover, plus paddy wagons, most with ten to 200,000 miles on the odometers. 

I was solo most of the time, but, sometimes, I shared them with partners, recruits, scared kids, lost dogs, assholes, vagrants, crooks, women in labor, pukers and spitters, bosses, visitors, and guests – I’m that guy. 

After retiring, I started buying my own police cars and, for another 30 years, I bought them, sold them, repaired and restored them, led parades in them, upfitted and stripped them, drove them in movies and commercials, test drove new ones, and wrote articles and books about them all – yep, I’m that guy and I’m here to help. That perspective matters. A police vehicle is not an abstract policy choice; it is a workspace; a refuge; a response platform; and, at times, a lifeline.

That experience has shaped the way I look at every new platform and every new trend. My first concern has always been officer safety. Close behind that are comfort, visibility, ergonomics, ease of entry and exit, reliability, and anything else which affects an officer’s ability to get through an eight, ten or 12 hour shift safely and effectively. A good fleet program should do more than buy vehicles; it should help keep officers safe, properly equipped and on the road.

Why Hybrids Fit Police Work

That is why the conversation around police electrification deserves a practical, mission first approach.

By almost any measure, the police vehicle has become one of the most demanding pieces of equipment in local government. It is a patrol unit, a mobile office, a communications platform, a climate-controlled shelter, and often the first safe place an officer has between calls. It may spend hours at a scene with radios, computers, cameras, emergency lighting, and HVAC systems running, then jump straight into urgent response mode without warning. That is why police fleet decisions should never be treated like ordinary consumer vehicle purchases. They are operational decisions first. They are budget decisions second. Only then do they become technology decisions which is why the current electrification debate matters.

For many departments, the question is no longer whether they should modernize their fleet. The question is how to do it without creating new problems in the field. Battery Electric Vehicles (EVs) may fit some municipal roles well, but, for frontline police work, hybrids deserve a much closer look than they often get. In fact, the strongest case for hybrids in law enforcement has less to do with environmental messaging and more to do with duty cycle, infrastructure, uptime, and risk management.

The First Reason Is Idling

Police vehicles do not just drive around. They sit and work. A US Department of Energy backed emergency vehicle resource cites a police cruiser study finding that the cruiser idled 60 percent of the time during normal operation and used 21 percent of its total fuel while parked. That is a striking number, but anyone in fleet already understands the basic reality behind it. Officers idle at crash scenes, on traffic details, during report writing, while managing calls, and while keeping mission-critical electronics powered. A conventional powertrain burns fuel to support all of that stationary work. A hybrid can reduce some of that waste without changing the patrol mission itself – that is where hybrids begin to make real sense.

A hybrid gives an agency some of the fuel-saving benefit associated with electrification without forcing the department to depend entirely on charging access or redesign its operations around plug-in downtime. It also preserves a familiar refueling model which matters when patrol coverage, shift turnover and emergency deployment are unpredictable. For agencies which cannot afford to gamble on charging gaps, limited dwell time or infrastructure bottlenecks, that middle ground can be very attractive.

In the police market, this is not theoretical. Ford^® states that its 2025 Police Interceptor^® Utility Hybrid AWD is the only pursuit-rated hybrid police utility vehicle. That detail is important – not because it settles the whole debate, but because it shows the market has recognized a real patrol use case for hybrids rather than treating them as an administrative fleet afterthought.

The Case for a Smarter Fleet Mix

Many agencies are tempted to frame procurement as a one or the other choice: gas or electric, old-school or future ready. That is the wrong framework. Smarter fleet strategy usually means assigning different types of vehicles to different jobs. Administrative units, inspectors, parking enforcement, or other predictable short route assignments may be strong candidates for battery-electric vehicles. Patrol, however, is less forgiving. Patrol vehicles carry heavier accessory loads, face wider route uncertainty and often need immediate turnaround with minimal downtime. For this kind of work, hybrids can be a good transition vehicle, but they may also be the best long-term choice for some assignments.

That distinction matters for administrators because it changes the question from “What should we replace everything with?” to “Which powertrain best fits this mission profile?”

It also changes the budgeting discussion.

Fleet managers know that the sticker price never tells the full story. The real cost sits in fuel, maintenance, upfitting, downtime, training, facility readiness, and replacement planning. Hybrids may not win every line item, but they can reduce exposure in one of the most expensive and unpredictable parts of policing: keeping patrol units available and productive through long, equipment-heavy shifts. That is especially true for agencies which want lower fuel use, but are not yet prepared to build out enough charging capacity to support a full patrol transition.

Buy for the Street, Not the Brochure

There is another reason this discussion deserves more discipline than it usually gets: officer workload.

Modern patrol vehicles are packed with technology and not all of it makes driving easier. Officers already manage radios, mobile data terminals, camera systems, emergency and environmental controls, scene awareness, and the public around them, often while responding under stress. Against that backdrop, vehicle interface design matters. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says distracted driving killed 3,208 people and injured an estimated 315,167 people in 2024. Those numbers cover all drivers, not just police, but the point still applies: Every extra screen, menu and in-car task can make it harder for officers to stay focused on driving. That means procurement should go beyond horsepower charts, fuel economy claims and vendor presentations.

Agencies should also consider whether the vehicle is intuitive under stress; whether core controls can be operated quickly and correctly; whether the powertrain supports prolonged scene work without unnecessary fuel burn; whether the platform still makes sense after the radio shop, cage installer and patrol division have all added their requirements; and whether the vehicle helps reduce operational friction rather than simply introducing a new version of it.

That is where some fleet conversations still go wrong. They focus too heavily on what is new and not enough on what is useful. In law enforcement, useful should always win.

Hybrids are not a silver bullet. They will not replace every patrol car, solve every fuel problem or fit every geography. Rural agencies, specialized units, towing-heavy assignments, and departments with unique terrain or climate demands may come to different conclusions. But, for many city and suburban fleets, hybrids deserve serious consideration because they match the real-world pattern of police work better than broad public arguments about “going electric” usually acknowledge.

The Practical Choice

The most effective fleet policy is rarely ideological. It is practical, segmented and mission-driven. For departments trying to reduce fuel costs, limit idle waste, modernize responsibly, and avoid outrunning their infrastructure, hybrids may not be the fallback option. They may be the smart option.

Sergeant Post always appreciates your opinions, comments and suggestions. He can be reached at kopkars@arkansas.net

Findings in the report are based on BJS’s 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Conducted periodically since 1987, the LEMAS survey collects data on a range of topics from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose state and local law enforcement agencies. General-purpose agencies include municipal, county and regional police departments; most sheriffs’ offices; and primary state and highway patrol agencies.

Visit https://tinyurl.com/u24vrav3 to download a copy of the report.

Copyright 2026. A.R.R.

Video can persuade, but it cannot capture everything. Technical limits, perception gaps and framing effects make camera evidence far less objective than many people assume.

 “Video doesn’t lie.”

“You can’t cross‑examine a camera.”

These claims still echo through courtrooms, police briefings and public debate, even though they sometimes collapse under scientific scrutiny. Peer‑reviewed research has repeatedly shown that such confidence is misplaced, yet the myths endure, an expression of what scholars call the God’s‑eye Fallacy. It is the belief that video offers an all‑knowing, perfectly objective view of events.

This myth traces back to ancient philosophy’s notion of a perfect, disembodied vantage point; in short, one which exists outside human perception. Obviously, no such viewpoint exists. Even in a world flooded with video, many people, including investigators, lawyers and jurors, still treat recordings as if they reveal the full truth, often overlooking the limits of what a camera can actually capture.

The consequences are real: wrongful convictions, unjust acquittals and the systemic erosion of the standards of evidence which protect the innocent. In short, the assumption that video is truth is one of the most dangerous in the justice system.

Objective Truth Fallacy

Historically, the expectation that cameras of any kind provide objective truth is not new. Alphonse Bertillon, the originator of the modern crime scene photograph, sought to achieve such objectivity by positioning the camera at the center of a room, looking straight down onto the scene thus creating what became known as the “God’s-eye view” photograph. Even this ingenious technique was imperfect and was never universally adopted because the camera’s fixed position alone could not eliminate all distortion or blind spots.

Per Axon (2024), video evidence is collected in approximately 85% of all criminal investigations and 94% of investigators report challenges caused by the digitization of that data. The increased adoption of body-worn and surveillance cameras has paradoxically made this fallacy worse because the more video people see, the more natural it feels to trust it.

Technical Realities: Undermining Objectivity

There is a formidable list of technical limitations which affect every video recording which is ignored by the God’s-eye Fallacy. These scientific limitations include:

• Compression and Lost Information;
• Camera Angle and Perspective Distortion;
• Frame Rate and Temporal Gaps; and
• Lighting, Resolution and Identification Failures.

Compression is a process which removes high-frequency detail so the viewers can get a reasonable picture of events, but, often, critical details are lost. In addition to removing information, compression can actively change how the event looks to the viewer. For example, in a correctional environment when an inmate and an officer are seen facing one another, a punch thrown by one of them may disappear between two recorded frames, making the other person’s response look sudden and unjustified. Compression may also blur a smaller object such as a phone or a wallet so it resembles something else. This distortion can create ambiguity which can become important when a jury is deciding an officer’s response to what (s)he perceived at the time force was used.

Video camera lenses are often wide-angle and, because they are usually not mounted at an officer’s eye level, but on the chest area, they can distort distances because they are using a fixed, wide-angle lens. Hence, what appears to be 20 feet away on the video footage may in fact be less than ten feet away. This perception challenge can have a huge outcome on disciplinary proceedings, criminal prosecutions and/or civil proceedings.

Remember: One camera only tells one story and it may not include what the officer saw or physically felt in the form of subject resistance. Like people, different perspectives can tell different stories about the same event.

Frame rate and temporal gaps are important variables for investigators, jurors and others to consider. For example, if a video camera is recording at ten frames per second, that amounts to one image every one-tenth of a second. There are gaps between the recordings and important actions or objects may not be seen on the raw recording. Video cameras can vary in frame rate specifications (e.g., dashcams, body-worn cameras, smartphones), with each one creating its own recording gaps. Recall the North Charleston shooting of a driver by an officer who said they struggled over the officer’s TASER^® before the man ran away and the officer shot him in the back. Initial smartphone video footage did not show the struggle, but after forensic video enhancement, the struggle was captured and proved that it did occur.

In Cunningham v. Shelby County (2021), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the use of frame-by-frame “screen shots” to judge an officer’s use of deadly force. The court recognized that dissecting a high-speed encounter through leisurely, stop-action viewing creates an “artificial clarity” which the officer on the street never had. By banning this practice, the court sent a clear message: Officers must be judged by what they faced in real time, not by the 20/20 hindsight of a paused video.

Dilan Seckiner and her colleagues (2018) observed that low resolution, poor lighting, shadows, glare, and digital noise can obscure critical details. Sometimes, video enhancement can recover details, but it cannot create information which was never recorded.

Humans Often Misread What They See

The God’s-eye Fallacy operates not just at the level of the camera, but at the level of the viewer’s brain. Even when the footage is technically sound, human interpretation introduces its own layer of error. In a landmark study by Granot, Balcetis, Feigenson, and Tyler (2018), they argue that both law and legal understandings of video as “objective” constitute a fundamental misapprehension. Drawing on contemporary research on visual attention and perception, they demonstrate that people over believe video – assuming their interpretations are more accurate and complete than they are and failing to discriminate inaccurate from accurate interpretations.

This study introduced the concept of naive realism as applied to video evidence. In short, one’s own subjective experience of watching a video mirrors the objective reality it depicts. A viewer’s perceptions (which includes you and us) may be biased which impacts objectivity and may make it more difficult to acknowledge or resolve disagreements about what took place. Bias is not limited to humans.

Camera perspective bias is also a reality. A foundational study by Lassiter and Irvine (1986) demonstrated that viewers of a mock videotaped interrogation judged the subject’s confession as significantly coerced when the camera focuses on the subject, rather than equally on both the subject and the interrogator, even though the conditions remained the same in both recordings. Lassiter and colleagues (2009) confirmed that camera perspective bias is not a limited laboratory phenomenon. It is found in authentic, real-world videotaped interrogations.

When you have a low-resolution video, the danger isn’t that the software is maliciously making things up; the danger is a jury believing that zooming in magically uncovers hidden details. Standard resizing tools mathematically guess and insert new pixels to make the image bigger – a process called interpolation. This exact issue exploded in the State of Wisconsin v. Kyle H. Rittenhouse (2021) trial, where the defense successfully stopped the prosecutor from using an iPad^®’s “pinch-to-zoom” feature. Because the prosecutor couldn’t explain to the jury how the Apple^® software was actively adding pixels to the footage, the judge shut it down.

Verbal Framing Corrupts Visual Interpretation

A 2024 study looked at the effect of a prosecutor’s and defense counsel’s opening statements on mock jurors’ interpretation of identical body-worn camera footage. Those jurors, who were told the civilian held a weapon, rated the officers’ actions as significantly more appropriate than those who were told the civilian was holding a cell phone or nothing at all. Everyone watched the exact same footage. Park and his colleagues’ study found that video recordings may be used to build consensus, but deeper cognitive biases must also be overcome.

Having BWC footage doesn’t mean viewers are immune to bad information. In fact, what people read before they watch a video can literally change what they think they see. Jones, Crozier and Strange (2017) found when participants read a false police report claiming a suspect had a knife and attacked an officer, and then watched BWC footage which showed absolutely no such thing, amazingly, many viewers allowed the false report to override their own eyes, incorporating the “ghost” knife and attack into their memory of the video. This proves that external context and framing can hijack the objective reality of the screen.

Video Lowers the Burden of Proof

In a classic mock jury study, Kassin and Garfield (1991) found that a graphic crime scene video only lowered the jurors’ standard of proof if it specifically depicted the exact crime on trial. When jurors watched a violent, but unrelated, video, their standards didn’t drop. In short, just tossing a video on the screen isn’t enough to bias a jury on its own; the context matters.

A Landmark Study

Nicholas P. Murray, a professor in the Department of Kinesiology at East Carolina University, along with his colleagues (2024) studied 44 active duty police officers, each of whom wore a chest-mounted GoPro camera and a pair of eye tracking glasses which recorded precisely where the officers’ eyes were focused at every moment of a simulated use-of-force scenario. The officers dealt with 80.5% of all predetermined critical incidents in the scenario, but the body-worn cameras only captured 66.2% of those same incidents.

Most compelling was that officers saw the suspect get a weapon approximately 75% of the time, but the body-worn camera only recorded it approximately 49% of the time. Similarly, officers saw the suspect first approximately 80% of the time, but the body-worn camera only captured the shooting 46% of the time.

The study concluded that body-worn camera footage may give people, including jurors, an inaccurate understanding of the information an officer considered when taking action. This discrepancy is not deception, but rather structural features of today’s technology.

Summary

The God’s-eye Fallacy is not abstract – it shapes how officers, administrators, the public, judges, and jurors interpret events. Lawson et al. (2019) found that video recordings ranked as the fourth most influential form of evidence, outranking bodily fluids, gunshot residue, forensic expert testimony, and even traditional eyewitness accounts. That reliance is troubling given the well‑documented limits of video. Jurors’ expectations may also be distorted by the “CSI Effect” which fuels an unrealistic belief in forensic certainty. In some cases, no video exists at all, yet one advocacy group has argued that absent footage, an officer should automatically be disbelieved or convicted. While early cases like Scott v. Harris (2007) suggested courts placed near blind faith in video, judges are increasingly recognizing the scientific realities behind what cameras can – and cannot – show.

While space prohibits examining responsible forensic video protocols and procedures, Axon (2024) noted that 70% of sworn officers interact with video evidence and 47% have minimal to no training in its analysis. Interaction with video is growing because more body-worn, surveillance and smartphone video footage is recorded each day. It is interesting to note that the more video analysis training an investigator receives translates into his or her becoming more concerned about misinterpreting it. Be careful because the outcome can be career ending or worse.

John G. Peters, Jr., Ph.D., serves as president of the internationally recognized training firm, Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc., and has judicially qualified as an expert witness in international, federal and state courts. He is also a graduate of the Applied Generative AI program at Johns Hopkins University, AI Agentic at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Artificial Intelligence for Business, MIT Sloan School and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. A former police administrator, deputy sheriff and officer, he is a frequent contributor to Police and Security News.

John Black, D.B.A., is a retired command staff investigator and a retired Army Special Forces Command Sergeant Major. An experienced expert witness and forensic video analyst, he is a graduate of several systems thinking and artificial intelligence programs, including the MIT Sloan School.

External vest carriers can reduce duty belt weight, improve comfort and keep critical gear within reach – but only when the vest and belt are set up with purpose.

When I started out, my duty belt included my service revolver, a holster, a dual dump pouch for spare ammunition, and a handcuff case. This whole rig was secured to my inner garrison belt by a trio of keepers and a baton ring and I felt I was well equipped to handle any emergency which came my way. Although I was issued a portable radio, it was nearly useless in my remote patrol area and I only carried it when another officer might be nearby.

That has changed dramatically and officers now carry more gear than ever, including an aerosol restraint, a body-worn camera, a TASER^®, an expandable baton, a radio, a tourniquet, extra magazines for their pistol and rifle, and a flashlight. The combined weight of these accessories can bring the rig to a weight of 25 pounds or so. Not only does this compromise the comfort factor over a long day, but the long-term effects on the lower back come at a huge price. 

Not only is weight a factor, but there is just so much real estate on the duty belt to place critical gear. Hard items placed between the three o’clock and nine o’clock positions on the rear of the belt can cause serious injury in a fall. Gear around the back can also be a big handicap in a ground fighting situation. This leaves one with roughly half a duty belt to affix critical gear. This might not be a major issue for a good-sized individual, but it can be problematic for slim and small stature officers.

Essential gear must be carried, so we need a more effective way to have it on our person. One viable solution is an external vest carrier which holds soft armor panels while keeping essential safety equipment immediately accessible. As with many recent innovations, careful consideration must be given in determining which items are best placed on the vest and which should remain on the belt. Let’s take a look and see what sort of advantages an external vest carrier might offer.

Take a Load Off

My first experience with an external vest carrier came in the early 1990s, when I was issued a quilted nylon carrier for my body armor panels. It was intended for winter wear and many officers preferred it over a concealed vest because it was cooler and more comfortable over the uniform shirt. I stayed with the traditional under-the-shirt carrier until retirement. Another spin-off was the external vest carrier which matched the color of the uniform shirt. To the casual observer, it gave the appearance of a regular police uniform and was unlikely to draw any undue attention.

But, that was then and this is now. Over the last several years, the uniforms worn by patrol officers have gotten a bit more practical. BDUs, boots based on athletic shoes and synthetic duty gear have replaced neckties, oxfords, dress pants, and leather for everyday patrol wear. Here in the Northeast, more departments are adopting external vest carriers for patrol officers and the trend continues to grow.

Today, the most popular style of external vest carriers have a more business-like, practical appearance and feature MOLLE loops and integrated storage compartments. This allows officers to get gear off the belt and up on the vest. It may not sound like a big deal, but the cumulative weight of even small accessories adds up. The fact that critical gear is now within easy reach also pays dividends.

Is this style of vest more comfortable? Comfort is a subjective quality; however, most officers who use an external vest carrier feel that it holds an advantage over a concealed vest. The fact that an officer can make adjustments without a great deal of difficulty over a long shift is another advantage. Ballistic protection is afforded with either Level II or IIIA panels and some vests will even support a rifle plate. Getting some weight off the belt, enhanced comfort and greater safety are indeed very positive attributes.

Do This, Don’t Do That!

Exactly what gear should we put on the vest and what should stay on the belt? An external vest carrier does not make the duty belt obsolete and there is, in fact, gear which needs to stay right there on the belt. For patrol officers, the holstered pistol belongs on the belt. While some tactical operators may have reason to mount a sidearm on the vest, the duty belt remains the best place for patrol carry. I also feel the pouch containing spare pistol magazines should also remain on the belt. If there is a need to reload, a properly situated magazine pouch on the belt is the faster option. In addition to the pistol and extra magazines, I personally prefer placing the expandable baton and a single cuff case on the belt as well, for quicker access.

Perhaps the most common accessory well suited for the vest is the portable radio. Modern portables are lighter, more reliable and let officers communicate instantly away from their vehicles, unlike the brick I was given years ago. Other gear could include a body cam, a chemical agent, a tourniquet, emergency first aid gear, a tactical flashlight, a folding knife, or a small notebook. How about rifle magazines? One of the concerns many administrators have is that external vests have a military appearance and may ruffle some feathers. Would visible rifle magazines do that? How about a TASER? Ultimately, it all depends on the community you patrol.

On the downside, wearing an external vest carrier with gear affixed will result in slightly reduced agility. This can be minimized by placing gear where it is accessible, but does not interfere with your range of motion. This is crucial when using empty-hand control during an arrest.

As a trainer, one concern I had was a support hand draw in the event of an injury. Years ago, I attended a class put on by members of LAPD SWAT officers. They reported that a significant number of officers involved in a gunfight are struck in the dominant side hand, arm or shoulder. Removing a firearm from a Level III retention holster with the support hand is already challenging; officers using external vest carriers should ensure they regularly practice this skill. After I ran our troops through a live fire exercise, more than one officer changed the location of his/her gear on the vest.

Another issue users of external vest carriers may have to contend with is shooting a rifle from the prone position. What I’ve noted with some of our officers is that the butt of the rifle slides off the shoulder when wearing the external vest when firing from prone. Depending on the terrain, one could also try to shoot from the Hawkins prone position when you are on top of the buttstock instead of pulling it tight into the shoulder pocket. This is not only a very stable position, but it makes you a much smaller target than when firing from conventional prone.

Duty Belts Still Matter

If the goal is to lighten the load, you need to take a hard look at the gear you are carrying on the belt. Considering some support gear can be carried off the belt, I have taken the minimalist approach and only my holster, dual magazine pouch and cuff case remain on the belt. If I were still an active patrol officer, I would probably add my expandable baton to the mix as well.

Recently, I checked out Point Blank’s Patrol Belt System which pairs with a low profile stiffened inner belt and eliminates the need for extra hardware. Available in 1.75 inch or 2.25 inch widths, it features a hybrid aluminum/steel Cobra buckle, Snap Track sizing, micro adjustment, and included Tac-Wraps for quick gear attachment and relocation. To fill out the package, I added a Point Blank Double Mag Pouch and a Handcuff Pouch along with a Level II VALOR^® Duty Holster from Blade-Tech. To date, I’m very impressed with the VALOR Holster and putting this rig together gave me a significantly lighter package than I had been utilizing previously. I especially like the fact that the hook and loop combination of the duty belt and inner belt eliminates the need for keepers and prevents the whole rig from shifting around.

Making It All Work

A properly configured duty belt and external vest carrier keep vital tools accessible; improve comfort and focus during long shifts; distribute weight more effectively; and can increase an officer’s margin of safety. Traditions die hard in American law enforcement and some executives have an issue with officers going afield with something other than a traditional police uniform. I get that and sensitivities will vary from one community to the next. But, it’s quite clear that external vest carriers have much to offer. As long as officers are recognizable as public servants and not some spec ops warrior about to jump out of the back of a C-130, I don’t have a problem with it. Agency affiliation and name tags should be visible. I would also suggest that, if your department doesn’t have a written policy on external vest carriers, you need to get one together.

For the hard knocks of patrol, external vest carriers have much to offer. A well-thought-out system between the external vest carrier and duty belt allows officers to carry vital gear in comfort and enhances not only their safety, but the safety of the members of the community they serve.

Captain Mike Boyle served with New Jersey Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Law Enforcement, and has been active in use-of-force instruction for over 40 years. He is an instructor in multiple firearms and less-lethal disciplines and has been a police academy assistant director, instructor and rangemaster. He is the author of three books; three training videos; and hundreds of magazine articles on firearms, training and tactics. Mike served 21 years on the Board of Directors of IALEFI and is a member of NLEFIA and ILEETA. He continues to work part-time as a law enforcement training specialist and resides in Forked River, NJ.