How would you respond to this inquiry from a Canadian officer, Cst. Jeff Forster, a four-year member of the Morden (Manitoba) Police Service?
“While conducting traffic stops I’ve always been taught that if a subject gets out of his vehicle before you get out of your cruiser it’s best if you order him back into his vehicle. Recently some instructors advised us that you should not order a subject to get back in his vehicle as he may retrieve a weapon and return to attack you. I believe both ways have merit, but I’m not sure which is safer. What do you think?”
I put Forster’s question to six officer-survival trainers whose opinions I respect. Based on your own experiences and tactical savvy, do you agree or disagree with their answers?
Read the following, and comment below:
Jim Glennon, lead instructor, Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar, and a former lieutenant on a municipal department in Chicago’s suburbs:
There is no right or wrong answer here. Nothing is 100 percent. But in my experience, if they get out on their own then they stay out. I don’t see any real tactical advantage of having them in the car, where it’s easier for them to conceal their hands.
If bad guys are surprised by being stopped, their first reaction may be to distance themselves from any contraband such as drugs, stolen items, even weapons they have in the car. People are in a constant state of communication and in this case an immediate exit says: “I don’t want the interaction to take place outside of my windows ’cuz something is in there I don’t want you to see.” So they try to force the cop/motorist interaction to happen where you can’t peek in and see anything.
In the seminar, we critique several dash-cam videos that show people once out going back and retrieving a gun after sizing up the officer and the overall situation. Just be aware, if they get out quickly, there is a reason.
Dave Grossi, litigation consultant on police tactical issues now based in Florida and a former instructor for the Street Survival Seminar:
I think it’s always best to order the subject to return to his vehicle at the beginning of a traffic stop. Four reasons:
1. It’s a test of compliance. If the guy refuses, you kind of know what you’re getting into. If he complies, great.
2. You want to conduct your stop on your timeframe. On an investigatory stop, for instance, you want him confined while you await your “plate check/stolen vehicle” request. You may want to even get an NCIC criminal history check if the car and driver both appear hinky. These data checks may not be back by the time the stop has been made and the driver starts back to you.
3. If you don’t tell the driver to return to his car, he may think he can expedite the stop (and help you out) by getting his license out and start reaching back for his wallet. That will shoot your awareness level up to orange and may unnecessarily escalate the situation. It has happened to me more than once.
4. If you don’t order him back to his car, your option of conducting a passenger-side approach is gone. And on many vehicle stops, especially at night, that kind of approach may be your safest — and most revealing — option.
Dave Spaulding, former sheriff’s lieutenant and firearms trainer in Ohio and a popular ILEETA instructor on winning armed confrontations:
What difference does it make?! They could have a gun on their initial move from the vehicle as well! I would have them return to their vehicle and STAY THERE.
At night, this gives you a superior position for further assessment in that you are behind your spotlight and take-down lights and have the cover of your cruiser. A police vehicle can be fantastic cover when used lengthwise.
Changing position to the rear of your car, especially at night, can make an attack all the more difficult. It’s is all about awareness and willingness. You are more aware of what they are doing while they have difficulty keeping tabs on you. Imagine the surprise a suspect will have if he attacks the driver side of your cruiser only to find you are not there!
In addition, if they are ordered back to their car and then get out and approach again, that is far more telling than an initial approach alone. I believe a solid argument could be made for the second movement from their vehicle being reason to believe that a potentially hostile act is about to take place, since due warning was given and ignored. Thus an increased level of force could potentially be used.
Wayne Corcoran, retired sergeant from Phoenix (Ariz.) PD and a survival trainer for police and civilians for 45 years:
Either option can be trouble. If the subject goes back to the car, accesses a gun, and shoots you, you were wrong. If you keep him out and he kicks your ass, takes your gun, and shoots you, then you were wrong. There is no clear, guaranteed answer for every officer every time.
On a vehicle stop, a motorist should roll the window down, turn the engine off, put their hands on the steering wheel, and do what the officer tells them to do. When they’re not doing that, it’s a danger cue for you.
Once a driver gets out of a car, you essentially have a pedestrian, and how you control that individual depends on how you assess his intent and his capabilities versus your capabilities. Who does it look like you’re dealing with: a frail old man who’s never had a ticket before and is confused about what to do…or a guy who’s killed four cops in a coffee shop in Seattle?
If he’s a lot bigger than you, you may feel safer with him back in his car. Back up your unit to gain some distance, call for backup, and tell him where you want him to go. If he doesn’t comply, that ratchets up what you need to do. You’ve got a baton, pepper spray, a Taser, and a gun on your belt. Figure out which one you’re going to have to use to control the situation if things go south.
Robert Willis, law enforcement instructor at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, a sheriff’s deputy, and a former Street Survival instructor:
Ordering a subject back to his car has its up side and its down side. It does contain him but it may put him near contraband he can destroy or a weapon he can utilize — and it puts him behind the wheel of a vehicle he can use to attack you or to flee in. I testified as an expert witness in a case in Washington State in which a drunk was ordered back into his pickup truck. He took off and 11 seconds later crossed the centerline and smashed into an oncoming car containing the young mother of two small children. She’s now a paraplegic for life.
Understand that you can’t be clairvoyant. This is just an example of something that can happen.
Consider this as an alternative you may be comfortable with: If the driver exits, back up to gain space and quickly move to the rear of your vehicle. Command him (from the rear or the passenger side) to show you his hands and walk to the front of your squad car. Have him stand with his knees firmly against your front license plate and tell him to keep his hands in sight. Keep him there until backup arrives. If you must work alone, you are at least able to keep some barrier between you and him when you talk with him.
His degree of compliance is a threat assessment for you. If he’s not compliant, it’s probably desirable to have your gun pointed at him or at least out.
When backup arrives, be sure at least to pat the individual down and to clear his vehicle visually before permitting him back inside.
Gary Monreal, patrol officer for New Berlin (Wisc.) PD, unified tactics instructor for the State of Wisconsin, and adjunct instructor for Team One Network:
There are no guarantees in law enforcement and we “play the odds” with tactics, based on past practice, past experience, and what we are seeing at any given moment.
If an officer is to “play the odds” regarding Cst. Forster’s question, we would need to look at how many stops are conducted where the subject stays in the vehicle, then how many of those resulted in the officer being attacked. Then look at the number of stops where the driver is out of the vehicle and how many of those ended with an attack. And finally, how many stops occurred where the subject was allowed back in a vehicle and how many attacks occurred from that.
I think when you look at the ratio of each, the percentage of assaults would be greater with the subject standing outside of the vehicle. That is enough for me to favor the subject being in the vehicle if possible, based on the circumstances.
Some departments want the driver to exit to separate him from a danger unknown to the officer. Hopefully the officer can then decipher the subject’s body language and posture to determine any early warning signs of attack. In some states, for example, long guns can be carried in vehicular gun racks. So a cop making a stop wants the driver out and away from the obvious gun. This make sense, plus it allows you to evaluate the exiting driver for anything “out of the norm”; i.e., jackets on warm days, baggy clothing that looks wrong, or waistbands purposely hidden.
On the other hand, if you instruct a person to return to the vehicle, their level of compliance can be quickly determined by their cooperativeness. We also know that an officer cannot manage two different areas of responsibility safely at the same time. By ordering the driver back into the vehicle, you keep the entire passenger compartment as one area of responsibility.
Some might argue that human nature directs a combative person to a standing position, giving them a greater sense that they could successfully carry out an attack. By allowing a potentially combative person to stand you may actually be encouraging him to resist, whereas a subject kept at a lower level (like a seated driver) may not feel so empowered.
Limiting their ability to escalate should be our priority. How do we best do that? Control their hands, control their movement, control their environment. When I’m suspicious or uneasy on a stop, all hands inside the vehicle are placed on the steering wheel, dashboard, or on the back of the seat in front of them for passengers seated in the rear.
With all that said, have I ever ordered a subject from their vehicle? Yes, I have. Is that the norm? No, it is not. But we need to remember that there is no one way of conducting vehicle stops.
Treat every stop as a brand new event and look for that one thing that is different about each. Once you see that one thing, then let your training and experience dictate how you proceed so that you will go home at the end of your shift.
I would hope in the future that instructors would not limit officers’ responses but rather show pros and cons of a variety of ways and let each officer decide on his or her best option, depending on the situation at hand.
