Editor’s Note: In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. This week’s essay comes from PoliceOne Members John Thornburg, a Sergeant with the Monterey County (Calif.) Sheriff’s Office and Ed Flosi, a Sergeant with the San Jose (Calif.) Police Department. Do you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members? Send us an e-mail with your story.
 |
By John Thornburg and Ed Flosi
Officer Davis is dispatched to a report of a suspicious person in a convenience store. Officer Davis arrives and is told by the reporting party that a male is standing in the store, refusing to leave, but is not armed. Officer Davis contacts the suspect and asks him to step outside. The suspect says he is not interested in leaving the store and tells the officer “no.” Officer Davis repeats his request for the suspect to leave, again the suspect states he doesn’t want to leave. The suspect is not armed, displays no pre-assaultive behaviors, but won’t comply with Officer Davis’ request to leave the store. Officer Davis again repeats his request for the suspect to leave with the same result. This is repeated again and again and again with the same result.
In another situation, an officer lawfully detains and eventually develops probable cause to arrest a suspect while conducting a burglary investigation. During the initial detention, the suspect is not handcuffed and is standing about six feet away from the contact officer. The contact officer decides it is time to place the suspect in handcuffs and asks the suspect to turn around and place his hands behind his back. The suspect does not comply and the same cycle described above is played out again.
All of us have either seen, been a part of or at least heard of this type of call or sequence of events where, (1) a suspect is contacted, and (2) there is a lawful reason to contact the suspect, but they will not comply with verbal commands. The officer is stuck in a loop or sounds like a “broken record” repeating requests or commands over and over again. At times this continues to the point where the suspect and officer become more and more frustrated. This lack of action on the part of the officer could possibly lead to a higher quantum of force than what would have been needed if the officer had just exerted some authority earlier in the situation or possibly could lead to a use of force that may not be reasonable.
Origins
This scenario happens on the streets and can be very common in an academy setting. To give officers (recruit or in-service) a tool to handle this sequence of events, “Ask, Tell, Make” (ATM) came into existence. In the academy setting, recruit officers go through scenarios and ask or tell a role player what to do. The role player refuses and the recruit officer repeats themselves over and over again. The recruit, role player, and staff become more and more frustrated. ATM has shown to be a good fix for this issue.
In the coming paragraphs ATM will be described in detail but before that, let’s get the naysayer’s points out of the way. First, some will say officers should “talk more nicely” until the suspect eventually complies. These folks will also say “time is on our side” so we can talk to the suspect forever. They believe it is possible to talk anyone into handcuffs. Indeed, some suspects will completely obey every command given and the arrest process will go exactly as it did in the mat room when the officer first learned how to handcuff a bad guy. Those of us with real law enforcement experience know that we do not operate in a perfect world. There are suspects out there that; (1) are highly intoxicated or under the influence of some chemical, (2) have an indignant attitude (trying to make a scene for others), or (3) simply do not understand what is being asked of them. It is when dealing with those that will not or cannot comply that a plan is needed to move the process along.
Others are simply ignorant of the true meaning of ATM and therefore have mislabeled it as “Ask, Tell, Tase,” implying that the use of an electronic weapon is always the recommended solution. This person clearly does not understand the Constitutional limitations on an officer’s use of force if they believe there is a one size fits all solution to all situations. This could not be further from the true meaning of ATM, as the “Make” portion is not a predetermined plan, but rather a mindset.
Ask
The first step is going to be “Ask.” The officer simply asks the subject to do whatever is lawfully required by the officer. The tone and manner this is presented is up to the circumstances and the officer. We completely agree with the idea of talking nice to suspects in order to gain their cooperation. There is no reason to swear at or demean the suspect if you want to gain their cooperation. The key is to talk nice but with command presence. This could be a very calm and level tone or it could be very elevated and verbally forceful. An officer should never sacrifice sound officer safety concepts in order to appear overly friendly.
In most circumstances, “Ask” is the only step needed as the subject will go along with the request and the situation is resolved or concluded. The circumstances could be a simple low key contact or a high stress tactical situation. Depending on the situation, “Ask” may be repeated a few times, but it is not the “broken record” nor is it necessarily to ask once and then go straight to “Tell.” It depends on the totality of the circumstances.
Tell
The “Tell” portion is very similar to “Ask” except the officer is telling the subject what they must do and it is not a request. This also may be one time or a few times, avoiding the “broken record.” The tone of “Tell” depends on the circumstances. The officer may choose to simply tell the suspect what to do or it could be a forceful verbal command. In this portion the officer should not phrase the commands starting with “Can you...” or “Will you...” as this would be for the “Ask” portion of ATM.
This is a critical point in the officer’s contact. Remembering that most suspects will comply at the “Ask” phase, now the officer is dealing with someone who may not go along with the process without physical resistance. The officer should have been gauging the suspect’s level of compliance from the onset of the contact but now it becomes even more critical and alternative plans to take this person into custody need to be thought of now.
The suspect may have simply misunderstood the officer’s initial request and now will go along without any indication of resistance after being told to comply in a more forceful tone. This situation illustrates how the contact can be resolved at the “Tell” phase without having to move into the “Make” phase.
Another suspect may be delaying the arrest process in order to plan an escape or attack. Most states have a statutory law requiring a person being detained or arrested to not resist or delay an officer in the performance of his/her duties. Depending on the totality of the circumstances perceived and the behavior of the suspect, the officer will have to decide how to “Make” the person do what is needed.
To recap, we have two examples of officers who have run into a situation that all of us have been in. They have asked a legally detained or contacted person and asked them to follow a command, gained no compliance and have now told them. The officer has not achieved what they want and have reached a decision point which often turns into a major “freezing point” for a lot of officers and they turn into a virtual “broken record.” What would you do? What does your training and experience lead you to do? Would the use of force be reasonable? Part two will cover a recommendation on handling this and similar type situations.
