fllflimfllfiffllHITITIJ'IIEHWTIITUITIYNfllfifl’l‘l‘l’lfifim 4 L

3 1293 10640 2559

 

__._.__.

 

 

 

 

 

IE-SERVICE LEGAL TRAINING
FOR LAW ENFORCENENT OFFICERS:
AN EVALUATION OF VIDEOTAPED
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE-WORKSHOPS

 

J ‘JL-I’ 15'
Kenneth E. Christian
AH ABSTdACT F A THESIS
Submitted to
The College of Social Science

hichigan State University

 

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice
1970

Approved:

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
IN-SERVICE LEGAL TRAINING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS:
AN EVALUATION OF VIDEOTAPED CRIMINAL LAW LECTUREHWORKSHOPS
by
Kenneth E. Christian

Purpose

Budget and manpower limitations, inadequate physical
facilities, and a lack of competent available instructors
are some of the training problems facing police adminis-
tration.. Even when some of these obstacles are overcome,
our decentralized form of local police organization makes
it difficult to bring law enforcement officers together
for any type of in-service training.

Criminal law is one of the many subjects in which
police officers desire further training. The Institute
for Community Development and the School of Police Adminis-
tration at Michigan State University brought locally and
nationally known speakers to the campus to videotape
criminal law lectures. The videotapes were presented to
law enforcement officers in ten two-day workshops through-
out the state of Michigan by Frank D. Day, Professor of
Police Administration with the assistance of Kenneth E.

Christian, Police Training Specialist.

Kenneth E. Christian

Methodology

The research design was a test-retest of experi-
mental and comparison groups. The workshop participants
were asked to complete a pretest of cognitive and atti-
tude questions prior to and immediately following the
two-day workshops.

Group changes on the attitude test were tested
for significance with Wilcoxon's T. Group changes on
the cognitive test were tested for significance by using
the difference-of-means test involving the t distribution.
The data was analyzed by department size, job function,

job level, years of service and amount of training.

Results
Results of the cognitive test demonstrated that,
at the conclusion of the program, participants did
possess more accurate information than they had possessed
prior to the program. Officers did not gain knowledge
when exposed to training material which they felt was
irrelevant. The amount of information gained varied with
the topics covered and their relevance to the participants.
In general, pre-existing attitudes were strengthened
after exposure to the workshops. Those concepts which were

viewed in a favorable light at the beginning of the program:

Kenneth E. Christian

gained in a positive direction. Those concepts which
were seen as unfavorable prior to the workshOp, and
which were emphasized during the workshop, gained in a
negative direction. Those concepts which were only
lightly touched upon or ignored showed almost random
shifts in direction and, for the most part, were non-

significant in magnitude.

IN-SERVICE LEGAL TRAINING
FOR LAW ENFOR BRENT OFFICERS:
AN EVALUATION OF VIDEOTAPED
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE-WORKSHOPS

 

A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the School
of Criminal Justice

hichigan State University

 

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

 

by
Kenneth Edward Christian

1970

DEDICATION

In Memory of my Father

Edward H. Christian

.1.

whose dedication to law enforcement and

public service I strive to approach.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the financial support given
to me in the form of a fellowship for graduate study
by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of
the Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. Without
their support, I would not have been able to devote my
time and studies to this project

Similarly, I wish to acknowledge the support of
the staff of the Institute for Community Development,
who, as sponsors of "The Officer and The Law" project,
underwrote many of my research expenses, provided me
with a program to evaluate, and gave me access to the
officers from whom I obtained my information.

I wish to acknowledge the following persons:
Dr. Betty Giuliani, whose invaluable direction and
assistance made this study possible; Mrs. Alison Hubbard,
who designed the participant evaluation study; Professor
Frank Day, for his editing of the legal questions used
in the study and for his daily assistance and comrade—
ship during the weeks of data collection; my wife Ellen,
who toiled for months transforming my handwriting into
several typewritten drafts; Mrs. Diane Steggerda, for

her editorial assistance; Mrs. Sheryl Ten Broeke, for

iii

her patience in waiting for and typing the final product;
the Law Enforcement Officers of Michigan, for their
cooperation and assistance; Professors John H. McNamara

and Lawrence J. Baril for their advice and support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iX
CHAPTER
I. THE PROBLEM OF IN-SERVICE POLICE TRAINING l
Nationwide Concern . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Police Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Criminal Law Training . . . . . . . . . 4
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 6
Television and Training . . . . . . . . 6
Do students learn by television? . . . 7
How do students taught by videotape
compare with those taught by other
media? 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8
What must training officers consider
before using films and videotapes? . 10
How are learning processes affected
when film or videotape is supple-
mented by discussion? . . . . . . . ll
How effective are training lectures as
a means of changing attitudes? . . . ll
Are videotapes as effective in changing
attitudes as live lectures? . . . . 12

How can a training officer use a video-
tape or film to shape or change
attitudeS? O O O O O O O O O O O O O 13

v

CHAPTER

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workshop Procedure . . . . . . . . . .

General Format . . . . . . . . . . .

Limitations Due to Test Construction
and Data Collection . . . . . . . .

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department size . . . . . . . . .
Function and level . . . . . . .

Years of experience as full-time
Officer 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of Characteristics of
Pal‘tiCipa-nts O O O O O O O O O O O

V. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . .
The Cognitive Test . . . . . . . . . .
Total Group Results . . . . . . . . .
Program content . . . . . . . . . .

Job function . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

PAGE

14
17
22
22
22

26
31
52
56
36
58
4o

47

51
52
52
52
55
55

vii

CHAPTER PAGE

JOb level 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56

Years of experience . . . . . . . . . 57
In-service training ... . . .,. . . . 58
Qualifications of Results . . . . . . . . 58

The Attitude TeSt O O O O O O O O O O O O O 59

Opinion Statements . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Paired Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . . . 68
Program content . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Job function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

JOb level 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 78
Years of experience . . . . . . . . . . 81

Summary of Results of the Information
surveyooooooooooooooooo 82

Cognitive Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Opinion Change 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 85
Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . . . 84

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 86

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Background Differences . . . . . . . . 9O

CHAPTER

Post-Workshop Experience . . . . . .

Workshop Schedules . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPIIY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX A.
B.
C.
D.

Information Survey Form A . . . .
Information Survey Form B . . . .
Participant Evaluation Form . . .

Results of Participant Evaluation
Survey 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Workshop Announcement . . . . . .

Workshop Schedule . . . . . . . .

viii

PAGE

91
92
94
100
124
146

151

159
160

TABLE

II.

III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

IX.

XI.
XII.
XIII.

XIV.

LIST OF TABLE

PAGE
Workshop Locations and Attendance . . . . 37
Number of Participants by Department
8128 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 41
Department Size Groups . . . . . . . . . 43

Function and Level . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Levels Attained Within Each Function . . 46
Experience as Full-Time Officer . . . . . 48
In—Service Training in Past Two Years . . 50
Mean Scores and Significance Levels on
Cognitive Test: By Job Function, Job
Level, Years of EXperience, and Hours

of In-Service Training . . . . . . . . 55

Index of Difficulty Differences: Compari-

son Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . 60-61

Agreement a o o o o o o o o. o o o o o o o 63
Split Opinion . O C O C O O C C C O O C C 64
Disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Paired Comparisons: Number and Percentage
Selecting Each Option . . . . . . . . . 67

Direction of Change and Level of
Significance for Ten Concepts Included
in the Semantic Differential: By Job
Function, Job Level, and Years of
Experience0.00000000000070-72

ix

TABLE PAGE

XV. Pretest Mean Scores, Posttest Mean Scores,
and Significance Levels for Ten Concepts
Included in the Semantic Differential:
By Job Function, Job Level, and Years of
Experience 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 75-77

XVI. Pretest Mean Scores and Posttest Mean
Scores for the Five Semantic Differential
Concepts Showing the Greatest Change: Job
Level by Years of Experience . . . . . . 79

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM OF IN-SERVICE POLICE TRAINING
I. NATIONWIDE CONCERN

Books, periodicals, and neWSpapers abound with
statements deploring the lack of intensive in-serviee
training for police officers. A recent, exhaustive
and authoritative study conducted by the President's

Crime Commission exemplifies the current concern.

Deficiencies in current police training are
not limited to recruit programs. New laws
are enacted and old ones amended; the en-
forcement needs of a community change, and
new concepts of police technology and
department policy emerge. These facts

dictate that training be a continuing
process.

Advanced training and education is an important
requirement if the law officer is to achieve the com-
petence now demanded. "This recognized need is receiv-
ing increased attention from the educational institutions,

the police and other organizations, and at all levels of

government."2

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement
aIldAdministration of Justice, Task Force

. Re ort: The
£0110; (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937 ,

2m” p. 75.

The National League of Cities, recognizing the
significance of police training, stated that:

The enforcement of laws and the regulation
of human behavior in our complex urban
society requires .... providing veteran
officers with regular refresher training

as well as specialized training in selected
areas of knowledge.

II. POLICE CONCERN

Police administrators throughout the country are
conscious of the present deficiencies of police training.
Inevitably, when they praise a program, it is an extensive
training session for recruits, ignoring the problem of
in-service training. When asked, "What is the number
one problem in police training as you see it?" admini-
strators replied:

How can the police be trained to handle
society's changing concepts? How can
higher education and the police mutually
engage in research which will result in
much needed answers to on—the-scene police
action?

We must improve in-service police training
to serve as a stop—gap measure while we
work to attract more highly educated
policemen and until we can provide oppor-
tunities for present officers to involve
themselves in higher education.

3Ibid.

... we must look to those established
disciplines, to business and industry,

to education, in order to determine better
methods of presenting these training
materials presently provided to police
recruits and veteran officers. Many de-
velopments in these and other fields of
endeavor might adequately serve to update
presentation methodology of training and
educational materials for police
practitioners.4

From this expression of concern, it is apparent that
police administrators, though aware of the insufficient
programs for veteran policemen, lack the proven training
tools which would help correct the situation.

A recent study reported that while policemen
believed recruit training had been invaluable to them,
they experienced a mounting anxiety over the years
because of their inability to keep pace with the legis-
lative changes and judicial interpretations of criminal
law.5 This anxiety was also expressed in questionnaires
completed by the police officers attending the telephonic-
1ecture series, "Arrest, Search, and Seizure", sponsored

by Michigan State University in 1967.

_ . 4"The Number One Problem in Police Education and
Training As Seen by Six Police Administrators," Police
Ehlgf. 37:8, August, 1970, p. 16. “""‘

5Richard A. Wild, "An Evaluation of the Law

Ehfcrcement Training Program Basie Police Course at
$0hlgan State University" (unpublished Masters thesis,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965). Po 98-

Some problems of police training in any state are
budget and manpower limitations, inadequate physical
facilities, and a lack of competent available instruc—
tors. In addition, our decentralized form of local police
organization makes it difficult to bring law enforcement
officers together for any type of in—service training.

A few isolated departments are known for their in-service
training programs, but not so much for their program

quality, as for the simple fact of their existence.
III. CRIMINAL LAW TRAINING

Criminal law is one of the many subjects in which
police officers desire further training. Criminal law
is unique as a training subject for several reasons. In
the first place, it changes with each session of the leg-
islature and each term of the Supreme Court. Secondly,
no local attorney or prosecutor has enough time to study
and research all of these changes adequately. Thirdly,
even if a local prosecutor is able to stay abreast of
these changes, he does not have time to travel the state
to lecture and assist 15,000 officers.

When the officers are exposed to a criminal law
training session, they are not satisfied with a super-

ficial treatment of those things they should know.

They need and want in-depth instruction from those
persons whose expertise they respect. The problem, then,
is how can all police officers in a state be brought up
to date and kept informed on technical and specific
subjects such as "Criminal Law" and "Recent Court Deci-
sions." In this study, videotaped criminal law lecture-

workshops are evaluated as a solution to this problem.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
I. TELEVISION AND TRAINING

How relieving it is for a training officer to
turn on a television set or movie projector and see a
program which he could never have produced in his class-
room. Many training officers use this 'relief' as the
sole criterion to measure the effectiveness of media.
They believe that videotape and films are merely sub-
stitute training officers. But, media can only be
effective when students are prepared, when direct or
indirect feedback is provided for, and when an instruc-
tor is available to the student as a resource person.

The efficient use of videotape and films in a
training classroom can be compared to an operating
amphitheater. In the amphitheater, the task of the
nu‘se is to prepare and condition the patient so that
he will be receptive to the operation. When the opera-
tion is over, the nurse steps in for the post-operative
care. The success or failure of the operation depends
tO a large degree on the competence and concern of the

nurse. In the training classroom, the task of the

training officer is similar to that of the nurse. He
must fully prepare the student for the TV instructor.
Moreover, at the end of the program, he must assume the
responsibility for the follow-up care. He must see to
it that the objectives of the videotaped lesson have
been accomplished. Depending upon the feedback from

the students, he may need to reinforce the lesson or
/

even re-teach it.0

A training officer who does little more than turn
the videotape recorder or projector on and off is not
fulfilling his responsibility. There are several ques-

tions with which he should be concerned.

2g Students Learn py_Television?

This may be an unnecessary question, since the
answer by now is obvious, Belson (1956) found that
after exposure to two 10 minute programs, 70% of his
sample of 250 subjects showed "sufficient grasp of the

full major main point."7 Rock, Duva and Murray (no date)

, , Betty Gray, "Evaluating the Television Program,"
AEQlovisual Instruction, 14:38, May, 1969,

7W. A. Belson, "Learning and Attitude Changes
Resulting from Viewing a Television Series 'Bon Voyage',"
British Journal 2f Educational Psychology, 26:38, 1956.

reported that army officers and enlisted men made signi-

ficantly higher scores after exposure to a series of

eight one-hour telecasts than they made on a pretest.8
Trainees who believe that the material to which

they are being exposed will have an early use or will

be subject to testing at an early date tend to learn

more than others who do not have these attitudes.

Thus, pointing out the personal relevance of instruc-

tional material to trainees may have an important effect

on the degree to which the material is learned.9

EQE,D2 Students Taught by_Videotape Compare with These
Taught by 931.92. M?

Tannenbaum (1956) found there was no significant
dirfference between students exposed to live TV instruc-
thDn and those exposed to the same lessons through a
tefilephone hookup (telelecture). A group which viewed
Vixieotapes, however, did significantly better than the
tefilelecture group. Both the live TV and videotape

8R. T. Rock Jr., J. s. Duva, and J. E. Murray.

Thrainin. By Television: A Study In Learning and Reten—
‘tion, (Fort Washington, L. I., N. Y.: Special Devices
enter, soc Report 476-02-3, no date).

.. 9L. P. Greenhill, Research in Instructional Tele-
«¥EE%Q2.§QQ Film (Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of
{ea th. Edueation, and Welfare, 1967) p. 13.

\0

groups did significantly better than a group which read
the material only. There was no significant difference

between those who read the material and those who lis-

tened via the telelecture.lo

In a study of Air Force recruits, Jackson (no
date) found that when a film or videotape was announced
as such, students did significantly better on test
scores than when a film or videotape was announced as
a "training film". Later tests proved that newness of
the medium explained the differences. Repetition of
the study five years later challenged its validity.11

Two studies, one by Berger (1962) and the other by
Bickel (1965), found that live presentations of content

. L. . . 12
were as effeCtive as Videotaped content presentations.

On the basis of a study by Taylor (1969), it would

appear that videotaped interaction is as effective as

10P. H. Tannenbaum, "Instruction Through Television:

-A (30mparative Study" (Urbana: Institute of Communication
Rxesearch, University of Illinois, June, 1956), (Duplicated.)

11R. Jackson, Learnipg From Videotapes and Films,
£¥Port Washington, L.I., N.Y.: Special Devices Center,
leechnical Report SDC-ZO-TV-l), (no date).

12E. J. Berger, "An Investigation of the Effective-
Iiess of Televised Presentation," Dissertation Abstracts,
:L962, 25, 1552; and R. F. Bickel, "A Comparative AnaIysis
<>f the.Effect of Television Instruction on Achievement in
{a College Mathematics Course For Elementary Teaching
I"iaJOI'S."Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 25, 5777.

IO

live interaction and that a combination of videotaped
interaction and live interaction is the most effective

a . . l5
elganlzation.

A review of 114 experimental studies of college
and military investigations comparing television and
classroom instruction note‘ that while nine studies
yielded results favoring television, and seventeen
studies yielded results favoring classroom instruction,
eighty-eight studies produced no significant differen-
l4

ces Therefore, it can safely be assumed that there

is no real difference in a student's learning or reten-
tion in regard to whether or not a lecture or demonstra-

tion is presented in person or by television.

1"

iigiijrst Training_0ffie,rs Consider Before Using Films
Egg; Videotapes?

Films and videotapes will be effective if they do
unit try to cover too much ground too rapidly — that is,
if? they concentrate on a limited amount of material.

‘Tiley will be most effective if they are structured to

. lBDavid R. Taylor, Edra Lipscomb, and Robert
tiosemier, "Live Versus Videotaped Student Teacher Inter—
zactlon," AV Communication Review, 17:51, Spring, 1969.

14W. Schramm, "Mass Communication," Annual Review
.CLlisychologz, 15:251-284, 1962.

ll

accommodate the trainee's viewpoint by considering his
current level of readiness to learn, his interest in
learning, and the difficulties he is likely to encounter

15

in the process.

How Are Learning Processes Affected When Film or Videotape

's Supplemented Ly Discussion?

 

 

Instruction by film (or videotape) can be pro-

fitably supplemented by holding discussions or lectures

before or after the film or videotape presentation.16

I Effective Are Training Lectures As g Means of

L .

Changing Attitudes?

Much of today's police training has to do with
POlicy formation which includes the shaping of attitudes
'MNyard a policy. A training officer must be cognizant
0f ‘the effects of media and of combinations of training
rustliods on shaping attitudes.

A skillful lecturer may be fairly successful in

'treuqsmitting conceptual knowledge to a group of trainees

15. - . . .
JM. May and A. A. Lunsdaine, Learning From Films

(llew Haven, Connecticut: Yale Unive‘sity Press, 1958).
16
C. R. Carpenter and L. P. Greenhill, "An Inves-
L'i-£,ation Of Closed Circuit Television For Teaching
ruyers ity Courses," Report Lo. 2, Instructional Film

IT‘JEEEEE Procram. (Unive sity Par: PennsylvaniafiState
Illversity, ),

 

12

who are ready to receive it; however, all the evidence
available indicates that the nature of the lecture
situation makes it of minimal value in promoting atti-

. . , l
tudinal or behaVioral Change. 7

Are Videotape Lectures Lg Effective lg Changing Attitudes
fig Live Lectures?

Perception can be defined as an information extrac-
tion process. Information is gained from various cues in
a given situation. If more cues are available, more in-
formation can be gained. Information is defined as more
than facts; it includes undefined impressions, attitudes,
etc. In two similar settings, then, the one with more
available cues will provide a richer amount of informa-
‘tiona A video presentation has fewer cues available than

a ILive presentation, including such cues as distinguish-
ab]_e facial features, color, two dimensionality, quality
Of"voice, etc.

If cues can be broadly defined, the credibility of
tile presenter can also be included as a cue. Hovland
Enid Weiss (1952) demonstrated that the credibility of the

17

r d. McGehee and P. W. Thayer, Traininz lg Business
:EQQDIndustrv New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).

l5

presenter is a significant variable in determining atti—
tude change.18 A presenter who is standing before his
class or group is potentially capable of being challenged
or questioned concerning the material. Therefore, he is
more likely to be considered a creditable source, one
who is committed to his message, than the individual who
makes his presentation by videotape, leaving no opportunity
to be challenged.

The results of a study (Croft et al.,l969) strongly
support the hypothesis that the presentation of propaganda
via videotape would be less effective in producing attitude

Change than a live, in-person presentation of the same

material.19

1km» Can g Training Officer Use A Videotape 92 Film 22

 

, ° 9
shape 91; Change Attitudes.
Numerous comparisons between lectures and discussions

3&5 a.means of affecting behavioral change in supervisors

m 18c. I. Hoveland and w. Weiss, "The Influence or
Cmrurce Credibility On Communication Effectiveness," Public
Chainion Quarterly, 15:655-650, 1952.

19Roger G. Croft gg’gl., "Comparison of Attitude
C3hanges Elicited by Live and Videotape Classroom Pre-

Esentations," AV Communication Review, 17:5:515-521.
Fall, 1969. ""

14

and managers indicate that discussion of material in
small groups will be more effective than lectures,
particularly if a change in behavior is incumbent first
upon a change in attitude. Levine and Butler (1952)
found that discussion brought about a change in atti-
tude and behavior while a lecture did not.20
Trainees who spent half an hour discussing a film
on prejudice later retained most of the change the film
had made in their attitudes. Those who did not discuss
the film tended to shift back to their original posi—

tions.21

II . SUI‘LIleRY

Trainees can learn from videotape, film, or tele—
Inision lectures as well as from a live lecture. Learn-
ing: through any media is almost always enhanced when
tlleepreparation encompasses the trainee, the media, and
idle instructor, and makes provisions for feedback and

:foljeWHup through discussion.

2OJ. Levine and J. Butler, "Lecture Versus Group
:Decision In Changing Behavior," Journal pi Applied
ZEsychology, 56:29-55, 1952.
. 21F. T. Staudohar and R. G. Smith Jr., "The Con-
'trlbutian of Lecture Supplements to the Effectiveness

CMTan Attitude Film " Journal of Applied Psychology
40:109-111, 1956. ' ""'"""_ '

 

l5

Lectures by themselves are of little value in pro-
moting attitudinal or behavioral change. When a lecture
is videotaped or filmed, many of the perceptual cues which
are obvious at the live presentation are not later avail-
able to the trainee watching the videotape or film. The
credibility of the lecturer is one of these cues that
cannot be fully transmitted on videotape due to the lack
of opportunity for challenge. The ways in which trainees
perceive the role and prestige of the lecturer appear to
be important factors in the communication process.

Though videotape has proved itself as an efficient
means of transmitting knowledge, there is almost no evi-
dence to support its value in promoting attitudinal or
knahavioral change. Discussion, however, has proven to
be; a means of affecting attitudinal and behavioral
Ckuange. The nex' step is to use the two techniques in
a.<3omplementary method to produce both a gain in know-
lxedge and a change in attitude and behavior.

The possibility of combining the two techniques
lxeads to some interesting questions regarding the police
'training program: Can videotaped criminal law lectures

:followed by discussion have a significant effect on law
(Enforcement officers? Will this training result in the

Luukmstanding of recent court decisions? If learning

16

does take place, do officers feel this training is appli-
cable to their jobs? Who benefits most from this type
of training? Will an expected gain in knowledge be ac-

companied by a change in attitude?

CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES

As a means of answering some of the questions
which have been posed in the "Review of the Literature,"

a series of hypotheses were developed for testing.

Program.Content ill
Cognitive change Lg), The workshop will produce
an overall cognitive gain for participants.
Rationale - On the face of it, the hypothesis

that there will be cognitive gain from attending the
Since the workshOp

two-day workshop appears valid.
cxyvers topics of both limited and general interest, it

is; hypothesized that the amount of gain will be directly
Since the

reilated to the job function of the officer.
sn11)ject matter is basically for the crime investigators,
tkiefiy will make the greatest cognitive gains, followed

'b3r 'those in patrol, administration, and traffic in a

de so ending order.
There will be significant

Attitude change gbz.

(zkuange in attitudes in a positive direction on those
<3<Ineepts which the police feel assist them in their

vnork, e.g. line—up, right to counsel, interrogation

18

techniques. There will be significant change in atti-
tudes in a negative direction on those concepts which
the police feel make their work more difficult, e.g.
non-violent disobedience, exclusionary rule, Miranda
warnings.

Rationale - Officers come to a workshop looking
for tools to solve practical problems. They will sift
the material presented and will relate to those things
which most affect their daily procedures. Officers
will react favorably to recent court rulings which
assist them in their everyday problems. Likewise, they
Imill react just as much, but in a negative manner,
tnawards perceived restrictions placed on their conduct.

Q£ZQDFunction 1&1

Cognitive Egg attitude change Lgligpg.£gl.
Ifrrvestigators, patrol officers, command personnel and
'tzreuffic specialists will rank in descending order on
Ibcrth.cognitive gain and attitude change.

Rationale - The closer the officer's function is
'tC> the content of the training session, the more know-

‘lxedge he will gain, and the more his attitude will be
affected.

19

£932. am. L5).

Cognitive change L_l. Knowledge gain will be (1)
more significant in a positive direction for supervisors,
than for patrol level officers, and (2) more significant
in a positive direction for patrol officers than for
command officers.

Rationale - Supervisors are the men most directly
charged with implementing policy, responding to questions,
and enforcing correct procedures. Therefore, they will
be most responsive, either positively or negatively, to
change. Patrolmen, too, are influenced by the experts
and.eager to make their job more rewarding and less con-

:Elieting. Because they are also instant decision makers,
tliey are sensitive to workshops such as these.

Attitude changelgpl. Depending on the direction
<31? the hypothesis, this shift will be (1) more signifi-
CLauit for supervisors than for patrol level officers, and
(2) more significant for patrol level officers than for
command officers.

Rationale - As in the proceeding Rationale, patrol-
Dlen.on the street are responding to citizen or situation
Ciemands. They will respond more negatively or positively

‘to law changes which they feel make their work easier or

20

more difficult. Commanders, who are somewhat removed
from working within the guidelines called for by recent
court decisions, will show less attitude change.
lggpg pf ExperienceiLil
Cognitive change £_l, Cognitive change will be
most significant in officers with 5 to 20 years service,
less significant in those with under 5 years service,
and least significant in those with over 20 years service.
Rationale - This program is aimed at experienced
officers, detectives, supervisors, and command personnel.
The less experienced officer may find this material quite
advanced. Officers approaching or beyond retirement age
may not accept change.

Attitude change @21- Attitude change will be
stxrongest in those officers with the shortest lengths of
sexrvice (1-5 years) and weakest in those officers with
t11€3 longest lengths of police service (over 20 years).
Rationale - Younger officers will be less dogmatic
zxrui nwre receptive to new court rulings than older
officers.

LIL-Service Training (5)

Cognitive change - This will be most significant

iJl those officers with some in-service training (48-100

1lours) during the past two years. The change will be

21

less for those officers with much training (over 100
hours) and with little training (less than 48 hours)
in the past two years.

Rationale - As previously stated, this workshop
presumes a good basic criminal law foundation. Those
officers with some in-service training (48-100 hours)
will have had enough recent training to respond to the
law concepts, but possibly will not have had enough
opportunity to question and fully understand them.
These officers may bring both an interest and a founda-
tion on which learning may take place. This workshop
is designed to clarify these nebulous concepts. Those
cxfficers with little training will not be equipped to

ruespond to the concepts. Those with much recent train-
ing may approach the workshop with a comprehensive back-
ggrwaund in these areas. Although their understanding
()1? the concepts may be improved, the new knowledge gain

vvijll.be limited.

CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
I. WORKSHOP PROCEDURE

General Format

On June 17, 18, and 19 the Institute for Community
Development brought locally and nationally known speakers
to Michigan State University to videotape criminal law
lecture—discussion sessions. Each of the three days was
devoted to a specific topic: (1) Civil Disturbance and
.Riot Legislation; (2) Interrogation and Confession; and
(3) Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, particularly con-
c3erning confessions, line-ups, arrest, search and seizure.
Axfter each topic was presented, participants were able to
343k questions.

The videotaping was done by Michigan State University
(leosed Circuit TV on studio production two-inch tape.
laerter, in order to use lighter, more mobile equipment in
'tlie workshops, the original two-inch tapes were reduced

'tC) one-inch tapes. At the same time, it was decided to
(Belete the question and answer sessions so that more dis-

crussion time would be available for the area workshops.

25

A total of eight hours of videotape lecture was prepared,
for presentation in the two-day workshops.

Ten workshop locations were selected by the Insti-
tute for Community Development (see Workshop Announce-
ment, Appendix E). The Michigan State University Regional
Continuing Education Directors arranged for the physical
facilities and notified local law enforcement agencies
in their areas about the workshops. Announcements also
were sent to every law enforcement agency and prosecutor's
office in the state. Each workshop was limited to forty
participants, and preregistration was requested.

The schedule and format for each workshop were basi-
cxally the same (see Schedule, Appendix F). Each workshop
beagan at nine o'clock on the first day with a brief self-
iritroduction by the discussion leader, Frank D. Day,
Ikrwafessor of Criminal Law, School of Police Administration,

Iiixzhigan State University. Professor Day then introduced

lienaneth Christian, a Department of Justice Research Fellow
(icxing graduate work in Police Administration at Michigan
isinate University and research assistant for these work-
sflaops. hr. Christian briefed the workshop participants
CDf the following points:

1. That the workshop was sponsored by the Institute
for Community Development and the School of _
Police Administration at Michigan State University;

24

2. That this was a pilot project;

5. That because it was a pilot project an evalua-
tion was being carried out and the participants
were asked to cooperate;

4. That the effectiveness of this type of workshop
would be evaluated, in part, from the results
of this evaluation; and

5. That the evaluation could only be completed
satisfactorily if the participants completed
the forms both at the beginning of the first
day and at the end of the second day.

Booklets for Form A (see Appendix A) of the Infor-
mation Survey (pretest) were then distributed and partici-
pants were asked to place the last five digits of their
home phone number on the cover sheet (to be used as a
(sode number in matching pretest, posttest, and evaluation
ftxrm) and on the answer sheet. (The answer sheet was

arsed only for the cognitive test. Opinion answers were
.reacorded in the booklet.)
The research assistant then gave the following

iiisitructions:

It is important that you do not skip any
questions. Decide quickly how you feel

and put down your first impressions. There
are no "right" or ”wrong" answers to any of
the questions other than the first section
which has True or False and Multiple Choice
questions. Work fast and give an honest re-
sponse. Do not consult with anyone else.

If you have a question, raise your hand

and I will try to clarify things for you.

25

After the pretest was completed and collected, the
videotape lecture was started. Two twenty inch television
monitors were placed in the front of the room. One of
the monitors and the videotape recorder at the rear of
the room provided the sound.

The original plan had been to run, without interrup-
tion, the videotape materials from fifteen to sixty
minutes per complete lecture, followed by thirty to sixty
minute discussions, with morning and afternoon coffee
breaks and a lunch hour. Original plans also called for
posttesting after the last discussion period of the second
day, followed by completion of the participant—evaluation

:form. However, during the first workshop, it became
eypparent that changes in the original rigid schedule were
ruscessary.

host of the alterations were instituted to make the

scihedule more flexible and the videotape presentations
incrre meaningful to the participants. Rather than waiting
lirrtil the end of a complete lecture, the videotape was
Ertopped at the conclusion of points of interest in each
fmresentation, and Professor Day answered questions and
:3ummarized points when appropriate. Either a break or
Inore videotape followed each discussion period. Some

DOpics evoked much more discussion than others. This was

26

noted on the first day of the first workshop at Detroit.
Because it was then anticipated that the videotape on
recent court decisions might provoke a great deal of
discussion and thus squeeze the time for completing the
posttest and evaluation forms, this tOpic was switched

to the morning of the second day, the posttest and eval-
uation forms switched to the middle of the second after-
noon, and the lecture "Criminal Interrogations Within the
Legal Rules" was scheduled for the latter part of the
afternoon. As a result of this change, the posttest,
Form B, (see Appendix B) was completed and collected be-
fore participants had heard the last lecture; the Parti-
cipant Evaluation Form (see Appendix C) was not collected

lintil the final lecture was over.

Inimitations Due pp_Test Construction and Data Collection

The videotapes, which served as the subject matter
czcxntent for the semantic differential and cognitive test
iqteaus, were not available until two weeks before the first
\vcnrkshop was held. It was not possible, therefore, to
IWlIl a trial of the items before incorporating them into
tile :fnstrument.

The instrument was designed to specifically test for

thralnaterial presented in the videotaped lectures. The

27

pre-testing of the concepts and the elimination of some
to which there was no reSponse made it more relevant.
The cognitive material was taken from the live lectures
themselves, and it served as a primer for the thinking
process. As such, it could not help but act somewhat
as a teaching device.

Time constraints also ruled out a "dry-run" of
the instruments in conjunction with the final videotape
program.

Differences due to mechanical factors were kept to
a minimum by checking individual booklets for poor print-
ing, duplicate pages, missing pages, and improper stap-
ling, and by providing extra pencils. Uniform instruc-
tions were given by the research assistant to all
participants at each workshop and to the comparison
groups.

One question, number seventeen on the cognitive
test of'Form B (see Appendix D), had two possible correct
ennmyers. This was discovered at the first location and
corrtxrted by printing new options, four and five, to
that quesmjon.and pasting them over the existing options.
A feW'cnf the questionnaires had duplicate pages, but the

subjects: just ignored this. None of the completed tests

had any pages missingi'o

28

There was surprisingly little grumbling from the
officers about having to complete the unannounced Informa-
tion Survey. The personnel who coded the Information
Surveys commented several times on the accuracy and
thoroughness of the officers in completing these forms.

In general, the officers were enthusiastic, and many asked
how they could obtain the results of the study.

There were some isolated comments made about the
nmthod of identification on the Information Survey by some
of the officers from the larger cities. Those who questioned
the anonymity of the last five digits of their home phone
number were told that they could use any five numbers,
such as part of their military serial number or social se-
curity number. One subject used "12345." Two others used
one set of numbers on the pretest and only some of the
same numbers on the posttest. These tests were matched
"My the similar numbers used and the handwriting. This
method.of anonymity was provided to encourage the subjects
to give honest responses. Webb, however, notes that even
the device of anonymity itself may lead to validity

threats.22

2
. 2ZLEugene J. Webb pp pl. Unobtrustive Measures
(Chicaflx>: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), p. 15.

29

The same setting could not be provided for all the

workshops. Various differences in comfort and distractions

were experienced.
Both the discussion leader and the research

assistant felt that their law enforcement backgrounds and

experience assisted them in establishing good rapport with

‘the workshop participants. Subtle biases unintentionally

Encovided by the investigator, the subjects' awareness of

fusing tested, and other factors may always provide poten-

23

12181 sources of error.
The workshops were affected by a number of unforseen
Iherppenings. Participation ranged from sixteen to fifty-

‘tvvo officers. Poor response in a few locations was blamed

011 lack of communication, poor facilities, politics, and
‘tlle Governor's declaration of a holiday to celebrate the
IIloonlanding.

The facilities definitely affected attendance.
fl31tiose sites which were familiar to the officers, i.e.
IDC>1ice department classrooms such as those in Detroit and

AIlliArbor, or continuing education centers such as those

 

______
‘, 29Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Ex eri-
fflfEIltal and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research—(CHIEago:

Ram 'ic—Nally and Company, 1968 , p. 20.

50

in.Benton Harbor, had above average attendance. Remote

high school and college campuses were not attractive loca-

tions.
Classroom sizes ranged from a 50‘ X 30' room to

an auditorium; ventilation varied from none to air con-
ditioning; outside distractions escalated from none in

‘Mie auditorium to opera auditions across the hall from

file unventilated crowded room.

Equipment failure was not a serious problem. In

tun: different locations, due to machine difficulties, the
jpixzture was distorted. The participants accepted this,

Clxosed their eyes and listened. Discussions were as

Silirited as when the picture was clear.

Although the design called for the testing of a
OOntrol group at each of the four locations where work—

Einlbps were being held, in actual practice, it was not pos-

E3ible to secure any control groups in this way.

During the first workshop, it became apparent that,

ill order to collect posttest data from participants before
‘t1163y started to leave, it would be necessary to administer

‘tllre posttest after the lunch break on the second day,

ITaftiher than at the close of the program. Thus, the video-

téilbe presentation on interrogation techniques, the live

9L143cussion of this topic, and any summary and review that

51

occurred came after the testing was completed.
II. DESIGN

The 1967 police—training Telephonic Lecture Series
had been evaluated by the participants on the basis of

their satisfaction with the experience. For this TV—

Ehorkshop Lecture Series, it was decided by the staff to

arttempt to measure, in addition to participant satisfac—

‘tion, cognitive gain and opinion change resulting from
file two-day experience.

Measurement of the long-range goal--better informed
JAIW'enforcement officers performing more effectively--is,
tunfortunately, beyond the scope of this evaluation design.
Ei0wever, an estimate of the success of these workshops
Ineqy be made from an analysis of the short-term changes
ill opinion and gain in knowledge, as well as by a study
(Di? the participants general satisfaction with format,

ESchedule, speakers and subject matter.

Such an evaluation ought to reveal whether or not
‘tlie participants shared the goals and the expectations
(3:5 the planning committee; it may also give some indi-
Clation of how well the long-range goal of better law

eIlforcement was met.

32

In order to determine if the independent variable,
the videotaped criminal law lecture workshop, was respon—
sible for any changes, the research design was a test-

retest of experimental and comparison groups.
III. MEASUREMENT

A Participant Evaluation Form (Appendix C) was
lised.to collect participant opinions and comments.

Form A, the pretest (Appendix A), and Form B, the
:xosttest (Appendix B) were almost identical instruments.
Kniey include:

1. A Cognitive Test - Containing true and false
and multiple choice questions taken from the
videotaped criminal law lectures.

2. A Semantic Differential Test - Consisting of

twelve concepts, each with eight scales.
These were also taken from the videotaped
criminal law lectures. Attitude toward these
concepts was measured on a Likert-type scale.
9. Statement of Opinion - Twenty statements
requiring an "Agree—Disagree" response.
4. Paired Comparison - Fifteen statements forc-
ing the subjects to choose between "protection

of individual rights" and "law and order" concepts.

53

5. A Face Sheet — This contained identification
number, job function, job level, size of
department, years of service, and hours of
in—service training within the past two years.

The instruments Form A and Form B were pretested
lxy administering them to two separate groups of police
cxfficers from throughout the state who were attending in-
serwice Law Enforcement training sessions at Michigan

Eitate University. One group was attending the two—week

Ckriminal Investigation Course, and the other was attend-

iJlg the Juvenile Officer's Course. Several unclear or

Luaanswerable concepts and questions were eliminated.

Adlother alteration was that the Semantic Differential

fPest was reduced from ten to eight scales and from twelve

‘tCD ten concepts.

Each instrument, Form A and Form B, took about
‘tllirty minutes to administer.

As the Information Survey booklets were turned in
51?: each workshop, they were checked for completeness by
~the research assistant. After each workshop, the booklets
‘VTere taken to Michigan State University where they were
(3C3ded by one clerk, checked by another clerk, and spot

<311ecked by the research assistant.

34

Analysis 2f the Semantic Differential
Group changes on the evaluative scale of the

semantic differential were tested for significance with

Wilcoxon's T. This is a two sample test of the hypothesis

that two samples were drawn from identical populations.

It can be used with ordinal scales, and results are

directly comparable to tests involving differences of means

. 2 . .
Eflld proportions. 4 This nonparametric test takes account

of? the sign of the difference between each pair (in this

Sinidy the pretest and posttest) and also the size of the

dikfference. In this study, a pretest (Appendix A) was

£;Lven to a group of subjects; later (after the workshop),

p) was given to the same sub-

a-_‘parallel test (Appendix 4

j€3cts. This was to determine the probability that the

allswers given the first time and those given the second

~time were from samples of the same population. A low

IDIHDbability (.05 level of significance) would allow re—

j<3c2tion of the null hypothesis (that there is no dif-

1T€Ebence between the samples). A higher probability would

(fixernand acceptance of the null hypothesis. Since the

“Jichoxon is a nonparametric text, it can be used when an

 

\
- 24Hubert n. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York:

‘*<2Ckraw Hill, 1960), p. io7.

35

interval scale cannot be employed, or when a normal

population cannot be assumed, but when an ordering of
. . . . 2 ,. . .

scores is justified. 5 The dilcoxon was used in this

study for the above reasons.

Analysis 2f the Cognitive Test

Hark sensing answer sheets were used for the
cognitive section of the Information Survey. Raw scores
were obtained from the Michigan State University Testing
Service.

Group changes on the cognitive test (nineteen items)
were tested for significance by using the difference
- of - means test involving the t distribution. The
cognitive test satisfied the assumption of an interval
scale, but two other assumptions were violated. Formally,
the two assumptions, first, that the populations sampled
are normal and second, that the population variances are
homogeneous, are essential if the t scores given by the
table are to be exact. In practical situations, these

assumptions are sometimes violated with rather small

/‘
i)

F0

effect on the conclusions.
2 w 0 "1(3
5Icid., p. loo.

26-. . .. L. -
.. Jilliam L. Hays, StaDlelCS (hew Yor
ituuahart and Winston, 196?), p. 322.

hi4

Holt,

r
.0

56

The departure from normality makes less difference
when a two-tailed test is used and when the sample size
is not extremely small.27 ho sample in this study was
smaller than five subjects, and a two-tailed test was
used.

The second assumption, homogeneity of variance,
is more important than normality. For samples of equal
size, relatively big differences in the population vari-
ance seem to have relatively small consequences for the
conclusions derived from a t-test. Hays states, "When
in doubt use samples of the same size."28 In this study
all means which were tested with a t-test were from

samples of equal size.
IV. SAMPLING

Procedure

The number of participants at each of the workshops
varied (see Table 1 page 57,) but the sample used in this
study included all workshop registrants who were present
both at the morning session of the first day and on the
afternoon of the second day of each workshop. It was

expected that all registrants would attend both days;

 

27Ibid.

28

Ibid.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom "monmxmo3 Pm mossesoppm Hmpoa om "mossesoppm mosmxmo3 mmmmm>¢
Hp pr

as m mm oppmzanms OH

mm m ea spfio mmnm>wne m

mm m me mopmmm sopsmm m

mm m an maamwm seems a

we e @H omflpsom m

0e m 0H psHHm m

mm m an Hopm< and e

mm m om assess mass: m

aw a an menace paces; m

ma V 0 mm pflompmm H

ma ma mm msflwsmg pmmm msflmma

m>apmHSESU mmm mesmmfloapmmm Soapmoog .ozmM903

(mopsommmmom mQOHPmNHsmeo

 

mosmwsmppd @sm macapmoog mogmxmoa

H manna

r

58

however, several were unable to do this. Potentially
there were four hundred subjects. As was stated pre-
viously, there were no prerequisites; theoretically, any
officers in the State of Michigan could have attended.
Admittedly, the sample is self-selected and may
or may not be a representative sample of the police
officers in Michigan. It may or may not differ from
other police groups in terms of education, experience,
maturity, etc. Much effort was made to determine the
characteristics of the police population, but the data
evidently is not available. An attempt has been made
to compensate for a representative sample by carefully

describing the characteristics of this sample.

Subjects

There are approximately 600 local governmental
units (Olson, 1969) and several state, federal and uni-
versity organizations in the State of Michigan which
maintain some form of police service.29 Over 400 men

and women from 61 different units participated in the

29B. T. Olson, Ag Introduction 33 the Michigan
Law Epforcement Inventory (East Lansing: Continuing
lT-ducation Service, IVZichigan State University, 1969).

 

59

workshop program--about 100 at the videotaping in East
Lansing and BOO at the ten workshops.

Fifty-four local units were represented by 275
law enforcement personnel. The 131 other participants
represented 7 different state and federal agencies and
universities. The Michigan State Police were counted as
one unit. If the 42 different posts named by them had
also been included, the number of different communities
being served by the participants would have been 102.
Included in Table I are the workshop locations and atten-
dance figures as compiled from attendance cards signed
by those who came to at least part of one filming or
workshop session.

Attendance figures varied from 52 at Detroit to 16
each at Flint and Pontiac. Several factors influenced
the attendance:

1. Advance publicity;

2. Facility used;

9. Cooperation by local departments; and

4. Assignment of officers, pay for attending, etc.
Small attendance at some sites may have been the result
of poor communications, politics, unfamiliar locations,
and scheduling problems. At Flint there was an unexpected

holiday for the moon landing.

40

Of the 308 workshop participants, 25? completed all
three instruments: pretest, posttest, and evaluation.
Three completed only the pretest and the posttest but
not an evaluation form; and three, whose pretest and post-
test were invalidated beeause of omissions, did complete
the evaluation form and are included in the report of
that instrument. Thus, there are 240 subjects in the
pretest-posttest group and also 240 in the participant
evaluation form group.

The description of these subjects in the following
pages pertains to the 257 in common and also the 5 in
the evaluation form group. They are all men. Although
several women did attend several of the workshop sessions,
none of them, apparently, completed all three evaluation
instruments.

The characteristics of these men may be described
in several ways—-by department size, by function and
level, by years of service, and by the amount of in-

service training received within the past two years.

Department size. The department sizes, as re-
ported by the participants, range from under 10 men to
4-800. The figures shown in Table II, page 41, equal the

total.of full-time plus part-time officers. This is not

41

Asox.onv
”ouum

 

ooo.H Moon:
HHH059MW

HH macho H macaw
OVNHZ

mNHm BZWZBMdme Wm mezmmHOHemdm mo mmmzbz

HH mHQwH

    

ON

om

0:

om

om

o»

42

the same as full-time equivalent, sometimes used in
similar reports of manpower.

One city department had about 4800 men and one
state department had about 1700 men. All other police
departments in Michigan had fewer than 1,000 men,
(Michigan Local Law Enforcement Director» l968).30
These participants reported no departments of 76 to 99
men; and there were no one-man departments, the smallest
having two full-time and two part—time officers. The
exact number of different cities or departments from
which these 240 subjects came is unknown; however, atten-
dance cards of the 400 who attended at least some portion
of the program indicated that several large Michigan
cities were sparsely represented and some not at all.

A rough estimate, based on figures in Ag Introduction £2
thg'Michigan Lag Enforcement Inventory, indicates that
about half of the large departments (100 men or more)
were represented and about 10 per cent of the smaller
departments sent at least one man.31

As mentioned above, the department sizes as reported

by the participants fell into three main groups: 61 (25

30Michigan State University, Continuing Education
fService, Institute for Community Development, Michigan Law
1Enforcement Director , 1968 (East Lansing: Michigan State
LTriiversity, July, 1968).

51Olson, 22. cit.

43

per cent) camefrom one large city police department
(Detroit), 72 (50 per cent) were State Police, and the
remaining 107 (45 per cent) were from city and county
departments of from 4 to 521 men. Henceforth, these
convenient divisions shall be referred to as Group I,
(4soo,n = 61); Group II, (1700,N = 72); and Group III,
(4-521,M = 107). Group III was further divided into
large departments (100 men or more, N = 55) and small
departments (75 or fewer, N = 74). This information is

clearly shown in Table III.

Table III

Department Size Groups

 

Group I, one large city with 4800 ........N= 61 25fiiof5240
Group II, one large state department,

1700 men ooooN= 72 30% Of 240
Group III, all others, from 4 to 521 men..N=lO7 45% of 240
with sub-groups:

Group IIIA 100 to 521 men, N = 53, 14%
Group IIIB' 4 to 75 men, N = 74, 51%

Function gag lgygl. Duties and responsibilities
'Varied widely. Participants were asked to check present
.function:

1. Patrol

2. Traffic

5. Investigation

44

4. Administration

5. One-man department

and present level within that function:

1. Detective

2. Patrol

5. Supervisory

4. Command
A tally of these answers reveals that in Group I, the
large city department, nearly half of the officers re-
ported their function as administration, and about a
third checked investigation, leaving only one-sixth in
patrol and traffic. In contrast, men from the smaller
departments (Group III) listed over half as patrol and
less than a third in administration.

A somewhat different pattern was observable re—
garding the levels at which they serve. Two-thirds of
Group I were more evenly distributed among levels, with
about half in lower levels. In Table IV, page 45, the
:number of men in each group are shown by function and
level.

In Table V, page 46, function and level are com-
'bined.and redefined to show only three 1eve1s--supervisory,
cxnmnand, and line (at level of execution). The distri-

lmrtion.of Groups I, II, IIIA and IIIB among the eleven

45

OOH

0‘ (D M M M H r-ll

ma
wH
ma
MN

 

psoo Hem

Gem

KO \0 F N NI

ma
mm
Pm
mm
as
mm
Hapoe

 

boa

<3 K\ \o o: r”

NH
NH
as
HH

 

HHH moose

as as
mm. m:
o o
H o
o m
m a
o o
n ma
mm o
0 ma
m 0
mm ma

HH muouw H msomo

qm>MH 924 ZOHBUZDM
>H magma

 

cswaaoo oaHHMHB
mafia oauwwna
unmsaoo Honpmm
csdsaoo soapmmwpmo>sH
anomwbmomsm owmmmna
haema>nomsm Honpmm
mmomflbnomdm soapmwwpmo>sH
mafia :OHpstpmm>sH
csmsaoo scavmnpmflnflsdd
mafia Honpmm
anomabhomsm noapmnpmaqflsdd
Hobom sowpossm

mu H .ddfi.’

Table V
LEVELS ATTAIHED WITHIN EACH FUNCTION

 

240

N:

l - 9h s
(391) U
P

60

TROL

 

n - 1o
(29!)

 

 

UOXI<BQ

 

2|
0|
H|n__
8' h-JHzm
<l
cl
\0
HI \Ov"
Bl I3
01
ml av
Ml
>|
ll
HI.
*—
0
HI
9-. SA
Ii. to.
< '3
n
a:
AH: m

(DDFMNOEF‘HUJONN

40

35

mamafi

Q
*5

I.”
N

    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

UOXI‘HQ

O
N

AH.”

mama;

ooxx<nn

I“
d

UOII<IQ

  

Q
—I

  
 
   
 

55

3O

37

23

44

4

6

47

categories show considerable concentration of supervisory
and command—level personnel in the administrative func-
tion. Sixty-six per cent of those attending these work-
shops were men with authority over others; 54 per cent
were at the level of execution.

Group I consisted entirely of supervisory and com-
mand personnel; Group II had about half supervisors,
slightly more than a third line officers and the rest
were at the command level. Of those participants who re-
garded themselves as line officers, two-thirds were in

Group III.

Egggg egperience §§ full-time officer. The reported
years of service shows a pattern consistent with that of
function and level. Of the 52 men with more than twenty
years experience, 55 were from Group I and reported posi-
tions of authority. Most of those with less than ten
years experience were serving with the smaller departments.
The average number of years experience for these 240 par-
ticipants was 14 years. Because all Detroit inspectors
and training sergeants were required to attend, the aver-
age per man in Group I was more than 20 years, while 12
years is the average for all the rest. In Table VI, page
48, the years from each group are shown in five-year

periods.

48

.mQMoh ea mmz HmOflmmo osHpIHHsm a ma mosoflnonxm mmmoh Ho Mensa: owmnobm 0:9

mm mm mmm mwa new and mod an mooa psoo Ham
4 a mm 3 mm mm mm a cam H38
.0. N am fl. .3 Wm. Mm w... a HHH 86.8
o o a mm mm a m o as S macaw
a m mm 3 m o H o G H 86.8

 

.mraw .mnowusm .HWNAN 8873 ..usTS .mHoTc .Hnwna can noose Izl

MozmHmmmNm mo mmdmw
H> manma

49

In-service training in past two years. Partici-

 

 

pants were asked to say how many hours of department-
sponsored training they had had within the past two years.
This time period was significant because so much of the
new laws and court actions affecting policemen have come
within that period.

About 87 per cent had some training in the past two
years, with an average of about 50 hours per man. Only
half of the participants, however, actually had that much
and the majority of these were in Groups I and II. Only
one-fifth of Group IIIB reported as much as 48 hours or
more training. Furthermore, of the 15 per cent who repor-
ted no training in the past two years, most were from
Group IIIB. Details are in Table VII, page 50.

The larger the department, the more likely it is
that the men get some training. Among those reporting
120 hours or more, however, the proportion from all
department size groups was much the same: 16 per cent of
Group I, 15 per cent of Group II, 15 per cent of Group
IIIA and 11 per cent of Group IIIB.

Little connection existed between previous training
and assignment to attend. Of 155 assigned to attend, 18

had no recent previous training, and of the 8 not

50

2» mm

mHHH «HHH
manna macho

 

ovm u z
mmdmw 038 emmm 3H
UBHZH<MB MOH>MMmIZH

HH> mfinme

m»

HH
- qsonu

 

 

 

 

“ma
mmuz +omH

Rom mauz
ooauow

RNA
2 whim:

Ram
mauom

and
mmuz manm

RAH
mmuz osoz
mmaom
oszH<me

51

assigned, 14 were without recent training--lO of these
from Group IIIB, where there may not have been anyone

higher in command to do the assigning. From Group I,

92 per cent were assigned to attend; from the other

large cities 42 per cent were assigned.

a,

summary 3f Characteristics 9f Participants

These officers represented a wide range of experi-
ence and responsibilities: from administrative duties
in large departments to line officer serving very small
towns; from thirty years on the job to less than six
months; and from several weeks training to none at all.
They were very different; but, they shared a desire to
learn and an interest in the subjects to be discussed

at the workshop.

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
I. THE COGNITIVE TEST

.223El.§£2§2 Results

The Information Survey, Form A (pretest) and Form
D [posttest(Appendix A & BI], :measured cognitive gain
as well as opinion and attitude changes. The cognitive
instrument containedzatotal of nineteen test items;
twelve of the pretest items were repeated on the post-
test, and seven parallel items were used on each Form
of the test.52

Participants were categorized by job function,
job level, years of police experience, and hours of in-
service training within the department during the last
two years. Separate analyses were run on each category.
Table VIII, page 55, contains pretest and posttest mean
scores for each group, as well as results of t-tests of

the differences between means.

32Due to a typographical error on the posttest, the
first workshop group forty-two men and women) had to omit
one item. These forty-two scores are treated separately

in the analysis. The error was corrected before the start
of the second workshop.

Table VIII

MEAN SCORES AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS ON COGNITIVE TEST:
BY JOB FUNCTION, JOB LEVEL, YEARS OF EXPERIENCE,
AND HOURS OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING

555

 

 

. is TEST grpns
f3

 

12 TEST ITEMS
can t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

significant between .05 and .02 level

PARTICIPANT ‘ can ‘N ‘N
CLASSIFICATIONS PEetest PosttestI’ IPretest Posttegt
HE'S—Function 42 198
Patrol 10.50 12.00 1.12 6 11.02 12.19 2.95** 62
Traffic 10.80 11.00 .18 5 12.85 12.00 -.52 6

Investigation 11.18 12.75 1.61 11 12.04 15.50 5.14** 54
Administration 10.15 12.25 2.65** 20 11.75 12.61 2.49‘* 76
Job Level 42 198
Detective O 12.15 15.62 5.06** 54

Patrol 0 11.19 12.58 2.52** 55

Supervisory 10.71 12.25 2.52** 51 11.85 12.55 1.57 72

Command 10.09 12.09 2.08* 11 11.58 12.72 2.47** 59
Years of

Experience 198

0-5 years b 11.19 12.67 2.99** 45
11-15 years b 12.05 12.66 1.60 56
16-20 years 11.09 12.27 1.25 11 11.29 12.05 1.58 51
21 years & more 10.00 12.04 5.54** 27 11.67 12.75 2.08* 56
Department

In-Service Train-

1118

None b 11.25 11.81 1.12 52

2-18 hours 10.71 12.86 1.57 7 11.59 12.59 1.74* 28
20-42 hours 11.44 12.00 .58 9 12.02 12.78 1.42 41
48-75 hours 9.90 12.00 1.87* 10 11.80 15.07 2.44* 50
80-100 hours 9.75 11.50 1.47 8 11.64 12.85 2.59* 42
120 hours or

more 11.55 12.50 .90 6 11.52 12.96 2.58* 25
All Participants 10.55 12.19 5.25** 42 11.65 12.65 5.10** 198
Comparison

Group I 11.45 10.14 L2.79** 51
Comparison

Group II 9.79 10.29 1.09 28

a df=2N-2

b subgroups of less than 5 people were not included in the analysis

:* = significant at or below .01 level

54

As can be seen in Table VIII, there was a signifi-
cant positive gain in knowledge at the end of the work-
shop program for the total group of participants. In
all subgroups but one (Traffic Function, nineteen items),
there was cognitive gain, and in most cases, the gain was
of a magnitude to be significant at the .05 level. Some
of the subgroups had appreciably higher pretest scores.
This can be seen in a comparison of the Traffic Fune-
tions, nineteen items. Similar differences among sub-
groups occurred on posttest scores which is demonstrated
by a comparison of the Traffic and Investigation Functions,
nineteen items.

Two comparisons groups were tested during the sum-
mer. One was an experienced group of officers engaged in
a one-week in-service training management program, and the
other was an inexperienced group of recruits, one week
into a four-week basic training program. Comparison
Group I was tested on each of two successive days during
the middle of the week; the latter group was tested on
Friday afternoon and the following Monday morning. As
shown in Table VIII, neither group scored significantly
higher on the posttest. In fact, the first control group
had a significant cognitive loss on the posttest. This
may'be explained by the fact that the posttest was more
(iifficult than the pretest. (see Table IX, page 60)

55

Program content. The workshop participants as a
group showed a cognitive gain significant at the .01
level. This was hypothesized in this study and is sup-
ported by voluminous studies from many disciplines. This
is unique, however, in that no other study of videotaped
in-service training dealing either with law as a subject
or with law enforcement officers as the participants
could be found.

The rationale presented in the Introduction for
using recent supreme court decisions as the program con-
tent will not diminish. It is encouraging that technology
can be used to overcome criminal law training obstacles
such as: the continuous stream of legal decisions pro-
duced by each session of the legislature and each term of
the Supreme Court; the workloads on local prosecutors
which prohibit them from adequately researching all of
these changes; and the amount of time and money that would
be required for lecturers to assist over 15,000 law enforce-

ment officers in Michigan.

Job function. Officers could be easily ranked from
high to low cognitive gain by their job function. The order
was as hypothesized: Investigation, Patrol and Administra-

tion, with all showing a cognitive gain at the .01 level

56

of significance. Traffic officers, six men, stood alone
with a cognitive loss. Further checking disclosed that
some of these officers were extremely negative on their
Participant Evaluation Forms and were responsible for
many of the negative comments on the entire program. One
particular traffic officer complained about the lack of
traffic related material in the workshop, about the un-
reasonable restrictions on automobile searches and about
the problems Miranda has caused in the investigation of
accidents involving drinking drivers. The other five
officers in his unit may have had the same attitude, but
they were less verbal.

These results indicate that students who can see
the personal relevance of instructional material and who
believe that the material will have early use, tend to
learn more than students who see less relevance and prac-
tical use in the material presented, as exemplified by
the traffic officer. Training officers should note these

results in their planning sessions.

Job level. Detectives showed the most significant

 

cognitive gain, and because of the subject matter of the
workshop, this was appropriate. Supervisors were the only

group who did not experience a cognitive gain significant

57

at the .01 level. It is possible that supervisors believe
this material to be of greatest concern to patrolmen and
investigators, and of limited utility to themselves.
Patrolmen are very critical of their supervisors. Their
criticism may be warranted. Police supervisors may be
only higher paid patrolmen as some management people

believe.

z§g£§.gf.experience. Hypothesis 4a was almost with-
out support. Contrary to predictions, officers with 0-5
years of service made cognitive gains significant at the
.01 level. Also contrary to predictions, officers with
more than twenty years service showed cognitive gain
significant at the .05 level.

It may have been that the officers with 0-5 years
service attended good recruit schools and have a more com-
plete background than was hypothesized. Thus, they were
best able to handle new, complex, legal police problems.
The significance level attained by officers with more than
twenty years service may have been a result of the sampl-
ing; many of them may have attended because they were
interested and wanted to learn. Some may be the top men
in their departments or divisions; others may be function-

ing at a lower level but are dedicated to learning.

58

Infservice training. Officers with 48-100 hours of
in—service training did show the most cognitive gain, sig-
nificant at the .05 level. Except for twenty-eight offi-
cers with 2-18 hours training, who showed a significant
(.05 level) gain, knowledge gain was directly proportional
to the amount of recent in-service training, reaching a
maximum for those officers with 80-100 hours in-service
training, and then leveling off. There is no way of know-
ing what type of training those twenty-eight officers with
2-18 hours training had experienced. If it had been legal
training, the question would be answered and the unexpected
gain would be explained.

It is somewhat surprising to find that officers with
120 or more hours of recent in—service training made a
significant gain. Possible explanations may be that these
officers are the most trainable, attend the most schools,
or are functioning in their departments as training

officers.

Qualification 9f Results

The difference in mean scores on the pretest and
posttest is not as great as might be expected. This small
difference in scores led to a comparison of the cognitive

sections of Form A and Form B. What were meant to be

59

parallel questions, on closer analysis, were proven to
be parallel in content only. Form A and Form B contained
eleven identical questions. The indexes of difficulty
of these questions were quite similar, with a range of
differences from zero to thirteen. The eight questions
which were not identical had wide differences in their
indexes of difficulty with the range of differences from
four to fifty-one and a mean difference of twenty-two.
The indexes of difficulty computed from the results
of the Information Survey, Form A and Form B, given to
the Comparison Groups, are compared in Table IX, pages 60-
61. This comparison would indicate that Form B was much
more difficult than Form A. Some of the questions were
changed from true-false on Form A to multiple choice on
Form B. Other questions forced the subjects to make
finer distinctions on Form B than on Form A. These fac-
tors reduced the levels of significance for the cognitive

test results.
II. THE ATTITUDE TEST

To measure opinion change, three types of items were
used: (1) twenty declarative statements requiring an

"Agree-Disagree" response, (2) fifteen paired comparisons,

‘

4:Question

60

Table IX

INDEX OF DIFFICULTY DIFFERENCES:
COMPARISON GROUP RESULTS

mumm—bmmp—J

\0

10
ll
12
13
14
15

$3
FORM A 2% FORM B
(1)
Type of Index of ‘3’ Index of Type of Index
Question Difficulty # Difficulty Question Difference
B Minus -A

TE 29 11 58 MC 19
TB 18 4 25 TF 7
TE 6 7 51 TE 25
TB 55 2 51 TF - 4
TF 22 10 65 MC 41
TE 45 5 55 TE 10
Same 29 5 51 Same 2
Same 92 6 94 Same 2
Same 16 1 18 Same 2
MC 18 8 69 MC 51
MC 41 9 18 MC -25
Same 7O 12 57 Same -15
Same 24 18 14 Same -10
Same 85 15 85 Same 0
Same 18 19 14 Same - 4

61

Table IX (continued)

 

\ s s
O O
~r-i "—1
if) roam A "a? FORM B
“5’ 2%
:3 Type of Index of (3 Index of Type of Index
# Question Difficulty 4 Difficulty Question Difference
B Minus -A
16 Same 49 15 52 Same 5
17 Same 75 17 75 - Same 0
18 Same 61 14 65 Same 2
19 Same 40 16 44 Same 4
114
liey:
TF - True and False question, but not identical on Forms
A and B.
MC - Multiple Choice question, but not identical on Forms
A and B.

Same - Identical question used on pretest and posttest.

Index of difficulty - the proportion of the total group who
got the item wrong or omitted it or marked more than
one option. A high index indicates a difficult item
and a low index indicates an easy item.

62

and (5) an eight-scale, ten-concept semantic differential.

Opinion Statements

 

On both the pretest and the posttest, respondents
were in general agreement on twelve of the twenty state—
ments. That is, 64 per cent or more of the group E2l2.£22
ggmg opinion. There were eight statements on which opinion
was fairly evenly split (50 to 61 per cent of the group
held the same opinion). Only two statements showed a
major shift of opinion after the workshop. On the pretest,
92 per cent disagreed with the idea that, "Policemen have
to cut a few corners if they are going to protect the com-
munity," but on the posttest only 56 per cent disagreed
with the statement.

The statement, "I would not trust any person or
group to decide what opinions can be freely expressed and
what must be silenced," initially drew 60 per cent agree-
ment; following the workshop, 82 per cent of the group
expressed agreement. Tables X, page 65, XI, page 64, and
XII, page 65, show the percentage of agreement (or dis—
ag°eement) and rank for each of the twenty statements both

before and after the workshop.

Paired Comparisons
Fifteen pairs of situations were presented to re-

spondents with instructions to select the one in each pair

Table X

AGREEMENT

65

 

IPer cent of’Agreement

 

 

 

Statement of Opinion

 

 

People in the minority
should be free to try to win
majority support for their
Opinions OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No matter what a person's
political beliefs are, he is
still entitled to the same
legal rights and protections
as allyone else OOOOOOOOOOOOO
No matter what crime a per-
son is accused of, he should
never be convicted unless he
has been given the right to
face and question his
accusers OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
I would not trust any person
or group to decide what
opinions can be freely ex-
pressed and what must be
Silenced 0000000000000000000
No court has a right to de-
cide for an individual what
he should and should not
read

Pretest I%sttest
IPer cent ‘Rank ;32; cent ‘Rank
92% 2 96%
96 l 94
90 i 5 92
Split Opinion 82
72 4 64

 

 

 

Table XI

SPLIT OPINION

Statement of Opinion

64

 

Pregesg

' Posttest

 

IPer cefit’ Rank

7Per cent Rank

 

...—I

'kind of protection provided by the

 

Is’.. 4

..-.

..-.

- --“

 

"threat to the well-being of the country

Recent Supreme Court decisions, like

Miranda and McNabb—Mallory, have actu-
ally worked to reduce the freedom and
safety of citizens in the local commu-

nitieSOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...0.0.0.0....

The average citizen doesn't need the

Miranda decision and similar Supreme
Court pronouncements....................

Policemen have to cut a few corners if
they are going to protect the community.

If a person is convicted of a crime by
illegal evidence, he should be set free
and the evidence thrown out of course...

It will always be necessary to have a few
strong, able people actually running
everything.00.000.000.000...OOOOOOOOOOO.

If someone is suspected of treason or
other serious crimes, he shouldn‘t be
entitled to be let out on bail..........

If congressional committees stuck strictly

to the rules and gave every witness his
rights, they would never succeed in

exposing the many dangerous subversives
they have turned up.....................

Releasing suspects who have been
arrested or convicted on the basis of
illegal evidence is a far more serious

than the violation of constitutional
rights by law enforcement officials.....

When the country is in great danger we
may have to force people to testify
against themselves even if it violates
their rightSOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.

56% 4
49 1.5
92%
Disagreement
52 5
51 1.5
59 5
55 8
4O 6
59 7

 

 

 

 

54% 1 .

i

55 2 4
44 5
57 4
58 6
58 6
42 6
59 8.5
59 8.5
......1..-....... ,6 ..l

 

 

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table XII
DISAGREEMENT
’Per cent’ofIDigaggeement
Pretest osttest
Statement of Opépion ‘Per c325 ’Rafik OPer cen. ‘R
In dealing with dangerous enemies of
society, we can't afford to depend on
the courts and their slow and unreliable
methOds...00.000000000000000O0.00.0.0... 89% 3 93$ 1
When an individual with a criminal
record is arrested for another crime,
he doesn't deserve the added protec-
tion afforded by recent Supreme Court
deCiBionBOOOO0.00.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 92 1.5 90 2
I don't mind a politician's methods if
he manages to get the right things
doneflOOCOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000q 84 4 89 3
Any person who hides behind the laws
when he is questioned about his activi-
ties doesn't deserve much consideration. 75 5 78 4
It is all right to get around the law
if you don't actually break it.........J 72 6 75 5
The true American way of life is dis-
appearing so fast that we may have to
use force to save it.................... 70 7 75 6
Policemen have to cut a few corners if
they are going to protect the community. 92 1.5 Split Opinion

 

 

 

66

which was "more important for protecting and maintaining
the safety and well-being of the community." In some
cases, a pair required a choice between greater protec-
tion of individual rights and stronger methods of law
enforcement (see Table XIII, page 67, Items 2, 4, 10, and
15). A few pairs required a choice between two situations
of the same type (see Table XIII, Items 7, 9, and 11).

"Maintaining Control of the Situation" appeared in
two pairs, 1 and 15. On both the pretest and the posttest,
over 75 per cent of the group selected it as more important
than "Protecting Individual Civil Rights" and "Nonviolent
Demonstrations." "Stop and Frisk Laws" were seen as more
important to community safety and well-being than "Laws
Protecting Individual Rights of Suspects" but less impor—
tant than "Good Police-Community Relations." "The Miranda
Warnings" were used in three pairs. A majority selected
adherence to Miranda as more important than "Getting a
Confession" and "Using Illegally Obtained Evidence". On
the pretest, only 7 per cent believed that "Strict Adher-
ence to the Miranda Requirements" was more important than
"Interrogating a Suspect Before Legal Counsel Arrives;" on
the posttest, 51 per cent chose strict adherence to Miranda
as more important. This change was quite dramatic and,

viewed by itself, suggested an encouraging change in a

Table XIII

PAIRED COMPARISONS:
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE SELECTING EACH OPTION

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

PreteSt’ ‘PosttestI
Pairs ’N I, Pct; ct.
1 Maintaining control of the situation 190 181
1 Protecting individual civil rights 50 21% 59 25%
2 Stop and frisk laws 157 57 148 62
2 Protecting individual rights of suspects 105 92
5 Giving the Miranda warning 149 147
5 Getting a confession 91 58 95 59
4 Opportunity to interrogate without legal
counsel present 125 125
4 Right to presence of legal counsel during
interrogation 115 48 117 49
5 Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence 95 59 100 42
5 Conviction of criminal suspects 147 140
6 Apprehension of criminal suspects 150 145
6 Guaranteeing rights of criminal suspects 90 58 95 4O
7 Protecting nonviolent demonstrators 56 15 58 16
7 Preserving peace and tranquility 204 202
8 Good police-community relations 209 196
8 Stop and frisk laws 51 15 44 18
9 Apprehension of criminal suspects
9 Conviction of criminal suspects
10 Protection from self-incrimination 154 56 161 67
10 Waiver of right to remain silent 106 79
11 Right to avoid self-incrimination
11 Right to counsel during interrogation,
line-up, etc.
12 Use of illegally obtained evidence 68 28 79 55
12 Meeting the Miranda requirements 172 161
15 Nonviolent demonstrations 55 14 58 16
15 Maintaining control of the situation 207 202
14 Protection of individual civil rights 15 6 111 46
14 Apprehension of criminal suspects 225 129
15 Interrogating before legal counsel arrives
224 100
15 Strict adherence to Miranda requirements 16 7 140 51

 

 

68

hoped-for direction. However, Pair 4, which pitted "Right
to Presence of Legal Counsel During Interrogation" against
"Opportunity to Interrogate Without Legal Counsel Present"
showed no such change. Forty-eight per cent selected the
former on the pretest and 49 per cent selected it on the
posttest. Comparison of results on Pairs 4 and 15 does
show a more consistent reaponse on the posttest than on
the pretest.

"Apprehension of Criminal Suspects" was chosen as
more important than "Guaranteeing the Rights of Criminal
Suspect," "Conviction of Criminal Suspects," and "Protec-
tion of Individual Civil Rights", although it was selected
by a smaller majority on the posttest than on the pretest
(especially Pair 14).

In this section, nonviolent demonstrations and
demonstrations were viewed with disfavor. That is, the
great majority of respondents felt it was more important
to preserve peace and tranquility or maintain control of
the situation than to protect demonstrators or allow non-

violent demonstrations.

Semantic Eifferential
Six of the eight scales included in this section

were evaluative scales. The sum of scores on the six

69

scales provided an evaluative-factor score. A high factor
score (27.10 or higher) indicates a favorable opinion to-
ward the concept being measured; a low factor score (21.00
or less) indicates an unfavorable Opinion toward the con-
cept being measured. Factor scores between 21.10 and
27.00 indicate a neutral opinion or no opinion associated
with the concept being measured. Group changes on the
evaluative factor were tested for significance with Wil-
coxon's T; mean score differences were tested with a t-test.
Table XIV, pages 70, 71, and 72-00ntains the results
of the Wilcoxon T for the ten concepts included in the
test. Participants were categorized according to job func—

tion, job level, and years of experience as a policeman.

Proggam content. Hypothesis 1b. was supported.
There was a significant attitude change in a positive direc-
tion on those concepts which the participants feel assist
them in their work. Similarly there were changes in a
negative direction on those concepts which participants
felt hindered them in their work.

At the close of the workshop, Concept 1, Line-Up
Identification, was evaluated more favorably by the parti-
cipants, regardless of how they were categorized. Con-

versely, Concept 2, Miranda Warnings, was viewed less

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on... ##+ til a... mm 0.3a Ho nhdon Hm
ho... ...... .3... 1.... Ne. 9.”on ONIoH
ed... ...... it: ##+ mm 950% mHIHH
>0; *1 .1! ti... Nn uhdoH calm
1.... it... ##I at... ¢¢ endow mlo
a?
n+1... *+ ##I #1... on cash
ta ......a ......I 11 no.5 handgun“:
tit ..I..+ #I .11. mm Houubm
.... mm .+ .... 11. en obavooeon
>0 new
mo... 3+ ...... 1+ mm ufififififlae,‘
. mo... 1.. 1+ 8 Savage—.35
NO .+ in... 2*... HA OHHHMHH
I? 1.1 1+ mm Hohpdm
«3 P o
..IIIIIIIIIIIlllli
H959 a. doavoohfld who a. doapomflnn 25 no co 1m j
m N r H ‘

mozumHmmmHm mo WEN 924 .§9 mow .ZOHBUE mob. Hm

“EREMMHQ 02245.3 52.. 2H QMQDHOZH

mammUzou Ema mg MUEOHMszHm mo E 924 "Hugo mo ZOHBUflfiHQ

>HN magma

71

 

 

HN.+
ma.-
am.-
ma.+

 

>O.+
Om.+

*+
NH.I

 

m¢.I

*I
¢¢.I
mH.I
no.3

mH.I
N¢.I
mo.l
>O.I

 

Hmmqspplmwu» am
ms

rn.u
o¢.+
mH.+
*'
**'

mv.l
>¢.I

**t
Hm.l

>0.+
mo.l
OH.I

**I

 

 

 

Hobo
mam a no m

a no

 

 

 

 

mm ornoaxunaoh Hm
we undo» omlma
mm undo» mHIHH
mm mnuww calm
44 was.“ mno.
oodofimofl. .Ho and. oh
om undaaoo
moa haemabnomsm
mm Honpmm
em obapoopon
debug new
mm doawmnvmflndad<
mm aoflvwmapmobaH
HH afiwmmna
mm Honpmm
defimo o
eomndn z

bficfiH

 

 

 

Aamsnap:00v >HN manna

72

 

Hobma Ho. on» Scamp no em
Hm>ma mo. an» we

psmoaeaqmam **
pewoawanmam *

 

he.
ea. I
HH. I

NH.
3.
2..

+

ea. +
an. I
OH. +

* I
ON. I

mm.
as.
mo.
mm.

+ I+-+

we .I
0H. +
NH. I

 

. Hm>m9,£ noMWoonHQ
commaumnomfln Hmban panOanoz
0H

 

Hm>mn,w noapomumn
m ma Ha>ao

 

no
we
mm
mm
44

 

onoa\mHMmM mNI,

mHMmM ONImH
mnwow mHIHH

mnwmw OHIm
mHmmM mIo

 

 

Om

 

mOH
mm
em

 

conoanommm Ho munch

unmaaoo
hnomfibnmmflm
Hohpwm
obfipompmn

 

Hm>ma nos

 

mm noapmupmaeaaaa

 

 

 

mm nowvmmflpmwhaH
HH owwmmny
mm Honpmm
noawvnsm now
a

 

 

“assuapqOoV >HM magma

 

75

favorably by the participants. Concept 5, Stop and Frisk,
showed a significant positive gain in opinion when the
subjects' scores were broken into experience subgroups.

By job—level, all but the detectives showed a significant
positive change in opinion.

Concepts 4, 5, and 6 were generally viewed more
negatively at the conclusion of the workshop than at the
beginning. Although most of these changes were not signi-
ficant at the .05 level, the trend is overwhelmingly in
that direction. Concept 7, U.S. Supreme Court, tended to
be viewed more favorably as a result of the workshop ex-
perience, in spite of the fact that several of the Court's
decisions were not popular with the participants. Concept
8, Interrogation Techniques, received mixed reactions from
the group, none of which approached significance. The
Concept was treated in detail during the workshop--§£tg£
the posttest was completed and thus, the impact of the
presentation, whatever it was, was not felt in the test
results.

The remaining two concepts, Civil Rights and Non--
violent Civil Disobedience, were not treated specifically
during the two days, but were discussed peripherially
or by implication. No consistent response pattern is dis-

cernable in the test results.

74

In addition to knowing the direction of opinion
change, it is important to know whether the opinions held
were generally favorable or unfavorable. Table XV, pages
75, 76,&:77, contains the mean scores for each subgroup
on the ten concepts. Significance levels are noted.

Mean scores on Concept 1, Line-Up Identification,
started high and became higher at the conclusion of the
workshop, as did the scores for Stop and Frisk. In con-
trast, participants were slightly favorable toward the
Miranda Warnings prior to the training program; afterwards,
mean scores tended to fall in the neutral range.

0f the ten concepts measured, Nonviolent Civil
Disobedience had the lowest mean scores. The workshop
had very little effect on the participants' attitudes
toward this form of protest. There was nothing in the
program that was intended to deal specifically with the
concept, although the section on Civil Disturbance and
Riot Control might have been expected to "rub off" on the
participants' views about nonviolent protest. The test
results suggest this did not happen.

There is an interesting paradox in the difference
between the participants' Opinions toward Individual Rights
of Criminal Suspects, a broad, generalized concept, and

their opinions toward specific individual rights such as

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.0m m>.0m mo.mm >m.mm NN.>N o>.0m mm.>m mm.mm no wnos no Hm
oa.m~ 04.0m mm.mm No.5» Hm.¢~ Hm.sm m¢.mm mm.pn «I oNImH
mimm mm.m~ No.3 mmém mmfiw 3.8. 3.5 3.3 mm man?
oH.¢N mm.m~ a¢.mm ee.¢m 44.4N N>.m~ I ma.>m mm.¢m mm cane

I mm.mm aa.mm am.mm mm.mm >m.- ao.~m I ¢¢.mn ma.mm II muo
Wong—”Hog Ho memH

ma.om om.om Nn.>m am.mm NN.mN ¢¢.Hm mm.mm ~m.>m om enuaaoo
am.mm Hm.mm No.mm no.mm Hm.mm m¢.om I mm.sm m¢.mm med anomapnoaam

I Nm.mm o~.mm ¢>.mm mm.¢m N¢.m~ mo.m~ I mo.mm so.mm mm Honpmm
ma.mm o~.p~ mm.mm mm.mm mo.mm oo.mm I mm.mm mm.¢m an o>apoopmn
H¢>oq nos

Im.m~ Hm.0m 44.5m mm.¢m Ho.mm om.Hm m¢.>m om.mm mm noapenpmaeaaa<
Hm.mm mm.mm woven mm.mm am.Hm mo.mm I oe.am mo.mn mm noawmmapmopuH
mm.on mm.~m Hm.mm ma.pm am.¢~ ma.om Hm.mm wH.mm Ha oanmmna

I mm.>m OH.Om Hm.mm H>.4m am.mm mm.om I ma.mm ma.mm mm Houpam
I QOHWW o

JdmomH .mmmr .mmomfi .oW atom .25 2
am 0.30 ado .cmHm onoom chem .qmam . a .
o.“ o 0H1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mozmHmmmmm mo mmasw nza..amsmq mos .onaozpm now am
"anezmmmmqu oHazazmm was zH nHQDAOzH mammozoo zma mom
mqm>mg moz<OHmHzeHm gza .mmmoom zamz ammaamom .mmmoom zamz ammammm

3m cache

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  
  

 

 

 

wodm 3.3 3.0m 23mm 5.3 8.3 36m 36m mm macs no Hm
ma.mm mm.mm mm.>m mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.em mm.¢m we ONImH
mm.~m mo.mn m~.om He.mm mm.mm mw.mm ew.mm em.em mm mHIHH
. .> mm. m NH. m . m . .o N.N 0 Im
mm.mm mm.w wa.mm oo.w~ mw.mm mm.mm I m.o m.mm Wm muo
ofimHHm .Ho mHmmM
mmdm mmdn 3.2mm mmém mm.mm eo.oe 3.6m 3.6m 0m @5500
Hm.>m .om.am mm.mm Np.mm ow.mm am.mm mm.¢m om.am moa anomapumasm
oo.sm >H.>n o¢.mm ma.>m mm.mm o>.>m mm.mm me.Hm mm Honpmm
mm.mm H>.mm mm.mm mm.~m e¢.mm e¢.>m mo.mm ee.em em abapoopmq
Hopmg nos
ma.mm mw.~m Ne.Hm mm.om He.mm me.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm soapmnpmanase<
mm.mm mm.mm mo.>m ma.>m mm.mm me.>m mm.mm mm.mm mm noapmmapmm>nH
m>.sm mm.mm am.mm om.mm mm.oe mm.mm mm.mm mo.mm Ha oammmna
0m.>m ma.em am.mm mm.mm m>.>m ma.wm ww.om mm.mm mo Honpmm
I . II I aofimo o
~7.Pmom waonm, HwapmomI~mwunm, 147.9mom _ .onm z
Iawa .nma .smHm—I‘ whoom‘sdmfit .swwm WEE
some coawm ounmpaH pndoo owmw 5m m D Howczpb op pnmwm .mmdm.aano mvanm.>quH
em 0 cm 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apossfipsoov >x manna

77

Hm>ma mo. map pm pamoamaqmamI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.mw mo.mm um.mm >m.mm mw whoa no Hm

mm.am we.Hm ¢>.mm Hm.¢m me omImH

mm.mm Om.mm wm.¢m mH.mm mm mHIHH

em.HN mm.mH mm.om mm.mm mm calm

Hm.mH mm.ma Pm.om mm.Hm ea mIo
voqewmogxm Ho madmw

mo.mm mm.om w>.mm mm.mm om onwasoo

mm.mm am.mm am.¢m om.am moa anoma>nmgsm

Hm.mH mm.mH mm.mm m¢.om mm Homymm

mm.Hm Hm.mm mm.mm m>.mm em obfipompmm
Hmbmg non

mH.mm Hm.mm mo.mm wm.¢m mm poapmnpmflnasad

mm.am Hm.mm 4m.mm am.mm mm qoapmmapmm>qH

m¢.ma Hm.ma Hm.mm Hm.mm Ha oflmwmse

om.om m¢.HN Hm.om m¢.Hm mm Honpmm
sowwondm nmh

TI .pmom 116E . F .mmom _ .95 z.
.anm oncom mama .qum_. ohoom new:
.pomHQ HH>Holw¢mH0flbsoz mpnwwm Hwbfio
sh .m

 

 

 

 

AamssapsOOV >x magma

78

the Miranda Warnings and the exclusionary rule. While the
participants were favorable toward the general idea of

suspects' rights, they were considerably less favorable

to specific gparantees of those rights.

gpp_function. The direction and amount of change
on particular concepts was associated with job function.
The Rationale Of the hypothesis was supported. For
example, patrol officers showed a significant change at
the .01 level in a negative direction on Concept 5,
"Individual Rights of Criminal Suspects." Traffic and
Investigation personnel also showed a negative change
almost significant, while Administration showed a positive
change almost significant. Basically, the following types
of changes took place: the closer the officer's job
function was to the concept, the more impact, either
positive or negative, it made on his attitude. Training
officers, noting this, may wish to segregate officers by
job function when they are handling topics which may cause

much anxiety among some groups of officers.

Job level. Curiosity about the possible relationships

 

Of years of experience and job level with Opinions held,
led to the analysis of the semantic differential data

using this cross-classification. Table XVI, page 79,

79

 

 

 

 

     

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.~m mn.sn Io.an me.an Ne.mm n>.mn mm.m~ om.om s>.mm mm.>n mu Iau
«95 3.3. 9...? 00.9“. omdn 3.3 9.3 8.8 Show «13 m ouImH
pm.on IH.Hm mm.¢~ m¢.>~ m~.mn oo.mn oo.s~ n¢.Hn m~.mn em.mn a oHIo
om.mn 04.nn o~.¢n o¢.m~ o~.mn om.~m o¢.wm ow.o¢ oo.mn om.pn m m :0 "Hopmn equaaoo
mn.nm mném +~.on 3.8 3.5 no.3 «Row 33% Hmdn fitmn en +5
ms.nm e~.mn m~.m~ e~.on >H.¢m um.mn m~.e~ He.m~ mm.mn H¢.~n mm owned
mm.mn. >¢.mn oo.m~ me.mm ma.pn ma.¢m oo.o~ em.mm mH.mn mm.mn .mn mHIHH
cm.~n cm.¢n om.o~ sm.m~ mm.mm am.om oo.m~ >H.0m oo.mn >m.mm m cane ”ampoa
homwgmmsm
cm.on mm.w~ cm.am pa.~m mn.mn pa.mn oo.H~ nm.- sm.mm mm.>n m maIHH
mH.b~ mm.m~ mn.¢~ m¢.m~ mm.>n we.mn ma.m~ mm.m~ mm.mn ~o.mn ma cans
mmdn no.9... nmfim unqmw 8.3 3.3 3.5 84m umdn 3.9... en m Io «H059 Houpwm
om.¢m oe.mm o¢.¢~. oo.¢~ om.pn o¢.mn 04.na o¢.>a o~.¢n om.mm m owned
ma.¢m mo.mn om.>~ mn.mm 60.4» mn.mn cm.>~ Hm.m~ ¢¢.mm om.¢m ma mHIHH
mm.mn FH.>n cm.o~ ea.em oo.¢m nn.¢m mm.mH mm.pa nm.mm nm.Hm o oHIm “Hopes o>apoopon
oo use 9.80 now Moo ado undo» hp Hobon no
. . .. ._ Bail 3 H383
‘mpnwamy.>aenH .noamawoum, usewnmm, gpIonHH

 

moan—”Ea mo ma Mm EMA mob...
«Hugo 8336 BE ngoa
maozoo QHEMMHQ Canaan EHN E mom
aoom a ammaamom g mammoom a Ban—Mum

E magma

80

contains the results of the analysis for those concepts
which showed the greatest changes. Subgroups with fewer
than five members were not included in the analysis.

The differences among cell frequencies and the
small frequencies in some cells precludes any comparative
inferential use of the results, but there are some inter-
esting trends that can be noted. Detectives generally
tended to be less positive in their assessment of the
concepts, with the exception of Individual Rights of
Criminal Suspects. The detectives with ll-15 years Of
experience were more positive than those with either more
or less experience. Patrol level Officers generally were
somewhat more positive than the detective group. The most
experienced patrol Officers showed a higher positive gain
on Line-Up Identification, Stop and Frisk, and Individual
Rights of Criminal Suspects and a higher negative loss on
Miranda than the 0-5 year and 6-10 year patrols.

Command officers with 6-10 years experience had the
lowest posttest mean scores within the command level. In
fact, their scores resembled the patrol-level mean scores
more than command—level mean scores.

The least experienced command-level Officers and
those with 16 years or more experience generally had

higher scores (that is, more favorable Opinions) than any

81

of the other subgroups. Supervisory personnel, on the
other hand, scored between patrol-level personnel (at the
low end of the scale) and command-level personnel (at the
high end). 0f the four experience levels, supervisors
with 16-20 years scored highest on Line-Up Identification
and Stop and Frisk, and lowest on the Miranda Warnings.
It is probably more than coincidence that men in
positions which provide the closest and most continuous
contacts with criminal suspects and illegal activities
(that is, policemen at the detective and patrol levels)
are less positive about these particular concepts than
police in positions which are primarily of a supervisory

or command nature.

Years pf experience. Hypothesis 2b was partially
supported. Attitude change was much more significant in
Officers with 1-5 years of service than in Officers with
over 20 years of service (see Table XV, pages 74-76).
This was not surprising. It was revealing that Officers
with 6-10 years of service were more similar to the Offi-
cers with 1—5 years of service, than they were to those
with over 20 years of service. Officers with 11-20 years
of experience showed the least change. This should be

considered by police administrators when they are selecting

82

people to send to new training programs. Instead of send-
ing more experienced men for extensive training, depart-
ments may more wisely train men at earlier points in
their careers. These men are most susceptible to change
and the department can benefit from this change for a

longer period of time.

III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM THE INFORMATION SURVEY

Cognitive Gain

 

Results of the cognitive test indicated that work-
shop participants did pick up new information during the
two-day experience. Overall cognitive gain was signi—
ficant at the .01 level for the total group and for most
of the subgroups analyzed. Only one subgroup (Traffic
Function) showed a score drop on the posttest, and this
difference was not significant. In contrast, of the two
comparison groups tested, one showed a significant cogni-
tive loss, and the other showed a non-significant gain.

Results also showed that the participants began
the workshops with differing amounts of accurate and rele-
vant information on the tOpics and that these differences

were present at the conclusion of the workshops.

85

Opinion Change
The twenty statements of opinion showed little
change from pretest to posttest. One noticeable and in-
teresting change was the group's Opinion about the neces-
sity for policemen to "cut a few corners" to protect the
community. This idea was rejected intitially--only 8
per cent agreed that it was necessary to cut a few corners.
After the workshop, 44 per cent said it was necessary.
There was strong agreement (both before and after

the workshop) with general statements Of the basic rights

individuals under the Constitution, including the right

F?)

0

ci-
0

equal protection under the law, to face your accusers,
to freedom Of expression, and to a free press. Opinions
were split on some of the statements which suggested

specific implementation of these rights.

Paired comparisons. The paired comparisons showed
few chang s in pretest/posttest results, although some
items related to individual rights gained in group favor.
In general, percentage changes were small, with the ex-
ception of two pairs. Pair 14 (Protection of Individual
Rig ts versus Apprehension of Criminal Suspects) produced
an overall switch of 40 per cent in favor of "Protection

..." and Pair 15 (Interrogating Suspect Before Legal

84

Counsel Arrives versus Strict Adherence to the Miranda
Requirements) produced an overall change of 44 per cent

in favor of "Strict Adherence ...." Both of these changes
were in hOped-for directions. Nevertheless, the concepts
of "Maintaining Control of the Situation" and "Apprehen-
sion Of Criminal Suspects" were selected as more important
than whatever they were paired with, which is not surpris-
ing in view Of the importance of these two activities in

the role of the law enforcement officers.

Semantic Differential

The semantic differential was apparently a more
sensitive measure of opinion change than the twenty state-
ments, for the semantic differential produced a number of
significant changes. Participants came to the workshops
with very favorable attitudes toward Line-Up Identifica-
tion, Stop and Frisk Laws, Right to Counsel, and Interro—
gation Techniques. After the workshop experience, parti—
cipants showed a significant positive change (became more
favorable) on Line-Up Identification and Stop and Frisk,
a negative change toward Right to Counsel, and mixed re-
actions to Interrogation Techniques. There was a signi-
ficant negative change toward Miranda Warnings, a concept

lield in low favor to begin with. In general, it appeared

85

that the participants became more favorable to the concepts
related to the apprehension and control of criminal suspects
and became less favorable to concepts related to protec-
tion of the individual rights of criminal suspects--a

trend already apparent before the workshop. Again, in the
semantic differential (as in the twenty Opinion statements),
these law enforcement Officers expressed favorable Opinions
toward the general idea Of individual rights but less
favorable opinions toward specific guarantees of those
rights.

Responses to the ten concepts included in the seman-
tic differential differed by job level and years of police
experience. Detectives, on the whole, tended to be less
positive than patrolmen, supervisors or command level
personnel. Within the detective group, these with eleven
to fifteen years Of experience were more positive than the
men with either more or less experience. Supervisory
personnel generally fell between patrol level and command
level groups. Patrolmen were somewhat more negative, and

commanders were somewhat more positive than the supervisors.

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to identify from the Workshop
Announcement specific learning outcomes expected by
the workshop planners; therefore, it is difficult
to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop experi-
ence in terms of objectives met or not met. It can
be assumed that one of the purposes of the workshop
was to increase the amount of correct information
possessed by law enforcement officials on the workshop
topics. Results of the cognitive test demonstrated
that, at the conclusion of the two-day program, par-
ticipants 9E9 possess more accurate information than
they had possessed prior to the program.

The amount of information gained varied with the
topics covered and their relevance to the participants.
A general training session covering a series of topics
and presented to a cross-section of Officers does not
result in either equal cognitive gain or equal attitude

change for all officers. A short videotape workshop

87

must be tailored to the needs and interests of its
audience. The program which attempts to be "all things
to all men" has shot—gun-type results. For example, the
test scores of traffic officers reflected their lack of
interest in much of the subject matter. Their comments
on the Participant Evaluation Survey contained requests
for more traffic oriented material. This should not
necessarily be construed as a criticism of the workshop;
however, it may be a criticism of some departments'
selection processes. Officers should be sent to those
training programs from which they will most benefit.

The effects of recent in-service training on the
officers in this study were encouraging. It appears
that there is a direct relationship between recent
training and learning. Those officers who were exposed
to recent training of any type learned more from this
workshop than others whose training was minimal or non-
existent.

The above paragraphs indicate that officers do not
gain knowledge when exposed to training material which
they feel is irrelevant; but, officers who have been
involved recently in a training program make significant

cognitive gains. Without knowing the content of the

88

recent training or whether or not the officers were the
type who seek all training and could gain from any program,
the question of the source of the effect of recent train-
ing must be answered by future investigation.

It can be assumed that a second purpose was to change
participants' opinions toward the workshop topics, when
opinions were negative, and to increase favorable opin-
ions which already existed. The opinion measures uti-
lized demonstrated certain consistent opinion changes--
but, not all in a more positive direction. In general,
those concepts which were viewed in a favorable light at
the beginning of the program, gained in a positive
direction. Those concepts which were seen as unfavorable
prior to the workshop, and which were emphasized during
the workshOp, gained in a negative direction. Those
concepts which were only lightly touched upon or ignored
showed almost random shifts in direction and, for the
most part, were non-significant in magnitude.

Three subject matter areas, Line-Up Identification,
Miranda Warnings, and Stop and Frisk, were rated highly
by participants as areas in which they learned useful
information and techniques. Moreover, these were the

three concepts in which significant change was shown on

89

the semantic differential; however, all of these changes
were not in hoped—for directions. In fact, the signifi-
cant changes were in directions established prior to the
workshop: pgsitivqupinions became more positive,_and
negative opinions became more negative.

Finally, it can be assumed that behavior change was
a hoped-for result of the workshop program. The study
design included no measure of behavior.

The workshop was structured to present cognitive
information at a cognitive level. None of the techniques,
materials, or procedures employed were directed speci-
fically at effective change or behavior change. It would
be unrealistic to think that consistent change would occur
just because the workshop planners hoped it would.

The results of the Information Survey seem to sug-
gest that, in the absence of specific intervention in the
affective domain, increased knowledge tends to increase

affective bias.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

Objectives
Specific cognitive and affective outcomes expected

by the educational planners should be stated explicitly.

90

In addition, the methodologies selected to produce the
anticipated outcomes need to be identified.

There are certain problems inherent in a "one-shot"
learning experience that require more careful planning
and preparation to overcome than would be necessary in
the typical multiple-session, time-spaced learning ex-
perience. One of these is related to the diversity in
the backgrounds and experiences of the participants.
Test results suggest that the differences in training,
previous experience,gjob responsibility, etc...were
related to how much and how well men learned; these dif-
ferences clearly were related to their perceptions of

the relevance and importance of the information.

Background Differences

Effort should be made to reduce the heterogeneity
of the participants at any one workshop. One way to
reduce background and experience differences would be
to provide a common base of information on which all
participants could build. This could be done prior to
the workshop by mailing out pre-workshop materials. In
the workshop itself, the first hour or two could be

devoted to reviewing essential background information.

91

Another way to reduce initial differences would be
to state clearly in the Workshop Announcements the mini-
mum and maximum training/experience recommended for
attendance.

Another problem of "one-shot" programs has to do
with the necessity for the subjects to assimilate a
sizeable quantity of new information in a short time. In
a time-spaced program, the learner has multiple oppor—
tunities over time to review and discuss troublesome
or difficult concepts. In a two-day workshop, this is
not the case. Comments by some of the participants sug-
gested that they felt the need for some follow-up rein-

forcement of new material presented during the workshop.

Post-Workshop Experience

The amount of time in which the learner is exposed
to the new material could be increased without lengthen—
ing the workshop by providing a pre-workshop experience
(as suggested in the previous recommendation) and also
a post-workshop experience. The post-workshop experience
could take one of many forms: previously prepared printed
materials could be distributed at the close of the work-
shop; copies of the videotaped materials could be sold

to interested departments; local police units could be

92

assisted in offering a follow-up program involving local
prosecutors and/or judges; the workshop proceedings
could be made available within a short time following
the workshop.

The range of topics for the workshop was quite
broad. Topics such as "Recent Supreme Court Decisions"
had general appeal, while "Interrogation and Confession"
or "Civil Disturbance and Riot Legislation" were of

concern to a limited number of officers.

Workshop Schedules

Future workshops should be designed either for all
law enforcement officers or for specific segments of
officers. Topics of limited interest should not be
presented to all officers in the same workshop. Test
results showed that differences in learning were related
to training, experience, function, level, etc. of the
officers.

This study has shown that videotaped criminal law
lectures combined with discussion can be an effective
means of updating criminal law training.

However, it appears that changes must be made if
this type of workshop is going to be effective in chang—

ing the attitudes of law enforcement officers toward

93

legal concepts. Training officers must look at goals,
content, presentation, time and other variables. The
influence of these variables must be studied before pre-

dictions about attitude change can be made.

BIBLIO GRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS

Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1950.
Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley.
Ex erimental and ggasi-Experimental Desi- s for
ResearoE. Chicago: ‘RandIMENaIIy and Company,

 

Campbell, William G. Form and Style‘22 Thesis Writing.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin ompany, IBET.

Cohen, Arthur R. Attitude Chan e and Social Influence.
New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964.

Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods For The Behavioral
Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

I951.
Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, .

May, M. and A. A. Lumsdaine. Learning From Films.
New Haven, Connecticut: Ya e niverSity Press,
1958.

MeGhehee, W. and P. W. Thayer. Trainin In Business and
Industry. New York: McGraw-HiII, 1531.

Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Desi and Attitude
Measurement. INew York: CBaSlC ooks Inc., l§56.

Osgood, Charles E. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana:
University of IIIInoisfiPress, l§37.

.Remmers, H. H. Introduction To Opinion and Attitude
Measurement. ‘New York:'BHarper and Brothers, I954.

Secord, Paul F. and Carl W. Backman. Social Psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

96

Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics For The Behavioral
Sciences. INew Yerk: McGraw-HilI, l9 6.

Thurstone, L. L. and E. J. Chave. The Measurement 9;
Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

Webb, Eugene J., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz
and Lee Sechrest. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1966.

B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
LEARNED SOCIETIES AND
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Carpenter, C. R. and L. P. Greenhill. "An Investigation
Of Closed Circuit Television For Teaching University
Courses " Re ort No. 2, Film Research Proggam,
University Park: Pennsylvania State University,

1955.

Chu, G. C. and W. Schramm. "Learning from Television,"
What the Research Says. Stanford, California:
Institfite for Communication Research, 1967.

Davis, Robert H. and F. Craig Johnson. Evaluation of
Re lar Classroom Lectures Distribu e 'g% _g
ampus and Dormitory Classrooms. ‘Projec Report
0. 02

. EducationalfiDevelopment Program. East
Lansing: Michigan State University, May, 1966.

Hyman, Herbert H., Charles R. Wright, and Terrence K.
Hopkins. Applications of Methods of Evaluation:

Four Studies 9: The Encam’ment for—Citizenfihi .
Berkley: University of CaIifornia Press, I965.

Jackson, R. Learnin From Videotapes and Films. Port
Washington, . ., N.Y.: Special Devices Center.

Technical Report SDC - ZO-TB-l. (n.d.).

ZKumata, Hideya. Ag Inventorygf Instructional Television
Research. Ann Arbor: Educational Radio an e e-
vision Center, December, 1956.

97

Michigan State University, Continuing Education Service,
Institute for Community Development. Michi an Lay
Enforcement Directory, 1968. East LanSing:
Midhigan State University, July, 1968.

Olson, Bruce T. An Introduction 29 the Michi an Egg
Enforcement Ifiventory. Continuifig Education
service, Michigan State University. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, January, 1969.

Rock, R. R. Jr., J. S. Duva, and J. E. Murray. Trainin
B Television: A Stud In Learnin And Retention.
ortiWaShington,-L. ., TTY.: peciaIIUevices Center,
SDC Report 476-02-5. (n.d.) Audio-Visual Communi-
cation Review 1 (1953), 61. (Abstract).

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report:
The Police. Washington D. C.: U.S. Government
PEInting Office, 1967.

C. PERIODICALS

Belson, W. A. "Learning And Attitude Changes Resulting
From Viewing A Television Series 'Bon Voyage',"
British Journal 9; Educational Psychology,
Wei—T953?

Berger, E. J. "An Investigation Of The Effectiveness Of
Televised Presentations," Dissertation Abstracts,
25, 1552, 1962.

Bickel, R. R. "A Comparative Analysis Of The Effect Of
Television Instruction On Achievement In a College
Mathematics Course For Elementary Teaching Majors,"
Dissertation Abstracts, 25, 5777, 1965.

Croft, Roger G., David V. Stimpson, Walter L. Ross.
Robert M. Bray, and Vincent J. Breglio. "Comparison
Of Attitude Changes Elicited By Live And Videotape
Classroom Presentations," g1 Communication Review.
17:5:515-521, Fall, 1969.

98

Gray, Betty. "Evaluating The Television Program,"
Audiovisual Instruction, 14:38-39. May, 1969.

Hoveland, C. I. and W. Weiss. "The Influence Of Source
Credibility On Communication Effectiveness,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 15:655-650, 1952.

Levine, J. and J. Butler. "Lecture Versus Group
Discussion In Changing Behavior," Journal 9:
Applied Psychology. 36:29-55, 1952.

Likert, Rensis A. "Technique For Measurement Of
Attitudes," Archives pf Psyghology, No. 140, 1952.

Osgood, Charles E. and Percy H. Tannenbaum. "The
Principle Congruity In The Prediction Of Attitude
Change," Psychology Review, 62:42-55, 1955.

Orr, D. B. "The Evaluation of Televised Instruction,"
gy Communication Review, 14:563-370, 1966.

Schramm, W. "Mass Communication," Annual Review Of
Psychology, 15:251-284, 1962.

Staudohar, F. T. and R. G. Smith, Jr. "The Contribu-
tion Of Lecture Supplements To The Effectiveness
Of An Attitude Film," Journal 9; Applied Psychology,
40:109-111, 1956.

Taylor, David R., Edra Lipscomb, and Robert Rosemier.
"Live Versus Videotaped Student Teacher Inter-
action," 51 Communication Review, 17:47-51, Spring,
1969.

Wade, Serena E. "Effects of Television Utilization
Procedures on Learning," AV Communication Review,
17:5:285-290, Fall, 1969.

D. QPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Tannenbaum, P. H. "Instruction Through Television: A
Comparative Study." Urbana: Institute of Communi-
cation Research, University of Illinois, June, 1956.
(Duplicated.)

SECTION V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS COLUMN
1. Check the ONE job function listed below which best ———
describes your primary responsibility as a sworn
officer. ( 1-3 )
1. Patrol
2. Traffic ( 4 )
3. Investigation
u. Administration
5. One-man department
2. Indicate with a check your job level. (One answer only) ( 5 )
l. Detective
2. Patrol
3. Supervisory
u. Command
3. (3ive the total number of full-time sworn officers
in your department. ( 6 )
FULL-TIME OFFICERS ( 7-9 )
4. (Sive the total number of part-time sworn officers
.in your department. ( 10 )
PART-TIME OFFICERS (ll-12)
5. How many years have you served as a full-time law
enforcement officer? (13-114)
YEARS
6- Have you ever attended a recruit police-training course? ( lS )
1. Yes
2. No
7- How many hours of police training have YOU received in
the last two (2) years? (16-18)
HOURS RECEIVED WITHIN MY DEPARTMENT (19~20)
HOURS RECEIVED FROM EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
OUTSIDE MY DEPARTMENT
+_____ DO NOT MARK IN THIS BOX
,~._< ) _( > __<>___<)____<)___<)
. \- ‘ ) ( ) ( ) (so-61) (70-71) ( 79)
x ( ) ( ) ( ) (ea-en) (73-710 5 ( 80)
_____k ———— .___ .... .... ....

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
II‘IPORIVLATION SURVEY - FORM A - PRETEST

FORM A

SECTION I
(15 minutes)

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

For this section only, you are to mark your answers on the separate answer

sheet, using the pencil provided. Do not make stray marks on the answer sheet

or

If

9.

in the margins.
TRUE-FALSE STATEMENTS

If a statement is TRUE, mark the space numbered "1" on the answer sheet.

a statement is FALSE, mark the space numbered "2".

The Kerner Commission Report has made it clear that passage of strong
riot-control legislation is the most important factor in the prevention
and control of future civil disturbances.

Experience with recent riots has shown that the practice of setting
unusually high bail requirements to detain arrestees is not a very
effective method of cooling down an ongoing disturbance.

As much evidence is needed to convict a looter during a riot as is needed
to convict a burglar in a non-riot situation.

Once a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, a law enforcement
officer may not attempt to talk him out of the decision.

After stopping a driver suspected of being under the influence, a police
officer may legally search the driver and the trunk and interior of the car.

Reasonable suspicion on the part of an experienced police officer is not an
adequate basis on which to arrest a suspect.

Recent experience suggests that, when a rioter has been arrested on a
felony offense but the evidence against him will only support a
misdemeanor conviction, he should be charged with a misdemeanor.

Generally, the U.S. Supreme Court has sustained, as valid, search warrants
which were issued on the strength of evidence provided by knowledgeable

informants.

Where two or more business partners are joint owners of a store, any one
of them may legally give permission for a consent search of the store.

I-l

MULTIPLE CHOICE STATEMENTS

For each multiple choice question, select the one best answer from those

 

provided and mark the appropriate space on the IBM answer sheet. SELECT ONLY

NE ANSWER for each question; ANSWER EVERY QUESTION.

8.

10.

11.

In which of the following situations is it UNNECESSARY to give the
Miranda warnings?

 

1. An insurance company investigator is questioning
an arson suspect

2. A city fire inspector is questioning an arson suspect

3. A law professor, assisting the local police on a special
case, is questioning a rape snapect

4. An off-duty policeman is questioning a man he saw
leaving a liquor store through the alley window

5. Both ”1” and ”2” above

Which of the following is NOT a required part of the Miranda warnings?

1. Right to remain silent

2. Anything person says can and will be used against him in court
3. Right to have an attorney present during questioning

4. Right to an appointed counsel before questioning commences

5. Right to prompt arraignment

Which of the following will support a search incident to a lawful arrest?

1. To protect the officer from injury

2. To find evidence to support the arrest

3. To prevent an escape

4. To find evidence of the offense for which the arrest was made
5. All of the above will support a search

The following five recommendations were suggested by the Kerner Commission
as Steps to be taken to reduce the incidence of civil disturbance and

t0 aSSist in the control of civil disturbance if it starts. Which one

Of the: five was seen by the Commission as of LEAST importance?

1. More riot control training for law enforcement agencies

.2" Passage of special riot control legislation

:3. Improved communications systems for riot control areas

it. More effective methods of collecting and disseminating
intelligence information

55. Operation of rumor control centers

I-2

14. indch of the following would invalidate a line-up identification?

1. The suSpect was obviously taller than the rest of
the men in the line-up

2. The victim had previously identified the suspect's
picture while looking through a mug book

3. The suspect was the only one wearing a white shirt

4. The victim had to hear the suSpect's voice before
making a positive identification

5. None of the above would invalidate a line-up
identification

15. ‘Which of the following interrogation methods would render a confession
invalid even though the Miranda warnings and waiver requirements
were met?

1. Physical coercion

2. Psychological pressures

3. Promises of leniency or immunity

4. Pressure through circumstances

5. All of the above would render a confession invalid

16. In which of the following situations has the U. 8. Supreme Court held
that a law enforcement officer may be fired for refusing to answer
narrowly-drawn questions related to his official duties?

1. When he has first been compelled to waive his
immunity from prosecution

2. When he is on trial for a felony offense

3. When he is before a grand jury which is investigating
a charge of graft against him

4. When he is before a grand jury which is investigating
alleged graft within his department

5. Both "3" and "4" above

17. Which of the following is the best way of obtaining evidence of a
valid waiver of rights as stated in Miranda?

l. The fact that the defendant does not contest the pro-
secution's assertion that a valid waiver was obtained

2. A waiver form signed by the defendant

3. A series of events and circumstances suggesting
that the defendant knowingly waived his rights

4. An express statement of waiver by the defendant
supported by written records of his ensuing conduct

5. A voluntary initial statement made by the defendant
corroborated by a signed waiver form

I-3

16.

17.

18.

19.

Which of the following interrogation techniques has the U.S. Supreme
Court sustained as permissible for a law enforcement officer to use

in obtaining a valid voluntary confession from a suSpect under the
Miranda rule?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Which of

Suggesting that the suspect is not to blame for
what happened

Leading the suSpect to believe that his accomplice
has implicated him, even though this is not true
Telling the SUSpect that he is being charged with
a less serious crime than he actually is

Minimizing the moral seriousness of the crime

None of the above techniques

the following is the best way of obtaining evidence of a

valid waiver of rights as stated in Miranda?

1.

2.
3.

4.

The fact that the defendant does not contest the pro-
secution's assertion that a valid waiver was obtained
A waiver form signed by the defendant
A series of events and circumstances suggesting
that the defendant knowingly waived his rights

An‘express statement of waiver by the defendant
supported by written records of his ensuing conduct

5. A voluntary initial statement made by the defendant

In order
which of

Which of
invalid,

corroborated by a signed waiver form

to get a photo identification that would be valid in court,
the following procedures ought to be followed?

All photographs shown to the victims depict subjects
who are similar in age, sex, and race

No subject is included more than once

If there is more than one victim, each victim views
the photographs in privacy

The officer showing the photographs makes no comment
to the victim which would emphasize one suspect
over another

All of the above ought to be followed

the following interrogation methods would render a confession
even though the Miranda warnings and waiver requirements were met?

Physical coercion

Bsychological pressures

Promises of leniency or immunity

Pressure through circumstances

All of the above would render a confession invalid

OR THE REMAINING SECTIONS, MARK.YOUR ANSWERS IN_THE BOOKLET.

——-

I~4 GO ON TO SECTION II.

SECTION II

INSTRUCTIONS

 

You are to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the

20 statements of opinion presented. Please g3 not omit any.

 

To indicate agreement with a statement, place a check in the AGREE

Column (Column 1); to indicate disagreement with a statement, place a

 

check in the DISAGREE Column (Column 2). (Ignore the IBM CODE Column.
It will be used by the IBM key-punch Operator when results are prepared
for data processing.)

Work at a fairly high speed. It is your first impression that we
want.

On the other band, please do not be careless, because we want

your true impression for each statement.

 

STATEMENT OF OPINION

AGREE

DISAGREE
2

IBM

,CODE

 

People in the minority should be free to
try to win majority support for their
opinions................................
No matter what a person's political
beliefs are, he is still entitled to
the same legal rights and protections
as anyone else..........................

No court has a right to decide for an
individual what he should and should
not read......

00.000.09.00...0.00.0.0...

I would not trust any person or group
to decide what opinions can be freely
expressed and what must be silenced.....

II-l

 

 

 

 

 

 

(u)

(5)

(6)

(7)

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF OPINION

AGREE

DISAGREE
2

IBM
CODE

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

It will always be necessary to have a few
strong, able people actually running
everythingoooooooooooooooeooooooooooooOOl

When the country is in great danger we
may have to force people to testify
against themselves even if it violates
their rights.............................

No matter what crime a person is accused
of, he should never be convicted unless
he has been given the right to face and
question his accusers....................

If a person is convicted of a crime by
illegal evidence, he should be set free
and the evidence thrown out of court.....

If someone is suspected of treason or
other serious crimes, he shouldn't be
entitled to be let out on bail...........

Any person who hides behind the laws
when he is questioned about his activi-
ties doesn't deserve much consideration..

In dealing with dangerous enemies of
society, we can't afford to depend on
the courts and their slow and

unreliable methods.......................

The true American way of life is dis-
appearing so fast that we may have to
use force to save it.....................
Recent Supreme Court decisions, like
Miranda and McNabb—Mallory, have
actually worked to reduce the freedom
and safety of citizens in the local

CmunitieSIOOOOO.OOOOOOODOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOL

II-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(8)

(9)

__ (10)

__ (11)

__ (12)

_ <13)

__ (1n)

__ (15)

__ (1s)

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF OPINION

 

AGREE

IBM
DISAGREE CODE
2 3

 

1H.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

I

If congressional committees stuck strictlfi
to the rules and gave every witness his 9
rights, they would never succeed in 3
exposing the many dangerous subversives

they have turned up......................

__ (17)

 

I don't mind a politician's methods if
he manages to get the right things done..

_ (1e)

 

Policemen have to cut a few corners if
they are going to protect the community..

__ (19>

 

When an individual with a criminal
record is arrested for another crime,
he doesn't deserve the added protection
afforded by recent Supreme Court
decisions................................'

 

__ (20)

 

It is all right to get around the law
if you don't actually break itoopoooooooo

__ (21)

 

Releasing suspects who have been
arrested or convicted on the basis of
illegal evidence is a far more serious
threat to the well-being of the coun-
try than the violation of constitu-
tional rights by law enforcement
officials................................

__ (22>

 

The average citizen doesn't need the
kind of protection provided by the
Miranda decision and similar Supreme
Court pronouncements.....................

 

 

F" --....

__ (23)

 

 

 

II-3

GO ON TO SECTION III

 

SECTION III
INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of this section is to measure the meanings of certain
concepts to various people by having them judge them against a series of
descriptive scales. In doing this task, please make your judgments on
the basis of what these things mean tgwygg; On each page of this booklet
you will find a different concept to be judged and beneath it a set of
eight scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales.

Here is how you are to use these scales:

If you feel that a concept (for example: "STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF SPEED
LIMITS") is very closely related to one end of a scale, you should place
your check mark as follows:

fair X : : : z : : unfair
fair : : : : : : X unfair

If you feel that the concept is closely related to one or the other

 

end of a scale (but not extremely), you should place your checkmark as

follows:

strong : X : : : : : weak

strong : : : : : X : weak
If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to
the other side (but is not really neutral) then you should check as follows:

active : : x : : : : passive

active : : : : X : : passive

III-1

 

_ —_—___-

.
- . o . an; . a _ . .
‘. . . o .. r .
. n a
- .
. .
r . | 3 o 0 '
. . . . ~ "‘ a
.
-
. ~ . ‘ ' ’ . . ‘ .0 a .
- ,
. . u
. ' I 1
. .
t ' '
.‘ g ‘ . I I
. . ‘ - J .
V d
. .
n . .
.
‘ v 0'
. . .
."n
v . t -.
o
o . - Q .
. u ‘ .
0. . ‘n' 1 1'0: 1.
o
. . .
a
‘ . . ~ ' - . a
a
.
.
‘ - . .
I. ' o 9
~uu.» .. 1.... I . .- .... o- e
.
V
t
o .
. .' 0‘ n
o ' ‘0 ‘ ' .
n . . ». . - so... «a... .
I ~.
. ‘ . . . , .. . 0-. u .05 f. .‘O‘
t . ' .- o 0 .‘.
e —. 0 pure a-Io '
.
.. , . , .
. . ‘ . _ ’
’ a .‘ ,. ., c
,
...... . o o - . . . .
. u
.
n . ‘N n C
. O
. O
O '0 OI-OI~D .-. I ‘ ' I- n
o
. ‘ | o t‘ 1- Io ; ‘
. . . . ... .
- v. g - ... . . '.
. ’ n ' . . .0
. . o. ' '
. , o O
a . - , .l
u .
| ... n . a - ~..-. -
‘d‘
..-
s
. ‘J. I
.. nu... ~~u o . I - o-
‘ s
u
I. I

 

 

 

 

I“ v. I. ..1 ~" '
. ;'. ' '
a! . ‘
‘0. ‘ I U
. ‘ I
. t 1
'. k . -
, . . - n I _~ ‘
. . ." 3 s .
o
, . u‘ e 0 V .
I - C ‘ I I '
. ' ‘
.
o '. ‘1 '0' ‘ ~
' . 1‘ u - ,
o .. 1 .
o -. e '4 a '. _
. ' . ‘ . 1 . t. a . \.
O
. ‘. 0 " . . .' s D -
v
I I I.‘ . e
. . . 'J . .
.. s . . .
. . . . \~ I o n . .
o .
0 . . . -
w n P i .‘
‘ O
' ‘3'? ' ‘ ‘ o-
o
A I ‘ 5
9 . '- o , .
Q. . D
I
-
l
O " .
' I
a . . ... .
.~ - I
, . .-f \- . .
. ' '.‘:. ' .
,. ' . . . ‘
'. D. o
. ..
i
O ‘l w
o v .. u.
. o
o ulna- '
. I O
' .. d...' o. s ' . —.
- o
O i
' .v a
. .
. . .
.
. .. .
u ' .
. . .
.— no.“ '-
. I
. f
. o .' . . .
pg. . .- .

The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of
the two ends of the scale seems most characteristic of the thing you're
judging. If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale (both sides

of the scale equally_associated with the concept), or if the scale is com-

 

pletely irrelevant (unrelated to the concept), then you should place your
check—mark in the middle space:
safe : : : X : : : dangerous
Sometimes you may feel as though you've had the same item before on

the test. This will not be the case, gghd3_not look back and forth through

 

the items. Do not try to remember how you checked similar items earlier

in the test. Make each item 3 separate and independent judgment. Work at

 

 

fairly high Speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over individual
items. It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the
items, that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because

we want your true impressions.

IMPORTANT:

1. MARK EVERY SCALE FOR EACH CONCEPT . . . 22_not omit any scales or

 

concepts.
2. Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale.

3. Place your check-marks in the middle of spaces, not on the boundaries:

THIS NOT THIS
' X : : : X

 

III-2

 

 

 

‘ n

. .
."

o

'. I
I

I.-

‘5
.r‘
,I -
‘I’I
o
A. .
v
I
I
. I
I.
.
.

cl
\
‘.
s
.

.3 ‘-

v
I
... l‘
. .-
v
. .
. . '
.
.
n O
O u.
a _'
'0 I“
u . ~.-"'." ‘
' r
I. O . ‘ . I
‘
. . ,
~
. ‘ a
:31 .‘
'uo' 1"
. o
..‘alh‘

‘d I .
. I '
a "
..
-~
~ ...
‘ V
‘ O

, .' vi- '
. .

~
....pr-CD‘

(O
J-
U
I- ..
, ....
. 9|
l
.
..
_-.
..
Q
..
. 5

Q
I
a
a
o
. ' .
~~
I.
-
n.
s ‘.
....
f ‘u‘ ‘
n\ 0
. DC
' ‘ o. a _
. .-
‘ 0
Q.‘
, I...~I
o. .-

 

.
1. 1 ." ‘ "
..I. -
r- ...
‘ I
. ')
u
.50"
’ I
.-
v'.‘
9"
.I' ' .
la, 2" I
l‘ “
a .'
' a p-i"
"" .-
...—......
1
aust’ ,‘.,..

. .
. . "f o
‘. -
.. . . .
. .-
- I o. .,
.I‘- .
I
.. '
. .
.-
. -'\ ’ .
I ' I.
'.
. - .
o __ .
. 'I
c . .
_ l
I. ‘
. , . .
. h
v, . I . .
. I ‘ I. '
r
2 -
. .
I ' : I ,. -"‘ .
~ ‘ a
...
n ‘v
.
.
. .... ,
‘
e C ‘
, .
. ' ~' .
u . ."
. .
’ .l.
. .
’
’ -
. . _ .
. . ’
.
. .
R
.
' O
c‘ 0'
. .
I
_ - u
- I
O
I . - '
I. .
..uI ".
o
I I ‘ .
- c
..
.
‘ ..
' m ., ._ .
I .. "
O . .
u .
‘ .I"§ . .
3
I a“ h
. a.
.
. .
, ' I - .
. I
I ’ 4 .
t' a I
.
‘ 4
In. ..
.
.' l
..
, A .- .
. .... "' ...v-
a
.
.
b.
. . , I
. '. I .-
. Is .
.-
. .; fl"
.
I D "
U
I . Q ‘ ‘
... a

 

 

important

dangerous

wise

useful

negative

weak

stable

LINE-UP IDENTIFICATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-3

unimportant

safe

foolish

right

useless

positive

strong

changeable

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

__ (2n)

__ (25)

__ (25>

__ (27)

__ (2s)

__ <29)

___ (30)

__ (31)

 

 

 

#1115311 ' " r "1

 

- a
- 1
’ ~‘l
I
C
‘. o ‘
o. v.
' C
o - .. o .
I
I
' . . . ., . .. . t o '
’ . t. -a‘ '
a— no—v ..-.c-n -‘~Q-n a ...-no Inn. .0 . . v ...—a. 0..
.
I s
l . - ' ‘ I .
- , a
Iv. ... ‘ - o I- u .- -.-...
c
\
.
"I . I r I - Q n O 'l . '0. n
o
I
V
.-
l ° '
' . . . o
-..‘o . . . . . . c . . ... ..- .... ...-“ ~ 0 moo—-
.
. .
.
. . ..
. _ . 9‘ ‘ p a . .
. I I o
.. . . . . . . o . “-ouo -..-“'1‘ ”a
u
‘ ‘
l
o ‘ -
l o . - . 0
...—... no .- . .-.. I l- 0 .
.
u ..
.
. -
I
. -
C
. . . .
o
.... . .- o 0... I'd .- - ... ~ . .,
’ I
O
u . u
.
o9. . .
.
.L' ' ." .- -
. .... . t A o ’
an I '0'.” 0'. IoOI U. ‘0 DUI! ’ 0.: ‘ .0
“g- - “IO-D...-
‘ ‘
l
C

strong

negative

useful

changeable

right

dangerous

unimportant

wise

NONVIOLENT CIVIL DISOBBDIENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-4

weak

positive

useless

stable

wrong

safe

important

foolish

 

DO NOTiMARK
IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

__ <32)

__ (33)

__ (3n)

__ (35)

__ (36)

___(37)

____(38)

____(39)

 

 

u a
I.
t
o
u I
w a - O .1
. . .
- u
u .
.
l
d v C
.
a
O
.
-
w ‘
q. M . ..
.

n . . .
C a w . .
.Ir . . .

.- .
cl. ‘ .0
a
- D
.. .
. u .
.. i . .
.,. u u
M u
. . v
\n . ..
...
—
w
.u . .t
.. .1 . .
.... \ (w
... \. .-.
MA - .. Q.: s 0‘.
'1‘ A at
. I: to.
. A m
. .~ g II
a

 

..fl-fl-

 

stable

unimportant

positive

wrong

wise

dangerous

useless

strong

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-5

changeable

important

negative

right

foolish

safe

useful

weak

 

DO NOT MARK 3

IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

 

__ (no)

__ (I41)

__ <u2>

__ (us)

__ (an)

__ m5)

__ (1+6)

__ (Ln)

 

 

 

 

 

a.‘..

.-.-u

...

-.—. o .

~o—o ... o

m...-

‘0 ... I.-.

D”- o

.O-'

-‘o

a-

in. ‘.o

..a. ....

n '1‘ -
..d‘... .
.
-- or..- c
- ... c-

-, a-

to- o

..‘v

o 1“.

--.v.o
-.

positive

unimportant

safe

weak

wise

useless

Changeable

right

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-6

negative

important

dangerous

strong

foolish

useful

stable

wrong

 

DO NOT MARK '

IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

 

__ (us)

_ (us)

__ (50)

__ (51)

__ (s2)

_ (53)

__ (54)

__ (55)

_ - .-_...— -..wo— fl_.__.. .. __.. M. _...,.-_ A

 

.5

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
COLUMN
strong weak (56)
foolish wise (57)
important unimportant (58)
useless useful (59)
stable changeable (60)
wrong right (61)
negative positive (62)
safe dangerous (63)
DO NOT MARK IN THIS BOX
.... ( )‘ ______(79) 1 (80)

 

l

.9,

__ (1-3)

 

 

III-7

 

useful

changeable

strong

dangerous

positive

foolish

unimportant

right

CIVIL RIGHTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-8

useless

stable

weak

safe

negative

wise

important

wrong

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
.COLUMN

 

 

(1+)

( 6)

( 7)

( 8)

__ (10)

__ (11)

 

 

right

weak

stable

foolish

important

useless

dangerous

positive

THE MIRANDA WARNINGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-9

wrong

strong

changeable

wise

unimportant

useful

safe

negative

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

__ (12)

__ (13)

__ (11+)

__ (15)

__ (15)

__ <17)

__ (18)

__ (19>

 

 

L

4' l Ill..- Ill

 

 

 

 

wise

negative

right

useless

important

dangerous

weak

stable

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-10

foolish

positive

wrong

useful

unimportant

safe

strong

changeable

 

DO NOT MARK
‘IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

__ (20)

__ (21)

__ (22)

__ (23)

__ (2n)

__ (25)

__ (26)

____(27)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

safe

foolish

right

changeable

important

negative

weak

useful

STOP AND FRISK

dangerous

 

wise

 

wrong

 

stable

 

unimportant

 

positive

 

strong

 

useless

 

III-ll

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

__ (28)

__ (29)

__ (30)

__ <31)

__ <32)

__. (33)

__ (an)

__ (as)

 

 

stable

useless

safe

weak

positive

foolish

wrong

important

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III-l2

changeable

useful

dangerous

strong

negative

wise

right

unimportant

 

DO NOT MARK
IN THIS
COLUMN

 

 

 

__ (36)

__<37)

__ (38)

__ (39)

__ <uo>

___(u1)

__ (1&2)

__ (us)

 

GO ON TO SECTION IV

 

 

 

.-.n- u

Q .~
.. .l~
. ‘ I I
I
- n I. ... 0 I a .0 in. n. - -
a
O I
. .- - lr- . I. I I -- u- DI‘I - --o¢
o I
I
D... .... on 'n- .- .. 0- out
a. I..-
c I.- -
,
o --w
o
. no lo”. M--. .

-.. on

.-.-a .

--- .-

 

SECTION IV

For each of the following pairs, you are to select the one which you
consider more important for protecting and maintaining the safety and
well-being of the community.

Place an "X" on the line Opposite the one in_each pair you select.

 

 

 

 

 

Pair LEAVE
BLANK
l Maintaining control of the situation . . . . . . . . I____ . (an)
1 Protecting individual civil rights . . . . . . . . _____ ---
2 Stop and fPiSk laws. 0 o o o o D o o o O 0 ' ° . . o "—_""‘ (1+5)
2 Laws protecting individual rights of suspects. . . _____ -————
3 Giving the Miranda warning . . . . . . . . . (#6)
3 Getting a confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ ————-
4 Opportunity to interrogate without legal counsel'
present. a o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o . o O ' ' —— (’47)
u Right to presence of legal counsel during ————
interrogat‘ lon O O C O I O O I I O O O O -.—
5 Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence . . . . . _____ (H8)
5 Conviction of criminal suspects. . . . . . . . . . . _____ -————
6 Apprehension of criminal suspects. . . . . . . . . .____ (”9)
6 Guaranteeing the rights of criminal suspects . . . . .____ -————
'7 Protecting nonviolent demonstrators. . . . . . . . _____ (50)
'7 Preserving peace and tranquility . . . . . _____ -——-
8 (300d police-community relations. . . . . . . . . . . (51)
£3 Stop and frisk laws. . . . . . . . . -____ -————
£3 Apprehension of criminal suspects. . . . . (52)
£3 Conviction of criminal suspects. . . . . . . ____ -————
10 Protection from self-incrimination . . . (53)
10 Waiver of right to remain silent . . . . . -—

 

 

 

IV-l

 

 

 

__.-.———-—
-_—«.——-

. a..- .-.-

. --. .. _. --«..--—. .

1.... --.

o
N g - -

p .
s 1
—. -.‘- ...

...—...“...

-....- —.

-..-...”.

-
-
-.. v

x
.5.
--—
u
‘
.
,u
'.
1-
. .
I
u .

D
‘
.
:\‘\
...

...

v. '.
. .
....
‘ i
- r.
“,1

.; T)y‘..'.\,l \4 5": ' -
. “ '. -. : .

\
I' ‘
.I‘1LL . — ?
lqun
' Inf: ..Y-VL;
“3*“ I .-
. x .
‘* 1.]; 1 .
o n .
". x
t N 0 n I \x

 

Place an "X" on the line opposite the one in_each pair you select.

%

 

 

LEAVE
Pair BLANK
11 Right to avoid self—incrimination . . . . . . . . . l____ (5”)
11 Right to counsel during interrogation, line-up, etc.. _____ —--
12 Use of illegally obtained evidence. . . . . . . . . . _____ (55)
12 Meeting the Miranda requirements. . . . . . . . . . _____ ---
13 Nonviolent demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ (56)
13 Maintaining control of the situation. . . . . . . . . _____ ————-
1n Protection of individual civil rights . . . . . . . . (57)
1a Apprehension of criminal suspects . . . . . . . . . . ____ -————
lS Interrogating suspect before legal counsel arrives. _____ (58)
15 Strict adherence to the Miranda requirements. . . . . ____ -————

 

 

 

 

DO NOT MARK IN THIS BOX

 

 

( ) () () () () () ()__2__(80)

 

IV-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r s ‘
, . v . .
C
.
. .-
v
‘ .
' .
a ' u
.
I
I
1
u
u
.
.
.- c
.
I
|
-
~
g
_ ..v--‘ .
I
| . ’
...n " ....
.....-
I
n
a
-o
. - -
..
u .o
. . —- '
. . - a
n .. . ..-- "’
,.
...--
I .
.
. .
‘
..-
. .
_-- "
a
...—”"’— -
..--
.. - -""'
__—,.o-"
l
I
I
u --
.

.... -‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT EVALUATION FORM

  

. . .7 . ., . 2......
r. . . .n . . . .. .... ... 1..
. .‘ O . . . .. . o. .n. I . .Y . . In 1 . -
. a . . . . . . .o . . 5...xn.. .. , . . ,. .. . rfl. « ..o.
... . o O o . o. o .. w I. . . o . ..d 0.. ... o o... .- .. . . . .. . . . . . -.‘ u.o..— .0. '-
. .. . .1. A. _ ... I or ..d o.\ n . .. o . n . ...»: n‘...o'_ .5... _ ‘o uluo.L~m- ... . . . . . . . .. . . . nhq Al .J_. ..V'.."
. .. ... .w p 1.": . w - . ....r...19. o.I*. -J~.u4> 7....6 n. . . . , . . ._ . . _ ..qfi... ....-
U n o .l \ . w. ... . o . . .. _. . .. . _ . ... _.
06’s.... CHI . ..Nfis‘tt. ... .u
. ow. . .1! _...

_% ...
“cvg n”..-.—.._:..ofo_ K.—
L 4.: ...

...“.ur5~v¢ ..’._1..r_.

. Cl...
0.(~.?..~U\.h .Icn. _

 

 

- O I
_ O ... . . . I - I. D. t ..
nontolflrn .-r._AIf. n o ‘1: 21:1. e.-.. JN..TL.D~..\¢ ..
. ~ . . . o . .o q ..0 . _ no I..... he
.. . .. .. r n» _..—v ‘4. . .n . 1 .
a . o o D 0...; o... c .- n .o _..—n . QR” L‘ V .C o \.o\.-__ .I' .’o l
. ... .- ... 3.3.... - . . . H... ...n.o.. ..x....... ......n. e....u......u_....a. A... .0 \ _.. c,
n .. of. m‘o‘. nV§ . \.!Y.o ....o In . .. ..sMofo . outta. . 5.41%.. noun”. a i... hat. ... .. i. o n
. a 5. I. .e.‘o~. o. nun . I .....n..”. .. fem-«OT... . on, ... . .m. .. ..V.. ....
. - . .. . . . . ..o > ...: w _ I. o . ,1 9
n . a. O .I. u 9?. .. ... . .n1- 0 notch}... KW“. '1: .0.“ 5". .4 .ba. f... o, .o... .o o a... .. .
. . n . _ .0. .. . . u. . ... .. . . . w. .
I __ . Hr o . _ . ... .1. . . -- ~0 n _.Vn.’ ... n_o‘o .k m... 0..? .o .. :- .‘fi‘5o‘ o. V... .ou'fl ”(.- ..(5 _.. ..4 \. .o
. . . . . .... . n o .. v .. 1.. n . .. . w. .. 4. . .
o O C n . l .I o O n o O .
. n . to ... .. 6‘. ...o _.. ..Q Rona-V. \_.o.oo ....u...dn._ no .— ...—0A “of“... ... . ..r . '~.s .l
. I. . . v a. _ a ..I ....o . _ L‘s r .... ...fil ... o . n o o r . n
u u 9v ‘ Q‘ t .- t o . o o _ ; o— \ 7‘ Pr 0 ....‘ ...‘.... . O as. -. +~ s. .
o . n o r c . . . .7 ... 1A . ‘9... .v .o .l. — _x.. Tao. .
I I o u A n ._ . n p . on. ... .. o n o .c .. r._ . .f .. _. ‘1. .s .v u o
. n n. a . . n. o .o .... I a... s . . a n. _ .
. . . e . _o. L n .. . . ... ...
u o . . .... o ..l a ... . a c .4 n . ..... Va . o o. . . . G
n ' . I . .. . n .n h _... . 4_ -- Q ... . _‘o . .n .V n-
.. . n . . . . . l... . .. , e.. .. ...\ .. . . . A...
l v o n o o . . n‘ . .s‘ x. o. n \o A \. Q. o
. _ . . . . . . . . ..... . .. . 21.1... .. . ... ... fl. . _.. . . 1...”...
_ . o . . . ......n‘.. ... . ... Q . ....o‘. .....f .. 2 . n .
. . . H . . .. .. ._‘. .... v .. . . .. .. ...
. . ) ...» . n- . . .w A . . . _.. l .s
.. .. a. . .o x. a . . o. o
. ... no . . . I n. .m
. . .. . . . a. . .. . .
. .. . .. . ...... . ._ n. .
. . l . . . . .. . ... o., .. .4
. ... . . _ . . . . o A v . ...: o .
. .. . . .... .. ..l. . . . , . ... .... I ..
0 . n . .J. . n ¢ .. A. .... . .. _ o . . n n ._ _Ga .
o . . ...n . . .. . .. L. . v . I .. . .. . a. . u o . n... o .... . r
. . . . . . . . . . n... 5.. .. .1. . . .. .m. ... .M. . . \I a. 0 but
w . . . _ .. . .. . ... In... . . . a . _ . . . . o.” .s ‘ . . o.
_ . . . . . I n u _ , ; . . _ . . .
u _ . . n . .. . J T . - .~ 0 4.... o p
o . . . a . . . v. . n .. . n
_. _ , .. . . ._ .. n . . . o o o . . . o. o. . ~ : J
. y .. _ . . , .. 1.. . . ... L .
. n .m. K . . . _s.. o. s. in. . o. . k ..1. .. . o . l. ... . i .. .
.,. . . ._ . . . ..
a .. . .. . . . . . .a .o . _ ~
. . . ._ .. . . . 1 .n .. ’ . n . n . _ . n 0 . . ‘
. 1 . . . . L . . . .1. . 9 . . . 1... ~.. .. . . .... .... ...
_ r ... .. .. . 6. .. _.. . . . . 1. 4. _ o... .
. a ._ . _ 9 _.. _. .. .... ..
s n . _ . .. .. 1 .. . . . «v n u. _ L
. h . _ .. _ .. . _ . . .. . :2. . .... ... .
. v . .
. . . I. . ... .v . _ . _ .. . .. ._ .s
r e . .. . _ . 4 . . .... .. ... . .. . _.—_...... o
m. o t . ... . . ._ . . . .. .. .m. % ... .\ N K . Co.
0. m . . . . . . ‘ .or _ . _....
c m . . , . .. -_ . . . . .1 . o ... .. . . .
I . a . _. . . . . . . . . _. _
L P . . o . ... .. .«s... .‘ . t . . _. . ..< u. . _ V we .
. . .. . . x _
. .. . . . . . . r . . . .
CI .. o ...u . . . . . . - ... _ .. v .
n I v. .n .n. . . .. a . . .. . A. . w a .
_ . n. u .. o ..r. ‘ “1.: . g ..l
. . . 1.. . . . . . .n ... a. ... .
.u u ‘ y . . . . .n o l. s .. .. ...v“ .
. . . . . . u . _ ... ..x. . a _ . ._- .
P . _ . . _..... I. .n. . _ __ 5 .ah fo.h . . . &_.
n _ \ nx .. . _... . n . .1. _ ..I . o. )—
. . a . o . .. .. o. n . _.. .. .xfi _
. . . _ . . l . o. \....n .. ... ’. any I
. . o . . . __ _ . . J o n z .\ o. . N... . v
_ . . o . _ r. . n .. L ....o .... . .e’ o... n...§«c'o Z...
. . .. . . l . . . .. ... .... ... _ . .
. ,_ _ .. _ .. n if-.. . .. .... ....” .. _.. 3 .. 4.1.3. .5
. . .. . n.. .. o. . . . . .. . .. . _ .
. . . _ .. . . .. . .. _..... ... .. _.....x...‘ ....;_.. .
. v . . .. v 0. Ir .. o . ... .r o ..n ... o. x
. .qx .. . . . s o a... .5. v .o .C. ._ I. ._-\ .0“ \. .{r-I‘ . .45 to;
. n a. ~ . . . _
. . . ._ ... .h. .1
o o _ . .v 0. n a . o
5 . . 1 O _c
A . . o
. . :1.

. . x... ”...“. .-..

 

 

 

 

THE OFFICER AND THE LAW
TV-WorkshOp Lecture Series
Summer 1969

Participant Evaluation Form

Place the last five (5) digits of your home telephone number on these

lhmm:

1. Check which
attended:

 

sessions of this TV-Workshop Lecture Series you have

First morning
First afternoon
Second morning
Second afternoon

2. Indicate your reasons for coming to this workshop. Check all
that apply to you.

I wanted to learn more about recent laws
I wanted to learn more about recent court decisions

Meetings of this kind are the best way I have

of learning “what's new" in law enforcement
I was assigned by the department to attend

I saw a copy of the program and the topics listed
in it interested me

Other reasons, if any (specify)

 

 

GO ON TO PAGE 2.

 

DO NOT WRITE
IN THIS SPACE

(1-3),
a

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

 

-..r.-.__

(9)
(10)
(11)

.- ... ..-_-..——..-._

(12)
(13)

(14)

 

 

 

imich one of the three tOpics covered in this workshop should
tmve been more thoroughly discussed:
(Check one)

Civil disorder

Interrogation and confession

Arrest, search and seizure

Vfldch one of these tapics do you think is most closely related

to improving the relationship of a police department with its
community?

(Check one)
Civil disorder
Interrogation and confession
Arrest, search and seizure

Was adequate time allowed for discussion periods?

Yes
No

Did you feel at ease asking questions and entering into the
discussions?

Yes
No

Indicate how you would re-adjust the time allotted to each topic.
(Check once for each tape session and each workshop session)
W 29212 M
91.111 disorder:
Video tape of panel
(Israel, Brown, martin)
workshop discussion
Interrogation & confession:
Tape (Inbau and George)
'Workshop discussion
Recent Court Decisions:
Tape (Thompson
Workshop discussion

 

 

 

thdyou agree that these topics are of major concern to policemen
393

Yes Explain:
No

“

 

 

 

What other aspects of law enforcement should be discussed in
future workshops?

 

F

 

 

 

no mom WRITE?
N THIS SPACE’

I

(15) ‘

(16)‘

(17);

(18)-

(19)
(20) e

(21)
(22)?

(23)
(24):

. (25)
”(26)

(27)

 

 

 

10. This TV-Workshop Lecture Series is designed to give policemen:

a. Better understanding of the law by analysis of recent
court decisions and the philosophical bases supporting them; and

b. New techniques and procedures for handling current legal
criminal problems.

Check Column I if either the video tape or the workshOp discussion
session, or both of them, gave you a better understanding of that topic.
Leave the line in Column I blank if neither session did so

Check Column II if either the video tape or the workshOp discussion
session, or both, provided new technigues and procedures for law
enforcement (whether or not such new ways are directly related to

your work) .

or procedures.

Leave the line blank if neither provided new techniques

Then, in Column III indicate if the information and/or techniques presented
are either directly related to your work and could be used directly g£_if

they could be adapted with some modification.

Leave the line in Column III

blank if the information or procedures given on that topic do not apply

to your work.

a. Planning for riot

prevention
Planning forriot control
Mass arrest procedures

Hand 1 ing non-Viol ent
demons trat ions

Trial preparation for
mass arrests

Interrogation techniqms
Miranda warnings
Line-ups

Stop and frisk

Search of vehicles

Electronic eavesdroppdtg a

Consent searches

 

 

COLUMN I
Better

Understanding

 

 

(28)
(31)

(34)

__ (37)

__ (40)
__ (43>
...... (46>
__ (49>
__ (52>
__ (55>
__ (58)
__ (61)

 

 

COLUMN II COLUMN III
New 'Information and/or Techniques
Techniques Directly OR Could be
- Related Adapted
__ (29) ._ or __ (30)
__ (32) __ or __ (33)
__ (35) __ or __ (36)
__ (38) __ or __ (39)
__ (41) __ or __ (42)
__ (44) __ or __ (45)
__ (47) __ or __ (48)
__ (SO) __ or __ (51)
__ (53) __ or __ (54)
__ (56) __ or __ (57)
__ (59) __ or __ (60)

(62) l

 

or (63)

 

 

'—-—
J

11. Could you see well enough most of the time?

Yes
No

12. Could you hear well enough most of the time?

Yes
No

13. Would short scenes (either using actors or clips of news events)
showing riots, arrests, line-ups, etc.. have provided the
group with a common experience to talk about? Or do you think
that policemen have enough experiences in common so that such
clips are not necessary?

Yes, such ”shorts" would be helpful
No, they are not necessary

14. When these video tapes were made, the panel and the lecturers
had a live audience. Do you think you would have gotten more
out of it if you had been there at the live-taping, or do you
think the workshop is adequate?

I think I would get more out of the live session
I think this arrangement of tape and discussion
is just as good

15. Did you attend any of the Telephonic Lecture Series last year?

Yes
No

16. If you did attend at least one of the sessions last year,
compare:the two methods of presenting information.
(Check one)

The Telephonic Lecture Series was better

The TV-Workshop Lecture Series this year was better
Both were about the same, generally good

Neither one was very satisfactory

17. Make any comments you wish that will suggest changes to improve
this TV-Workshop Lecture Series.

 

no NOT mma
pm THIS SPACE.

I

(64) ;
I
l
(65) §
8
3

3

(66)

 

 

 

 

I
I __ (67)
i

(68)

(69)

(70)

 

 

 

9 (80)

 

 

.
4.
so
.‘
9!. _. o .
O I .
. .H ... ._ .
V .l.1 , .
... r - o a \ . .
I.. ....f f .. . .
. . u . .I c. . .
. ... . . . .
r..«. ... .I e . . . _
t r a... o . _ .
.- .... . . at . . . .
...)o. .0. .94.. . . ._ o . _ .
(I .4 o . .. _ . . ,.
. .L. a...- u .o r . . .o - . _ _. .
...: LIV..... -.. .. .. . . _
. r a .. O . . . ... . . _
K a'.l¢ a '5. o c . p o v . .. . . . . .. . .
. ... . n w .’_a V a .. . _ .P. . . . s . A. _ a .. . . . . .
..l "V. I0. .\I . o I n. . v u” A p . .. C. . . ’4 .
o \D a J. 4. C, o 4‘ .. Q . 4. or r _.. p. . e v . . .
_ .0 . i .4» 1 c . I. . .. . . . . - . I
J . ~‘nl edog, “K’J. . a . . . A a o . .4. . . .. x . u. .
n u A 1 .r .
0” n“! ”if .‘l‘. -~ 1 s o 4 _ .. ...... u .u . . . . . . v
_ . _r 1 I C l _ _
’(F - ..fi- .s.. .O- r . . . . 4 ._ .; 4 A s 4
. J . us {.I. d . . . . . ... . . .4 .. .
_r‘. . y‘all . . .. . . a... . . c \ .. v . . . . .

. . . . . .. . . . . -... .. . . ._ ~ . . . . . .
..o v ‘3‘... . a I . . . o. . . . a . .. . .. l

5 . _ . r

I v& .. _ . e . .. d . . a

o o. . v a _ r . .- _ . .
. , M. 4.... .4 s. o . e . .. ._ . .«ao. A . . . a .4 s
_ V _ . . . .

.n. A 3 o . . . . .sx. ... 4 . .. ... L . _ ....

n. B A d . o «v r . A -_ . . V . . r l n .. _ _ _
. . U .- 0. . o _ o . r. u.» . J .

. _.. ... _..... r. . . . . .-. . , .
. . \.a.o\.... . .L. .. .. _.' 5... .. o. _
u

 

.. .. .... . .
I a .a _ .— I v . . . . 4 .v; Jr. _ . . .
r. ... ...; .. ..... . . . . u .. .._ .1? . . . ... _.. . . .
. .0 0'. %?a‘. . I c o ... . . v . ... “d. ...v s ... . r ..v I, . .
)0. 4 1 .. e. x . . ..I e ..3 . c 4
. .. r4 . ... .4. ... .~._ . .. ... .4. .r. . ... I _ .
. u. ”I 4 O o \ om“ . o L J o .v:.. . 4 r .k .\ ... .Q . . ‘4. r . _ . ._ .
v. . . v.4: .o A... . . . . . p. . . . .. .. .. . .
. . .I. 4. .v. .u u . i... . . ..., . . . V}. _ ._
\ p . w .vv.‘ . . . . A .43 _ r. .... w .._‘_v.. . . . c .
J ‘ ...... \ 4" ... .* _ . . a 4 . . . (a C v . 4 . o L
.P t C... ..\ .5 . ... .o. . . n L _. v .. .O.‘ l . _ ..r/_ r p .v . ... ..Qu... 4 a
.40 .u. .. 4 ..fi15-J01. .~ .v . .. . 4 .p _.. . .4 . a. . _
_VAV 4‘ .0 ‘2. ....4 \~£.. _ ~ 4 ... r. _ 3...; a .44”... . 1 c p}. .o’ .
. .t. . .r..( _ . . .sa. . .. r £4. .... r . 4. .. ._ . ...: . .
.n 4 . _rv . 4‘... O _ .. ~. .a l 4.1- 4. A ..r/ _, .4. . _ ... . ....
. ’fl . a. .4 ~§ . r E . .. .— . 4 v .4 .. . «. ...v E .. .._ ' .4 .- _ . _
... ...s. ’v.—~s ‘ .‘J t .. o \. _ ... _ .. md'.r'-O. . sf o.’ ...; ..M? H 4.. . . E . .. _.
4 W .4, .4 Cu '4 v... .s .0. u. a . . .#__..r_:. .S.; v.... t ._ ..WH.’ ...... ”.44.: ... .4 J .
... . . a . .. Q. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _.. . . . . _ _
f ..e . . ...... .... _... ...? : . .. .. , __ . . . . . .
. . o . _
.. .44. .

.....f. .«b\ n: .. . . Li...
7444‘; 7’.me “a..." .4.. ......._. .. . .....1}...

a I. p o O c. o' . .
). ...:
..L Whitm rinsing; . 1:...» ,

APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF PARTICIPANT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

151
RESULTS or PARTICIPANT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

A Participant Evaluation Form (see Appendix C)
was given to each person on the second afternoon of each
workshop. It was designed to engage the participants
in the process of evaluating, and to give them an oppor-
tunity to express their opinions about the content and
format of the program.

Generally, responses were enthusiastic and com-
plete-~there were almost no blanks--revealing an intense
interest in this type of learning experience and an
appreciation of the urgent need for such programs.
Expressions of gratitude were accompanied with construc-
tive, though sometimes severe, criticism.

Two-hundred and forty Evaluations were matched with
the Information Surveys. The participants were divided
into three main groups:

Group I: A Metropolitan Department

with 4800 officers; N=6l 25%
Group II: A State Department with

1700 officers; and N272 50%
Group III: Others N=lO 32%

A. Departments of 210 100%

100-521 officers N=33

B. Departments of
4-75 officers N513
107

152

To discover the expectations of the officers on

arrival, they were asked to check their reasons for coming.

II 736

166 (69%) I wanted to learn more about recent laws.

174 (73%) I wanted to learn more about recent court
decisions.

138 (58%) ... best way to learn "what's new" in law
enforcement.

153 E64%; I was assigned by the department to attend.

71 30% I saw a copy of the program ...

They added:
2 10% Always want to learn, or the like.
1% New on job.

1% Asked to be assigned.
3% Interest in method, and others.

\‘Ikflbflbfl

Of the 153 assigned to attend, just 57 checked this reason
only. Although only 30% had seen a COpy of the program,
practically everyone, in one way or another, indicated an
eagerness to learn about the material planned for the

workshops.

Subject Matter

The workshops were concerned with three areas of
law enforcement: Civil Disorder, Interrogation and
Confession, and Arrest, Search and Seizure. Much of the
lecture and discussion material dealt with past police
and court actions in these areas, and it gave particular
attention to recent court decisions which require change

or reassessment of law enforcement techniques and procedures.

153

Participants were asked in Question 10 to evaluate

each subject matter area in terms of whether or not they

had:

(1) Gained better understanding, (2) Learned new

techniques, and (3) Found relevance in the subject matter.

Their responses are summarized below.

Participants' Responses Regarding
echniques,

NEW Understangin ,
and Relevance 0 Three‘Main

SfibjecthaNEgg Afeas

Better Under-

Subject Matter
Area
1. Civil Disorder

2. Interrogation
and Miranda
Warnings

3. Recent Court
Decisions

Overall Average
Responses shown
by per cent

Better Under—

standing and/

standing and/or or New Techniques Nothing:

New Techniques
Related to Work to Work
52%

5636

55%

but NOT Related

21a

22%

27%

25%

Useful
or New
2

22%

16%

2116

The above figures indicate that there were more positive

responses to the discussions and lectures concerning recent

court decisions than to the work in the other two areas.

The most interesting observation is the per cent of the

participants indicating better understanding of the subject,

154

whether or not it seemed applicable to his job. Better
understanding appeared in 78 per cent of the responses.
This fact alone indicates a degree of success.

Question 7 asked the participants to indicate
how much time should be allocated to these lecture
topics and to the discussions concerning them. The
wording of the question makes interpretation of the
answers rather difficult. A "more time" response to one
topic may be interpreted to indicate a desire to lengthen
the workshop, to reduce discussion of the topic, or to

reduce time spent on another topic.

 

More Less No
Time Same Time Answer
Civil Disorder:
Videotape of
panel (Israel
Brown, Martin) 75 107 42 16
Workshop discussion 47 107 30 56
Interrogation &
Confession:
Tape (Inbau &
George) 69 124 26 21
Workshop discussion 44 119 14 63

liecent Court

ZDecisions:
Tape (Thompson) 128 91 8 15
Workshop discussion 78 103 7 52

155

In spite of the somewhat ambiguous wording, there emerge

some interesting results:

(1) More participants asked for more time for Professor
Thompson's tape and the workshop discussion of it,
than for the other topics.

(2) Suggestions that the same amount of time be allotted
to either lecture or discussion was about the same
for all three topics.

(3) Discussion time was not rated at all by 56, 63 and
52 respectively (while only 16, 21, and 13 failed to
rate lecture time.)

These results seem to suggest that if these men were re-

adjusting time, they probably would give EE.lEE§I the

same amount of time to lecture and discussion periods and

more time to presentations like that of Professor Thompson.

These suggested time re-adjustments are, of course, based

on these lectures and discussions. If suggestions for

changes in future content, emphasis, and personnel at
workshops (given prior in this report) are followed, how-
ever, changes in these time allotments would probably occur
naturally.

Ninety-nine per cent of the participants agreed
that these topics are of major concern today, and 57 per
cent qualified this concern in terms of the need to keep
up, the need to get convictions, the need to avoid errors,

and the need to continue to be effective in the face of

the growing pressures on law enforcement officers.

156

The officers further substantiated their opinion
on the importance of these topics by making suggestions
for future workshops. 0f the 224 suggestions submitted
by the 152 men who responded to this open—ended question,
104 preferred continuation of the same subjects by saying
"same" or by specifically naming one of them. In addi-
tion to these, there were 30 distinct requests for more
assistance in handling court matters, especially‘lggal
court procedures. Other suggested topics included addi-
tional aspects of community relations, handling juveniles,
administrative problems, civil liabilities of policemen,
narcotics, organized crime, and arson.

Thus, the participants confirmed their concern
about the workshop topics and demonstrated that they
desire to learn how new laws and court decisions affect
their work, and what effective law enforcement procedures
and techniques they can use.

This plea for practical information was repeated
in open-ended Question 17 where they expressed the need
for more positive and practical guidelines regarding what
to do and what not to do. This emphasis on the need for
positive action, coming at,thg‘ggd of a two—day workshop,
indicated that the workshops may not have fully satisfied

the need for practical assistance.

157

SUMMARY

The subject matter of these workshops was designed
to meet the needs of today's law officers. They came in
anticipation of learning new and effective methods of law
enforcement. An analysis of responses to questions con-
cerning subject matter, especially Question 10, reveals
that their plea was heeded and in some measure answered.
What each participant learned and how applicable he con-
sidered it to be, however, seemed to be dependent upon
experience, training, responsibilities, and department
size.

They were eager to learn; however, the answers and
suggestions reveal that they were critical of the manner,
the depth, the quality, and the emphasis of the videotape
presentations, as well as of the workshop discussions. A
summary of the responses indicate that:

(1) Every lecture and discussion provided increased
understanding to a majority of the participants.

(2) Suggested time changes appear to be as related to
the skill and personality of the speaker as to his
topic.

(3) While these topics are of major concern, other
aSpects of law enforcement are also important,
such as juveniles, narcotics, organized crime,
and the civil liabilities of policemen.

(4) There should have been a stronger emphasis on
methodology.

158
(5) Expectations for learning how to deal with civil
disorder were not satisfactorily realized.
(6) The tapes should have been more than "just talk"
--short illustrative scenes, other visual aids

would help.

(7) Greater availability of this material, or a chance
to go over it again would be very helpful.

(8) There should have been more emphasis on local
procedures.

(9) There's more to a workshop than subject matter.

(10) Today's law officer needs specific guidelines for
action—~what to do, when, and how.

The average participant seemed to say: "While all
of these topics are very important to today's officer,
other aspects of law enforcement are also important. The
lecture and discussions on recent court decisions were
best because they offered practical answers to difficult
problems."

Thus, the analysis of Question 10, together with
responses to related questions reveals that the officer's
need for practical information and guidelines for positive
action was almost met. As one officer stated, "There is

so much to learn; this is a step in the right direction."

APPEI‘IDIX E
WORKSHOP AI‘II‘JOUNCEl-‘IENTS

 

 

 

 

8700.333 035 595:».
50.5 043:.— vs coasts—:34? 00:0; 4.... 305m

vs: 00.5..“ cosmosvm 9:35:50
803.“ 4:: Exams—050D 3.5.8500 L8 05.55

810m 0560.4 moans—835.4.
253 NIL. QZ< deEhO NIL.

0.50.}. Scot Vac c2952.:u
i=5 EEECU 4o 4:5:c\ .55.“ 30334 0.034 2:.
Lots: 035 2:31:50.”— goaotzm 0.203.}. .nutuw.
05.00.— nofifo.3.>L. c.2085 80.9..— .flagzsnv c430:

.2535; 035. 9.1.50.2 £030.95 .Ct0m
0.5.00.4 mafia—335.4. £04304 20.34535 8-9 .9 4:2..—

..Eafirm

.33 _o 48...“ 5203:: 50:035qu £3042.— 0.209
1).. 3.05.0... 45.5.5934. can 03..» :95: {0:04.30}.
.5: EEEIU opium 430ch L059; 29...:— 60:
+3.0 004.34. _NEEIU 2C. .o .046 iconic-FF .K BE:

...—5 5500.2.— 100.3
was .838 .21 .o .020 new ...: .3550 ‘80 i0:
cozt «.035 53:34.. 10.56... .314 .o .853. 3.20,
.E; 50.83552 .3303:— Euii .5th .n Eda—=3

4500
..Etnam .m: ...—«305 cozom 0235—. ...2 9 £040 33
can .>._C0>4=D 4:04:35 {30.8.— 32 :55... :CELou
BN4 _aEEtU 0:. no :0304— 0.: .5. 00:45:50 c2340
.92 .3 555.2 5:828 .393 :J 526:).
.o $53.5 2:. 8.6.2.. 328.2 ...-n. .: 3.54

$3.233 c2525 08:0 0:42.03 00:9.
cmCEU £9035 555.5..— .00:0Cm. 06:94 was .932.
..Eru .35 FEEtu ‘o 4355‘ .405:_..o.€m in; .0
305m twp—01a: 50.83532 .03842L il— H ‘95

.33 3:23:50 3 4!.
.255 =3:0EV gum—40.5.3.4: .co:n.003< 31.— 41:0.—
:Eo:2:0:: 0.... _o .0520 3.5.34. ...—025:— .314 40
.25} 1:50:23 53> :02 £940.95 8:24;. .0552:
3....— mfiufiuaum 3.2025 0.20034. ...-n .0038 .05-H .fl

.5540an 00:0..— 40 3020 53:22 £05305. Czflvom
050A. 0.3m can—£043.. 0;. ..o. «00.5 4:5 co..— .0.
9:5 5.309 0020.4 0.2m 55:047. .343). 532‘ 540—.

>.—..4 DU<m

at: .56 0203.5.

firm said
05:00
555.2 50.83532
.0590 50:33: n .v 33:5.

8—12—2258 DWI baa “whip—h; ..

as: 6.9.8...
5.52:: 65:5
:3. cosavcsow 530m 3» an .vw :3.
3200 0.25th 2m: 014:3; D

:32 6:03.an
5203::

FEE—40.2 50552
52:00 5733::

Bozom .2 :00 m .4. 348:4.
88: 5.65 2F 8.85:: D
.542 .653— v5.0
552 ..0»< :cEiQ 3.
L055 cocaoznm ON .wu rah
$5558 a: .35. auto 0
.40.: .54...—
.34 hatch. cav—
393m 43.:
50:03:55, .5: Nm .3 2.:
:53» 5:56:80 0;... 25h D

...—0:2. etc..—=00

.34 505.0%.— .8:

«En realizing—40¢.
SE00 SnE~U 50335 n. .3 £34

535.: .c Estes :55 253.35»: D

.65. .553

.34 0:4). ....— 89.

Sun 803. .25an 5:8

0&0:ch i.ezEEOU __ d. 23—.
.3550 358...; L338 ‘51.; D
:32 £2.00
Bazaars: Se a s :3.

D

1:54:84. 00:9. :o:0¢ 30.5368 004?; .1509

:04? concur— :oEufl

.n 5:23:

Gar—Q 30_.C0.:.¢ 52.
.0300 cos—3:3

9:35:50 25’.

£0.42. £33. :=<

35:. 5.: £52 8. 2 .2 2:4
.300 00:05— cnxtt. E; 03:. one. U
mZOEmwm mozmxuoggwh. .4<./.C_Uud

_ .3951 ..n 33—.
8‘3: nos—0n U

2.0.2 $52.3 .3”.—
=~I £03 £8. Hood
5.50.354 0.2m cumin};

2 .2 .2 2::
3.33 in D
“EC—mam UZZ<FH>F max—l wuzuxmszU

mNP<Q QZ< mZOEQGOJ

.24.WOUC04402

4.70 00:00 0303 7 :0. 31.4.2. 1.... 0 2601.1». 200..
30:. 0. 28.0 .7159 70 .0 3.3.0.0.. .0 7:01 070.: 7.. .059
408.0... :0 000.7 0:.— 15: 7.32.010... .0 100.7. .33
:790 0030.: £708 70 9.. .007 .60.. B 8603.

0:0 04 .70 3300:0008 04 0.: 000033702. 40:: 04
.00». 00:00 03030010: .u .72 7 .u 020: 1.2.0....— 3 71::
00700.00: 300.70.. 40.. .70 300 on 93.3.00 .70.. 002. l:—
1007 1.000001 7.. u 5.2: 0:10.. 4.50 . 04 :70 2‘73
430910.. >2 0. .89 .70 .3183 .00 003300.: U0.
5.0.032: 0.:— ”3.00. 0.:— 50 W700. 04 $0.30 >133...
.310: 0.:— 4.0770 «0.03. 0. 2.07.0»: «3.0 7.0.33.3
70.... 00.1.2. 0 44.52.7509 4.00.50 «010. 400 .01 00.030-
32: 0:10.»? 7. u: 283—: 8 70.. 0 8.5.0... 8 .71.
037.03.

> «010. 0. .0033 7< 301000.; .501: 0570113. 000.-
.8 5.9 9:43: .30. 013.30. 037.030. 705 70403 0..
2:70:00 04 .0... 0..—0:032: 030.07 0.. :70 2.0773:
90.0 00300.. «1: 70 1100-302. 40. 50 ... 0 1036700
82.03. >. .310... «70. .0022. 53:070.: .70 :08. 5......
8:403:00 :30... 04 00:00 03003 t... 70 83002. ..00
0 35.15 1016700. .70: .0910... 70.0 703. «0.00.01 .04
.71. 207...... 30010000. 313:0... 73.0 700.. 320002.
.0 00:00 0:30.310... £77... 83.0013 0.20000 04 0007
0. .70 .o .72 .o 32.1.8.0 ... .70 03039.

.3 0007 1.018700. .70 00:00 0.7.000 t... <10! .70 93.
7:... 0.05:2. .0053 .03 7< .708 001000.: 7501..
0570113 1: 015...». .01. 4.70 .0903. .1: ...—00. 8.0....
.70: .1... 9:40.: .30. 0137.0. 037.00! 80003.3 .70
0303. 1:07:73: 07... 0.52.3. 3.013.810: 0:1 8:43.
10... 0.40:. .0027 0:... 00.2.00. 4.70 .0253 1.: 70 8:-
003:... £77 :00...» 87.103 .0 .70 830.3. 037.03. .70
7:35.... 00:00 0.4.02 73 3:57am .70 50170 0708:
300 0. 0151:». .01.

4.70 12:19.». 02.03 1: 0:7 (007.700 070 33 0270:
0319.030 .0 0 002.103.030.002? 0010.. 0. .70 2:. 04
0007 .030... 04 .70 1005700. > ...! 0343000 0.:— u
03805.3 0202.3 .1: 0307.0 0. 0007 (01:70.. 2:.
40:010.. 3 «30:20 0030:. .0 03.22.. .70 303. 1:01.110».
00810:. 3:00 7.. .70 .0202. .002. 4.70 01303. 05.
07»... 04 .70 03...... 0303:. 1.: 70 0.. .00.»...5 0..... 0.6.0..-
7:. .70 303. 032.3. 037.03. 4001.5 .70 7:07.00: .02
0.103032: 0.22.... .... in: u. ... ...-......i 2:. 27.31::
.70 02.004 .5 ..70 030797.... 40300103. 001 .07....513
2151...»— Ft.

4.7.. .013 7 020.01 R. u 00.4.00 0. 2.07.? 90.0 :01-
33.3. 051 0: 2.071.... «.0700 10003303. 2.0 7.5.3..
...... 2.000382. .0 0310.008. 4.73007 .7... :01 2...
2601300.». 035.05. 7 7 2.11022. .70. 30.... 0. .70
.3:7.0830 00310:. .70. .70 00:00 05000 73 «0.32.75
0:30.: .3». 0131:». $37.08.. :1: 70 32.1701 0.:—
«087.27

...MO4.CFm.m

4.09.0 ulun-K 3. 43

0..... 57.5.7300 2... ”.0. 57.0100
4.3.0800 .403... 4.4. 4.30.. 2000380
300.. .07.. U313

5.040800 £5.05 .4. :03...

>E§0§Ecv§§§cfl§
71 «.0700 1023300... 3 3032: 0.:— 0033. 1.... 0.85.7.
0000» 2:. 1030333100». > 00.10: 0.:— 3250100 04
00:... 000.103 ~01 401037330 Kama—010: B .p rev—.00 .0
0...... 1.8300. .5003 Ex— 1030330103.

4.010 film-R 3. a!

7.03.0312. Ex— 0007810..
364080.. 7. .4038 00030. .40.
3040800 v.30 N. .07...

>0 0.5.0310: .08 90 037.0 20- 04 1700. .51 2:.
.503 £70. 1303.338 0.. 000000.. 55 70 7:239:2—
051 0 000.310: .0700. 4.70 0..-010». 2.07.030 .0370.»
.3 (03.3 0: 00050.— 04 7.0 3:013:05»— 1n78 E:— .70
8300. 0.600150 ~00 55.5 p «3.030... .1: 70 ESE-2..
470 .0950. 0.3 .1: 0.6.03 .70 3003.00 0. 5000.: Ch.
M00330 00.5 000.10... .0 50 7:03.823: 50 80.0..
no: 5

4.010 Elan—.0 .0. u!

#30:. 9.00030 66:... 500.100.
13.063 .753 w. 4.703.800

>0 1.1.00.7 2.0.3.. 04 19.79.: Q7575— ?! 109.100-
0. .70 .0: 080.0... o. 727 90 Ch. ll. 7207i: mega—In
00:30. 20.... 2:. 50330 00700 2.0018 7:12:00 ...
3.0030 8 508 300.: 000.103 1... 70 3—2.3 Bx.
ex. gnu

E50300 310 a. lggcliG.E—§
(<0:- IpF HI! En... 73076:. (E 701: 3}
gawlugE-I—gnafigfi 7875.

>~ I: 0.700 .0913... 0007 19.7.73. 1:4— rnfiu up 98 0.3.
0.:— 0001060 .51. «:8 0.3.
M27 (0..—3700 s1: 25 ~00 .10 g

wrmam 3524. OF 4.7%....
>77 .2mOWZ>4.—OZ

5000 mm...

3080 0:3: ~70 40:31.5 30301 00:00 05000 ... .70
44.201372. 5:3 ”10.. 4.2M Own—Om.” >20 4.3M
ES.

2>3m

 

”>2” +

1050—... UM§>flgZH

 

>UUE

 

 

2023

 

49!. 070.3. 80..

2.000350 2 307 (2.5700 (... 70 73700 8 3 00:00
05003. 3.2.0008 0. 7:07.02. 930 c.1337... 30.7
:0... My: 728...! :1: 70 73700 .0 .8 00700 05003.
”0.01310... .00 a: .0912... .1: 70 52.0 up 000790.00...
0.0 300.59

gggngggggogé
:89...

z... 4.9
4.70 can! 3:— 50 701
7.8.2.8 .00 0035033
4003.00.02: E... ”2.00.
no *0; 02:3
3.07.90 220 ...—7.03.:
an: 7002.00. 7:07.30 .83

APPENDIX F
SCHEDULE

—_.—.n‘ . .. J ‘ ~-...._..a—— m- _— u...

—C--

.—_h

__.l _

THE OFFICER AND THE LAW
TV-Workshop Lecture Series
Michigan State University

Introduction and Information survey .............................. 9:00 _ 9:55

Topic I - CIVIL DISTURBANCE AND RIOT LEGISLATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Film - "Motor City Madness" ------------------- — 9:55 - 10:15
Break ------------------------- 10:15 - 10:30
Jerold H. Israel - A Legal Analysis of Riots --------------- 10:30 — 11:15
John N. Brown - New Techniques for the Prevention
and Control of Riots ----------------------- 11:15 - 12:00
Lunch ------------- -- ---------------------------- 12:00 - 1:00
William J. Martin — A Prosecutor's View of Police
responsibilities in Gathering and Preserving
Evidence During Riots, Demonstrations and Other
Mass Arrest Situations ------------------ --- -- -1:00 - Ith
Workshop ————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1zh5 - 2:h5
Break ------------------------------------------------------- 2zh5 — 3:00
Topic II - INTERROGATION AND CONFESSION
B.J. George Jr. — Legal Controls on Interrogation—---— ----- 3:00 - h:15
Workshop ---------------------------------------------------- h:15 - 5:00
Topic i1 — INTERROGATION AND COUFESSION (continued)
Fred E. Inbau - Criminal Interrogations Within the
Legal Rules --------- 9:00 - 10:15
Break ----------------------------------------------------- 10:15 - 10:30
Workshop ------ -- --------------------- 10:30 - 11:00
Topic III - RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
James R. Thompson - Recent Decisions of the Supreme .
Court of the United States ------------ 11:00 - 12:00
Luneh--~---- - ----------------------------------- 12:00 — 1200
James R. Thompson - Recent Decisions (continued) ---------- 1:00 — 2:h5
Break ----------------------------------------------------- »2:h5 - 3:00
Workshop -------------------------------------------------- 3:00 - h:OO
Evaluation ------------------------------------------------ ‘

4:00 - hth

NOV 20 1370

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

IIU IIHH llllll

31293106402559