fbi april 08 bulletin

8/14/2019 FBI April 08 Bulletin

1/35

Departments

Features

April 2008Volume 77Number 4

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

endorsement by the FBI for any policy,program, or service.

The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodicalis necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use

of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved by the director of theOffice of Management and Budget.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(ISSN-0014-5688) is published

monthly by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paidat Washington, D.C., and additionalmailing offices. Postmaster: Send

address changes to Editor, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,

Law Enforcement Communication Unit,Hall of Honor

Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Associate Editors

Cynthia L. Lewis

David W. MacWha

Bunny S. Morris

Art Director

Denise Bennett Smith

Assistant Art Director

Stephanie L. Lowe

Staff Assistants

Cynthia H. McWhirt

Gabriel E. Ryan

Arlene F. Smith

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law Enforcement

Communication Unit, Training Division.Issues are available online at

http://www.fbi.gov.

E-mail [email protected]

Cover Photo

Photos.com

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy, Law EnforcementCommunication Unit, Hall of Honor,

Quantico, VA 22135.

Laser WeaponsBy Robert J. Bunker and

Dan Lindsay

Disruptive and Destructive

Effects of Laser IlluminationsBy Matt Begert,

Lisa Campbell, and Sid Heal

Laser Legal IssuesBy Madelyn I. Sawyer and

John P. Sullivan

Criminal SpeechBy Martin J. King

2

Whether wielded intentionally by

terrorists or mischievously by citizens,laser devices can produce potentiallylethal results.

No longer relegated to the realm ofscience fiction, laser devices havebecome weapons with potentiallydeadly consequences.

10

18

8 Bulletin Reports

Arrest-Related Deaths

Juvenile Offendersand Victims

NIDA InfoFacts

Cocaine Smuggling

16 PerspectiveCommunity Involvement

21 Unusual WeaponTool Pen

22 Leadership SpotlightThe Heart of Leadership

23Law enforcement officers must knowthe extent to which the First Amendmentpermits preventative prosecution basedon speech intended to persuade or induceothers to engage in unlawful conduct.

Deterring and prosecuting criminal laserstrikes requires a unified effort amonglocal, state, and federal authorities.

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310


2/35

April 2008 / 1

n the spirit of lessons learned from the tragicevents of September 11, 2001, the FBI LawI

Enforcement Bulletin presents three feature ar-ticles on laser threats derived from both negligentuse and the intentional criminal employment of

laser devices and weapons that can disrupt humanvision and potentially cause short- and long-termdamage to the human eye. The danger this threatrepresents increases substantially when civil andprivate aircraft, commercial cargo carriers, and air-borne law enforcement entities become the targetsof these laser illuminations. Loss of pilot visionand air-ground reference can result in serious andcatastrophic outcomes that can lead to both crewand passenger injury and loss of life, as well asimperil citizens on the ground.

To adequately address this topic, the Bulletinonce again has joined with the Futures WorkingGroup (FWG), a partnership between the FBI andthe Society of Police Futurists International (http://www.policefuturists.org). The first such collabora-tion took place in the January 2004 issue on futuresresearch and policing. The mission of the FWGis to promote innovation through the pursuit ofscholarly research in the area of police futures toethically maximize the effectiveness of local, state,federal, and international law enforcement bodiesas they strive to maintain peace and security in the

21st century. Members have completed projects onsuch topics as the use of augmented-reality tech-nology, neighborhood-driven policing, homelandsecurity, policing mass casualty events, and thefuture of policing. As part of the FWG, the Futur-ists in Residence (FIR) program, operational since

2004, affords researchers and practitioners an op-portunity to conduct original research. The FIR pro-gram, housed within the Behavioral Science Unit ofthe FBI Academy, has conducted research on hu-man resource management in policing, the future of

leadership in law enforcement, and the current ef-fort on lasers as weapons that police may encountertoday and, perhaps more so, in the future.

The three feature articles cover several aspectsof laser threats, especially those most applicableto the law enforcement community. First, LaserWeapons provides an overview of weaponry evo-lution and how lasers and other forms of directedenergy systems have begun to supplant conven-tional firearms because of enhanced tactical andoperational functions. Next, Disruptive and De-structive Effects of Laser Illuminations describesthe potential dangers associated with lasers and of-fers countermeasures for those targeted, especiallylaw enforcement officers. Finally, Laser LegalIssues highlights the importance of deterring laserincidents and the need for statutory provisions toenable prosecution for these acts.

All three articles echo the need for the lawenforcement profession and the public to becomeaware of the potential dangers associated with laserilluminations. Whether wielded by a terrorist intenton forcing an airliner to crash or by an ardent fan

trying to attract a celebrity=s attention, lasers cancause immense tragedy. But, by recognizing the

dangers, taking steps to reduce illuminations, andenacting effective laws regarding the malicioususe of lasers, society can ensure that this emergingthreat will not flourish.

Recognizing

Laser Threats

Dynamic Gra


3/35

Laser and beam weaponshave been the stuffof science fiction lore

for many years. Good sciencefiction, however, is based onsome kind of science fact and, ifdone properly, will become lessimplausible over time. This nowis occurring with lasersCbothwhen used in an improvisedweaponry role and whenproduced as dedicated laserweapons.1

Military entities have debat-ed the implications of a shift to

laser and other forms of directedenergy weaponry for quite sometime. In todays world of terror-ist plots and increasingly violentcriminals, the law enforcementcommunity must become awareof this development as well.While most information on thetopic has been military in nature,a growing body of literature hasbegun to focus on the terrorism

potential and criminal use oflaser systems against civilaviation and airborne andground law enforcement assets.2

This law enforcement threat hasemerged in tandem with amarked increase in lasings andilluminations over the pastdecade and the national trackingof these incidents by the FederalAviation Administration (FAA).

Other issues of interest touch

upon law enforcement=s futureutilization of lasers and directedenergy weapons and citizensfuture right to bear laserarms(handheld laser weapons). A

Laser WeaponsAn Emerging ThreatBy ROBERT J. BUNKER, Ph.D., and DAN LINDSAY

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Photos.com


4/35

April 2008 / 3

brief look at the early emer-gence and development offirearms can help explain what

now is taking place with lasers.

Legacy of Firearms

Firearms have existed forwell over 500 years. Prior totheir emergence, however, lesssophisticated forms of weap-onry included the sword, spear,lance, and bow. During thetransition to the modern world,the longbow and crossbow, thetwo reigning missile weapons of

the medieval era, were success-fully challenged and eventuallyreplaced by the more advancedfirearm first introduced to thebattlefield in the 14th century.3

Early handheld firearmslooked like miniature cannons.Wooden sticks were strapped toiron pipes with one end blockedand a touch hole bored so asto ignite the crude gunpowdermixture. Glowing sticks andwires brought to the touch holeserved to fire the weapon, whichshooters pointed in the generaldirection of the target becauseaiming was impossible. Fromthese humble beginnings, fire-arms evolved over the courseof centuries into true handheldweapons with many recogniz-ably modern components. Gainsin standoff range, accuracy,

lethality, and reliability becamedramatically evident as sophisti-cation increased.

Firearmsthen character-ized as crude and unreliablebeat out competing weapons of

late medieval and early moderntimes because they offeredpotentials the other, then domi-nant, systems did not. Whereasboth longbows and crossbowshad exhausted their humanand quasi-mechanical powersources, firearms began toexploit the deadly force capabil-ity provided by chemical reac-tions and internal combustion.This new and advanced weaponultimately would take down theold medieval order by shootingthe knight from his horse andbreeching the high walls of thelords castle.

This end state came aboutby means of a gradual process.The development of the musket

into the rifle and the additionof the bayonet culminated inthe ascendancy of the modernfirearm as the dominant systemin warfare. In tandem with long-gun evolution, pistols became

available for military andeventual policing functions, andsiege, later field, artillery beganto emerge on the battlefield.

Transition toLaser Weapons

As in the transition frommedieval to modern weaponry,legacy systems, such as con-ventional firearms, will not besupplanted overnight. Still, thisprocess of weaponry evolutionwill not occur over centuriesbut in mere decades as a resultof the ever-increasing pace oftechnological innovation.

It is projected that an incre-mental process will unfold overthe course of many decades as

lasers, and other forms of di-rected energy weapons, emergehaphazardly as components thatwill augment firearms (e.g.,laser sights) and also be fieldedas stand-alone systems both

Chief Safety Officer Lindsay serveswith the Ontario International Airport,as well as the Los Angeles, California,Department of Airports and its AirportLaw Enforcement and Protection

Services.

Dr. Bunker is the CEO of asecurity consulting corporationin Claremont, California.


5/35


complementing and challeng-ing firearms.4 As energy sourceoutput, transmission efficiency

(lessened energy loss), storage,and reliability increase, so, too,will handheld laser weaponcapability. For this reason, thisdevelopmental pattern, exceptfor its historically compressednature, will likely mimic that ofthe firearm.

Beyond offering advancedpower source exploitationpotentials over firearms, la-sers possess several enhanced

tactical and operational func-tions.5 Moreover, for policingpurposes, the most significant ofthese capabilities include thoseidentified as exploiting fifth-di-mensional operational space.6

Speed of light: Because a la-ser beam travels at 186,000miles per second, no timeof flight exists for it to hit atarget. As soon as the trig-

ger of the laser weapon ispulled, the target has beenengaged.

Energy concentrated on thetarget: Unlike many omni-directional munitions, allof the energy of a laser isfocused in a coherent beamupon the target. The smallerand tighter the beam, themore energy is concentratedat the point of impact.

Straight line of flight:No fire control is requiredto calculate a ballistictrajectory and lead.

Whatever is aimed at is hit,based on a straight line ofsight and flight.

Extreme standoff potential:Stronger lasers have stand-off ranges in excess of mostmodern firearms; however,beam coherence issues ariseat extreme ranges of laseremployment.

which eliminates the needfor large quantities ofammunition. The only real

potentially inhibiting factoris overheating because oflong durations of use.

Rheostat: The energy levelsproduced can be increasedand lowered, allowing forthe more tailored applicationof force. Low levels couldcause less lethal effects,while more energy emittedcould result in lethal-forceapplications.

Frequency shifting: Tunablelasers, those with shiftingwavelengths, are highlyresistant to countermeasuresbased on filters that blockknown threat wavelengths.

Unique wounding: Cornealand retinal damages to theeyes may take place withlow-energy lasers. Besides

thermal effects, the potentialfor photochemical changesin the eye also may resultfrom some laser injuries.Combinations of charringand lacerations may oc-cur with high-energy laserinjuries, which require a farmore complex medical re-sponse than ones producedby standard firearms.

Psychological impact:

Once personnel, both mili-tary and law enforcement,realize that utilizing magni-fying optics or viewing theoperational space with the

Silent: No detonation orback blast is required as aby-product of operating a

laser because no internalcombustion or chemical re-action takes place to powerthe laser beam.

Potentially invisible: Infra-red lasers are invisible to thehuman eye, thus typicallyundetectable without infra-red detection equipment. Inthe case of visible lasers,they can be pulsed, thereby

limiting the opposing forcesability to detect their use.

Deep clip: As long as apower source exists, a lasercan continue to operate,

A laser, like

any other deviceor weapon, may beemployed by criminals,

terrorists, or militarycombatants.


6/35

April 2008 / 5

naked eye can pose the riskof being injured or blinded,their mission performance

could become degraded.This is compounded byinfrared laser use becausedamage to the eye can betaking place without thetarget initially even knowingthat it is happening.

Target Sets

Laser devices and weaponshave disruptive (visual) anddestructive (primarily thermal)

effects upon their targets. Undernormal viewing conditions,weaker low-energy lasers haveonly disruptive effects, whereasstronger ones also have eyedamage and destructive capa-bilities that allow them to startfires and either melt or burnthrough objects that have littledensity. The weaker lasers,such as laser pointers, typically

are effective at night for visiondisruption purposes, while thestronger systems can be usedboth in daytime and nighttimeconditions. A laser, like anyother device or weapon, may beemployed by criminals, terror-ists, or military combatants.

The target sets that canbe disrupted, and potentiallydestroyed, by using lasers arepretty much the same for both

law enforcement and civilaviation applications. However,civil aviation tends to havemany more soft targets, such asfuel trucks, even though police

new gunpowder revolution8

and still adheres to that observa-tion. Laser weapons and devices

will have an immense impacton future policing activities, es-pecially in the coming decadeswhen they mature as systemsand eventually move along thecontinuum from exotic to whatwill be considered more con-ventional weapons. This impactis projected to come aboutprimarily because of two broadwaves of change in this type ofweapons usage.

The first, derived fromnegligence and ignorance,represents the vast majorityof incidents, criminal intent,and eventual terrorist andglobal insurgent use of thesesystems.9 Millions of handheldlaser pointers and other low-energy laser devices have been

helicopters are much softer tar-gets than passenger airliners.

Tactics, techniques, and

procedures for individual userand opposing force laser ap-plications can be generated forlaw enforcement red-teamingpurposes.7 Needless to say, aswith any targeting endeavor,weapons effects can be matchedto target-set weaknesses andvulnerabilities, and a reasonablycompetent operations plan canbe constructed. In this instance,the eyes (vision) of law enforce-

ment and commercial avia-tion personnel are the greatestvulnerabilities.

Conclusion

Several years ago, one ofthe authors characterized theemergence of lasers and di-rected energy weapons as a

Target SetsLaw Enforcement

Personnel (line officers, specialized units, supervisors)

Matriel (police cars, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft,equipment)

Infrastructure (buildings, communication systems)

Civil Aviation

Personnel (pilots, flight crews, passengers, mainte-nance staff, rescue workers)

Matriel (aircraft, fuel trucks, equipment) Infrastructure (terminals, control towers, radar,

communication systems)


7/35


manufactured over the past fewdecades, and now dozens, if not

hundreds, of them are directedat civil, commercial, military,and law enforcement aircraft;police and emergency servicespersonnel; professional and

amateur athletes; bus drivers;and everyday citizens on a

yearly basis. Fortunately, themajority of these devices, undernormal viewing conditions, donot pose eye hazards. Still, theselasers may offer significant

visual disruption potentials.Regardless of user intent,

this wave of change alreadyhas begun and is based onlasers as threat systems to lawenforcement officers. An even-tual component of this wave

At about 10 p.m. on March 21, 1998, I was the flight officer aboard the Ontario, Cali-fornia, Police Department=s helicopter orbiting a burglary in progress. As I was directingground officers to the suspect, the pilot, Pete Ambriz, told me that we were being illumi-nated by a laser. Fortunately, he could maintain control of the helicopter. After officerstook the suspect into custody, Pete turned in the direction of the laser and flew about 500feet above the ground. Our aircraft, modified with two strobes for low-level operations inthe area of our international airport, also had a 50-million candlepower searchlight, so wecould be seen for miles.

At that point, I was looking at the horizon and saw the laser beam. It was angled fromthe ground below and to the left of the aircraft and was not bright enough to cause concern.Suddenly, however, it moved up and right and, within an instant, a bright intense red lightcovered the front windscreen and interior of the cockpit. The beam was too bright to see

through, and there was no visibility to the front of the aircraft. I could see the beam mov-ing, and, occasionally, I could see forward as the beam tracked our aircraft. I saw Peteflying while looking out the left side of the aircraft as he kept his heading. After about 10seconds, I saw the beam move downward, fade, then turn off. As the beam was movingaway from the aircraft, I could clearly see its source. The beam was so intense, straight,and bright that it pointed like an arrow to its source. As it was turned off, I saw it glowdown and move north at the rear of a house and then inside what turned out to be the rearsliding door. Later, I determined the distance to be just over 1 mile, or about 14 city blocks.I learned from the manufacturer of the device that, at that distance, the beam would havebeen approximately 7 feet in diameter.

I directed Pete to the home and had a ground unit respond. The officer contacted thesuspect and retrieved the device. The suspect subsequently admitted aiming the device at

the helicopter and eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of California PenalCode Section 247.5, Discharging a Laser at an Aircraft. He was sentenced to 3 months inthe county jail and 3 years on probation.

Detective Parra serves with the Ontario, California, Police Department.

Airborne Law Enforcement Laser IlluminationBy Alfredo Parra, Jr.


8/35

of change will be the creationof law enforcement policies,tactics, and countermeasures

with respect to laser threats.10

The second wave of changeis expected to be based onthe utilization of lasers andother directed energy devicesby law enforcement agenciesthemselves. This can be seentoday with laser sights addedto firearms and the use of laserdazzlers as less lethal formsof force. While this wave ofchange remains immature, over

time, more and more directed-energy capabilities will beimplemented for law enforce-ment use.

With such scenarios inmind, the law enforcementprofession must recognize thatlasers are emerging as the weap-ons of the future. Just as thefirearm ushered in the modernera, the laser will profoundly

influence what transpires forsucceeding generations.

Endnotes1 The authors past writings on laser

threats include Dan Lindsay and Robert J.

Bunker, The Laser Threat to California

Airborne Law Enforcement, The Journal

of California Law Enforcement34, no.

2 (March-April 2000): 12-20 (an earlier

version, The Laser Threat to Airborne

Law Enforcement, appeared in two parts

inAir Beat(November/December 1998,

26-29 and January/February 1999, 14-16);

and Robert J. Bunker, Terrorist Laser

Employment Against Civil Aviation: Is-

sues, Concerns, and Potential Incidents,

Transit Policing8, no. 1 (Spring 1998):

7-8 and 21-28.

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, FBI Academy Li-

brary, Subject Bibliography: Laser Devices

and Weapons (Quantico, VA, June 2007).

3 T. Lindsay Moore, The Structure ofWar: Early Fourth Epoch War Research,

inNon-State Threats and Future Wars,

ed. Robert J. Bunker (London, UK: Frank

Cass, 2003), 157-170.4 This projection has provided under-

lying guidance to less lethal weapons

research and field activities initiated by the

National Law Enforcement Corrections

Technology Center; the National Institute

of Justice Technical Working Group on

Less Lethal Weapons; and the Technology

Exploration Program of the Los Angeles

County, California, Sheriff=s Department.

5 Many of these capabilities wererecognized initially quite sometime ago by

Brigadier Bengt Anderberg, The Low-En-

ergy Laser Aimed at the Eye as a Potential

Antipersonnel Weapon, The RUSI Jour-

nal133, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 35-40.6 Sid Heal, Fighting in the Fifth

Dimension, OnPoint: A Counterterrorism

Journal for Military and Law Enforcement

Professionals (April 2005); retrieved from

http://www.uscav.com.7 Robert J. Bunker, Criminals and

Laserarms: Counter-Optical Tactics, The

Tactical Edge 14, no. 8 (Fall 2000): 45-48.8 Robert J. Bunker, New Gunpowder

Revolution, The Police Chief, June 1998,

49. This observation was drawn from even

earlier military-related research Dr. Bunker

conducted on the topic.9 With a fixation on man-portable

air defense systems, rocket-propelled

grenades, bombs and improvised explosive

devices of various types, and small arms, a

time lag before terrorist laser weapons use

takes place is expected. Still, the Japanese

terrorist group Aum Shrinkyo attempted to

use a laser device as a weapon back in the

1990s, so wild-card scenarios are not out

of the question.10 Additional forms of directed energy

defense against radio frequency and other

devices also may, at some point, become

warranted.

April 2008 / 7

Wanted:

Photographs

heBulletin staff isalways looking forT

dynamic, law enforcement-related photos for possible

publication in the magazine.We are interested in photosthat visually depict the manyaspects of the law enforce-ment profession and illustratethe various tasks lawenforcement personnel

perform.We can use color prints,

digital photographs, andslides. It is our policy to

credit photographers whentheir work appears in themagazine. Contributorsshould send duplicate, notoriginal, prints as we do notaccept responsibility fordamaged or lost prints.Send photographs to:

Art DirectorFBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy, LawEnforcement CommunicationUnit, Hall of Honor,Quantico, VA 22135.


9/35

Bulletin Reports

Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States, 2003-2005 contains data fromthe first national measure of all types of arrest-related deaths under a new pro-gram mandated by the federal Death in Custody Reporting Act (Public Law106-297). The statute directed all states to report deaths during arrests to remaineligible for federal correctional grants. This Bureau of Justice Statistics reportprovides the number of all arrest-related deaths over a 3-year period by cause ofdeath and characteristics of the deceased. These fatalities include homicides(both those by law enforcement officers and other persons), suicides, alcohol orother drug intoxication deaths, accidental injuries, and fatal medical problems.The publication lists the deaths by cause for each state, and tables detail the

circumstances surrounding arrest-related deaths, such as the criminal offensesrelating to the arrests, the weapons or other behavior employed by arrest sub-jects, and the weapons or restraint de-vices used by officers involved in thearrest. In addition, the document pres-ents the number of justifiable homicidesby police as collected by the FBIs Uni-form Crime Reporting Program. Toobtain a copy of the report (NCJ219534), access http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/bjs/abstract/ardus05.htm.

Arrest-Related Deaths

The latest edition of the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Preventions (OJJDP)flagship statistical publication,Juvenile Offendersand Victims: 2006 National Report, is availableonline at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/index.html. The 260-page report offers comprehensivestatistics on juvenile offending, victimization of juveniles, and the justice systems response tothese problems. It presents data in easy-to-readtables, graphs, and maps, narrated by clear, non-technical analysis. This report is part of OJJDPsonline Statistical Briefing Book (SBB).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims



10/35

Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction representsone of many brief messages available through NIDAInfoFacts, developed by the National Institute on DrugAbuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, Departmentof Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most ofthe worlds research on the health aspects of drug abuseand addiction. Updated regularly, NIDA InfoFacts have nocopyright on any of the materials, and all can be reproducedfor further distribution. Available at http://www.nida.nih.

gov/Infofacts/Index.html, NIDA

InfoFacts cover a wide range oftopics germane to all concernedwith the tragic effects of drugabuse and addiction.

NIDA InfoFacts

April 2008 / 9

Produced by the Office of National Drug ControlPolicy, Cocaine Smuggling in 2006 provides an over-view of the estimated cocaine flow to the United Statesfor the year. The report covers such topics as coca culti-vation and production, cocaine trafficking routes andmethods, and cocaine seizures and disruptions. Estimatesindicated that between 530 and 710 metric tons of co-caine departed South America toward the United States

in 2006. About 90 percent of the flow traveled via theeastern Pacific and western Caribbean routes to Mexicoand Central America. In 2006, interdiction efforts re-sulted in 492 metric tons of cocaine, the second highesttotal on record. The document (NCJ 220494) is availableat the National Criminal Justice Reference Services Website, http://www.ncjrs.org.

Cocaine Smuggling

Bulletin Reportsis an edited collection of criminal justice studies, reports, andproject findings. Send your material for consideration to: FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy, Law Enforcement Communication Unit, Hall of Honor,Quantico, VA 22135. (NOTE: The material in this section is intended to be strictlyan information source and should not be considered an endorsement by the FBIfor any product or service.)


11/35


Mark C. Ide

Most of the documentedlaser incidents (someintentionally disrup-

tive, others not) have involvedlasing aircraft. The primaryoperational effect in such in-cidents is visual disruption to pilots with the immediate anddirect concern being the loss ofcontrol of the aircraft. For a hos-tile individual wielding a laser,disruption of the pilots vision,

as well as a wide range of otherpotentially destructive results, isintentional.

As lasers become moretechnologically advanced and

hostile forces modify theirtactics for enhanced results, cur-rent disruptive outcomes mayworsen, causing greater pos-sible injury or death. Further,both disruptive and destructiveeffects of lasers may bring onpsychological issues not onlyfor the victims of such incidentsbut also for those who couldbecome targets.

VISUAL DISRUPTION

The mechanics of visualdisruption can be described interms of the effect producedwhen the eye interacts with

light, specifically changes inlight hitting the eye. The visualdisruption that occurs when alaser strikes the eye includesone mechanical reactionCblink-ing, an involuntary, predictablestartle reflexCand three physi-ological responsesCglare, flashblinding, and afterimage.

Glare, a common and fore-seen condition for pilots duringflight, results from an intense

light source that obscures an ob-ject in a persons central field ofvision.1 The effects last only aslong as the light source is pres-ent. Pilots expect glare caused

Disruptive

and DestructiveEffects of LaserIlluminationsBy MATT BEGERT, LISA CAMPBELL, and SID HEAL


12/35

April 2008 / 11

by low sun angle, landing lights,and other sources. But, they donot anticipate the sudden il-

lumination and resulting glareof collimated laser beam ra-diation, amplified by reflectionand refraction in the cockpit.2

The unexpected appearance oflaser light causing glare provesdisruptive unlike that fromsunlight, which pilots knowand can predict. In contrast,flash blindness, a temporaryvisual impairment, persists forseveral seconds or up to a few

minutes after the light sourceis removed.3 Unfortunately, alaser does not have to be shineddirectly into the eye for this tooccur. Reflected or refractedlaser radiation hitting a cock-pit canopy can produce flashblindness. Albeit temporary, thevisual disruption can result in

the inability to detect or resolvea target, similar to the imme-diate blinding from a camera

flashbulb. The final response,afterimageCthe transient sensa-tion or the perception of light,dark, or colored spots left in thevisual field after exposure tobright lightCcan prove distract-ing or disruptive and last up toseveral minutes.

The disruption from lasingcan affect an aircrafts missionor intended operation. A pilotstartled by a laser flash and

suffering from flash blindness,for example, may inadver-tently divert or change a flightscourse or lose visual references.In military applications, laserdisruptions can result in a de-graded mission, aborted flight,or denial of essential air supportto ground operations. Further,

ongoing effective hostile lasingsin a specific location may resultin general area denial. In do-

mestic circumstances, importantconsequences of laser disrup-tion could include temporaryrestrictions or modifications tothe use of aircraft in supportof law enforcement or publicsafety missions.

HEALTH ISSUES

The unique properties oflasers play a role in their ef-fect on the eye. A tightly col-limated laser, for example, willcause the laser beam to becomefocused in a small retinal spot,much smaller than if anotherlight source with comparablepower were to hit the eye. Thisconstricted focus combined withthe increased output power of alaser may lead to exceptionally

Major Campbell serves withthe 146th Airlift Wing, AirNational Guard, U.S. Air Force,at Port Hueneme, California.

Operations Officer Begertserves with the National LawEnforcement and CorrectionsTechnology Center-West inEl Segundo, California.

Commander Heal serveswith the Los Angeles County,California, Sheriffs Department.


13/35


hazardous conditions for theeye. The nearly monochromaticproperty, the very confined

beam divergence over greatdistances, and the energy of alaser also can have an effect onthe eye. In general, at the pointwhere the eye no longer canwithstand the power or energydensity of a laser, referred toas the eyes damage threshold,barely visible but permanentphysical damage to the retinawill occur.

Three mechanisms can

cause laser-induced eye inju-ries: thermal, mechanical, andphotochemical. The most com-mon laser eye injury is thermalin nature. When so affected, theeye absorbs laser energy, whichraises the temperature and alterstissue proteins. Less common,mechanical damage results fromlasers with very short high-fre-quency pulses and, thus, very

high energy. Such high-energypulses can inflict severe dam-age to the retina because ofextremely rapid absorption ofenergy and sharp increases intemperature. Photochemicaldamage, characterized by lowerpower and longer energy pulses,occurs at the shorter visiblewavelengths (e.g., in the blue orultraviolet regions of the spec-trum). In such cases, repeated or

chronic exposure is cumulativewith the effects being similar tosunburn.

Common but varyingsymptoms may assist in the

preliminary recognition of thenature and seriousness of theexposure. Victims of significant

retinal laser injuries typi-cally experience sudden, severedecreased vision in one or botheyes. They may notice a brightflash and occasionally hear aloud popping sound. They mayor may not feel pain.4 Still, theiraffected vision may improveover several days or months.

presentation usually becomesapparent to ophthalmologists.Less significant retinal laser

injuries may not be as easilydiagnosed or apparent. For thisreason, details of the event andall symptoms should be docu-mented and given to an examin-er following a suspected lasing.Notably, in some accidentalworkplace lasings, the clinicaleffects remained undetecteduntil inadvertently discoveredby ophthalmologists becausethey were asymptomatic and,

therefore, never addressed.As the number of lasing

incidents increases, especiallyby misuse, so does the addedpotential for psychologicaleffects that may occur as aresult of being lased or simplyfrom the threat of experiencingsuch an incident. Accordingto some military researchers,the suppressive consequences

of knowing that a lasing couldoccur may be numerous andmust be factored into overalllaser biological effects studies.Such psychological issuesprior to, during, or after a laserincident may be accompaniedby undue stress or performanceinhibitions and, thus, havesignificant impact on missionaccomplishment.5

OFFICER SAFETYCONCERNS

One highly troubling aspectfor officers being lased is notknowing the circumstances of

The uniqueproperties of

lasers play a rolein their effecton the eye.

Results from laser acci-dents of varying degrees haveincluded such medical findingsor symptoms as scotoma (darkspots); retinal, corneal, ormacular burns; retinal lesions;swelling; blurred vision; vitre-ous hemorrhage (rupture ofretinal blood vessels); and blindspots. Most real laser injuriesare accompanied by some eyetissue damage. While many

medical or symptomatic find-ings will improve over time,some may last much longer.In cases of more significantretinal laser injury, the clinical


14/35

April 2008 / 13

Photos.com

the illumination. Is a criminalsighting a weapon at them? Issomeone trying to harm them

by striking them in the eye witha laser? Or, is a child, adoles-cent, or even an adult wieldingthe device accidentally or outof ignorance? Such questionsnecessitate quickly assessingthe situation and employingsome basic response protocolsand countermeasures developedto protect officers during a laserillumination.6 These responsemeasures, both passive and ac-

tive in nature, partially dependon the intensity (brightness) ofthe laser and the officers typeof assignment (e.g., on foot, in avehicle, or aboard an aircraft).

Countering the Attack

Officers on foot shouldreadily seek cover if the illu-mination continues.7 They mayneed to look away from thelaser or shield their eyes witha hand, hat, clipboard, or otheropaque object. Officers shouldremember that the effects of alaser illumination are far greaterat night and under other condi-tions of darkness because thehuman eye has adapted itself fornighttime vision (i.e., the pupilis dilated).

Officers in vehicles firstneed to make sure that the

startle response from a laser il-lumination does not result in anaccident. They have the optionof driving through the incidentor parking the car. Turning on

interior lights may help negatesome of the intensity of the la-ser light. Looking down, shield-

ing the eyes, or finding protec-tion behind an open car door allrepresent viable options. If theillumination comes from be-hind, officers never should lookinto the rearview mirror.

An airborne officers firstmission is to aviate and navi-gate. Depending on the severityof the laser illumination, of-ficers have some options. Theycould look away, shield their

circumstances should they usea direct-viewing magnifyingdevice, such as binoculars or

a scope, because these instru-ments gather and intensify light,thereby boosting the energy ofthe laser that strikes the eye.Eyeglasses, as well as shiny ob-jects and other reflective surfac-es that laser energy can bounce(diffuse) off of, also pose visualdisruption and injury issues. Forthis reason, officers should notuse tactical mirrors for viewingthe illumination.

Officers operating in envi-ronments where laser threats areprevalent can draw upon moresophisticated countermeasures.For example, military gogglesand glasses exist that provideboth ballistic and laser eye pro-tection. Filters incorporated intosuch eyewear block out com-mon laser threat wavelengths.For law enforcement use, red

and green laser filters wouldhave the greatest current util-ity. Film applied to windshieldsand windscreens and potentiallyeven to mirrors can filter outharmful laser light. In addition,smoke rounds represent a soundtactical response to the threat oflaser illumination because theparticulate matter that blockshuman vision does the same tolaser energy. Laser detectors

and warning receivers, foundin some military vehicles andaircraft, alert crews to illumina-tions. This laser warning capa-bility extends to both visible

eyes, raise or lower their hel-met visor, place their head outof the window (in case of laserlight scattering or opaquenessin the canopy), or make a 180-degree turn. At ranges close tothe laser source, officers shouldmaximize all interior and instru-ment lighting to counteract the

disruptive visual effects of thelaser illumination.

Regardless of whether of-ficers are on foot, in a vehicle,or aboard an aircraft, under no


15/35


and infrared (invisible) lasers.8

Finally, law enforcementagencies can utilize airborne,

vehicular, and officer-carriedwhite-light systems (flashlightsthrough high-intensity spot-lights) against the source ofa laser illumination. Multiplewhite-light sources, and eventhe addition of laser dazzlers,can create an optical-wall effectthat may isolate and disorientthe wielder. Air units that havepowerful spotlights with goodstandoff ranges have proven ef-

fective in providing overwhelm-ing white light against suspectswith lasers.

Aiding the Injured

All lasers are capable of eyedamage as a result of threefactors: exposure, aperture, andenergy. Thus, even a weak laserwith a small aperture andsufficient loiter time cancause injury. Of course, a morepowerful laser needs lessexposure because it has moreenergy. While in the vast major-ity of cases no damage willresult from being illuminated bya weak laser, officers stillshould have their eyes exam-ined. The stated energy outputof many foreign lasers is inac-curate, and worn eyewearinadvertently may intensify a

laser beam. Eye injuries easilycan take place from direct beamexposure from more powerfullasers and potentially even from

laser energy reflected off ofsurfaces.9 In case of an eyeinjury, officers should keep

the injured person calm. If aretinal injury is suspected andbleeding occurs inside the eye,the injured person shouldremain in an upright, seatedposition. Officers should ar-range for transportation of theseriously injured for medicalevaluation and treatment. Thevictim might be in shock orhave impaired vision, so self-transportation is not advisable.10

CONCLUSION

Lasers currently used inantipersonnel roles are not

the most advanced systems inexistence. However, it is rea-sonable to assume that moresophisticated technology will beemployed with malicious intentin the future.

The law enforcement pro-fession must prepare for sucha threat by ensuring that itsmembers become aware of thepotential dangers associatedwith lasers. These hazards existwhether the devices are wieldedintentionally by criminals andterrorists or by citizens ignorantof the potentially lethal resultsof their mischievous actions.

Endnotes1 Van B. Nakagawara, Ronald W.

Montgomery, Archie E. Dillard, Leon N.

McLin, and C. William Conner, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Aerospace Medicine, The Effects of LaserIllumination on Operational and Visual

Performance of Pilots During Final

Approach, DOT/FAA/AM-04/9 (Washing-

ton, DC, June 2004).2 Collimated light means that the

wavelengths of the light beams are paral-

lel, resulting in little beam divergence over

long distances.3 Supra note 1.4 Studies have shown that pain is not

frequently reported. Pain may be caused

by rubbing the eyes after laser exposure

and more a result of transient corneal

abrasion from the rubbing versus from thelasing itself.

5 Additional references employed by

the authors include W.L. Makous and J.D.

Gould, Effects of Lasers on the Human

Injured officers shouldconsult ophthalmologists whohave specifically treated lasereye injuries. Because laser eyeinjuries are uncommon, someofficers may encounter diffi-culty finding qualified medicaldoctors to conduct the examina-tion. In the case of severe inju-

ries and lingering eye pain, theyshould contact military ophthal-mologists who are experts inthis field.

The disruptionfrom lasing

can affect anaircrafts mission

or intendedoperation.


16/35

Subscribe Now

Order Processing

Code:

3491

Easy Secure Internet:

bookstore.gpo.gov

Toll Free: 866 5121800

DC Area: 202 5121800

Fax: 202 5122104

Mail: US Government Printing Ofce

P.O. Box 979050

St. Louis, MO 631979000

Check payable to Superintendent o Documents

SOD Deposit Account

VISA MasterCard Discover/NOVUS American Express

(expiration date)

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE 03/07

Personal name (Please type or print)

Company name

Street address

City, State, Zip code

Daytime phone including area code

Thank you or your order!

YES, please send ______ subscriptions to theFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. (FBIEB) at $53.00each ($74.20 foreign) per year. Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.

The total cost of my order is $___________.Check method o payment:

April 2008 / 15

Eye,IBM Journal(May 1968): 260;

Yaniv Barkana and Michael Belkin, Laser

Eye Injuries: Survey of Ophthalmology,

Major Review 44, no. 6 (May/June 2000):

459-474; Robert P. Green, Jr., Robert M.Cartledge, Frank E. Cheney, and Arthur

R. Menendez, USAF School of Aerospace

Medicine, Human Systems Division,

Medical Management of Combat Laser

Eye Injuries (Brooks AFB, Texas, October

1988, rev. 1990); and R. James Rockwell,

Jr., William J. Ertle, and C. Eugene Moss,

Rockwell Laser Industries, Inc., and Na-

tional Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health, Safety Recommendations of Laser

Pointers; retrieved from http://www.rli.

com/resources/pointer.asp .

6 Robert J. Bunker,Laser Threats to

Law Enforcement, International Associa-

tion of Chiefs of Police Training Key 523

(Alexandria, VA, November 2000), 1-6.

Original tactical review of this training keyprovided by Sid Heal.

7 Police horses and dogs also are

susceptible to laser illuminations. Mounted

officers have personal safety issues

concerning controlling their animals. Side

blinders on horses should protect from all

but direct head-on laser illuminations.8 More sophisticated systems may have

the ability to pinpoint the geospatial

position of the threat laser and provide

geopositioning system coordinates. Even

more advanced systems may be able to

characterize laser frequency signatures.

The gathering of such signatures may

provide useful information for both laser

protection (eyewear filters) and criminal

prosecution (matching the gatheredsignature to that of a seized laser).

9 While skin injuries (actual burns)

from lasers also are a potentiality for of-

ficers who have been illuminated, overall

vision safety concerns dominate because

very few, if any, of these more powerful

lasers are used in the current domestic

laser threat environment.10 Rick Mannix, ed., UC Irvine Laser

Safety Newsletter7, no. 1 (January 3,

2007): 1-2; retrieved from http://www.ehs.

uci.edu.


17/35


he events of September 11, 2001, dramati-cally changed the way Americans live. It

Community InvolvementThe Ultimate Force MultiplierBy Arlene A. Gaylord, M.A.

Perspective

San Diegos Initiative

The FBIs San Diego office has made build-ing law enforcement-community partnerships a

cornerstone in its investigative and preventativecounterterrorism efforts. Since April 2004, theoffice has offered a training program for citizens.It has shared a 1-hour course with communityforums, private companies, and NeighborhoodWatch groups throughout San Diego County andseveral other neighboring jurisdictions. The prem-ise of this training is simple: a brief overview ofterrorism that teaches community members notonly how to recognize preincident indicators (PIIs)and suspicious activity but also how to provide anaccurate report to the appropriate law enforcementagency in a timely fashion.

To help other law enforcement organizationsdevelop a similar effort, the author presents theformula that has proven successful in San Diego.

Talso drastically altered how law enforcementorganizations conduct business. Since that tragicday, local, state, federal, and tribal agencies haveworked and trained together, having recognizedthe major shift in the roles and responsibilitiesof the law enforcement profession throughoutthe United States. Now that law enforcement of-ficers have received terrorism training, they needto share this knowledge with the members of thecommunities they protect and serve. Educating thepublic to recognize suspicious activities that could possibly relate to terrorism may well comprisethe ultimate force multiplier. After all, no localityhas the luxury of having an officer on every streetcorner. Therefore, involving citizens is essentialto effectively combat terrorism. Who better thansomeone living in a neighborhood or working in abusiness district to recognize what truly is happen-

ing in that area?As an example, Neighborhood Watch pro-

grams have succeeded in making many communi-ties across the nation safer.1 The program enliststhe active participation of citizens in cooperationwith the agencies that police them in an effort toreduce crime. This time-tested formula has proveninstrumental in ridding neighborhoods of differenttypes of crime problems, such as gangs, prostitu-tion, and drugs. This concept could be expandedto include offering appropriate training regardingterrorism and, thereby, equipping residents withthe knowledge necessary to effectively identifysuspicious activities that possibly could relate toterrorism.

Ms. Gaylord serves asan intelligence analyst

in the FBIs San Diego,California, office.


18/35

April 2008 / 17

First, agencies should identify employees who notonly care greatly about educating the communitybut also have established themselves as effective

trainers. Next, they should arm these individualswith the knowledge needed and give them suffi-cient time to go out into the community and teacha basic overview course on terrorism. Althoughspecific items to cover in this training can vary byjurisdiction, four basic compo-nents have worked effectivelyin San Diego.

1) A brief historical overviewof terrorism, both interna-tional and domestic

2) A review of terrorism PIIsthat members of thecommunity may be in theposition to observe

3) A discussion on the impor-tance of providing infor-mation that not only isaccurate but also timely

4) An explanation of appropriate reporting pro-cedures, including instructions on who shouldreceive the information

This type of training requires few resources.Most of all, it needs instructors who feel passion-ately about building law enforcement-community partnerships and who are approachable, knowl-edgeable, and enthusiastic about the subject. Whoshould receive the training will depend on thejurisdiction. For example, San Diego has offeredthe training to community groups that requestit and has proactively contacted special interestgroups, such as shopping mall security companies(supplying training specific to basic terrorism andsuicide-bomber prevention) and businesses that

provide security services to construction sites(conducting training regarding recent arson tactics

used by domestic terrorists against constructionsites).

Agencies lacking enough sworn personnel to

cover the time necessary to address communitygroups can turn to professional support employeesor volunteers who have the appropriate skills andknowledge to provide this critical training. Tothis end, the California Commission on Peace Of-

ficer Standards and Trainingdeveloped a train-the-trainerclass and offered it to inter-ested individuals, includingterrorism liaison and commu-nity services officers and otheremployees nominated by their

departments.

Conclusion

It is time to include thecommunity in law enforce-ments battle against the threatof terrorism. The professionmust work to train residents to

become its eyes and ears because officers simplycannot do it alone. Citizens need to know what tolook for and how to effectively report it to the ap-

propriate agency.Building law enforcement-community partner-ships can constitute the ultimate force multiplier.Education and training offered by law enforce-ment agencies to the communities they protectand serve could lead to a tip that might identify acritical player in a terrorist cell and provide lawenforcement with the opportunity to disrupt, deter,or stop the next egregious attack on Americansoil.

Endnotes

1 For additional information, access http://www.usaonwatch.

org.

Educating the publicto recognize suspicious

activities that couldpossibly relate to

terrorism may wellcomprise the ultimate

force multiplier.


19/35


Laser incidents are acurrent and emergingconcern to the aviation

and law enforcement commu-nities. When directed againstaircraft cockpits, lasers, undercertain conditions, can distractor impair the pilot and flightcrew, posing a significant safetyhazard.

The continuance of acts tar-

geting civil airliners and publicsafety helicopters highlights theimportance of deterring laserincidents and demonstrates theneed for statutory provisions

to enable prosecution for theseacts under both federal andstate statutes. Potential meansof deterrence and threat miti-gation include restricting thesales of certain laser devices;amending or enacting criminalstatutes regarding the use oflasers as weapons, as well astheir use against flight opera-tions; providing pilots with laser

eye protection; training pilots inlaser countermeasures; expand-ing and enforcing laser-freezones proximate to airports;and educating law enforcement

officials and the public regard-ing the risks improper laser useposes to aviation.1

Federal Regulationsand Criminal Statutes

Over a decade ago, theaviation and law enforcementcommunities initiated the track-ing and documenting of lasingincidents against aircraft andhelicopters in flight. Lasingshave continued, yet progressin enacting statutes for theprosecution of individuals who

point lasers at aircraft has beenuneven.

After informally trackinglaser incidents for a decade, theFederal Aviation Administration(FAA) established a mechanismto record laser incidents throughits operations center in Wash-ington, D.C. When pilots reporta lasing incident to the center, itcontacts the FBI and local lawenforcement agencies.2

Despite these regulatoryefforts, a specific federal laserstrike statute still is pending.3

This legislation would amendthe federal criminal code toimpose a fine or prison termof up to 5 years for any personwho knowingly aims the beamof a laser pointer at an aircraftor its flight path. If enacted,this would create Title 18, U.S.

Code, Section 39A, Aiming aLaser Pointer at an Aircraft.Currently, malicious use oflasers to interfere with aircraftcan be prosecuted under the

Laser Legal IssuesProsecuting PerpetratorsBy MADELYN I. SAWYER, M.A., and JOHN P. SULLIVAN

Digitial Vision


20/35

April 2008 / 19

provisions of Title 18, U.S.Code, Section 32, Interferingwith Flight Crews, or under the

Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56) sectionpertaining to acts of violencedirected against mass transpor-tation systems.

State Criminal Statutes

Several states, notablyCalifornia, have specificstatutes available to addresslaser strikes. The CaliforniaPenal Code, for example,creates a felony for aircraft laser

incidents and misdemeanorprovisions for those interferingwith aircraft.

California Penal Code Sec-tion 247.5: Any person whowillfully and maliciouslydischarges a laser at anaircraft, whether in motionor in flight, while occupiedis guilty of a violation ofthis section, which shall

be punishable as either amisdemeanor by imprison-ment in the county jail fornot more than 1 year or bya fine of $1,000 or a felonyby imprisonment in the stateprison for 16 months, 2years, or 3 years or by afine of $2,000.

California Penal Code Sec-tion 248: Any person who,with the intent to interferewith the operation of anaircraft, willfully shines alight or other bright device,of an intensity capable ofimpairing the operation ofan aircraft, at an aircraft

shall be punished by a finenot exceeding $1,000 or byimprisonment in a county

jail not exceeding 1 yearor by both that fine andimprisonment.

Other California sectionsaddress pointing lasers at per-sons (CPC Section 417.25) andat peace officers (CPC Section417.26) and prohibit sales oflaser pointers to minors (CPCSection 417.27 [a]). Floridahas similar provisions in Sec-tion 784.062: Assault; Battery;Culpable Negligence-Misuse oflaser lighting devices, whereinsubsection (3)(a) states thatAny person who knowinglyand willfully shines, points,or focuses the beam of a laserlighting device on an individ-ual operating a motor vehicle,vessel, or aircraft commits a

felony of the third degree andsubsection (3)(b) holds thatwhen such act results in bodily

injury commits a felony of thesecond degree. Most recently,Ohio created a second-degreefelony in Section 2909.081where No person shall know-ingly discharge a laser or otherdevice that creates visible lightinto the cockpit of an aircraftthat is in the process of takingoff or landing or is in flight.

The Banach Incident

The U.S. Attorneys Office,District of New Jersey, success-fully prosecuted a Parsippany,New Jersey, man for pointinga laser into the cockpit of anaircraft on final approach toTeterboro Airport.4 On Decem-ber 29, 2004, a green laser (sig-nificantly more powerful than

Lieutenant Sullivan serveswith the Los Angeles County,California, Sheriffs Department.

Special Agent Sawyer, a formerair traffic controller with the U.S.Navy, serves with the FederalAviation Administration basedin Los Angeles, California.


21/35


a red one and readily availablefor less than $120) was pointedinto the cockpit of a charteraircraft with six passengers. Thewindscreen and cockpit wereilluminated three times duringfinal approach with the aircrafttraveling at a speed of approxi-mately 250 knots and an altitudeof about 3,000 feet. Both pilotswere disoriented and temporar-ily lost their night vision.

Two days after the inci-dent, the pilots accompaniedinvestigators in a Port Authorityhelicopter aerial surveillanceflight to ascertain the laserlocation based on where thecharter aircraft was at thetime of illumination. During

the helicopters flight, it alsowas illuminated by a greenlaser, which led authorities tothe home of David W. Banach.Mr. Banach denied intentionally

aiming a laser at the aircraft,claiming first that his 7-year-old daughter was responsibleand then later that he wasusing the laser to point outstars to the child on the nightof the initial charter aircraftillumination.

During subsequent inter-views, Mr. Banach recantedhis explanation implicating hisdaughter and admitted to shin-ing the beam at the helicopterand at the charter aircraft. Nocharges were filed for the heli-copter incident because it wasnot considered a mass transitvehicle.

Mr. Banach was chargedwith three counts under the

Patriot Act, Title 18, Sections1993, 1001, and 1002. Undercount 1, Interference withPilots of an Aircraft, he faceda potential sentence of 20 years

in prison. The Advisory U.S.Sentencing Guidelines allowedfor a range of 18 to 24 months.As the guidelines were nonbind-ing, the judge imposed a sen-tence of 2 years probation.U.S. Attorney Christopher J.Christie stated, We accept thesentence imposed on Mr. Ban-ach,...the needs of justice anddeterrence had to be balanced.At no time did we believe Mr.Banach was involved in terror-ism or that he should face 20years in prison. Nonetheless,his conduct posed an immediatethreat to innocent lives...andMr. Banach now stands as aconvicted felon. Everyone isnow on notice: anyone consid-

ering such purposeful conductcan expect the full weight offederal prosecution and apotentially lengthy prisonsentence.5

Mitigating the Threat

Restrict the sales of certain laser devices

Amend or enact criminal statutes regarding the use of lasers as weapons, as well astheir use against flight operations

Provide pilots with laser eye protection, potentially problematic for helicopters butworthy of research

Train pilots, especially airborne law enforcement officers, in laser countermeasures

Expand and enforce laser-free zones proximate to airports

Educate law enforcement officials and the public regarding the risks improper laseruse poses to aviation

Several measures are available to deter, detect, and mitigate the impact of laser threats.6


22/35

Conclusion

Deterring and prosecutingcriminal laser strikes against

aircraft requires a unified effortamong local, state, and federallaw enforcement; cooperationwith the Federal AviationAdministration; and awarenessand collaboration with theaviation community. Suchefforts are essential to ensuresafety in the national airspace,to protect airborne law enforce-ment activities, and, ultimately,to help prevent air crashes anddisasters resulting from criminaland potential future terroristemployment of laser weaponsCimprovised or otherwise.

Indeed, the most successfulway of denying terrorists thepossibility of adopting this

science fiction weaponssystem is effective enforce-ment, prosecution, and preven-

tion of laser crimes by routinecriminals. In all of these cases,feasible deterrence and enforce-ment will benefit from the skill-ful and appropriate use of ef-fective state and federal statutesspecifically crafted to addresslaser threats, coupled with anawareness by law enforcementand prosecutorial authorities ofthe content of the statutes andthe nature of the threat.

Endnotes1 Adapted from Bart Elias,Lasers

Aimed at Aircraft Cockpits: Background

and Possible Options to Address the Threat

to Aviation Safety and Security, Congres-

sional Research Service, CRS Report for

Congress, January 26, 2005.

2 Commercial laser devices are regu-

lated by the Food and Drug Administra-

tion, and enhanced provisions to restrict

sales of more powerful lasers and more

pronounced warning labels on all productsmay be warranted.

3 A House resolution (H.R. 1615), the

Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers

Act of 2007, was passed by the House

and referred to the Senate on May 23,

2007.4 Indictment in U.S. District Court,

District of New Jersey-CJG/20050003;

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/

pdffiles/Indbanach.pdf.5 Press release, February 17, 2006, U.S.

Attorneys Office, District of New Jersey;

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/

bana0217_r.htm.6 For additional information, see Dan

Lindsay and Robert J. Bunker, The

Laser Threat to California Airborne Law

Enforcement, The Journal of California

Law Enforcement34, no. 2 (March-April

2000): 16.

Unusual Weapon

April 2008 / 21

Tool Pen

These photos show an item that appears to be a pen. Actually, it is an unusual weapon con-taining various metal blades and tool attachments that offenders may attempt to use againstlaw enforcement officers.


23/35

Leadership Spotlight

The Heart of Leadership

Christopher Lenhard, program leader over the University Edu-

cation Programs sabbatical component within the LeadershipDevelopment Institute, prepared thisLeadership Spotlight.

The essence of leadership is not giving things or even providing visions. It is

offering oneself and ones spirit.

Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal


When most of us think back to theleaders we have encountered andworked with throughout our ca-

reers, a few always stand out among the rest as

exceptional. Over the years, I have noticed acommon denominator in the leaders I admirethe mosttheir desire and effort to help andserve others.

The act of providing help to the peoplewe work with takes significant personal timeand energy(e.g., physi-cal, emotional,and psycho-logical) and a

sincere yearn-ing to work toward the success of someoneelse. It also means potentially postponing oreven disregarding our own desires, which can be difficult in a society that has a growingappetite for instant gratification and personalsuccess.

Before graduating from college, I re-ceived valuable advice from a professor whorecommended I seek a veteran employee tomentor me in my first job. Of all the advice Ireceived, this tidbit stuck with me the most.

Just as he recommended, I found a personwilling to take me under his wings. As it

turned out, this individual demonstrated adesire to help me (and others) beyond anythingI ever had anticipated. Without realizing it,his actions literally taught me the importance

of helping and serving others and, ultimately,deepened my personal faith. What made thehelp special? There were no ulterior motives,and no strings were attached. The advicegiven was free of charge, abundant, direct,and always presented in a way to promote

my growth. This person clung tothe philosophytha t he lp ingothers was the

highest form ofleadership and only could be accomplishedthrough ones actions, not by words alone.

If you are a leader or aspire to be one, con-sider taking time in your career to help thosewithin your circle of influence. The contribu-tions of one person to the success of anotherequates to a lifetime of achievement built ona foundation of true and lasting success. Thisis the heart of leadership.


24/35

April 2008 / 23

The First Amendmentprovides that Con-gress shall make no

law abridging the freedom ofspeech, press, or assembly.2

However, these freedoms arethemselves dependent upon thepower of a constitutional gov-ernment to survive, and if the

government is to survive, itmust have the power to protectitself against unlawful conductand, under some circumstances,against incitements to commit

unlawful acts.3 The law recog-nizes that certain public dangersmust be curtailed before theyare realized or even imminent.Accordingly, early interven-tion and disruption of potentialcriminal activity at the stage ofplanning, organizing, and pre-paring are central components

of law enforcement strategiesdesigned to protect the pub-lic from harm.4 This articleexamines the extent to whichthe First Amendment permits

It remains fundamental that whilethe state may not criminalize theexpression of viewseven includ-ing the view that violent overthrowof the government is desirableitmay nonetheless outlaw encour-agement, inducement, or conspir-acy to take violent action.1

Criminal SpeechInducement and theFirst AmendmentBy MARTIN J. KING, J.D.

Legal Digest

Photos.com


25/35


preventative prosecution basedon speech intended to persuadeor induce others to engage in

unlawful conduct.Preparation to commit acriminal act can itself be acriminal violation under con-spiracy, attempt, or other provi-sions of federal criminal lawdefining preparatory crimes.Among these, Title 18, U.S.Code, Section 373 comesclosest to a general prohibitionof incitement by making it acrime to solicit, command,

induce, or otherwise endeav-or to persuade another personto commit a crime of violence.5

Crimes that induce the commis-sion of criminal activity mayimplicate free speech principlesbecause they characteristicallyare committed by speech advo-cating, advising, or teaching,albeit with the intent of causinga specific criminal objective.6

Although courts vigilantly

will ensure that prosecutionsare not based improperly onthe mere expression of unpopu-

lar ideas, if the evidence showsthat speech crossed the lineinto criminal solicitation,procurement of criminal activ-ity, or conspiracy to violatethe laws, then prosecution ispermissible.7

Preventative Prosecution:The Concept of InchoateCrimes

The three main forms of

inchoate crimes are attempt,solicitation, and conspiracy.8

Inchoate offenses allow lawenforcement officials to preventthe consummation of substan-tive criminal offenses by per-mitting anticipatory interventiononce an individuals actionssufficiently have manifestedintent.9 Like a completedoffense, an inchoate offense

requires that a defendant

engage in prohibited conduct(actus reus)which can belimited to certain forms of

speechcoupled with therequisite mental state (mensrea). Unlike the actus reus in acompleted offense, however,the proscribed conduct in aninchoate offense is not prohibit-ed because of its harmful effectbut because it sufficientlydemonstrates a purpose to actin furtherance of a criminalintent.10 The mens rea forinchoate crimes, therefore, is

the specific intent to commit aparticular completed offense,or target or object of crime.

Inchoate crimes focus onthe mental state of the actor andrender the prohibited conductancillary in the sense that itonly serves to demonstrate thelikelihood that the actor wouldhave done everything necessaryto realize the criminal intent.11

Nevertheless, it must be empha-sized that the attempt, solicita-tion, or act in furtherance of aconspiracy never is criminal inthe abstract. Rather, criminalityarises only when the inchoateconduct has the violation ofsome other law as its specifi-cally intended objective. In thisway, prosecution of inchoatecrimes protects the public fromharm by preventing the consum-

mation of substantive offenseswhen an individuals actionshave demonstrated a seriousintent to cause a criminal act tooccur.12

Special Agent King is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

Crimes that induce thecommission of criminal

activity may implicate freespeech principles becausethey are characteristically

committed by speech

advocating, advising,or teaching.


26/35

April 2008 / 25

First Amendment Principles

The First Amendmentsguarantee of freedom of expres-

sion is sweeping but not abso-lute. The categories of speechthat do not receive constitu-tional protection include ob-scenity,13 defamation,14 fightingwords,15 and words likely to in-cite imminent lawless action.16

The seminal case on incite-ment isBrandenburg v. Ohio,17

in which the U.S. SupremeCourt overturned a convictionbased on the Ohio CriminalSyndicalism Act because itpunished mere advocacy asdistinguished from incitementto imminent lawless action.18

Clarence Brandenburg, whowas the leader of a Ku KluxKlan group, was charged withadvocating the necessity, orpropriety of crime, violence,or unlawful methods of terror-ism as means of accomplishing

political reform19

as a result ofa speech he made at a Klan rallyin which he proclaimed that ifour President, our Congress, ourSupreme Court, continues tosuppress the white, Caucasianrace, its possible there mighthave to be some revengencetaken.20 Although the principleof freedom of speech does notsanction incitement to com-mit crimes, the mere abstract

teaching...of the moral proprietyor even moral necessity for a re-sort to force and violence, is notthe same as preparing a groupfor violent action and steeling itto such action.21

A few years later, inHess v.Indiana,22 the Supreme Courtemphasized that the test enunci-

ated inBrandenburgrequires afactual basis to distinguishabstract expression from theconcrete use of expression toeffectuate prohibited conduct.InHess, the defendant, whowas among a crowd of protes-tors being lawfully dispersed bypolice during an antiwar rally,was arrested for loudly pro-claiming, Well take thestreet later.23 Witnesses who

overheard the statement testified

statement amounted to nothingmore than advocacy of illegalaction at some indefinite future

time.24

Furthermore, the Courtreasoned that [s]ince theuncontroverted evidenceshowed that Hess statementwas not directed to any personor group of persons, it cannotbe said that he was advocating,in the normal sense, any ac-tion.25 TheBrandenburgtest,in other words, requires bothan intent and likelihood thatthe expression in question

advocacy of the use of forceor of law violationwill pro-duce imminent unlawfulaction.26

Federal courts consistentlyhave applied theBranden-burgtest to find speech thatadvocates, teaches, or justifieslawless action in an abstractway is fully protected under theFirst Amendment, so long as the

speech is not directed to incit-ing imminent lawless action,and such protection endureseven if it can be demonstratedthat the speaker hopes thatsomeday such lawlessness mayoccur.27 For example, in Mc-Coy v. Stewart,28 a federal courtof appeals affirmed a grant ofhabeas corpus for a convictionbased on speech concerninggang-related activity because it

was nothing more than abstractadvocacy of overarching gangphilosophy, which lacked thenecessary intent to further orpromote criminal acts.29 As thecourt explained:

criminality arisesonly when the

inchoate conducthas the violation of

some other law as itsspecifically intended

objective.

that Hess did not appear to beexhorting the crowd to go backinto the street, that his statementdid not appear to be addressedto any particular person orgroup, and that his tone, al-though loud, was not louderthan that of other people in the

area. The Court held thatBran-denburgprohibited the statefrom punishing this allegedadvocacy of illegality as a formof disorderly conduct, principal-ly because the defendants


27/35


The circumstances of Mc-Coys speechinterspersedat a barbecue and a social

party, while Bratz memberswere drinking, chatting andlistening to musicmade itunlikely anyone would act onit imminently. Moreover, hisadvice was very general. Mc-Coys ideaswere abstractin that they were not aimed atany particular person or anyparticular time. In addition,McCoys suggestion that theBratz tag up the neighbor-

hood to let their presence beknown was given without anyrecommendation as to howor when to place the graffiti.Because McCoys speech tothe Bratz, like the protestorsspeech inHess, at most ad-vocated lawlessness at somefuture indefinite time, anddid not incite lawlessness,it was protected by the First

Amendment.30

The courts analysis in Mc-Coy comports with the prevail-ing view that incitement as aparticular form of unprotectedadvocacy can be punished onlyif the government can establishthat the speaker intended tofurther an illegal aim throughknowing affiliation with personslikely to be immediately ani-mated by the speech. Advocat-ing criminal gang activity bysuggesting that it would be agood idea to tag up the neigh-borhood undoubtedly carrieswith it some potential for harm.

However, the role of the freespeech principle is to insulatethe sphere of expression from

legal restrictions based on thedetermination that the negativeconsequences of speech mayprevail only marginally over thepositive ones.31 The harm result-ing from expressing a point ofview may be mitigated by theexpression of contrary views,by the fact that people have thegood sense and strong enough

Of course, speech that doesmore than express a point ofview also can be a form of crim-

inal conduct not subject to FirstAmendment protection.33 In thisregard, a discernable distinctionexists between incitement thatlikely will result in unlawfulactivity in the immediate futureand speech uttered with crimi-nal intent but not necessarilyresulting in an imminentviola-tion of the law. For example,speech in the form of purpose-ful instruction for criminal

conduct can support liability foraiding and abetting unlawfulactivity in both the criminal andcivil contexts if a crime actuallyeventuates from the instruc-tion.34 Among the most wellknown speech-based aiding andabetting cases isRice v. Paladin

Enterprises, Inc., in which rela-tives of a murder victim broughta wrongful death action against

the publisher ofHit Man: ATechnical Manual for Indepen-dent Contractors because itgave detailed factual instruc-tions on how to murder and tobecome a professional killerand allegedly incited the actualmurder.35 Clearly,Hitman wasnot abstract advocacy, and,indeed, an extraordinary aspectof the case was Paladins stipu-lations that it not only knew

its instructions might be usedby murderers but it actuallyintended to provide assistanceto would-be murderers uponreceiptin fact, that it assisted

moral values not to adopt harm-ful views, and by the fact thatharmful opinions will disqualifythemselves from general ac-ceptance when people realizethe negative consequences ofacting on them.32 Because theexpression of viewpoints typi-cally is subject to a number ofharm-mitigating factors, the netharm of advocacy usually islow. This supports the idea that

the government should refrainfrom regulating viewpoints andexplains the imminent-incite-ment requirement imposed by

Brandenburg.

Banana Stock


28/35

April 2008 / 27

in the commission of the crimeat issue.36 Nevertheless, thedistrict court granted Paladins

motion for summary judgmentand dismissed plaintiffs claimsthat Paladin aided and abettedthe commission of the murder,holding that these claims werebarred by the First Amendmentas a matter of law.37

On appeal, the court specifi-cally rejected the claim that thepublication was protected undertheBrandenburgdoctrine,observing that the Supreme

Court has recognized that oneobviously can prepare, and evensteel, another to violent actionnot only through the dissidentcall to violence, but alsothrough speech, such as instruc-tion in the methods of terror orother crime, that does not evenremotely resemble advocacy, ineither form or purpose.38 Thecourt acknowledged that to pre-

vent the punishment or even thechilling of innocent, lawfullyuseful speech, the First Amend-ment may in some contextsstand as a bar to the impositionof liability on the basis of mereknowledge that the informationimparted could be misused toadvance criminal activity. In-deed, the court inPaladin notedthatHitman not only containeddetailed and specific instruc-

tions but also was distributedto a narrow target audience.39

An evidentiary requirementof purposeful, concrete actionintended to further criminal

activity might be particularlyimportant to reduce exposure toliability of those who publish,

broadcast, or distribute informa-tion to large, undifferentiatedaudiences. At the same time, aspecific intent requirement doesnot relieve from liability thosewho would, for profit or othermotive, intentionally assist andencourage crime and then seekrefuge in the Constitution:

publish, by traditional meansor even on the Internet, thenecessary plans and instruc-

tions for assassinating thePresident, for poisoning acitys water supply, for blow-ing up a skyscraper or publicbuilding, or for similar acts ofterror and mass destruction,with the specific, indeedeven the admitted, purposeof assisting such crimesallwith impunity.40

The principle identified inBrandenburgis that the con-stitutional guarantees of freespeech do not permit the gov-ernment to proscribe advocacyexcept where such advocacy isdirected to inciting or producingimminent lawless action and islikely to incite or produce suchaction.41 When speech takesthe form of advocacythat is,when it appears to be expressedfor the purpose of influencing

beliefsthe imminent-incite-ment test is justified as a meansto separate abstract expressionof ideas from speech likely tocause injury. The same immi-nence requirement does not nec-essarily apply to speech intend-ed to facilitate the commissionof a crime in a concrete wayby, for example, performing ateaching or instructional func-tion.42 When speech is designedto help bring about criminalactivity and eventually does so,the speaker may be guilty ofaiding or abetting the commis-sion of the completed offense.

Like our sister circuits,at the very least where aspeakerindividual ormediaacts with the purposeof assisting in the commis-sion of crime, we do notbelieve that the First Amend-ment insulates that speakerfrom responsibility for hisactions simply because hemay have disseminated hismessage to a wide audience.Were the First Amendment tooffer protection even in thesecircumstances, one could

The categories ofspeech that do

not receiveconstitutional

protection include...words likely toincite imminentlawless action.


29/35


When speech is specificallyintended to induce another toengage in criminal activity, the

request or command itself mayconstitute an inchoate crime,such as conspiracy or solicita-tion, even when a follow-up vi-olation is not imminent. At leastone justice of the U.S. SupremeCourt has observed that longrange planning of criminalenterpriseswhich may includeoral advice, training exercises,and perhaps the preparation ofwritten materialsinvolves

speech that should not be gliblycharacterized as mere advo-cacy and certainly may createsignificant public danger.43

The Crimeof Solicitation

In attempting to discernthe sometimes hazy border-line between constitutionallyprotected expression of beliefsfrom unprotected inducementof criminal activity, an essentialtask is to distinguish speechthat simply conveys an idea toanother person (that later mightbe acted upon) from speech thatamounts to actual participationin the performance of an illegalact.44 The federal criminal codecontains a provision, at Title 18,U.S. Code, Section 373, thatserves as a general prohibition

on the solicitation of violentcriminal activity and may serveto illustrate how lines are drawnin this area. Section 373 pro-vides, in pertinent part, that:

Whoever, with intentthat another person engagein conduct constituting a

felony that has as an ele-ment the use, attempted use,or threatened use of physi-cal force against property oragainst the person of anotherin violation of the laws ofthe United States, and un-der circumstances stronglycorroborative of that intent,solicits, commands, induces,or otherwise endeavors topersuade such other person to

engage in such conduct, shall

phrase otherwise endeavorsto persuade is intended to beconstrued broadly to cover any

situation where a person seri-ously seeks to persuade anotherperson to engage in criminalconduct.46 Criminal solicita-tion and incitement are notnecessarily synonymous terms.Unlike incitement, the solicita-tion statute does not imposelimits on the immediacy andlikelihood of the completedcrime. Rather, to be convictedof solicitation, it is sufficient to

show that a speaker is seriousabout crimes of violence beingcarried out.47 Solicitation is anoffer or invitation to another tocommit a crime with the intentthat the crime be committed.The crime is complete oncea verbal or other form of re-quest is made with the requisitecriminal intent. Solicitation isan inchoate crime, rather than

a form of advocacy. The harmis in asking, irrespective of thereaction of the person solicited,and the crime of solicitationis completed by the solicita-tion itself, whether or not theobject of the solicitation everis achieved, any steps are takentoward accomplishing it, or theperson solicited immediatelyrejects it.48

By its terms, the federal so-

licitation statute requires proofof intent that another personengage in violent unlawfulconduct, and the circumstancesmust strongly corroborate that

be imprisoned not more thanone-half the maximum termof imprisonment orfinednot more than one-half of themaximum fine prescribed forthe punishment of the crimesolicited, or both; or if thecrime solicited is punish-able by life imprisonment or

death, shall be imprisoned fornot more than twenty years.45

Solicitation proscribed bythis statute often will take theform of speech inasmuch as the

Digital Stock


30/35

April 2008 / 29

intent. Examples of circum-stances strongly corroborativeof intent as required for a

conviction for soliciting a crimeof violence include the defen-dant offering payment or anoth-er benefit in exchange for com-mitting the offense; repeatedlysoliciting or discussing at lengthin soliciting the commission ofthe offense, or making explicitthat the solicitation is serious;believing or knowing that theperson solicited had previouslycommitted similar offenses;

and acquiring weapons, toolsor information for use in com-mitting the offense, or makingother apparent preparations forits commission.49 Persuasionaccompanied by an induce-ment, such as a money payment(e.g., murder for hire)50 or anexplicit or implicit threat orcommand evidences sufficientcriminal intent and should raise

no significant First Amend-ment issue. However, solicita-tion cases involving persuasiontaking the form of advocacyor urging of unlawful actionwithout adequate evidence ofinducement could be subject toFirst Amendment challengesunder theBrandenburgdoc-trine. There clearly is potentialfor ambiguity in this area, butcharges based on advocacy of

criminal activity without morecould implicate imminencerequirements.

Line drawing is most dif-ficult, perhaps, in cases involv-ing terrorist religious speech.51

Exhortations to violence byradical clerics to a body offollowers may exhibit aspects of

advocacy and religious exercise,both of which are protected bythe First Amendment.52 Even tothe extent that they are subjectto First Amendment protec-tions, [s]ermons in all religionsare by their nature not merespeeches that advocate ideasin the abstract but exhortations

The prosecution of SheikOmar Abdel Rahman may serveto illustrate this point. Sheik

Abdel Rahman, an Islamicscholar and cleric, was con-victed for actions arising out ofa wide-ranging plot to conducta campaign of urban terrorism.54

The conviction rested substan-tially on sermons and discus-sions whereby Abdel Rahmaninstructed his followers to planfor violent criminal activity. Onappeal, his lawyers argued thathe was improperly convicted

based on the inflammatorycontent of his speech and for hisreligious beliefs, both of whichshould have been protectedunder the First Amendment. Inrejecting this argument and up-holding the conviction, the U.S.Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit pointed out that freedomof speech and religion do notextend so far as to bar prosecu-

tion of one who uses a publicspeech or a religious ministryto commit crimes.55

The evidence justifyingAbdel Rahmans convictionshowed beyond a reasonabledoubt that he crossed the linethat separates protected speechfrom criminal conduct. Hisspeeches were not simply theexpression of ideas; in someinstances they constituted the

crime of conspiracy to wagewar on the United States(Title 18, U.S. Code, Section2384) and solicitation of attackson U.S. military installations,as well as of the murder of

designed to encourage action.Congregants do not listen tothese teachings solely out ofacademic interest or for enter-tainment. Religion moves fol-lowers to act on their beliefs.53

The question, then, is whendoes exhortation become crimi-nal inducement? The answerappears to lie at the point whereadequate evidence exists tosupport the conclusion that the

speech is more than ideologicalor rhetorical because it is com-municated such that followerswould perceive a serious intentto carry out the violent criminalactivity urged upon them.

to be convictedof solicitati