new orleans police departmentepic.nola.gov/epic/media/assets/epic-program-guide.pdf ·...

EPIC ETHICAL POLICING IS COURAGEOUS ©

EPIC ETHICAL POLICING IS COURAGEOUS

1

EPIC PROGRAM GUIDE New Orleans Police Department

2017 COPYRIGHT: NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT



2

Copyright Notice

The City of New Orleans is the copyright holder of the EPIC name, this Law Enforcement

Peer Intervention Training program, this Teacher’s Guide, and all associated training materials.

The use or distribution of the EPIC logo without the written consent of the City of New Orleans

is prohibited. The sharing of the EPIC training materials with proper attribution to the City of

New Orleans, however, is strongly encouraged!



3

Special Thanks

The New Orleans Police Department thanks the officers and supervisors of the EPIC Working

Group for helping to create the EPIC program and for championing its implementation. The

hard work of this dedicated group has resulted in a program that not only will benefit the officers

and citizens of New Orleans, but likely will become a model for law enforcement-focused

bystander intervention programs across the country. In addition to the work of NOPD’s team

members, particular thanks also must go to several friends of the Department who gave

significant time and effort to develop EPIC from an idea to a Department-wide reality. These

friends include Steve Parker, former AUSA and current partner at Butler Snow in Memphis; Dr.

Ervin Staub, Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; Dr.

Joel A. Dvoskin, Chairman, (Nevada) Governor’s Advisory Council on Behavioral Health and

Wellness; Henry “Hank” P. Stawinski III, Chief of Police, Prince George’s County Police

Department; Mike Quinn, International Ethics and Leadership Training Bureau; Ted Quant,

Director, Loyola’s Twomey Center for Peace; Luceia V. LeDoux, Vice President, Public Safety &

Governmental Oversight, Baptist Community Ministries; Mary Howell, Attorney in New Orleans;

and Jonathan Aronie, Consent Decree Monitor, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP.



4

April 2016

Dear EPIC Instructor:

These are exciting times for the New Orleans Police Department. The national, state, and local

focus on our Department and the way we conduct ourselves has given us a unique opportunity

to decide who we want to be as a department and who we want to be as individual

professionals. Few departments have this opportunity, and even fewer take advantage of it

when they do have it.

The NOPD is committed to using this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the Department

into one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the nation. We firmly believe the “Ethical

Policing is Courageous” (EPIC) peer intervention program described in this teacher’s manual is

the transformational tool that will catalyze our many ongoing reform efforts to make this happen.

In July 2012, the City of New Orleans and the United States Department of Justice entered into

a Consent Decree to ensure constitutional policing by the NOPD. Since that time, the NOPD

has focused extraordinary efforts on incorporating national best-in-class elements into our

policies, our training, and our practices. We have done this not because the Consent Decree

required it, but because we believe in it, and we believe it is the right thing to do.

Over the past three years, the Department has made significant progress. We have updated

our policies, training, and supervision standards. We have created new structures for



5

misconduct investigations, use of force reviews, vehicle collision reviews, officer assistance, and

community engagement. We have brought on new personnel, retrained veteran personnel,

and, yes, we have even helped some personnel move on to other non-police activities that

better suit their skills. But our officers and management for some time have been looking for a

program that embraces the totality of these changes, a program that reflects the new culture of

the Department and the dedication of its members to systemically conduct high-quality and

ethical policing. We are convinced EPIC is that program.

EPIC educates, empowers, and supports the officers on the streets to play a meaningful role in

“policing” one another. EPIC is not a “tell on your partner” program. EPIC is a peer intervention

program; a program that teaches officers how to intervene to stop a wrongful action before it

occurs. It’s a program that empowers officers – no matter what their rank – to stand up and say

to their partners, colleagues, and even their managers, “what you are about to do is wrong; it

will hurt someone and will hurt you, your family, and your career.” And it is a program through

which we all say “I authorize you, regardless of your rank, to intervene upon me if I am about to

do something wrong.”

Peer intervention programs have

been successful in many contexts

across the country, including

reducing sexual assaults on

campus, reducing high-risk sexual

behavior, and curbing bullying in

schools. Other industries, including

airline pilots, surgeons, and the military, have implemented intervention programs with great

success. While some police departments have implemented peer intervention programs that

focus on discrete elements of policing, no Department to date across the country has

undertaken a program of EPIC’s scope.



6

Our commitment to EPIC is reflective of our commitment to transforming NOPD into a premier

law enforcement organization; a model for the nation. My management team and I are fully

committed to the community we serve, to constitutional policing, and to continuous self-

improvement. EPIC is one big step along the path of this exciting journey.

Thank you for your willingness to become an EPIC instructor. It is through you that our future

leaders will come to realize the breadth of EPIC and the power it has to transform our lives, and

the lives of our colleagues, our citizens, and, frankly, policing across the country. I’m confident,

through your efforts, we all will see that ethical policing not only is courageous, but contagious

as well.

Sincerely,

Michael Harrison

Michael Harrison

Superintendent of Police

New Orleans Police Department



7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 8

A. What Is EPIC? 8

B. EPIC History 10

C. The Structure of EPIC 11

D. EPIC TRAINING 14

E. The EPIC Pin 15

II. THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE TRAINING 16

A. What Is Active Bystandership? 16

B. The Impact of Non-Intervention 17

III. THE EPIC TRAINING PROGRAM 19

A. Overview 19

B. EPIC In-Service Lesson Plan (Rev 4/2016) 20

C. EPIC Teaching Tips & Guidelines 21

D. Scenario-Based Training 25

1. Introduction 25

2. Role Play Instructions 26

3. Pre Role Play Brainstorming Questions 27

4. Post Role Play Debriefing Questions 27

5. Background Reading re Scenario-Based Training 28

6. Bloom’s Ranking of Thinking Skills 30

7. The EPIC Role Play Scenarios 32

Note to Instructor 32

Scenario 1: The Spitter 32

Scenario 2: The Known Gang Member 33

Scenario 3: Shots Fired 34

Scenario 4: Carjacking Admission 35

Scenario 5 - Get Off My Corner 37



8

Scenario 6: The Vehicle Search 38

Scenario 7: Behavioral Changes 39

A. Understanding The Applicable Statutes 41

1. 42 U.S. Code Sections 1983, 14141, 3789d 41

2. 18 U.S. Code Sections 241, 242 42

B. Understanding Relevant Case Law 42

1. Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F2d. 415 (8th Cir. 1981) 42

2. Anderson v. Branen, 27 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 1994) 43

3. Torres v. Allentown Police, Civil Action No. 13-3066 (E.D. Pa. 2014) 45

4. Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972) 46

C. Understanding Other (Non-Law Enforcement) Peer Intervention Programs 46

1. Reducing Hospital Errors 47

2. Reducing Pilot Mistakes & High Risk Behavior 47

3. Reducing Sexual Violence on Campuses 47

4. Reducing Unethical Conduct in Corporations 48

5. Improving Public Health 48

6. Reducing Bullying 49

V. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (& ANSWERS) 51

VI. APPENDICES 56

A. The EPIC Working Group 56

B. Additional Reading 57

C. NOPD Supporting Resources 58

D. Adult Learning Techniques Explained 59

VII. EPIC TRAINING POWERPOINT PRESENTATION WITH SPEAKING NOTES 65

I. Introduction & Background

A. What Is EPIC?

At its core, EPIC is an officer survival program, a community safety program, and a job

satisfaction program. While we often refer to EPIC as a program, it really is more of a way of



9

thinking. EPIC represents a cultural change in policing that equips, encourages, and supports

officers to intervene to prevent misconduct and ensure high-quality policing. EPIC not only

empowers officers to step in and say to a colleague, “don’t do what you are about to do; you will

regret it forever,” but it transforms such interventions into a survival skill that is teachable and

that is expected from all officers. Accordingly, EPIC, first and foremost, is designed to protect

police officers from losing their job and destroying their personal lives as a result of misconduct

or, in some instances, as a result of a failure to intervene to prevent misconduct by others. But

EPIC is as much designed to protect citizens. Everyone benefits when potential misconduct is

not perpetrated or a potential mistake is not made.

Police officers today readily understand

what an active bystander is because they

take on that role every day as they interact

with the community. Officers step in to

help others all the time. However, officers

are far less quick to step in to stop a fellow

officer from doing something wrong,

unethical, dangerous, or even illegal or

immoral. EPIC seeks to overcome this

disconnect, to inculcate active

bystandership into everything an officer

does, and to provide officers with the tools

and resources needed to do it well.

EPIC incorporates lessons learned instituting active bystandership in other sectors, such as in

elementary schools to prevent bullying and in universities to prevent sexual assaults. EPIC

strives to redefine police culture so that intervention to prevent or stop harmful action is not an

exception to good team-work; it is the very definition of good teamwork. To do this, EPIC

reaches throughout the NOPD and touches everything the Department does. EPIC:



10

Redefines critical loyalty;

Changes (or at least adds to) what we look for in the officers we hire;

Trains officers and supervisors to identify danger signs;

Equips officers with the skills they need to intervene before problems

occur/escalate, and to do so safely;

Supports and protects officers who do the right thing; and

Provides officers with resources to help them make ethical decisions.

These components, and others, are not mere window dressing. The Department’s

management is fully committed to peer intervention and to the key role it will play as we all work

together to transform the NOPD into a premier law enforcement institution.

B. EPIC History

“Peer intervention” is not new to police officers or to the NOPD. For years, our officers have

showed the courage to step in and keep one another honest, keep citizens safe, and generally

do the right thing. But a thoughtful, integrated strategy for successful peer intervention never

was taught to our officers, and a holistic plan for encouraging peer intervention department-wide

remained out of reach. Several years ago, however (with the strong encouragement and

guidance of Mary Howell and Loyola University), former Superintendent Serpas, Deputy Chief

Westbrook, and others within and outside the Department tried to change that by applying for a

DOJ COPS grant to create a Department wide peer intervention program.

While our early efforts ultimately did not secure the sought-after DOJ funding, the idea of

transforming officers into “active bystanders” and integrating ethical policing into the mission,

goals, hiring, training, promotion, supervision, discipline, and operations of the NOPD gained

traction within the Department. Fast-forward to 2015, and that traction really began to take hold.



11

In March 2015, with the full support of Superintendent Harrison, members of the Department

met with U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan (the presiding Judge over the Consent

Decree), Jonathan Aronie (lead Consent Decree Monitor), and Mary Howell to discuss how to

revive the Department’s prior efforts to promote active bystandership and peer intervention.

Following a successful kickoff meeting, NOPD created a formal working group made up of

officers, supervisors, and external partners to create an effective peer intervention and active

bystandership program within the NOPD.

The working group’s efforts culminated in a groundbreaking meeting in August 2015 for which

the Department flew in leading national experts in a variety of fields to discuss peer intervention,

active bystandership, and NOPD’s EPIC efforts. These experts included Dr. Ervin Staub, a

child survivor of the Holocaust and a leading researcher and writer on active bystandership; Dr.

Joel Dvoskin, a noted psychologist with extensive experience in training officers; and local civil

rights leader Ted Quant, a self-described “unlikely participant,” but a firm supporter of the EPIC

program.

The meeting helped the working group translate its goals into an actionable plan. It also helped

the group understand the science behind active vs. passive bystandership, including the

inherent impediments to peer intervention. But more than anything else, the meeting made

clear NOPD was on the right path. “Take a picture,” Mr. Quant said at a break. “You are

watching history being made.” NOPD’s effort to implement a systemic, department-wide active

bystander culture is the first of its kind in a police department nationwide, if not worldwide.

C. The Structure of EPIC

EPIC has the complete support ofNOPD leadership. Superintendent Michael Harrison firmly

believes in the power of EPIC to catalyze change in the Department, and his belief is shared by

his entire management team. Superintendent Harrison and Deputy Superintendent of

Operations Paul Noel provide the strong leadership and support necessary to make EPIC a

success.



12

Further, the Department has assigned a dedicated project manager, Jacob Lundy, from within

the Department. The project manager’s role is to facilitate the implementation of EPIC and to

serve as a resource for officers and supervisors to ensure an effective rollout of the initiative. In

addition, the project manager is responsible for working with the officers to develop the

program, making sure that EPIC is an officers’ program.

In order for EPIC to be successful, however, the Department recognizes it must be incorporated

into all facets of the Department. Obviously, the Education and Training Division has a

substantial role in the implementation of EPIC, in terms of incorporating the principles of EPIC

throughout the Academy. And you, as an EPIC instructor, are a critical component of that role.

But other divisions have no less of a role to play. Integrating active bystandership and peer

intervention concepts throughout the Department is a Department-wide effort.

To be successful, EPIC can’t be implemented as a training “module” or a course. EPIC is being

implemented throughout the Department, from hiring, to the Academy, to the platoons, to the

top leaders. As the graphic below shows, all divisions and units have a critical role in ensuring

EPIC is successful.



13

Each and every NOPD manager is responsible not only for incorporating EPIC concepts into his

or her department, but also for working together with officers and supervisors to identify new

and creative ways to do so. Department leaders will be encouraged to be creative and will be

required to report on their efforts in Management Analytics for Excellence (MAX)

Command

embraces EPIC

Recruit EPIC-minded

officers

Academy infuses

EPIC in all training

FTOs embody

EPIC to recruits

Supervisors support

active bystandershipFOB & ISB ensure

EPIC is a part of

daily police life

MSB provides

officers support

PIB protects officers

who intervene

Public Affairs

promotes EPIC

Compliance

measures EPIC



14

D. EPIC Training

Training obviously plays an essential role in implementing EPIC, from the Academy to the FTO

program to in-service to the daily roll calls. As an EPIC instructor, you are essential to the

success of the Academy portion of this plan. A successful Academy training program must

incorporate the following elements:

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE – The EPIC curriculum covers the extensive research

regarding bystandership and peer intervention, including the inhibitors to active bystandership.

EPIC is not founded upon a theory. EPIC is founded upon unassailable evidence.

STRATEGIES FOR A SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTION – It is not enough to tell officers to

intervene to prevent mistakes and/or misconduct. EPIC instructors will teach officers the

strategies to do so effectively and safely. The EPIC training teaches officers these skills just as

the Department’s current training teaches officers when, why, and how to draw their weapons.

Peer intervention techniques will be presented as a life-saving tool available to all NOPD

personnel.

ROLE PLAYING – Officers (and adults generally) learn best when engaged in the learning

experience. Accordingly, EPIC training incorporates role playing using real-world scenarios

developed by NOPD officers themselves.

MULTI-MEDIA – EPIC training is brought to life through the use of professional videos

designed to show the benefits of active bystandership and the risks of passive

bystandership. Other jurisdictions have had great success with such videos as a teaching

and culture-changing tool. California POST, for example, has had great success with its

safe driving campaign videos.

MATERIALS – Officers will be provided with high quality, interesting materials that not only

will guide the in-class discussion, but will be useful as a resource long after the officers

leave the classroom.



15

These elements are incorporated into not only recruit training, but into ongoing training and

updates as well. Further, the concepts will be reinforced by FTOs following a recruit’s in-class

experience.

Beyond focused peer intervention training, the concepts of EPIC soon will be incorporated into

every other course offered through the Academy as well. So, for example, NOPD’s use of force

training will incorporate the elements of peer intervention and ethical decision-making. These

concepts will also be integrated into our course material on search and seizure, immigration,

bias free policing, misconduct investigations, and all others.

Finally, the concepts of peer intervention and ethical decision-making will be reinforced by every

supervisor during roll calls. EPIC must become second-nature to every member of the NOPD,

and repetition will help ensure that happens.

E. The EPIC Pin

The pin you received when you became an EPIC instructor, which is the same pin your students

will wear when they complete your course, is a critical component of the EPIC program. The

EPIC pin is to be worn proudly on an officer’s uniform. NOPD officers, like most officers, wear

their medals and recognitions on their uniform with pride. The Department’s official EPIC pin

signifies an officer has taken EPIC training, is committed to the principles of peer intervention,

and, importantly, gives permission to any other officer – regardless of rank – to intervene where

necessary to protect himself/herself or others.



16

II. The Science Behind the Training

A. What Is Active Bystandership?

EPIC is founded on the principle that good police officers want to do the right thing, but that

even officers with the best intentions sometimes lack the tools and moral courage to intervene

effectively, safely, and without repercussion, when faced with potential police misconduct. The

best way for officers to avoid having to report a fellow officer, of course, is to prevent the

misconduct from occurring in the first place, thereby protecting both officers from career-

threatening reprimands, suspensions, prosecutions and law suits (not to mention the benefits to

the citizens).

Most officers, at some point in their career, will find themselves caught between two very

unsatisfactory choices, or simply frustrated to the point of being about to make a bad decision.

While most officers do not perpetrate serious misconduct or crimes, some may be bystanders

and observers to the misconduct or mistakes of others. A passive bystander looks on, but says

nothing. An active bystander, on the other hand, steps in and makes a difference.

Dr. Ervin Staub’s research suggests that humans have the capacity to be either active or

passive bystanders, and that this decision is often influenced by the behavior of those

surrounding them. The research clearly identifies many critical inhibitors to intervention,

inhibitors from which police officers are not immune. The research further shows that passivity,

Figure 1. We use this image in the

EPIC training to highlight that EPIC

is a program for most of us who

are neither saints nor villains.



17

or failure to intervene, creates a tacit acceptance and approval for deviant behavior, which

thereby slowly changes the acceptability of that behavior. In other words, the more people allow

misconduct to go unchallenged, the more that misconduct becomes accepted as the norm.

While we all can point to a time in our life where we did intervene, chances are we also all can

point to a time in our life where we did not intervene. Interestingly, the research shows the

reasons for such non-intervention are no different for officers: fear of being wrong, a feeling of

“it’s not my job to step in,” fear of being ostracized, and perhaps most importantly, the belief that

loyalty means supporting your colleague regardless of the rightness of your colleague’s actions.

These are strong inhibitors to action from which officers are no more immune than other

members of the community.

NOPD’s EPIC program strives to redefine critical loyalty by teaching officers to recognize

situations that require intervention, giving them the tools they need to successfully intervene,

and supporting and protecting them when they do. EPIC concepts and lessons will be

incorporated into every aspect of the NOPD and will be viewed by all, over time, as an essential

component of being a professional officer and a good partner. Peer intervention is one of the

best ways officers can support their fellow officers and support the citizens at the same time. It

is a tool for an officer’s own survival, the survival of our citizens, and, frankly, the survival of the

department as a whole.

B. The Impact of Non-Intervention

Our failure to implement EPIC not only would represent a lost opportunity, it would represent an

abandonment of our officers. The impacts of non-intervention are clear. The risks to officers for

failing to intervene may include the following:

Loss of self-esteem and a corrosion of own sense of identity and morality;

Reduction in job satisfaction;

Negative impacts on family and social life;



18

Increased likelihood of resorting to self-destructive behavior (drinking, drugs, etc.);

Increased risk of depression, including higher likelihood of suicide;

Desensitization to the suffering of others; and importantly

Being held legally responsible for another’s misconduct.

These risks are real and significant. But the officers are not the only ones who suffer from non-

intervention. The Department, the City, and the community face profound negative

consequences as a result of non-intervention as well. The resulting negative impact on

community relations with police departments has been widely recognized and documented. As

the Bureau of Justice Assistance notes, “Without trust between police and citizens, effective

policing is impossible.”1 NOPD recognizes that trust will not be achieved until the community

believes that good officers indeed will intervene to prevent, and where necessary, stop, the

misconduct of their fellow officers.

The risks of non-intervention are especially profound among communities of poverty and color

where police mistrust currently is at its height. Rebuilding trust between these communities and

the police will go a long way to protecting the community and our officers.

Finally, one cannot overlook the very real and direct monetary cost of non-intervention. The

courts have made it abundantly clear that officers will be held financially – and sometimes

criminally – liable for not intervening to protect the rights of citizens.

In short, any officer who thinks he or she is protecting a colleague by not intervening better think

again. The costs of non-intervention can be life changing for all involved.

1 Publicity Manager, United States of America. "Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action." National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice Office

of Justice Programs, United States of America (1994). Web. 11 Apr. 2017. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf



19

III. The EPIC Training Program

A. Overview

Obviously, there are many components of EPIC, from recruiting a receptive Academy class to

making sure supervisors incorporate EPIC’s core principles into their daily briefings. But no

component is more critical than giving officers the know-how and confidence to intervene in the

first instance. That’s where you, the EPIC instructor, come in. The EPIC working group has

assisted in creating a thorough, interesting, and engaging EPIC training program that

incorporates the ideas and solutions not only of nationally renowned experts, but also the

Department’s own rank and file.

In many ways, you will be teaching a course designed by your students – or at least their peers

who came before them. The EPIC program was built upon a continuous improvement

philosophy. Accordingly, it is your job as an instructor not only to impart ideas, but to foster and

collect ideas as well. Each class you teach presents a new opportunity to identify new peer

intervention tools, develop new methods for overcoming intervention inhibitors, and explore new

ways to foster “buy-in” throughout the Department.

The Lesson Plan below is your starting point. It reflects the considered judgment of a great

many people who have thought about and explored peer intervention for quite some time. But

the Lesson Plan is not your stopping point. Listen to your students. Encourage them to

participate, to think about the topics, and to share ideas. You just may find that you end up

learning from them as much as they learn from you.



20

B. EPIC In-Service Lesson Plan (Rev 4/2016)

New Orleans Police Department Training Academy Course Title:

EPIC (Ethical Policing is Courageous) Peer Intervention

Course Length: Eight (8) hours

Date Created: April 26, 2016

Date Updated: April 26, 2016

Target Group: Department-wide

Instructor: Multiple

Statement of Instructional Goal(s) and Objectives:

Instructional Goal/Course Overview: This class is designed to teach all Department

members the fundamental components of peer intervention across all ranks and job types within

the NOPD.

Learning/Instructional Objectives: Following eight (8) hours of instruction, the student will be

versed in the science of active bystandership, barriers to active bystandership, strategies for

both giving and accepting peer intervention, and understand the organizational support for peer

intervention throughout NOPD.

Methods of Instruction:

Lecture/PowerPoint

Discussion

Scenario/Role Play

Prerequisites (if any):

N/A

Required Materials:

Pen or pencil

Paper



21

Equipment:

Laptop computer

PowerPoint

LCD Projector

Facilities: Conference room, seating for 30 w/ moveable tables for open space

Safety Measures Required: No firearms after lunch break during interactive role-play training

Testing/Certification: N/A

Handouts: Role-play scenario booklets

Course Outline (P.O.S.T. Mandated Courses Only): NON-Louisiana P.O.S.T. mandated, N/A

C. EPIC Teaching Tips & Guidelines

As an EPIC instructor, you are responsible for understanding the science behind EPIC,

mastering the material, and using your experience and skill to present those materials to

students in an exciting, engaging, and memorable way. While the Department gives you

latitude to figure out what approach best fits with your personality and teaching style, there are

certain teaching guidelines every EPIC instructor should understand and follow. Here is a

summary of those guidelines:

Employ Adult Learning Techniques

As an instructor, you should have a good idea of how adults learn, which, incidentally, is far

different from how children learn. Appendix X provides a useful article describing the key

features of adult learning. Among other things, adult learning techniques include

approaches that go well beyond standing and lecturing from a PowerPoint, and include

things like scenario-based training, problem-solving practices, clearly identifying the benefit

to the learner, and giving the learner opportunities for self-direction during class.



22

Move Around The Classroom When You Teach

It is well settled that dynamic teachers move around, use hand gestures, and apply voice

inflection while they teach. Do not allow yourself to be glued to your podium. Engage with

the students.

Reference the Science

EPIC is based on hard social science. Peer intervention and active bystandership have

been studied for years. For classes seemingly interested in the science, the teacher should

be able to note how the issues surrounding bystander intervention have been studied by

social scientists since the Holocaust.

Solicit Input and Ideas

As EPIC trainers, we have no monopoly on the tools of active bystandership and peer

intervention. This Teacher’s Guide provides some guidance, but the EPIC team expects

that the officers themselves will come up with innovative tools and methods. The Academy

then will incorporate those new ideas into future training. In this way, EPIC training really

becomes the officer’s own training, and each group of students helps to train the next. EPIC

training is always evolving and is continuously improving.

Emphasize That EPIC Is A Tool That Can Be Taught Just As The Use Of A Vest, Radio,

Or Firearm Can Be Taught

Lessons based upon the social sciences often are thought to be not amenable to practical

instruction. “Ethics” and “Ethical Decision Making” often are thought (wrongly, we believe) to

fall into this category. EPIC, however, is eminently teachable. Extensive research and

countless studies show that active bystandership and peer intervention can be taught,

learned, and practically applied. You should present the EPIC principles as tools – tools

that, once learned, can readily be deployed by all officers to help keep themselves, their

colleagues, their families, and our citizens safe.



23

Avoid Overly Focusing On Scenarios Of Gross Misconduct

While EPIC certainly will help prevent gross misconduct, scenarios of gross misconduct as a

teaching tool generally do not help get the EPIC message across to students. Images of

police officers beating up citizens typically prompt two responses – whether or not vocalized:

(1) “We don’t do that here,” and (2) “Of course I would have intervened if that

happened.” Accurate responses or not, “over the top” images can cause the student to

become defensive, to disengage, or to tune out altogether. EPIC training works best with

familiar illustrations and scenarios that cause the student to say to him/herself, “I’ve been

there.” Things like an officer teeming with adrenaline after a chase, or an officer getting

increasingly frustrated with a suspect, or an officer who seems to have a drinking problem,

or an officer who puts on handcuffs incorrectly all are good examples of EPIC applications

that will put students in the “I’ve been there” mindset without causing them subconsciously

to slide into a defensive mindset. Once the student sees the connection to his/her real life, it

then will become quite easy for the student to extend the application of EPIC principles in

his/her mind.

Encourage Students To Offer Answers Before Giving Answers

Remember to engage the students rather than talking at the students. Discussion works

better than lecture. One illustration of how this can be done in the context of EPIC would be

the PowerPoint slide setting forth the different “inhibitors” to intervention. Certainly the

instructor should spend a lot of time on this slide, but rather than simply reading the list,

consider turning the slide into a contest. Before revealing the list, ask the students to see

how many of the inhibitors they can name. Then, once the contributions start to slow, reveal

the list, highlight how many the students came up with on their own, and discuss the critical

importance of understanding each. A dynamic instructor can take the same approach with

other EPIC slides.



24

Promote the EPIC Pin As The Physical Manifestation of Each Officer’s Authorization

For Others To Intervene

A core component of EPIC is aligning the EPIC pin with the giving of authority to

intervene. The “by wearing this pin, I authorize you to intervene upon me if necessary”

concept is very powerful. Look for opportunities to reference the pin during class so the

students start to see it as more of a contract than a piece of jewelry.

Be Honest and Clear Regarding Reporting and Discipline

Officers often have a negative first impression of a new program. Often, this first impression

stems from a view (accurate or not) that a failure to master the new program will result in

disciplinary action. Often that impression is accurate. Here it is not. EPIC is not a

disciplinary program. Failure to master the EPIC skills will not result in discipline (although it

could put our partners and colleagues at great risk). The EPIC Working Group dedicated a

lot of time to making sure EPIC is “all upside” to officers, managers, and citizens. EPIC

instructors need to be well-informed on how to handle questions that relate to reporting and

discipline. Quite simply, there is nothing about the EPIC program that increases an officer’s

risk of discipline. There also is nothing about the EPIC program that adds any internal or

external reporting obligations. The only change EPIC brings about to the discipline structure

is that now, as the result of EPIC and as formalized in policy, successful interventions are

considered formal mitigating factors in a discipline hearing – mitigating factors in favor of the

intervener and the officer being intervened upon. In short, reporting/discipline rules either

stay exactly the same, or, in the case of mitigation, become more favorable to the officers.



25

D. Scenario-Based Training

1. Introduction

It long has been acknowledged that adult learners respond well to scenario-based (i.e., role

play) training. Just as an officer does not learn to shoot by reading a book in a classroom

setting, that officer also cannot truly understand and appreciate the power of the tools offered

through EPIC from a PowerPoint. Accordingly, the EPIC training program incorporates a

multitude of role play scenarios to drive home the points of the EPIC classroom training.

The EPIC role playing scenarios were designed to enable officers to take on the role of the

intervening officer, the officer requiring intervention, the supervisor, the witness, and the

suspect. These role playing scenarios are essential in providing officers practice in intervening

and in informing training staff on the real challenges faced on the street. For each scenario,

officers will be provided with information by the “observer” about the role each person should

play in the scenario. The observer will facilitate the scenario by adding more information, if

needed, to help the scene unfold. Each officer/citizen will take turns as the observer.

Subsection 7 below identifies the initial scenarios developed for EPIC training. The scenarios

include a general description of the various persons involved as well as how the scenario is

designed to play out. As the scenario unfolds, embracing the principles of EPIC could change

the development of the scenario. Of course, the development of the scenarios by you, the EPIC

instructor, is an essential part of the course. Accordingly, some of the specifics may change

from course to course as you and/or the students identify new scenarios or modifications to the

initial scenarios that incorporate even better opportunities for teaching and learning.

For the sake of simplicity, the words “partner” or “assisting officer” are used to describe other

officers involved in the scenarios. The other officers may be from other districts, units, or

even different agencies.



26

Two things are required for each scenario. First, each scenario must end with the officers

demonstrating and agreeing to what constitutes a successful intervention. In most cases a

successful intervention is not identified in the role plays. It is up to each group to come to a

consensus and note their EPIC solution on the sheet provided in subsection 7 below.

You are encouraged to modify, add to, or change the scenarios and role plays to make them

more realistic. When you do make changes, please note the changes on the debriefing sheet.

2. Role Play Instructions

The instructional goal of the EPIC role plays is to encourage the students to identify and explore

as many peer intervention options as possible during different real-life scenarios. While you

have reasonable flexibility in structuring the scenarios to maximize their usefulness, the

following guidelines should be followed to the extent possible.

1. There is a list of 12 role plays. Whenever possible, each team will act out their role

play the number of times required to have each member of the team play each

part.

2. One person will play the part of the observer in each scenario. The observer will

read the scenario and set up each of the players with the information necessary for

them to play their part.

3. Assume it may be necessary to “rewind” the scenario at different points to see

how the situation could play out with the EPIC principles in mind.

4. Each team will start at a different scenario and try to work through as many of

the scenarios as possible within the time allowed (in sequence).



27

5. Once everyone has played each part, the team will write down the learning

objectives, dilemmas involved, and the debriefing questions using the form

provided in subsection 7below.

6. At the designated time, the team will report back to the classroom.

7. Each team will demonstrate their first assigned scenario for the entire class for

feedback from the class and instructors. These final demonstrations, and some

of the practice role plays, will be recorded just as they would be from a citizen

witnessing and recording the events.

3. Pre Role Play Brainstorming Questions

Scenario Number

What are the possible dilemmas?

What are the possible inhibitors to a successful intervention?

What are the possible intervention tactics/solutions?

4. Post Role Play Debriefing Questions

What did you know about the law/policy going into this scenario?

What is your understanding of what the law/policy is meant to accomplish?

How did your use of EPIC principles help you resolve this role play?

How did the EPIC model work in this role play?

What might you do in similar situations in the future as you apply EPIC principles?

What was the upside to this intervention? Was there a downside? Identify who

benefited and who lost. What would your supervisor support in this situation?



28

5. Background Reading re Scenario-Based Training

Scenario-based learning long has been recognized as an essential learning tool when

teaching adult learners. The following advice for designing and using simluations and role

play exercises is paraphrased from the work of expert Carolyn M. Shaw.2

1. Role play exercises and simulations are just part of a larger body of teaching

strategies labeled as “active learning techniques” - techniques that ask students to

participate in constructing their own knowledge.

2. Role play allows students to "inhabit the issue” (making it more real and immediate)

and think beyond their own perspective.

3. Participants can gain factual information, concrete examples of abstract concepts,

analytical skills, procedural experience, and decision making skills. In addition,

simulations enable students to apply the content of courses in real life situations.

This provides students with a much deeper understanding of differing

perspectives. Those who engage in these exercises may also learn "winning

strategies" as they seek to achieve their objectives.

4. Participation in simulations can lead to affective learning. Such learning could

include changed perspectives and orientations (e.g. attitudes toward various public

and world issues), increased empathy for others, and greater insights into

challenges faced by others. The change that is seen is toward greater empathy.

5. The most successful active learning may inspire students to take proactive

measures in the real world to help bring into being the world as they would like to

see it.

2 Shaw, Carolyn M. “Designing and Using Simulations and Role-Play Exercises.” The International Studies Encyclopedia (2010). Web. 12 May 2017. http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/carolynshaw/Shaw%20in%20Compendium.pdf



29

6. According to theories of learning drawn from the fields of education and

psychology, simulations tap into multiple senses and emotions that create

"memorable events" and create more enduring and easily recalled memories.

7. Simulations may gain increased self-awareness and emotions that create

"memorable events" and create more enduring and easily recalled memories.

8. Simulations can provide faculty with clear, timely feedback on how well students

are understanding the material, allowing further instruction as necessary prior to

examination.

9. Learning objectives should be defined for each scenario.

10. Best practices in role play always include a debriefing. The debriefing is a key

component to the exercise, allowing the students to learn what was happening in

the other groups, to debate the positions of different groups, and to link the

exercise to reality and various theoretical concepts.

11. Simulations involve giving up some control of the classroom to students, so

instructors should be flexible. By their very nature, simulations are frequently

unpredictable. This is a vi rtue. Unexpected events often hold a great deal of

educational potential.



30

6. Bloom’s Ranking of Thinking Skills

In 1956, educator Dr. Benjamin Bloom, along with a committee of other educational experts,

proposed various classifications of thinking to help explain how people learn. This classification

has become known as “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” and provides a useful framework for the EPIC

instructor to consider when working through the EPIC role play scenarios with students. The

following text identifies the various Bloom classifications and offers an illustrative question the

instructor may use to help move the learner up the learning curve.

KNOWLEDGE – Recalling something encountered before, but without having to change it,

use it, or understand it; facts.

Illustrative Debriefing Question:

What did you know about the law/policy going into this scenario?

What do you know now?

COMPREHENSION – Understanding the knowledge that has been acquired without

needing to relate it to other information.


What is your understanding of what the law/policy is meant to accomplish?

APPLICATION – Use of a learned concept to resolve some situation or solve a new

problem in an appropriate way.


How did your use of EPIC principles help you resolve this role play?

ANALYSIS – Taking something learned apart into separate components for purposes of

thinking about the parts and how they fit together.



31


How does the EPIC model work in this role play?

SYNTHESIS – Generating or creating something different by assembling or connecting

ideas in a way that makes a whole.


How will you change what you do in simi lar situations in the future as you apply

EPIC principles?

EVALUATION – Looking at the particular value of materials, information or methods in

characterizing the whole.


What was the upside to this intervention? Was there a downside? Identify who

benefited and who lost. What would your supervisor support in this situation?



32

7. The EPIC Role Play Scenarios

Note to Instructor

During the afternoon, you will split your class into small groups to conduct role plays. You should have 3-4 groups of 4-5 people, depending on the size of your class.

These role plays are meant to portray real-life scenarios that officers might encounter on the job. In each scenario, there is at least one moment when an intervention is possible – an intervention that could save another officer’s career or life. We acknowledge that most of our officers ride solo, so when we say “your partner” below, we are referring to any officer you might be working with to respond to a call. EPIC means that we are all responsible for keeping each other safe and for preventing incidents that could lead to injury, internal investigations, or worse.

Each scenario includes a “Scene” that provides a bit of background followed by a “Set-Up,” which is where the potential incident occurs. When presenting to the class, one member of the group should read the “Scene” aloud, and then the group should proceed to act out the “Set-Up,” adding their own reaction, and then pausing to discuss. If you see something problematic at any time in a role play, stop the action, rewind, and discuss with the group.

Notes below in italics are for you, as the instructor, to probe the class during discussion. These are not necessarily meant to be read aloud, but rather to serve as guides for you in leading the discussion. The goal is to get the class to think about what could be done before the incident, during the incident, and after the incident. The version of the scenarios you should distribute to the class do not include these notes.

Scenario 1: The Spitter

The Scene: You and a partner whom you’ve known for years respond to a domestic

violence call together. You know that your partner finds men that engage in domestic

violence to be a vile type of person. You both handle the scene per Department policy and

determine that the male is the aggressor and should be arrested.

The Set-Up: The male offender is violent and combative. While in handcuffs, the male is

cursing at your partner constantly, screaming derogatory racial epithets at him, and threatening

to make false PIB complaints against him. Your partner is visibly agitated as you are walking

the arrestee to your squad car. The arrestee spits in your partner’s face; your partner raises his

hand as though he is about to strike the arrestee.



33

Probing Questions:

How do you respond in the moment?

o Role players should stop the partner from striking the arrestee and immediately

remove the partner from the situation.

o How would you accomplish this without embarrassing or potentially escalating

your partner?

After the incident, do you report it to your sergeant?

o Is this something that requires a report?

o If a punch had been issued, you would need to report this to your supervisor and

to PIB. If you were able to prevent the punch, do you need to report your

partner’s behavior?

Is there anything you could have done differently when you noticed your partner’s

agitation? Could the incident have been avoided?

o Could you have handled the situation differently from the beginning, knowing

your partner was particularly sensitive to domestic violence calls? For example,

could you have had a discussion with them in the car on your way to the scene

where you let them know you would take the lead so they wouldn’t have to deal

with the offender?

o During the scene, when your partner is becoming agitated by the arrestee’s

behavior, could you have stepped in and taken the arrestee to transport so your

partner could get some distance?

Scenario 2: The Known Gang Member

The Scene: You patrol District 5 on the evening watch, and you are very familiar with a

repeat offender named “Darryl” who lives in your district. Darryl is a felon, currently on

probation backing up 10 years for armed robbery.

Darryl is a known gang member and a suspect in several shootings; however, the District

Investigations Unit (DIU) is unable to close these shootings because witnesses will not name

Darryl out of fear. Darryl is listed every month as a “target offender” by your district



34

commander and intelligence division. During roll call one day, someone remarks, “ I bet the

Commander will give me Christmas off this year if I get this guy.”

While patrolling Monday evening, you and another unit receive a call for service describing

several males on a corner armed with handguns selling drugs. As you arrive you see the

group, which includes Darryl, disperse. As you stop at the corner, everyone except Darryl

runs away. Darryl is slowly walking away and says “bitch ass cops, y’all can't touch me.”

The Set-Up: You and the assisting officer stop Darryl and do a quick pat search and ask him

about what the group was doing. As you are talking to him, another back-up unit locates a

silver handgun on the ground under a vehicle where the group was originally standing and

says, “If you had seen Darryl toss that gun under the car, he's gone at least I0 years, and DIU

could probably solve those shootings with him in jail.” The assisting officer, who is a rookie,

takes you aside and asks what you should say.

Probing Questions:

How do you respond?

o What do you tell the rookie officer?

o Is there a way to get the information on Darryl that you need without making a

false report?

Do you think the backup unit member was suggesting that you make the false claim? If

so, do you report them?

o The language in the scenario is ambiguous. If the officer had said, “Just tell me

you saw Darryl toss the gun,” how would that change your approach?

Scenario 3: Shots Fired

The Scene: As a member of the Tactical Unit, your team is placed in a zone to find a pair of

armed robbers that have been hitting a residential neighborhood every night for a week. You



35

have an excellent description and, after about an hour of patrolling, you come across two

teens who fit the description exactly. Both immediately begin running when they spot your

patrol car. You and a partner pursue the same suspect to the right because he is clearly

holding a firearm in his waistband. As he darts into the alley between two houses he fires

two shots in your direction, and you hear him hit a fence. As you make it into the alley, he

has dropped the gun and continues running into the block. You continue into the block to

search and separate from your partner briefly. After a few moments your partner shouts “over

here!” You find your partner is engaged in physical force, but in control of the handcuffed

suspect. You are in a dark area surrounded by fences.

The Set-Up: Your partner has the suspect in handcuffs on the ground as you reach them.

Your partner says, “Now’s your chance before everyone gets here. He tried to kill us dude;

aren’t you going to take your shot?”

Probing Questions:

How do you respond?

Would it be legally justifiable to take your partner’s suggestion? Would it be

morally justifiable?

What is the appropriate follow-up action to take with your partner?

o Do you report it, or do you intervene directly with your partner?

Do you think the use of Body Worn Cameras prevent this type of scenario from playing

out, or does this still happen?

o Has this ever happened to you? To an officer you know?

o Does knowing you’re wearing a BWC ever change the way you respond to a

scene or interact with a member of the public?

Scenario 4: Carjacking Admission

The Scene: You are assigned to a district task force. At roll call your supervisor has a

message from the commander describing the suspect in a series of violent carjackings in



36

your district. The carjackings are just the latest in a string of violent crime that the district is

having trouble stemming. It is clear that your supervisor is under a lot of pressure to solve

this problem, and they seem to indicate that failure to solve this problem may lead to you or

your partner being transferred out of the unit.

While on-duty you locate and arrest a suspect and transport him to the station. Your task

force supervisor says, “You guys made the arrest; work the case, interview him, and see

what you can get.” During the interview you can tell that the suspect is far below average

intelligence. At some point, and without a full confession, the suspect mumbles that he wants

to speak to a lawyer. Your supervisor is watching the interview through the external video

feed.

The Set-Up: Two officers are in the interview room with the suspect. You, as the supervisor,

pull the officers out of the room and ask what the suspect said. When they say he asked for a

lawyer you say, “Are you sure that’s what you heard?”

Probing Questions:

As the subordinate officer, how do you respond to the supervisor in the moment? What

do you do if the supervisor keeps questioning what you heard?

Does knowing there is active recording in the room change your response or your

approach to the supervisor?

o Sometimes technology such as BWCs or interview recordings can give us

“excuses” for the interventions we would like to perform when we may not

feel comfortable doing so. If you are worried about the supervisor’s response

to your push back, citing the recording could potentially take some of the

pressure off you – i.e. “our hands are tied; the recording captured him asking

for a lawyer.”

What are the moral vs. legal justifications for your actions?

o How do you weigh getting this person off the street against respecting the

suspect’s rights?



37

Do you think about public perception when making these kinds of calls?

o What would you want the police to do in this situation if you were the victim of

one of the violent carjackings? If your child was the victim?

Scenario 5 - Get Off My Corner

The Scene: You are a new officer with just a year in the field. You are transferred to the

district task force unit, and at your first task force roll call the supervisor addresses major

problems in zone “K.” The supervisor says they've had three shootings in zone “K” in the past

week and several complaints about drug activity. The senior officer of the task force says

"The new guy is riding with me tonight so I can see if he knows what he is doing."

The Set-Up: After leaving the station the senior officer drives to zone “K” and sees a group

of young men standing on a sidewalk outside of a bar. The senior officer shouts through the

open window, “Get off the corner, go home or go in the bar.” One of the men in the group

responds “We are standing on a public sidewalk.” The senior officer then shouts “Okay,

everybody get on the car,” and proceeds to pat everyone down and demand identification. The

senior officer tells them to "get the f--- up the street. I don't want to see you again tonight or you

all are going to go to jail." You, as the rookie officer, must decide if and how to respond.

Probing Questions:

Would you address this with the senior officer? If so, how would you approach the

situation?

If you don’t feel comfortable addressing it in the moment, could you address it

after the shift ends? Is there a way to raise the issue without seeming like you

are challenging the senior officer’s judgment?

Is there someone else you could talk to about the situation? Who?

If one of the young men files a complaint, do you think you would face

repercussions?

How do you weigh the potential community benefit to having this group of people off the

street against the protection of their rights?



38

o How do you as an officer think about public safety vs. constitutional rights?

How do you think the public weighs these issues?

Scenario 6: The Vehicle Search

The Scene: While assigned to patrol, you and your partner are given a bulletin about a person

of interest in a shooting that lives at 1234 North Johnson Street. The suspect is not wanted, but

DIU would like to locate him for an interview about the shooting. You and your partner check the

address, and as you turn the corner you spot the suspect walking away from a vehicle (doors

already closed) toward his residence.

The Set-Up: You drive up ahead of him and get out and stop him. You ask to speak with the

suspect, who consents to a conversation outside of the house. Your partner begins interviewing

him and then turns to you saying, “Keep talking to him for a minute.” As you speak with the

suspect at the police car, you can see over his shoulder that your partner is looking through the

windows at the vehicle and appears to be trying the door handle.

Probing Questions:

Would the search be justified? If not, do you intervene with your partner before he opens

the car door? How?

o Is there a way to stop the search without calling out your partner in front of

the suspect?

o Are there ways you and your partner could communicate before you ever go

out on patrol together to set boundaries and to determine signals you will use

if you have concerns?

What are the repercussions for an investigation if your partner conducts an illegal

search? Do you speak to your partner about how his actions could have compromised

the investigation?

o Is there a way you can approach the situation that preserves your relationship

with your partner while also ensuring that he does not attempt similar actions

in the future?

Do you report your partner?



39

o If you stop your partner from conducting the search, do you need to file a

report?

o If you do not stop your partner, and he proceeds with the search, do you

need to file a report?

o Do you discuss the incident with your sergeant or with anyone else on your

platoon?

Scenario 7: Behavioral Changes

The Scene: You have been working under the same sergeant for more than a year and have

gotten to know him pretty well. He is usually very professional and happy to lend a hand.

Recently, he has been coming into work unshaven, looking disheveled. He has been short-

tempered and quick to brush off concerned remarks from you and other members of the

platoon.

The Set-Up: At roll call one morning, a rookie officer asks a question about conducting

searches, and your sergeant snaps, “Haven’t you figured that out by now? What’s wrong with

you?!”

Probing Questions:

How do you respond in the moment?

o Do you address this with the sergeant immediately? For example, do you tell

the sergeant you’ll handle this question? Or do you let the moment pass to

avoid confrontation in front of your fellow officers?

o Do you address this with the rookie officer immediately? Do you try to

reassure her about her own performance and/or about the sergeant’s

behavior?

Do you think this outburst could have been avoided?

o Should someone have pulled the sergeant aside earlier, upon noticing the

change in his behavior?

o How do you follow up if someone brushes off concern and insists that they’re

okay? What other resources are available to you? (Examples may include

OAP, your lieutenant, other officers who may be friendly with the sergeant.)



40

Do you pull your sergeant aside later to discuss this? If so, what do you say?

o How do you respond if the sergeant pulls rank and tells you that he is your

superior and you need to leave him alone?

o Do you let the sergeant know you are going to take additional steps to

address the issue?

o Do you involve other members of your platoon?

Is there someone you could reach out to who could help address the issue?

o Do you know any officers the sergeant is particularly close to, whether in your

platoon or not?

o Are there other individuals in the Department you would trust to help your

sergeant work through his issues?



41

IV. Additional Teaching Resources

A. Understanding The Applicable Statutes

1. 42 U.S. Code Sections 1983, 14141, 3789d

Several sections of Title 42 of the United States Code can come into play if police officers do

not intervene to prevent misconduct. Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law upon which

victims of police misconduct rely. Section 1983 enables individuals to bring a lawsuit against

law enforcement officers and other government officials, acting under the authority of law, if

those officials have deprived the individual of his or her constitutional and federal statutory

rights. Police officers can be sued under this section individually. Additionally, courts have

found that police officers who fail to prevent misconduct by other officers could be liable under

Section 1983. The results of a Section 983 lawsuit can be costly. To take just one example, in

2002, a jury returned a verdict against an individual police officer in Missouri for $70,000 for an

unlawful stop and detention in a case brought under Section 1983. See Millett v. City of

Berkley, et al., No. 4:00-CV-638-RWS (E.D. Mo. Sept. 23, 2002).

Section 14141 of Title 42 is the police misconduct provision of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This provision authorizes the Attorney General to file lawsuits to

reform police departments that have engaged in a pattern or practice of violating citizens’

federal rights. This statute allows for federal intervention in state and local police departments if

officers are engaged in a pattern of misconduct.

Section 3789d of Title 42 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,

religion, or sex in certain U.S. Department of Justice grant programs. Under this provision, if it

is discovered that a police department is discriminating, the Department of Justice can cut off

funding to certain programs within the police department.



42

2. 18 U.S. Code Sections 241, 242

While the statutes described above can lead to civil liability and other administrative penalties,

police officers also can face criminal liability and prison sentences for failing to intervene if a

fellow officer is acting inappropriately. Under Title 18, Section 242, police officers and other

government officials, acting under the authority of law, can be prosecuted for intentionally

depriving individuals of their constitutional and legal rights.

Under Section 241, two or more people who conspire to deprive other individuals of their

constitutional and legal rights can be prosecuted. If such a conspiracy is found, even if no

actions have been taken yet, the conspirators can be fined and/or sentenced up to ten years in

prison. If certain violent acts have been committed, the conspirators can be fined and/or

sentenced to life in prison or death.

Both these statutes have been used to bring criminal cases against police officers involved in

serious misconduct. If an officer does not intervene to stop the misconduct, he or she can be

seen as a participating conspirator and can face criminal charges.

B. Understanding Relevant Case Law

1. Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F2d. 415 (8th Cir. 1981)

In this case, Andrew Putman and Donald Favors brought a lawsuit against Elmer Gerloff, a

county sheriff, and James Crowe, a deputy sheriff, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that

they (Putman and Favors) had been denied due process of law and subjected to cruel and

unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Putman and Favors were being detained in the county jail awaiting charges of armed robbery.

The jail consisted of one large cell with two smaller cells inside. Putman and Favors obtained a

hacksaw and attempted to escape through the door of one of the smaller cells. Favors got

through, but Putman was stuck under the door on his back on the floor. Gerloff and Crowe



43

entered the door of the larger cell and stopped the escape. It was undisputed that Gerloff hit

Putman in the face with the butt of his gun, although the number of hits was disputed. Then the

officers handcuffed Putman and Favors together in the smaller cell and left them there for the

night without access to toilets.

At trial, the judge decided that Crowe, the deputy sheriff, was not liable and directed a verdict in

his favor. The case against Gerloff went to the jury, but the jury found for Gerloff. The case

was appealed. The court of appeals found that the jury had not been properly instructed on the

charges and, therefore, could not properly determine if the hit to Putman’s face by Gerloff

constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, the court of appeals noted that,

although it was Gerloff who hit Putman in the face with his gun, Crowe was present and

witnessed the assault. The court explained that police officers who ignore assaults by

other officers can be liable under Section 1983. The court concluded, “although Crowe was

a subordinate the evidence is sufficient to hold him jointly liable for failing to intervene if a

fellow officer, albeit his superior, was using excessive force and otherwise unlawfully punishing

the prisoner.” For this reason, the court of appeals reversed the verdict in Crowe’s favor and

ordered a new trial to determine, among other things, if Gerloff used excessive force and if

Crowe was liable for his failure to intervene.

2. Anderson v. Branen, 27 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 1994)

In this case, Marc Anderson and Jeffrey Grubb brought a lawsuit against a number of

defendants including DEA agents Dennis Branen and Ross Kindestin, as well as supervisory

DEA agent Ed Wisniefski, alleging that these agents deprived them (Anderson and Grubb) of

their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Grubb and Anderson maintain that Grubb accidentally scratched a parked DEA automobile with

his motorcycle while driving to pick up Anderson. Immediately after scratching the vehicle,

Agent Kindestin approached Grubb and physically assaulted him. Anderson tried to intervene

and Agent Branen assaulted Anderson. Supervisory Agent Wisniefski first observed the



44

altercation from the door of a nearby parking garage. He then approached and also assaulted

Anderson. The agents handcuffed Anderson and placed him in the car. Then, agents Branen

and Kindestin beat Grubb as he lay on the sidewalk while Wisniefski watched from the car.

Throughout the attack, the agents yelled homophobic insults at Grubb and Anderson. Grubb

and Anderson were charged with assaulting federal officers, but all charges eventually were

dropped.

Grubb and Anderson brought a lawsuit against the DEA agents. At trial, the jury found that

Wisniefski was not liable for the constitutional violations. Grubb and Anderson appealed,

arguing that the jury was not properly instructed on Wisniefski’s duty to intervene when the other

officers were assaulting Grubb and Anderson.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court and agreed with Grubb and Anderson. The court of

appeals noted that it is widely recognized that all law enforcement officials have an

affirmative duty to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from

infringement by other law enforcement officers in their presence. Specifically, the court

explained:

An officer who fails to intercede is liable for the preventable harm

caused by the actions of the other officers where that officer observes

or has reason to know (1) that excessive force is being used, (2) that a

citizen has been unjustifiably arrested, or (3) that any constitutional

violation has been committed by a law enforcement official.

The court of appeals noted there was evidence presented at trial suggesting multiple

opportunities for Wisniefski to intervene. Wisniefski had time to assess the situation from the

doorway of the garage. He had time to intervene when Anderson was handcuffed in the car and

the other agents were beating Grubb. And he had time to stop an unjustifiable arrest at the

police station. Thus, the court ordered a new trial and ordered that the jury be allowed to

determine if Wisniefski was liable for his failure to intervene.



45

3. Torres v. Allentown Police, Civil Action No. 13-3066 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

In this case, Jose Torres brought a lawsuit against a number of defendants including 16 police

officers with the City of Allentown Police Department. Torres filed his lawsuit by himself, without

a lawyer, and asserted claims for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and

1988.

Torres alleged that the police called his cell phone using his friend’s phone and asked if they

could buy a gun. Torres agreed and drove to his garage in Allentown. The police followed him.

Torres retrieved a gun from his garage, placed it in his car, and began to drive to the friend’s

house. Police officers were stationed all around his garage. Not far from the garage, an officer

in plain clothes jumped out in front of his vehicle and ordered him to stop. Torres reversed his

car and began to drive backward but wrecked into a vehicle driven by another officer. Torres

opened his door and was immediately grabbed by a police officer. Torres was repeatedly

punched and kicked by various officers while he lay on the ground shielding his face. Various

other officers stood by and watched and allegedly mocked Torres’ cries of pain.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Torres’ case. Among other things, the court had to

consider whether to dismiss Torres’ claim against unknown police officers who observed the

beating but failed to intervene to protect him. The court did not dismiss the claim. The court

explained, “Plaintiff can sustain a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation against an

officer who did not participate directly in the use of force if that officer failed to intervene

despite having had reasonable opportunity to do so.” Such an opportunity exists when

excessive force is used in an officer’s presence or otherwise within his knowledge, or if the

officer saw his colleague use excessive force or had time to reach him. The court also noted

that the claim can stand even though Torres was uncertain as to which officers used excessive

force and which were bystanders. The court allowed this claim to move to discovery to

determine the precise identity of the officers involved and the officers that observed but failed to

intervene.



46

4. Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972)

Byrd v. Brishke involved an allegation by an individual that police officers of the City of Chicago,

acting under color of law, beat him and caused personal injury to him in violation of his civil

rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Because the plaintiff could

not establish which officers had beaten him versus merely observed the beating, at the close of

the plaintiff's evidence, the district judge directed a verdict in favor of each of the defendants

(supervisors and non-supervisors) “on the ground that the evidence failed to connect any of

them directly with any of the improper acts alleged.” In overturning the district court’s decision,

the U.S. Court of Appeals held as follows:

We believe it is clear that one who is given the badge of authority of a police officer may

not ignore the duty imposed by his office and fail to stop other officers who summarily

punish a third person in his presence or otherwise within his knowledge. That

responsibility obviously obtains when the nonfeasor is a supervisory officer to whose

direction misfeasor officers are committed. So, too, the same responsibility must exist as

to nonsupervisory officers who are present at the scene of such summary punishment,

for to hold otherwise would be to insulate nonsupervisory officers from liability for

reasonably foreseeable consequences of the neglect of their duty to enforce the laws

and preserve the peace.

C. Understanding Other (Non-Law Enforcement) Peer Intervention

Programs

While NOPD is the first major city to develop and implement a Department-wide peer

intervention program of the scope and breadth of EPIC, peer intervention programs have been

implemented in other contexts with great success. The following examples summarize just a

few of the places one can see the science of active bystandership put to practical use.

http://openjurist.org/466/f2d/6



47

1. Reducing Hospital Errors

A 2012 study suggested that 43% of errors in an operating room are the result of poor

communication among the medical professionals.3 To combat this problem, the American

Medical Association (AMA) has encouraged the creation of peer intervention programs to

reduce the number of operating room errors. These programs aim at improving awareness,

communication, and actions by “bystanders.”

2. Reducing Pilot Mistakes & High Risk Behavior

Like doctors and police officers, airline pilots obviously work in a high stress environment. Long

ago, the industry identified a problem with alcohol and substance abuse among some pilots,

and recognized the obvious risks that problem posed to others. The industry looked to peer

intervention to solve the problem. Specifically, the industry created a program called HIMS

(Human Intervention Motivation Study), which, according to its mission statement, was designed

to “save lives and careers while maintaining flight safety.”4 The HIMS program is credited with

saving thousands of careers (and, likely, lives as well).

3. Reducing Sexual Violence on Campuses

Colleges and universities were among the first adopters of active bystander programs. These

programs focused primarily on combatting gender-based discrimination and violence.

Successful universities have focused on training incoming students as well as offering trainings

to groups and soliciting anonymous information related to sexual violence online. Recently, the

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the effectiveness of various sexual

violence prevention strategies implemented in schools and on campuses throughout the United

3 Van Beuzekom, Martie et al. “Patient safety in the operating room: an intervention study on latent risk factors.” BMC Surgery (22 June 2012). Web. 15 May 2017. https://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2482-12-10 4 Werfelman, Linda. “When Bottle Meets Throttle.” Aviation Medicine (Sept. 2006). Web. 15 May 2017. https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/asw_sept06_p32-36.pdf



48

States and found that the most effective programs incorporated an “active bystandership”

component.5

4. Reducing Unethical Conduct in Corporations

As the federal government increases its focus on fraud, waste, and abuse among corporate

America, many corporations have incorporated elements of peer intervention in their in-house

ethics and compliance training. Successful businesses train their employees to intervene if a

colleague is doing something (or is about to do something) unethical, illegal, or against

company policy. As the Ethics Resource Center notes, creating a culture of ethical behavior by

“ensuring that peers support one another and support each others’ efforts to live up to ethical

standards in the workplace” helps reduce rates of misconduct.6

5. Improving Public Health

Public health agencies across the U.S. have implemented peer intervention programs to assist

people with a wide range of health issues, including tobacco use, obesity, asthma,

cardiovascular diseaset, diabetes, breast cancer, addiction, and HIV/AIDS. Many of these

programs have been highly successful. One of the most successful public health peer

intervention programs focused on educating friends to prevent friends from driving drunk. The

Ad Council, the developer of the famous “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” campaign,

described the program and its success this way: “When the Ad Council and the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) first created the Drunk Driving Prevention

campaign in 1983, more than 20,000 people were being killed each year in alcohol-related

crashes. The campaign took the unique approach of targeting the intervener. . . During the life

of the campaign (1983-1999), the number of fatalities due to alcohol-related crashes dropped

5 Dills J, Fowler D, Payne G. “Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention.” National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.html 6 “The Importance of Ethical Culture: Increasing Trust and Driving Down Risks.” 2009 National Business Ethics Survey. Ethics Resource Center (2006). Web. 15 May 2017.

http://www.corporatecompliance.org/Resources/View/tabid/531/ArticleId/244/The-Importance-of-Ethical-Culture-Increasing-Trust-and-Driving-Down-Risks-1-2.aspx



49

from 21,000 to 12,500 and even as of 2013, more than two thirds of American adults report

having stopped a friend from driving while under the influence, speaking to the enormous impact

of this intervener strategy.”7

Another highly successful application of peer intervention has been in the context of reducing

the spread of HIV/AIDS. Several programs across the U.S. use peer education, peer

counseling, and peer interventions to teach and empower friends to intervene on friends to

prevent high risk sexual behavior. These programs have been studied in depth and, when well

implemented, have been highly successful.8

6. Reducing Bullying

Recently, peer intervention tactics have been put to use to help curb bullying in schools.

According to one report, at least 30% of students in American schools are involved in bullying,

either as perpetrators or victims – or as both.9 Experts who have studied this problem recognize

that bystander intervention is a key element of the solution. As one commentator notes,

“According to most of the literature, the largest group that constitutes the school environment

relating to bullying behavior is the peer bystanders. If you are going to change the school

climate of bullying, the primary target should be bystanders.”10 Successful programs have

focused on giving kids the knowledge and skills they need to intervene when they see signs of

bullying, and providing protection to those who do intervene. The data demonstrate that these

programs have been highly effective. Indeed, in one study of child playground behavior, peer

7 Fisher, Ellyn. “Smokey Bear and ‘Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk’ Inducted into Advertising Week Walk of Fame.” Ad Council Press Release ( 2014). Web. 15 May 2017. http://www.adcouncil.org/layout/set/print/News-Events/Press-Releases/Smokey-Bear-and-Friends-Don-t-Let-Friends-Drive-Drunk-Inducted-into-Advertising-Week-Walk-of-Fame 8 “Peer Programs: Looking at the Evidence of Effectiveness, a Literature Review.” Advocates for Youth (2007). Web. 15 May 2017. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1856-peer-programs-looking-at-the-evidence-of-effectiveness-a-literature-review 9 Amanda,Lauren. “Bullying: Theory, Programming, and Policy.” Social Justice Solutions (2015). Web. 15 May 2017. http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2015/05/20/bullying-theory-programming-policy/ 10 Padgett, Sharon and Notar Charles E. “Bystanders Are The Key To Stopping Bullying.” Universal Journal of Educational Research (2013). Web. 15 May 2017. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1053992.pdf



50

interventions to stop bullying were effective in stopping the bullying within ten seconds two

thirds of the time.11

11 Hawkins, Lynn and Pepler, Debra J. “Naturalistic Observations of Peer Interventions in Bullying.” Social Development Journal (2001). Web. 15 May 2017. http://bullylab.com/Portals/0/Naturalistic%20observations%20of%20peer%20interventions%20in%20bullying.pdf



51

V. Frequently Asked Questions (& Answers)

QUESTION: "What if my intervention fails?"

Answer: First, you should know most sincere intervention efforts succeed. And the training

you are receiving will make your efforts more likely to succeed. But if your initial efforts don’t

have the desired result, do not become discouraged. What may seem like a failure to you may

turn out to be quite successful down the road once your efforts have had time to sink in for the

person you tried to help. Without even knowing it, you may have helped prevent a future

problem. Additionally, do not be afraid to talk to your colleagues, supervisors, or other

Department resources (like your EPIC instructor or officer assistance program director) to

explore other intervention techniques that may have more impact in your particular situation. In

any event, it is better to attempt an intervention and fail than to stand idly by as a passive

bystander and not even try.

QUESTION: "What if I intervene too late?"

Answer: While earlier interventions obviously have more of an opportunity to succeed than

later interventions, it’s never too late to become an active bystander. Frankly, any intervention

is better than no intervention. Even a “late” intervention can be of great benefit to everyone

involved.

QUESTION: "Won't I get labeled a ‘snitch’ by intervening?”

Answer: Remember, EPIC is a peer intervention program, not a reporting program. EPIC is

about preventing problems and mistakes before they occur. Where an intervention prevents

misconduct, there is nothing to report. There is nothing “snitch-like” about trying to protect the

livelihoods and lives of your colleagues, their families, and our community.

QUESTION: "What if I'm wrong? What if I misinterpret the situation?



52

Answer: As we discussed in the EPIC course, the fear of misinterpreting a situation and

intervening at an inappropriate time is one of the key “inhibitors” that keep people from

becoming active bystanders. Many people have the same fear you do. But, with training, you

will become better able to: (i) identify the situations that require intervention, (ii) figure out the

best timing for the intervention, and (iii) apply tried and true intervention techniques that will hurt

no one even if you do somehow misinterpret a situation.

QUESTION: “Is EPIC a Consent Decree program?”

Answer: No. EPIC is a program initiated by the New Orleans Police Department prior to the

Consent Decree. While the Consent Decree contains general provisions covering officer

wellness, officer support, procedural justice, and peer intervention, the concept, scope, and

substance of EPIC is purely the creation of NOPD officers (with the help of national experts,

citizens, and other friends of the Department).

QUESTION: “Is EPIC a disciplinary program?”

Answer: No. EPIC is a peer intervention program aimed at training and empowering every

member of the police department to play an active and meaningful role in preventing mistakes

and misconduct. EPIC focuses on preventing – and gives officers the tools they need to

prevent – problems BEFORE they occur.

QUESTION: “Am I required to report peer intervention?”

Answer: No. EPIC does not create any new reporting obligations on anyone. The rules of

reporting misconduct have not changed. EPIC was designed specifically to identify and prevent

mistakes and misconduct before they occur, thus negating having anything to report in the first

place. And while a peer intervention does not eliminate the need to report otherwise reportable

conduct, the intervention will be considered as a formal mitigating factor in any subsequent

disciplinary hearing for the intervener or the officer intervened upon.



53

QUESTION: “Is EPIC a part of the OAP (Officer Assistance Program)?”

Answer: Yes. While EPIC and OAP are not the same program, they work hand in hand. Both

focus on the physical and mental health of officers, and both are intent on raising awareness of

the significant personal and work-related stresses that often lead to mistakes and misconduct if

left unchecked.

QUESTION: “Is peer intervention new to law enforcement?”

Answer: Yes and no. For years, good officers have made it their business to keep their

colleagues, their families, and our communities safe by saying something when they see

something. Many of us – indeed, most of us – have had to put a hand on a colleague’s

shoulder from time to time and say “hey partner, why don’t you sit this one out. I’ll take it from

here.” Turning these one-off examples of active bystandership into an integrated, department-

wide program through which officers are given the proper tools to intervene successfully and

safely, however, is new to law enforcement. Many other professions, though, have been doing

this for years. The medical profession, airlines, the military, and other groups realized the

benefits of teaching active bystandership long ago. But as far as we know, EPIC is a “first of its

kind” peer intervention program for law enforcement that is enhanced by the NOPD’s Officer

Assistance Program, and it is something about which we all should be very proud. EPIC was

designed by NOPD personnel in close coordination with nationally known specialists who have

studied the phenomenon of group psychology and passive/active bystandership for decades.

Extensive studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of peer intervention in those fields

mentioned above. NOPD chose to advance the use of peer intervention in the similarly

challenging field of law enforcement.

QUESTION: “What if I attempt to intervene in the action of someone

senior to me?”

Answer: EPIC is “rank-neutral.” Every member of the Department has the authority (indeed,

the responsibility) to intervene under these circumstances. We understand, however, that



54

intervening with respect to senior personnel, especially in a rank-structured organization like a

police department, can be intimidating. EPIC addresses this acknowledged “inhibitor” in two

ways. First, every member of the department will be trained in EPIC, from the Superintendent

on down. The better we all understand the purpose of the program and the science behind it,

the more receptive we are to accepting the intervention when it occurs. Remember, the EPIC

pin signifies that you are giving others permission to intervene on you if you are about to make a

serious mistake or engage in misconduct or do something harmful to yourself or others. This

applies to everyone, regardless of rank. Everyone who wears that pin is acknowledging the role

peer intervention should play in policing and is giving permission to his or her coworkers to

intervene. Second, by enshrining EPIC into Department policy, the Department has endorsed

both the program and the authority of every member to take action to prevent misconduct.

While it may not always be easy to intervene in the actions of others, especially those who may

out-rank us, cultural shifts in other fields have shown that the job of peer intervention becomes

easier the more we embrace a collaborative workplace.

QUESTION: “What if my intervention efforts meet with resistance?”

Answer: Sometimes an intervention meets with immediate success. You say “hey, don’t do

what you’re about to do.” Your partner says “You’re right. Thanks.” Success. Other times,

however, efforts to intervene meet with resistance. Interestingly, resistance often is a sign of a

bigger, deeper problem. After all, why would any of us resist an effort to help keep us safe and

employed? Should your efforts to intervene meet resistance, you will have to consider what

steps to take next. Should you escalate the level of the intervention? Should you back off and

wait for a more opportune time? Should you reach out to get help from others (e.g., a

supervisor, a peer, officer assistance program director, etc.)? The answers to these questions

will depend upon the circumstances. Where someone (an officer, a citizen, or your colleague

him/herself) could be immediately hurt by the conduct, then you would escalate your level of

intervention. In other situations, you might take one of these other approaches. Your EPIC



55

training is designed to equip you with the tools necessary to make the right decision for the

circumstances.

QUESTION: “What happens if I get ‘dinged’ (disciplined) by the Public Integrity

Bureau (PIB) or Internal Affairs after

an intervention?”

Answer: You will never get dinged for a good faith effort to intervene in a sensible fashion. PIB

not only is aware of the EPIC program and how it works, representatives of PIB were active in

all group discussions on the mechanics of EPIC. First and foremost, in the event an internal

disciplinary investigation is opened due to a citizen complaint or other cause, PIB knows to look

for signs of peer interventions in statements and in videos from in-car and body-worn cameras.

Second, all Department members who believe they successfully intervened in an incident, or

who believe an accused officer accepted an intervention, are encouraged to notify PIB and

present evidence of any peer intervention they took part in or accepted. In any case, good faith

intervention attempts now are a formal mitigating factor that will be considered by PIB in any

disciplinary action for the underlying conduct (i.e., the conduct the intervener is trying to prevent

or stop).

QUESTION: “How is EPIC a mitigating factor in discipline?”

Answer: All punishments outlined in the Department’s discipline matrix have three

components: presumptive penalty, aggravating circumstances, and mitigating circumstances.

Any accused officer in an internal disciplinary investigation may notify PIB of any mitigating

circumstances that could reduce their punishment. Accepting an intervention by other officers

and ceasing the behavior constitutes a mitigating factor.



56

VI. Appendices

A. The EPIC Working Group

Danny Cazenave, NOPD Chief of Staff

Cmdr. Nick Gernon, NOPD 8th District

Lt. Duralph Hayes, NOPD 8th District

Ben Horwitz, NOPD Analytics Director

Officer Aundeah Kearney, NOPD 5th District

Deputy Chief Stephanie Landry, NOPD Management Services Bureau

Jacob Lundy, NOPD EPIC Program Director

Sgt. Sabrina Richardson, NOPD Management Services Bureau

Joanne Schmidt, NOPD Grants

Sgt. LJ Smith, NOPD 1st District

Cecile Tebo, NOPD Director of Officer Assistance Program

Chief John Thomas, Management Services Bureau

Deputy Chief Arlinda Westbrook, NOPD Public Integrity Bureau



57

B. Additional Reading

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning

Blind Spots by Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Max H. Bazerman

The Roots of Goodness and Resistence to Evil by Dr. Ervin Staub

The Psychology of Good and Evil by Dr. Ervin Staub

Walking with the Devil: The Police Code of Silence by Michael Quinn

Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die by Chip and Dan Heath

The Psychology of Bystanders, Perpetrators, and Herioc Helpers, by Dr. Ervin Staub,

available at http://people.umass.edu/estaub/The_Psychology_of_Bystanders.pdf

http://people.umass.edu/estaub/The_Psychology_of_Bystanders.pdf



58

C. NOPD Supporting Resources

Officers can call 658-EPIC (658-3742) for additional information and assistance

regarding NOPD’s EPIC program.

Officers can reach out to Ms. Cecile Tebo, director of NOPD’s Officer Assistance

Program at (504) 247-4525 for guidance, counseling, and support on any officer

health and wellness matter.

Officers can email the NOPD Compliance Bureau at [email protected]

with questions about new and existing NOPD policies.

Doctor Bill McDermott at Integrated Behavioral Health LLC can be reached at (504)

322-3837 for cost free psychological services.

Additional resources will be added to this list as the NOPD Officer Assistance Program

continues to expand its offerings.

mailto:[email protected]



59

D. Adult Learning Techniques Explained

Much study has gone into the differences between young learners and adult learners over the

past ten years. The resounding lesson of this study is that adults learn differently from children.

While this probably comes as no surprise to you, police departments across the country

continue to rely on outdated teaching models, which reduce the impact of the messages on

adult audiences. The EPIC training program was designed to incorporate adult learning

techniques at all levels. The scenario-based role play portion of the training program, for

example, aligns directly to how we now know adults learn. As an EPIC instructor, it is your job

to take advantage of other adult learning techniques in the lecture portion of your class as well.

Be a dynamic speaker. Engage the students rather than lecturing at them. Facilitate the

students’ discovery of the key EPIC strategies and tools on their own. You will find your

message comes across faster and sticks much longer than the “old fashioned” way of teaching.

To help you incorporate adult learning techniques into your EPIC class, following is an excerpt

adapted from a relevant article by Gerard Cleveland, the president of the Police Society for

Problem-Based Learning in Clayton, California.12

Police Training Is Adult Education

Adults enter the classroom with knowledge and experience, which can either help the

learning experience or hinder it. Many factors affect how adults learn. Most important is

that adults must apply their knowledge practically in order to learn effectively; they must

also have a goal and reasonably expect that the new knowledge will help them reach

that goal. Teaching strategies that enhance adult learning involve real-life activities.

Persons Attracted to Policing Have Established Learning Preferences

How policing professionals are trained may in part be explained by the preferences of

12 Cleveland, Gerard. “Using Problem-Based Learning in Police Training.” Police Chief Magazine (2006). Web. 15

May 2017. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/using-problem-based-learning-in-police-training/?ref=ae11f7ff8b841d97d605a5d58da9b90c



60

those individuals who are attracted to the profession. Deputy Chief Ron Glensor and

criminologist Ken Peak have observed that “because policing often attracts action-

oriented individuals, police officers tend to be more receptive to [training in] arrest

methods, weaponless defense, pursuit driving, [and] firearms. . .. [But] it is common

knowledge that only a small fraction of the typical officer’s work routine involves use of

weapons, defensive tactics, high-speed chases, and so forth. If training is to help officers

do their jobs better, it must focus on what they need to know.”

Police executive Dan Reynolds agrees: “Reactive policing is so much easier. Police

officers are trained to prefer order to disorder, and problem-solving seems, to some

officers, to be creating disorder, to be upsetting the balance of things.” Some learning

must be by rote, especially in the psychomotor domain, such as weapons and unarmed

defense techniques. Both require repeated practice to teach the muscles to react and

develop muscle memory.

Police training must be active, engaging, and relevant for the recruits and in-service

personnel who attend professional development courses. Today’s learners—generation

X, generation Y, and millennials—look for learner-centered, problem-based training.

These technology-savvy, multitasking individuals, with their repertoire of transferable

skills, are highly independent and expect instant feedback. If the policing profession

hopes to attract, train, and retain these new problem-solving individuals, trainers must

abandon the traditional lecture with PowerPoint.

Four Critical Questions

Any evaluation of an agency’s learning environment should include four questions.

QUESTION 1: Do the agency’s training programs reflect adult learning

methodologies, where the learner decides how he or she is to learn?

Traditional training methodology that uses PowerPoint presentations, lectures, and study



61

groups does not reflect adult learning practices and principles. Even the give-and-take of

classical Socratic dialogue remains directed, if not dominated, by the instructor.

Adult learners need to discover the material, discuss it, and engage in their own learning

processes. The best test for the non-lecture approach is also simple: if you, the reader,

were learning, would you prefer to sit for hours listening quietly to an expert or would you

rather engage in a problem-solving scenario in a classroom or patrol car where the

instructor seeks your input, values your previous experience, and allows you to actively

discover the answer?

Most police officers, regardless of age, prefer to participate. If the instructors merely

lecture, they may well find themselves facing an unresponsive, if not hostile, audience.

Agencies risk losing the most active and engaged officers, who may decide that a

profession that does not engage them is not worth joining.

Of course, lecturing cannot be eliminated. It has its place in front-loading knowledge, but

too much of it shuts down learning. Furthermore, lecturing too often fails to challenge

learners to move into higher-order thinking levels.

QUESTION 2: Do the agency’s training programs focus on multiple

intelligence and emotional intelligence?

Two important components of adult learning are multiple intelligence and emotional

intelligence. Multiple intelligence recognizes that not everyone learns information the

same way and that training must be provided in several different ways to accommodate

the various learning styles.

Emotional intelligence includes the way police officers manage their emotions and the

way they manage their contacts and relationships with others. Emotional intelligence has

an enormous role in policing, particularly in developing new officers and solving the most

common issues that create problems for the department and the individual.



62

Agencies should evaluate whether various curricula are used to teach all of the learners,

assuring—not assuming—that the students involve themselves. Agencies should also

assess how trainers engage in and practice effective emotional intelligence skills such

as conflict resolution, self-awareness, social awareness, and empathy with the trainees.

Both multiple intelligence and emotional intelligence should be a critical part of every

teaching and learning environment in a police department. These allegedly touchy-feely

topics should not be dismissed; these are the meat-and-potatoes issues that police

officers must deal with on the street and in the police station every day.

QUESTION 3: Where on Bloom’s taxonomy is the department focusing

its training?

Police training for adult learners should be focused on how the training will foster,

encourage, and support problem solvers. If an academy or in-service training program

focuses on the most basic level of providing knowledge, then it operates at the bottom of

the thinking ladder. Police officers must analyze, synthesize, and evaluate dynamic

circumstances every day. They are called upon to instantly and accurately respond to

meet their community’s needs.

What better place to begin this process of higher-order thinking than in the training

programs?

QUESTION 4: Does the agency’s training staff create dynamic learning

environments and do trainers recognize the key elements in

transmitting and acquiring new information?

The concept of teaching for adult learners—andragogy—is based on four crucial

assumptions about adult learners’ characteristics and emphasizes that adult learning is

self-directing.

The adult learning test is simple: does the training staff practice adult teaching



63

techniques? If all that is overheard in the classroom is an instructor and the click of

changing PowerPoint slides, then adult education is not occurring.

In the evaluation of a department’s training effort, ask trainers and training consultants to

explain what they know about learning rather than teaching. Often, police trainers know

a great deal about teaching and not enough about how adults learn. Some police

trainers respond to any perceived criticism by commenting that they are cops, not

teachers.

Yet anyone who stands in front of any classroom or takes on the responsibility of

showing someone how to do something has become a teacher and has assumed the

educational responsibilities associated with teaching. The training staff needs to know

adult educational methods just as a patrol officer or detective needs to acquire skills in

their responsibilities. Too often, trainers simply default to lecturing. New requirements

and new audiences require new methods.

Critical Factors for Training Programs

Many trainers evaluate their recruits using a number scale based on how successfully,

according to the trainer, that trainee completes a task. At best, the employee can

replicate the performance set out by the trainer. The real question for the agency

executive remains: “Am I asking recruits to think at a higher level or to just perform what

they are shown?”

The learning environment affects what training is achieved and how what is learned can

be transferred to other circumstances. Clearly, there are police actions best taught by

rote (handcuffing, firing a weapon, pursuit driving, traffic stops), and trainees should

learn these actions in a safe environment, even if it is a stressful environment.

Screaming at recruits on a parade ground, on the range, or in the defensive tactic arena

may be appropriate when teaching discipline and self-control. Stressful teaching



64

methods can help prepare recruits for actual field situations, but a stress-teaching

environment is not necessary to prepare students for problem-solving skills.

Students should know static skills before they engage in problem solving. The reason is

simple: no one would suggest just handing a recruit a firearm and telling the recruit to

figure it out and solve the whole shooting technique.

Experienced officers know that they learn their policing skills most effectively by thinking,

discussing with peers, and using trial and error to solve new problems. If the materials

for teaching police officers are current and will help them perform their jobs more

effectively, police learners will engage enthusiastically.

Whether experienced or inexperienced, adult learners who attend training want to be

dedicated participants rather than just obedient observers and passive listeners.



65

VII. EPIC Training PowerPoint Presentation with

Speaking Notes

See attached.



66

new orleans police departmentepic.nola.gov/epic/media/assets/epic-program-guide.pdf ·...

Documents