Last week, Calibre Press instructor Lt. Kelly DeVoll (ret.) explored whether ordering a suspect with their hands in their pockets to remove those hands was tactically sound or a serious risk to officer safety. (Read the article here)

Readers responded with split opinions. Here’s some of what we heard…

Chief Chad Duncan with the Tremont City (OH) Police Department writes:

That was an excellent article. Hands in the pocket are far less likely to hurt you than flailing around. Even on initial contact if their hands are in their pockets, as long as they stay there until you begin your pat down, any movement that would present a danger can be seen giving the officer time to react.

I have always told suspects if their hands were in their pockets to leave them there. Let me tell you, other officers could never understand my tactics because that’s not the way we were taught in the academy.

Lt. Michael Wilson with the Professional Standards Division of the Williston (ND) Police Department responds:

Really, it depends on more than the person and the pockets. Like many things, an oversimplification of what should be a thought-driven process is inevitable. People learn faster with simpler instructions. “Keep it Simple …. you Simply awesome chimpanzee you”.

Something can start simple, to get a person familiar with the reason. After that, you can start adding layers. Why take a person’s hands out of their pockets? The same reason human beings wave as a sign of polite, harmless greeting. It’s a signal to the other person that your hands aren’t holding a weapon and mean them no ill intent. At least, that’s how it was described to me. If someone is concealing their hands, the logical question is, why?

Well, is it a loose-fitting coat pocket? Is it an extremely tight pants pocket? Are their hands tucked into their back pockets? What could reasonably be in the pocket? What’s the weather like? Are they casual? What other body language are they using?

In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances, I can always blade off and move to one of their off sides. Do they reorient to face me? Is another officer with me? Those are all adding layers to articulate my reasoning for doing something. If your answer to why you did something is, “Because”… that’s not good enough.

Dr. Sue D. Weaver, Professor of Criminal Justice & Program Coordinator at Emmanuel University in Franklin Springs, GA comments:

Good reminder as we want to always try to be at a tactical advantage (as much as is feasible). As an academy instructor and training officer, we used a proactive approach immediately upon contact. For example, if their hands were already out of their pockets, we made it clear to keep them out. If their hands were already in their pockets upon first contact, we would instruct them to keep their hands where they are but move their feet wide apart for the approach for the stop and frisk. I had a rookie officer who had the bad habit of giving a command followed by “okay?” every single time. How we use our words and commands at point of contact matters and should be coached with a best practice approach.

From Detective W. Voeltz with the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office:

Nicely written article, but–more important–compellingly insightful. We live in a law enforcement world where there continues to be too much of a “that’s-the-way-we’ve-always-done-it” attitude. I greatly appreciate those articles which strongly encourage today’s personnel to seriously evaluate not only WHAT we do, but WHY we do it as well. This article definitely did that for me when it caused me to ask those probing questions.

My desire would be to get this article into the hands (and minds) of tactical training instructors across the nation and police academy personnel so at the very least, they would provide this information to officers as a viable alternative to the old, “show-me-your-hands” standard.

Officer John Converse with the Montgomery College Office of Public Safety–Campus Police in Montgomery Co., Maryland writes:

I’ve long believed that the command to “take your hands out of your pockets” is risky. It should only be given from a distance and behind cover. If that is impractical, the procedure suggested by Kelly is the one to follow.

Add to that, some people put their hands in their pockets because it is cold or just a habit. This can result in an endless game of repeatedly directing the suspect to remove his or her hands countered by them putting the hands back in the pocket. This is followed by repeated commands and the empty threat that the officer is “not going to tell you again.” Better to just check the pockets and let the suspect place their hands there. This reduces arguments and saves time.

From Commanding Captain David Levy with the Fort Washington Fire Company, Special Fire Police in Fort Washington, PA:

The additional advantage of telling the subject to KEEP his hands in their pockets is that this is NOT what they are expecting. This unexpected action on your part may go a long way to at least temporarily derailing the subject’s assaultive intent.

CIT Coordinator and law enforcement mental health expert Nick Greco responds:

Great article! This is actually something I discuss in CIT. Oftentimes a mentally ill individual, especially one experiencing psychosis, will want to leave their hands in their pockets as a means of comfort. The person may be responding to internal stimuli while also trying to have a conversation with the officer. Having one’s hands in one’s pocket creates a balance for them, a safe space if you will.

We go over a couple of different ways to ensure officer safety. For example, letting them keep hands in their pockets, asking them to remove them briefly and get a pat down, telling them they can leave the hands in their pockets but if they decide to take them out to let the officer know and do it slowly. Persons suffering from mental illness are in a state where they need options, but officer safety is also not compromised.

Ken Wilkinson formerly a Deputy with the Dutchess Co. (NY) Sheriff’s Office writes:

Order the subject to turn away from you, then take their hands out of their pockets.

Lt. Joseph Pretti with the Criminal Investigations Division at Eddystone (PA) Police Department writes:

I’m personally 50/50 on this method. I’d like to see more responses from officers. I think we are always at a disadvantage when a suspect has their hands in their pockets. They can fire a weapon through their pockets at any time. We will always be at a disadvantage because officers are not thinking of shooting someone. If a suspect is thinking about shooting an officer, they are already one up on us. It all comes down to your training, knowledge, experience and alertness when dealing with someone who refuses to take their hands out of their pockets.

Finally, one reader suggested the following technique as an alternative solution to the tactic given as an example in the article:  

One of the tools I use as an FTO is the summaries of officers feloniously killed in the annual FBI LEOKA report. I had just finished reviewing 2009’s report when Calibre Press released the article entitled, “Take your hands out of your pockets…” by Lt. (ret.) Kelly Devoll. At the end of this, you will find a summary of a Philadelphia police officer killed in 2009. I think it is an outlier, but it demonstrates that rounds can be fired through a jacket. However, many more officers have been killed when someone removes a gun from a concealed area than by shooting through clothing.

My purpose for writing this email is to point out what I believe is a fundamentally wrong tactic used as an example to the alternative of automatically asking someone to remove their hands from their pockets.  Please allow me to explain, and then I will offer an alternative solution that I have found to be safer.

I think 95% of this article is perfect.  However, the 5% that is wrong can easily get an officer killed or seriously injured.

What you got right

— Great topic

— Commands are often given from a tactically disadvantaged position

— All law enforcement processes should be constantly evaluated

— Officers must get out of the habit of immediately giving commands to remove hands from pockets

— Verbal commands are designed to limit movement

— Author’s admission of multiple tactics

What you got wrong

— Conducting a pat down with the subject’s hands in his pockets

— The idea that having someone spread their legs puts them at a disadvantage

Let’s address the wrong, as the right speaks for itself.  First, disregarding a reactionary gap and approaching a possible armed suspect for the purpose of conducting a pat-down search is tactically unsafe. If you haven’t considered that the person might possibly be armed, why would you worry about their hands being concealed in their pockets?

Secondly, having the subject spread their legs creates base. Conduct a simple experiment.  Spread your legs wide and have someone push you from the side.  Do the same thing again, but this time with your legs crossed. You will have to uncross your legs to prevent losing your balance and falling over.

In 2006, the FBI published Violent Encounters:  A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers. Several of the offenders interviewed for this study admitted to training numerous techniques to escape custody or disarm officers.  They admitted to watching officers make stops, watching cop shows on TV, and practicing spin moves and takedowns.  Keep in mind, this study was done in 2006, prior to the widespread availability of bodycam and dashcam footage readily available on the internet.

A better way

So how do we better solve this problem?  The answer is by issuing verbal commands and challenges from behind cover.  We are gauging a subject’s level of compliance through verbal commands.  Failure to comply with these commands should elevate the officer’s level of awareness and an alternative plan should be developed.

Think about your past experiences and when a suspect physically resisted or fled.  Most often, it is when the discovery of contraband is inevitable (i.e., pat-down search) or when they realize they are going to be arrested.  Using this knowledge, coupled with the fact that an officer has very little physical control during a pat-down search or handcuffing, would you rather engage in a gun fight from less than two feet or from 25 feet from behind cover?

– Find some semblance of cover and then give your commands.  A patrol car makes a great barrier, but poor cover (use it as a last resort)

– Instruct the suspect to keep their hands in their pockets, but face away from the officer

– Once they have faced away, move to a secondary point of cover.  Positioning elsewhere requires the offender to now find you if they have aspirations of assaulting the officer.

– Instruct the subject to remove their hands one at a time

– Have the suspect lift their clothing high enough to see their waistband.  In addition to visually searching for a concealed weapon in this common area, focus on the clothing pockets to look for signs of a concealed weapon (improper weight distribution, sagging, printing, etc.)

– Give any necessary additional commands based on the information presented.  (Do you want them in a handcuffing or pat-down position, to remove their jacket, prone out, etc.)

One of the biggest deficiencies I have found in law enforcement training is that we rarely address the “HOW.”  We are quick to identify the tactical errors and what not to do, but our profession seems to be reluctant to actually train officers in how to tactically and correctly perform our duties.  I don’t know if this is a liability issue or if we are simply trying to keep our tactics secret.

This article broached the how, but I don’t think the only example given as an alternative to simply making everyone remove their hands is tactically sound.  I recognize this profession is inherently dangerous.  However, why not first attempt to accomplish a task in the safest way possible.  We can always explore other options or go hands-on after non-compliance; at least then the subject has presented indicators that might change your tactics.  Perhaps if the officers in the scenario below had sought cover and given the suspect commands from a distance (distance + cover = time), instead of approaching an individual who had already made threats to shoot the police and the victim, Officer Pawlowski might still be alive.  Not learning from these officers who paid the ultimate price is a disservice to their sacrifice.

Officer John Pawlowski was shot and killed after responding to a dispute between a cab driver and a male. Officer Pawlowski and his partner responded to the Logan section of Philadelphia after a cab driver called 911 to report a dispute. During the dispute, the cab driver told the suspect that he was going to call the police, to which the suspect responded,”‘ If you call police, I shoot you plus the police.”

When the officers arrived, the cab driver pointed out the subject. Officer Pawlowski and his partner approached the male, who was dressed in a black, three-quarter-length coat. The suspect had his hands in his pockets. Officer Pawlowski ordered the suspect to show his hands. The suspect did not comply and immediately opened fire with a .357 handgun, shooting through the pocket of his coat. One round struck Officer Pawlowski in his bullet-resistant vest, and a second round struck him in the chest, just above his vest. Officer Pawlowski was able to return fire, striking the suspect once before falling to the ground, mortally wounded.

Officer Pawlowski’s partner and a third officer engaged the suspect in a gun battle, during which one officer was grazed and the suspect was shot numerous times. Officer Pawlowski was taken to Albert Einstein Medical Center, where he died from his wounds.

Lastly, I want to say what a huge fan I am of Calibre Press (I hope this email is not perceived as being confrontational.)  I have attended several in-person and online trainings and have always enjoyed the content.  But I am now much closer to the end of my career.  I have learned much about this profession and at some point, I would like to find a way to share this experience with other officers.  I firmly believe that on the day you decide to stop learning, you will never be better than you are at that moment.  You simply don’t know what you don’t know.

Thanks again so much for all that you do for law enforcement.

Editor’s note: Be sure to register for the FREE Calibre Press Webinar, “Training to Avoid Disaster. Creating FTO & Other Training Programs That Actually WORK” featuring Calibre Press’s Lt. Jim Glennon (ret.) and Lt. Jon Davis. All registrants will receive a link to a recording of the live program that is scheduled for March 27, 10AM – Noon Central.

CLICK HERE for full details and to register at NO COST.