Eric Stewart

Introduction:

One of my favorite definitions of leadership comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said, “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” Leadership is a science and an art. The science of leadership is based on behavioral research, theories, and practices that focus on how people are wired, influenced, and motivated. The art of leadership focuses on how leaders apply science to create an environment in which people are happy coming to work, engaged, and driven to internalize the goals of the organization and meet or exceed the organization’s goals. The ability to inspire and guide individuals towards a common goal is a hallmark of great leadership. To better understand this complex interplay, we will delve into several key concepts: social exchange theory, the locus of leadership, power bases, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, followership, and idiosyncrasy credits. We will explore each of these elements to shed light on how leaders can harness the power of influence and motivation for success.

Social Exchange Theory: The Foundation of Influence

At the heart of understanding how people are influenced lies the social exchange theory. Relationships are built or ended based on a cost-benefit analysis. Think about it, when you meet someone, you determine rather quickly if you want to pursue or build a relationship with that person. In fact, research indicates that in as little as 1/10 of a second, you will make judgments concerning a person’s likeability and trustworthiness. This initial impression jump-starts the psychological contract process between you and the person. If you determine the relationship is beneficial, you will pursue building that relationship. If not, you will end the relationship and part ways.

This relationship-building process is no different in an organizational setting. Social exchange theory posits that leader-follower relationships are built on the principle of reciprocity, where individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs. In this context, the leader induces the follower to contribute labor, skills, and knowledge in return for pay, promotions, recognition, belongingness, and a positive leader-member relationship. Effective leaders understand the importance of striking a balance between what they provide and what they expect in return.

Social exchange theory is made up of three elements: the leader, the follower, and the situation. Leadership takes place where the leader, the follower, and the situation intersect. This intersection is the leadership moment, also referred to as the locus of leadership. In the following, I will elaborate on each of these areas.

• The Leader: This element is based on the leader’s view of others, and how the leader’s view affects the leader’s use of power bases to influence and create motivation in followers.

• Theory X/Theory Y: The leader’s view or assumption of others impacts which power bases the leader will use to influence followers. McGregor’s research led to the development of theory X and theory Y assumptions about followers. According to McGregor, a theory X leader’s assumption of followers is that they are lazy, lack ambition, do not want responsibility, and prefer to be told what to do (i.e. be led). In contrast, a theory Y leader’s assumption is that followers want to make a difference at work, take initiative, take on and accept responsibility, and want to make decisions.

• Power Bases: The ability to understand and use influence to create motivation in others is a fundamental skill that sets successful leaders apart. Influence is the ability to persuade or affect someone’s behavior or decisions. Effective leaders have a clear understanding of the different sources of influence that drive human behavior and they know how to use them to create motivation. French and Raven’s Power Base Taxonomy presents an invaluable framework that allows us to dissect the sources of power leaders use to influence others. Each power base, listed below, has a different way of influencing, others.

• Legitimate Power: This power base can influence others based on the supervisor’s authority. For example, a supervisor can give orders and the employee has the responsibility to follow the orders given based on the supervisor’s authority. 
• Reward Power: This power base can influence others by offering incentives for achieving goals and recognizing hard work. The key to reward power is the person who is offered the reward must value it. If not, the reward may not create motivation in the person to complete the task.
• Coercive Power: This power base can influence others by creating fear of negative consequences (or discipline) for not meeting expectations or following through with the order(s) given.
• Expert Power: This power base can influence others by providing guidance and mentorship based on knowledge and expertise.
• Referent Power: This power base can influence others by setting an example of behavior and inspiring others to follow their lead. Think about a great coach or great boss/leader you have had. You will walk through fire for those that hold referent power with you. 

What I have found in my research and experience is theory X leaders tend to rely on the use of legitimate and coercive power bases to influence others, while theory Y leaders tend to use referent and expert power bases.

• The Follower: This element is based on how the follower views the relationship with the leader, the type of power base the leader uses to influence the follower, the follower’s needs, and the follower’s followership style.

• Relationship/Power Base Usage: Take a couple of moments to recall times you completed a task based on the relationship you had with your supervisor or the influence the supervisor used. Think of a time when your supervisor asked you to do something, and you did it because you liked or admired that person. Think of a time when your supervisor asked you to do something, and you did it because the supervisor offered you something you valued in return for completing the task. Think of a time when your supervisor asked you to do something, and you did it because the supervisor had the authority over you to demand you do what the supervisor asked. Think of a time when your supervisor asked you to do something, and you did it because the supervisor was an expert in the thing the supervisor asked you to do. Think of a time when your supervisor asked you to do something, and you did it because you were afraid something negative would happen to you if you didn’t.

How the follower views the leader or the type of power base (influence) the leader uses impacts the follower’s motivation to complete the task.

• The Follower’s Needs: A follower’s needs impact the follower’s motivation and how the follower is influenced. To this end, Abraham Maslowdeveloped a hierarchy of needs theory that proposes people are motivated based on needs. Maslow’s hierarchy includes the following five needs:

• Physiological: These are basic needs such as food and water. A person’s job and salary would most likely address this need.
• Safety: The fulfillment of this need includes a safe environment, free from threats and violence. Job security at one’s work most likely will address this need.
• Belongingness: The fulfillment of this need includes being accepted, building friendships, and becoming part of a group or team. At work, this need is attained by building good relationships with coworkers and supervisors, and participation on a group or team.
• Esteem: This need relates to a positive self-image. This need is fulfilled when a person attains responsibility, status, and/or recognition at work.
• Self-actualization: This need represents the quest for self-fulfillment. At work, this need is fulfilled when one is given opportunities to learn, grow, and advance within the organization.     

• The Follower’s Followership Style: Robert Kelley identified five distinct followership styles (alienated, conformist, passive, pragmatic, and exemplar) that individuals fall into based on their adult development phase, needs, behavior, and the relationship they have with the leader.

The alienated follower is characterized by a negative attitude towards the leader and the organization. The alienated follower is critical and resistant to change and may feel powerless or unsupported. While the alienated follower may have valuable insights and perspectives, the alienated follower’s negative attitude can make him or her challenging to work with and may hinder organizational success.

The conformist follower is characterized by a strong desire to fit in and follow the rules. The conformist follower is known as a “yes person.” While the conformist follower is reliable and dependable, the lack of independent thinking can limit the conformist follower’s potential to contribute new ideas and perspectives to the organization.

The passive follower is characterized by a lack of engagement, critical thinking, and initiative. The passive follower may be indifferent to the leader and the organization and may simply go through the motions without taking ownership or responsibility. The passive follower fails to make meaningful contributions to the organization’s success.

The pragmatic follower is known as a survivor. The pragmatic follower is a chameleon, who often moves between the other followership styles, depending on the leader or the mood of the organization.

The exemplary follower is characterized by a strong commitment to the leader and the organization. The exemplary follower is a critical, independent thinker, who is also proactive, dependable, and willing to accept responsibility. The exemplary follower is creative and innovative and actively seeks out opportunities to contribute to the organization’s success. The exemplary follower is committed to supporting the organization’s vision and goal and is willing to tactfully and respectfully speak up when he or she disagrees with the leader.

• The Situation: This element is based on the leader-follower relationship and idiosyncrasy credit theory. The situation occurs in the leadership moment when the leader decides on a course of action. The followers will view the leaders’ actions/decisions based on the group’s norms, the group’s expectations, and the impact the decision has (positively or negatively) on the group.   

Idiosyncrasy credits are the currency of trust in leadership. They represent the balance of trust a leader has with their followers and can be spent or saved depending on the leader’s actions and decisions. Leaders build idiosyncrasy credits with their followers by consistently meeting their followers’ expectations, making what are considered good and fair decisions, and demonstrating integrity. Leaders lose idiosyncrasy credits if they make poor decisions, treat followers poorly, demonstrate a lack of competence, or go against the group’s norms.

Putting it all Together: The Effective Leader’s Approach

Leaders succeed or fail based on how they view and interact with their followers, the types of power bases they rely on to influence, their willingness to understand and meet their followers’ needs, and their ability to build idiosyncrasy credits/trust with their followers. Here are 10 things effective leaders do:

• Embrace Theory Y Assumptions:  Effective leaders adopt a theory Y mindset. They trust and empower their team and believe individuals are naturally motivated to excel. This view of people sets the stage for a positive and productive leader-follower relationship.

• Leverage Referent Power: Effective leaders wield referent power. They lead by example, modeling the behavior and values they expect from their followers. They inspire loyalty and commitment by earning trust, respect, and admiration, which makes their influence enduring.

• Leverage Expert Power: Effective leaders recognize that knowledge is a powerful influencer. They continually enhance their own expertise and readily share it with their followers. Effective leaders provide guidance and mentorship based on a deep understanding of their field and leverage their knowledge to empower their followers to excel and grow.

• Use All The Power Bases as Needed: Effectiveleaders tend to use of the referent and expert power bases to influence their followers. That said, effective leaders understand and will use all the power bases depending on the follower’s needs, followership style, and the situation.  

• Tailor Influence: Effective leaders tailor their influence strategies to align with each of their follower’s needs. Effective leaders ensure that each team member’s physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization needs are met to foster a motivated and engaged workforce.

• Adapt to Followership Styles: Effective leaders recognize the diversity of followership styles within their followers. Effective leaders adapt their leadership approach to meet the unique needs and behaviors of each follower, ensuring that everyone can contribute effectively to the organization’s goals.

• Build and Maintain Idiosyncrasy Credits: Effective leaders continually invest in their trust bank by consistently meeting the group’s expectations, making sound decisions, and demonstrating unwavering integrity. By doing so, they accumulate idiosyncrasy credits that serve as a reserve of trust to draw upon when faced with challenging decisions or change initiatives.

• Foster a Positive Leadership Moment: Effective leaders understand that the leadership moment—the intersection of leader, follower, and situation—is where their influence is most potent. They create an environment where followers feel heard, valued, and empowered to contribute their best. In this atmosphere, leadership moments become opportunities for growth and innovation.

• Adapt to Changing Contexts: Leadership is not static; it evolves with changing circumstances. Effective leaders remain flexible and adjust their leadership approach/style to suit the context. Whether faced with a crisis, a new project, or a shift in team dynamics, they adapt while staying true to their core principles.

• Cultivate a Culture of Influence and Motivation: Effective leaders aim to cultivate a culture where influence and motivation are shared and propagated throughout the organization. Effective leaders inspire their followers to become leaders and create a culture of empowerment, innovation, and excellence.

The journey of mastering the art of influence and motivation in leadership is an ongoing one. Effective leaders understand that leadership is a science and an art. Effective leadership is about understanding the science and consistently applying it artfully, with authenticity and empathy. By embracing theory Y assumptions, using the power bases correctly, understanding individual needs, adapting to followership styles, and building trust through idiosyncrasy credits, leaders create lasting and meaningful impacts on their followers and organizations.

Today’s training bulletin will discuss consent searches at homes. The bulletin will discuss United States Supreme Court, 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Colorado court decisions concerning such searches. Before getting started, as always, I am going to read this disclaimer:

Bulletin Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney and make no claim to be an attorney. I developed this scenario/training bulletin based on my 38 years of law enforcement experience, my professional application of the Fourth Amendment (based on case law) in the field as a law enforcement officer, and my extensive study of case law pertaining to search and seizure.   

I developed and am providing this training bulletin for information only. I make no claim that my interpretations and perceptions of case law provided in the answers to the scenarios are correct in any or all circumstances. All government agents and any other person gathering information from this presentation should consult their respective law enforcement agencies, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. 

Let’s Begin

I field a lot of questions concerning an officer’s ability to seek a consent search of a residence, specifically when two people with standing (authority to grant consent) are at the home. As such, for this bulletin, I am providing two common scenarios officers face when going to a home to conduct a knock and talk and seek consent to search the home. The answer, analysis, and case law information follow each scenario.

Scenario #1:

Officers go to a residence to conduct a “knock and talk” on a home that they suspect the occupants to be selling illegal narcotics from. Upon contacting the two residents of the location, both of which have unlimited access to anywhere in the home, the officers are invited in, at which time the officers observed some crack cocaine on a coffee table in the living room in plain view. Upon the officers seeing the crack cocaine, one of the residents spontaneously stated “Oh shit, that’s my crack cocaine.” The officers arrested the resident. The officers asked the in-custody resident if they could search the residence for additional narcotics and the resident said “no.” One of the officers escorted the in-custody resident to a patrol car while the other officer began talking to the other resident. During the course of the conversation, the other resident granted consent to the officers to search the home. The officers found additional narcotics. Was the consent/search valid or did the searching of the home constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

The search is valid. According to the Court in Georgia v. Randolph (2006), “a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid to him.”

However, in Fernandez v. California (2014), the Court further clarified that if one party revokes consent and officers have a valid reason to remove the individual from the residence (e.g., probable cause to arrest), after the suspect is removed, officers can go back up to the residence and contact the other party. If that person consents to the search the residence, officers can proceed. The key is that the suspect is no longer present when consent is granted.

What happens if the individual that officers believe will not grant consent is present at the residence, but officers do not ask the individual for consent (rather they ask another person with standing for consent to search and that person grants consent) and the individual fails to tell the officers they cannot search?

The consent is valid. According to the Court in Georgia v. Randolph:

 [I]f a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out . . . [s]o long as there is no evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection . . . .

This position was further clarified in the 11^th Circuit Court’s United States v. Morales decision. According to the 11^th Circuit, “had Morales objected to the search, it might be different. But he didn’t. And his failure to do so rests on him. “[A] man who does not speak when he ought, shall not be heard when he desires to speak.”

Case Law: Georgia v. Randolph (2006); Fernandez v. California (2014); United States v. Morales (11^th Cir., 2018).

Scenario #2:

Officers responded to a home concerning found property. Upon arriving, officers contacted a woman in the driveway of the residence. The woman lives in the home with her husband. The woman, who has unlimited access to anywhere in the home, tells officers that she was in the master bedroom when she opened a duffle bag belonging to her husband and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside the bag. The woman invited the officers inside the home to retrieve the meth and drug paraphernalia. As the officers entered the home and walked into the living room, the officers saw the husband sitting in the living room watching television.  Two of the officers stood in the living room with the husband while one of the officers accompanied the woman to the master bedroom to recover the drugs and paraphernalia. One of the officers in the living room told the husband the officers were there to assist in a civil standby. The husband told the officers they could not search and to leave the residence. While the officers were talking to the husband and after the husband told the officers to leave, the woman handed the officer (who accompanied the woman to the master bedroom) the open duffle bag and the officer recovered the drugs and paraphernalia. The officers subsequently arrested the husband for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Was the recovery of the drugs and paraphernalia and arrest of the husband legal, or did the recovery of the drugs and paraphernalia (and the husband’s arrest) violate the husband’s Fourth Amendment rights because the husband, who also has unlimited access to anywhere in the home, told the officers to leave the location prior to the officer’s recovery of the drugs and paraphernalia?

The recovery of the drugs and paraphernalia, and arrest of the husband is legal. The husband, although present at the residence, was not present when the consent was granted by the wife. The husband’s objection had to be contemporaneous with the wife’s consent to the officers in order for the objection to trump the consent.  

The United States Supreme Court, in its Georgia v. Randolph (2006) decision drew a fine line concerning the consent to search a residence when two parties are present and one consents while the other objects. The Court opined that the objecting party (the husband in the above scenario) must object at the door in order for the objection to overrule the consent. The Court wrote the following:

We have to admit that we are drawing a fine line; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in its People v. Williams (2019) decision reiterated the Court’s Georgia v. Randolph opinion. Additionally, the Colorado Supreme Court provided further clarification and guidance concerning a consent objector’s presence on the premises and when the objector’s objection is applicable:   

Mr. Williams urges us to hold that after Fernandez, the Randolph exception applies if the objector was “present on the premises,” even if he was not actually at the threshold of the residence.  Although we agree that the requirement of physical presence refers to being present on the premises—whether at the threshold of the premises, elsewhere on the premises, or near the premises—Mr. Williams’s reading of Fernandez is incomplete and thus incorrect.  Randolph’s narrow exception applies only if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the objecting occupant must have been physically present on the premises as officers “propose[d] to make a consent search”; and (2) the objecting occupant must have objected as officers “propose[d] to make a consent search.” 

Case Law: People v. Williams (Colo. 2019), Georgia v. Randolph (2006), Fernandez v. California (2014).

Takeaways

The federal and state court decisions provided in this training bulletin highlight the importance of officers knowing, understanding, and following case law concerning asking for and gaining consent to search a home.

• Randolph’s narrow exception concerning gaining consent to search a home applies only if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the objecting occupant must be physically present on the premises as officers “propose[d] to make a consent search”; and (2) the objecting occupant must object as officers “propose[d] to make a consent search.”

• If one party revokes consent and officers have a valid reason to remove the individual from the residence (e.g., probable cause to arrest), after the suspect is removed, officers can go back up to the residence and contact the other party. If that person consents to the search the residence, officers can proceed.

• Officers cannot remove a potential objector from the home without a valid reason. If there is evidence officers removed a potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection, the consent search (following the removal) will be suppressed.

• A potential objector who is present and fails to object/speak up when officers ask for consent, cannot contest the granted consent. “[A] man who does not speak when he ought, shall not be heard when he desires to speak.”

I hope you found this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions on this topic or other topics.

Today’s training bulletin discusses open carry of firearms in Colorado. Before getting started, as always, I am going to read this disclaimer:

Bulletin Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney and make no claim to be an attorney. I developed this scenario/training bulletin based on my 38 years of law enforcement experience, my professional application of the Fourth Amendment (based on case law) in the field as a law enforcement officer, and my extensive study of case law pertaining to search and seizure.   

I developed and am providing this training bulletin for information only. I make no claim that my interpretations and perceptions of case law provided in the answers to the scenarios are correct in any or all circumstances. All government agents and any other person gathering information from this presentation should consult their respective law enforcement agencies, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. 

Let’s Begin

I routinely field questions concerning the open carry of firearms and what officers can legally do when contacting someone openly carrying a firearm. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide officers with a clear understanding of Art. II, § 13 of Colorado’s Constitution, to discuss the legality of openly carrying a firearm in Colorado and in Home Rule jurisdictions; to explain how the rules governing reasonable suspicion contacts apply to individuals openly carrying firearms, and to address how officers can proceed when contacting individuals openly carry in a public place.

Do people have a legal right to open carry in Colorado?

Yes, most people do have a legal right to open carry in Colorado. Art. II, § 13 of Colorado’s Constitution states the following: 

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. 

I must note that Colorado does not allow everyone the right to bear arms. Convicted felons (See CRS 18-12-108), people convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, and people deemed to have disqualifying mental health histories are prohibited from possessing firearms. Additionally, Colorado does not allow the open carry of firearms in schools and government buildings. Individuals are prohibited from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or is on the grounds of an educational facility. I must also note that Colorado does not allow the open carry of firearms in schools and those government buildings which are posted as not allowing open carry or are equipped with metal detectors at all entrances. (The metal detector situation prohibits the carrying of firearms in the building even if the individual has a CCW permit).  

Colorado allows local governments to enact ordinances, regulations, or other laws that prohibit the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the respective local government’s jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government must post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

Finally, Colorado private businesses can prohibit people from openly carrying in their respective business. The business must post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited; or the business must verbally inform the individual that the carrying of a firearm is prohibited. This applies to the carrying of all firearms, even if the individual has a CCW permit.

Open carry of firearms in Home Rule jurisdictions

Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution is the home rule amendment. Home rule provides municipalities the ability to address local issues and concerns more directly and tailor laws and regulations to suit their specific needs and circumstances. Home rule allows such jurisdictions to respond to the unique characteristics and demands of their respective communities, promoting local decision-making and participation. Home rule municipalities have the power to enact more restrictive regulations than state laws. That stated, such municipalities cannot adopt regulations that are less restrictive. This balance ensures that local governments can effectively govern while still operating within the framework of state laws and the constitution.

Denver is an example of a home rule city and county that has adopted more restrictive laws concerning the open carry of firearms. In 2003, Denver successfully defended its open carry ordinance against the state in the landmark case Denver v. State of Colorado. The judge opined, “the State’s interest in allowing the general open carry of firearms is insubstantial and is far outweighed by Denver’s local interest in regulating firearms more strictly in an urbanized area.” As such, it is unlawful to openly carry a firearm in Denver.

With the exception of Denver and other home rule jurisdictions, does the mere open carry of a firearm create probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual openly carrying is engaged in, about to be engaged in, or has just committed some type of criminal activity?

Colorado is an open carry state. Colorado defines open carry as the act of publicly carrying a firearm in plain sight. Plain sight means the firearm is in plain view and not concealed. As such, in Colorado, the mere open carrying of a firearm does not create probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual openly carrying is engaged in, about to be engaged in, or has just committed some type of criminal activity.

The Fourth Amendment, Terry stops, and reasonable suspicion

The Fourth Amendment, a constitutionally protected right granted to individuals, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Police conduct that rises to the level of an arrest requires probable cause under the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). There are, however, certain encounters between police and private citizens, called Terry stops, that fall short of the intrusiveness of a full arrest. These encounters require “necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat” (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [1968]). When conducting a Terry stop, a police officer may briefly detain an individual for questioning if the officer has “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity `may be afoot.'” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868); see also United States v. Wright, 582 F.3d 199, 205 (1st Cir.2009).

In a 2006 memorandum to the Senate concerning the meaning of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, the American Law Division wrote this about reasonable suspicion:

Reasonable suspicion has been described as “something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. .. . [as a] level of suspicion . . . considerable less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. . . . [as a] . . . level of suspicion . . . obviously less demanding than that for probable cause. . . [but a level of] suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity “may be afoot,” even if the officer lacks probable cause,” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); as “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing,”United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002); and as “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity,” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 690, citing, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). It is a standard that may be invoked for a warrantless search or seizure at less than probable cause when in the totality of the circumstances at hand substantial public interests outweigh the minimal loss of personal freedom of movement and privacy imposed in a manner limited in time and nature.

In determining whether a Terry stop is justified, the Court’s inquiry involves two steps: (1), “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception”; (2) “whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Additionally, under Terry, the test is whether the circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; not whether the defendant’s actions are subject to no reasonable innocent explanation.” United States v. Stanley, 915 F.2d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1990).

In general, A Terry Stop is authorized if the officer’s action is supported by an articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. The key words are articulable, reasonable, suspicion, and “afoot.”  Now let us look at the contextual meaning of these words

1.   Articulable – the officer must be able to write in his or her report specific factual statements, which support his or her reasonable suspicion.  This does not include conclusions such as “a hunch” or other similar terms.

2.   Reasonable – the suspicion that the officer is able to articulate must be intelligent, logical, sensible, or sound. 

3.   Suspicion – this is simply the act of suspecting that something is wrong.  An apprehension or foreboding that something is criminally wrong.  In articulating this suspicion, the officer does not have to state what criminal activity he or she believe might be afoot. 

4.   Afoot – this simply means in progress.

Now that we have the “common sense” definitions, we will discuss the balance standard the Supreme Court established concerning reasonable suspicion and Terry stops.

The balance between the public interest and an individual’s right to personal security tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in cases of an investigatory stop falling short of the traditional arrest and the Fourth Amendment is satisfied, if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. United States v. Arvizu 534 U.S. 266 (2002)  

Concerning the Court’s statement, Aurora City Attorney George Zierk emphasizes “the balance between the public interest and an individual’s right to person security tilts” towards the public interest.  In the open carry scenario(s), with the recent shootings that have occurred, Mr. Zierk opines that the mere open carrying of a firearm carries more weight toward the public interest, than in many other situations.  Mr. Zierk further offers that the “more deadly” the firearm the higher the public interest.

The second standard the Supreme Court provides is that in making reasonable suspicion determinations, we must look at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to determine if there is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.  The totality of the circumstances includes:

1.   Specific observations including:

a.   Location

i.    High crime area

ii.   Sensitive areas such as schools, courthouses and other places where people may gather

b.   The suspect’s behavior

i.    Flight from law enforcement

ii.   Skulking (i.e., to lie in hiding)

iii.  Nervousness,

iv.  Attempts to elude the officer

c.   The time of day or night

d.   Whether the individual is wearing clothes affiliated with some violent gang or sect.

e.   The individual is carrying a firearm and looks to be younger than 18 years of age

2.   An officer’s experience and training:

a.   The Court will give deference to law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions, but keep in mind inchoate suspicions and un-particularized hunches do not provide reasonable suspicion.

i.    In drawing on their experience and training, the officer may make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them.

ii.   Officers are entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of their specialized training and familiarity with the custom of the area’s character and inhabitants.

The Supreme Court has recognized there are circumstances in which wholly lawful conduct might justify the suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.  The Court also explained that reasonable suspicion may exist even where it might be more likely than not that the individual is not involved in any illegality.  The Terry stop process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities.  In such circumstances, practical people formulated certain common sense conclusions about human behavior and law enforcement officers are permitted to do the same. Terry stops are for situations where an officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his “on-the-spot observations,” and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented.” Schubert v. City of Springfield, 589 F.3d 496, 501 (1st Cir. 2009).

Does Colorado’s Constitution abrogate Terry v. Ohio (1968) and the ability for Colorado law enforcement officers to contact and detain individuals who are openly carrying?

Colorado is an open carry state. But, open carry does not abrogate Terry v. Ohio (1968) or the ability for Colorado law enforcement officers to contact and detain an individual who is openly carrying based on a reason to believe the individual is engaged in, is about to be engaged in, or has just committed some type of criminal activity.

How should officers proceed when observing an individual openly carrying a firearm in a public place?

We will now apply what we have learned to the following scenario:

An officer is patrolling eastbound on Alameda Ave. just east of Sable Blvd., when he sees an adult male walking westbound on the south side sidewalk of Alameda Ave. (approaching Sable Blvd.), in the direction of the Town Center of Aurora, openly carrying an AK-47 style rifle slung over his shoulder. Knowing that Colorado is an open carry state and having a clear understanding of Article II, § 13 of Colorado’s Constitution, how can the officer contact the male? Can the officer articulate reasonable suspicion to contact the male?

Answer: An officer can conduct a consensual contact, sit back and watch the individual, contact the male based on reasonable suspicion if articulable facts support such a contact, or contact the male based on probable cause. We will examine each of these responses below.

Conduct a consensual contact on the male

Knowing that individuals have a right to openly carry, an officer can conduct a consensual contact of the male, attempt to engage the male in conversation, and based on that conversation determine if the officer can develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual is engaged in, about to be engaged in, or has just committed some type of criminal activity.

A consensual contact, in all probability, is the least desirable type of contact for obvious reasons. That being said, if an officer chooses to consensually contact the male, the following are some things to remember: (1) an officer cannot demand anything from the male, (2) an officer cannot require the male to answer any questions or engage in conversation, and (3) an officer cannot impede the male’s ability to continue walking.

Sit back and watch the individual

An officer can watch the male and see if the male does anything that would give the officer reasonable suspicion to contact and detain or probable cause to contact and arrest the individual.

Contact the male based on reasonable suspicion

This is perhaps the most controversial type of contact, because of the fact that individuals can openly carry firearms in Colorado. However, if an officer can articulate one or more factors that give rise to reasonable suspicion (as discussed at length above); an officer can conduct a Terry stop on the individual. Once an officer’s articulable factors reach the reasonable suspicion threshold, an officer can take measures to protect himself (e.g., by pointing his gun at the individual or ordering the individual to put the gun down and get into a prone position). Additionally, when conducting a Terry stop, an officer can require the detained individual to provide identification and to answer questions relating to the reasonable suspicion for the stop. I strongly suggest an officer in this situation remain calm and professional; and clearly explaining to the individual the legal reason for the contact (e.g., the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be afoot; the individual is required to identify himself to the officer and answer the officer’s questions; and the ramifications the individual may face if he fails to comply with the officer’s commands).  

If the individual refuses to identify himself or refuses to answer questions related to the reason for the stop, then the individual is in violation of CRS 16-3-103.

16-3-103. Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person’s social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest. (2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

Contact the individual based on probable cause

An officer can contact an individual who is openly carrying a firearm based on probable cause. “Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a person has committed a crime” (Colorado Peace Officer’s Legal Source Book, 2009, p. 365). Examples of probable cause to contact and arrest an individual openly carrying a firearm exists include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The individual is under 18 years old and openly carrying a handgun.

• The individual is within 1,000 feet of a school or is on the grounds of an educational facility. As mentioned previously, Colorado does not allow the open carry of firearms in schools and those government buildings, which are posted as not allowing open carry or are equipped with metal detectors at all entrances. (The metal detector situation prohibits the carrying of firearms in the building even if the individual has a CCW permit).

• The individual is in a park.

• The individual is in a business or location that prohibits the carrying of firearms. As mentioned previously, business must post signs at public entrances to the building or in a specific area where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited; or businesses must verbally inform the individual that the carrying of a firearm is prohibited. This applies to the carrying of all firearms, even if the individual has a CCW permit.

• The officer knows the individual is not legally allowed to possess a firearm.      

Wrapping up

The open carry of firearms is becoming more prevalent each passing day. As such, officers must have a clear understanding of the meaning of open carry, Article II, § 13 of Colorado’s Constitution, the options available to officers when confronting someone who is openly carrying a firearm, the articulation needed for reasonable suspicion to contact an individual who is openly carrying, what an officer can do to protect himself or herself when contacting an armed person based on reasonable suspicion, and the appropriate municipal code charge for uncooperative individuals contacted based on reasonable suspicion.  

I know I could not address every possible scenario in this training bulletin, so as always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification.

This installment of The Corner will tackle the “cellphone searches incident to arrest.”

Today’s training bulletin will discuss cellphone searches incident to arrest. The bulletin will discuss United States Supreme Court’s decision concerning such searches. Before getting started, as always, I am going to read this disclaimer:

Bulletin Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney and make no claim to be an attorney. I developed this scenario/training bulletin based on my 38 years of law enforcement experience, my professional application of the Fourth Amendment (based on case law) in the field as a law enforcement officer, and my extensive study of case law pertaining to search and seizure.   

I developed and am providing this training bulletin for information only. I make no claim that my interpretations and perceptions of case law provided in the answers to the scenarios are correct in any or all circumstances. All government agents and any other person gathering information from this presentation should consult their respective law enforcement agencies, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. 

Let’s Begin

The purpose of this training bulletin is to provide a brief overview of the Court’s ruling concerning the Riley v. California (2014) and United States v. Wurie (2014) cases dealing with officers searching a suspect’s cell phone incident to arrest. The Court addressed both cases in its ruling.

The Riley v. California (2014) and United States v. Wurie (2014) Cases

Facts: Concerning Riley, he was stopped for a traffic violation, which eventually led to his arrest on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley incident to the arrest seized a cell phone from Riley’s pants pocket. The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed the repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. At the police station two hours later, a detective specializing in gangs further examined the phone’s digital contents. Based in part on photographs and videos that the detective found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier and sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. Riley moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Concerning Wurie, he was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale. At the police station, the officers seized a cell phone from Wurie’s person and noticed that the phone was receiving multiple calls from a source identified as “my house” on its external screen. The officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, determined the number associated with the “my house” label, and traced that number to what they suspected was Wurie’s apartment. Officers secured a search warrant for Wurie’s apartment and found drugs, a firearm, ammunition, and cash (in the ensuing search). Wurie was charged with drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the apartment. The District Court denied the motion, and Wurie was convicted.

Riley and Wurie appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari for both.

Issue: Can the police, “without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested”?

Holding: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Reasoning: The Court, in its reasoning, went through the history of search incident to arrest, citing several cases including the following:

• Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), which reasoned that officer safety concerns warrant a search of the arrested person and the immediate area around him to locate weapons the arrestee may use to resist arrest or escape.
• United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), which applied the Chimel analysis to the search of the arrestee’s person: Custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.
• United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 15 (1977), which clarified Robinson and offered that the search incident to arrest applied to the arrestee’s “personal property . . . immediately associated with the person of the arrestee.”
• Arizona v. Gant (2009) in which the Court opined, “Gant added, however, an independent exception for a warrantless search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment “when it is „reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.‟”

The Court’s Reasoning

The Court then turned its focus on Riley and Wurie and differentiated these cases from the aforementioned cases, due to the technological advances in cell phones offering that such technology was “nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago, when Chimel and Robinson were decided. The Court opined that, “absent more precise guidance from the founding era,” it had to “determine whether to exempt a given type of search from the warrant requirement “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”

The following are excerpts from the Court‟s opinion that compare and contrast the officer safety focus in the Robinson and Chimel opinions with Riley and Wurie, to explain the Court‟s reasoning:

But while Robinson‟s categorical rule strikes the appropriate balance in the context of physical objects, neither of its rationales has much force with respect to digital content on cell phones.

Cell phones, however, place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search considered in Robinson. We therefore decline to extend Robinson to searches of data on cell phones, and hold instead that officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting such a search.

Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon— say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.

To the extent dangers to arresting officers may be implicated in a particular way in a particular case, they are better addressed through consideration of case-specific exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the one for exigent circumstances.

In addition to the officer safety discussion, the Court weighed in on privacy issues and the Government and State’s arguments concerning exigency issues dealing with the ability to wipe the cell phone if officers do not immediately view the cell phone’s contents. The following are excerpts from the Court’s opinion that explain the Court’s reasoning about such issues:

With respect to remote wiping, the Government’s primary concern turns on the actions of

third parties who are not present at the scene of arrest. And data encryption is even further afield. There, the Government focuses on the ordinary operation of a phone’s security features, apart from any active attempt by a defendant or his associates to conceal or destroy evidence upon arrest. We have also been given little reason to believe that either problem is prevalent.

As to remote wiping, law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. There are at least two simple ways to do this: First, law enforcement officers can turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems, they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves.

If “the police are truly confronted with a „now or never‟ situation,”—for example, circumstances suggesting that a defendant’s phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt—they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately.

Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse.

The Bottom Line:

Officers cannot search cell phones incident to arrest. In order to search the cell phone

of an arrestee, the officer will need one of the following:

• The arrestee’s consent to search the cell phone
• A clear and strongly articulated exigency exception. The Court authored the following comments concerning exigencies:

Such exigencies could include the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases, to pursue a fleeing suspect, and to assist persons who are seriously injured or are threatened with imminent injury. In Chadwick, for example, the Court held that the exception for searches incident to arrest did not justify a search of the trunk at issue, but noted that “if officers have reason to believe that luggage contains some immediately dangerous instrumentality, such as explosives, it would be foolhardy to transport it to the station house without opening the luggage.”

In light of the availability of the exigent circumstances exception, there is no reason to believe that law enforcement officers will not be able to address some of the more extreme hypotheticals that have been suggested: a suspect texting an accomplice who, it is feared, is preparing to detonate a bomb, or a child abductor who may have information about the child’s location on his cell phone. The defendants here recognize-indeed, they stress-that such fact-specific threats may justify a warrantless search of cell phone data.

·    A warrant based on probable cause.

I hope this information provides clarification concerning searching a suspect’s cell phone incident to arrest. As always, if you have any questions, let me know. Eric

Hi all! As we continue our exploration into power bases, it is time to discuss legitimate power.

Legitimate power is the backbone of authority in the realm of leadership, setting it apart from other power bases. Unlike personal or relationship-based power (i.e. referent power), legitimate power is derived from formal positions within organizational hierarchies and societal structures. It is the power that accompanies a leadership role, providing individuals with the formal right to lead and make decisions. What distinguishes legitimate power is its foundation in the structure and rules of the system. It brings order and stability to organizations by establishing clear lines of authority and defining decision-making processes. When legitimate power is present, teams and individuals understand the chain of command, enabling them to navigate the hierarchy and work efficiently.

Legitimate power serves as the bedrock upon which effective leadership is built. When used correctly, effectively, and responsibly, it becomes a valuable tool in one’s leadership arsenal.   However, if it is used in the wrong way, it can lead to low morale, resistance, and in extreme cases, mutiny. In the following, we will define legitimate power, discuss how one can use it to build trust and respect, positively persuade, and overcome challenges; and discuss the dark side of legitimate power.

Leveraging Legitimate Power: The Art of Persuasion

With a solid foundation of legitimacy established, we will explore the art of persuasion. While legitimate power provides a formal platform for influence, effective communication is essential for leveraging that power. Leaders must master the skill of persuasive communication to inspire and motivate others. Clear and compelling communication helps convey ideas, goals, and expectations, rallying individuals around a shared vision. Active listening plays a crucial role, enabling leaders to understand the needs and perspectives of their team members. Empathy allows leaders to connect on a deeper level, demonstrating genuine care and understanding. Building strong relationships is also vital, as people are more likely to be influenced by someone they trust and feel a connection with. Finding common ground and highlighting shared interests or goals fosters a sense of unity and facilitates collaboration. By honing these communication and relationship-building skills, leaders can effectively leverage their legitimate power and influence others to achieve shared objectives.

Overcoming Challenges: Navigating the Pitfalls

Even with legitimate power at hand, leaders may encounter challenges and pitfalls along their journey. Resistance from subordinates is a common challenge, stemming from factors such as differing perspectives, fear of change, or personal conflicts. To overcome resistance, leaders should engage in open and honest dialogue, address concerns, and seek mutual understanding.

Another challenge lies in the risk of abusing power. Leaders must remain vigilant and self-aware and use their power responsibly and ethically. Transparency, fairness, and checks and balances help prevent the misuse of power. Striking a balance between authority and humility is also crucial. Leaders should demonstrate humility by acknowledging their limitations, admitting mistakes, and seeking input from others. By navigating these challenges with integrity and empathy, leaders can overcome obstacles and maintain the trust and respect essential to their legitimate power.

The Dark Side of Legitimate Power

While legitimate power serves as the backbone of authority in leadership, relying solely on authority to lead can have drawbacks, leading to resistance and low morale among team members. Research has indicated that when leaders depend on their positional authority without considering other factors that contribute to effective leadership, negative consequences may arise.

A downside of relying solely on legitimate power is the potential emergence of resistance. Leaders that use legitimate power as their primary means of influence often create autocratic environments in which employees feel disempowered and voiceless. Studies have shown that individuals are more likely to resist a leader’s orders and/or become disengaged from their work when they perceive their leader as excessively controlling and/or dictatorial. Resistance can manifest itself in various ways including passive-aggressive behavior, decreased productivity, and, in some instances, open defiance.

Further, an overemphasis on authority can result in low morale within the team. Leaders who rely on their formal position to influence employees neglect the importance of fostering a positive work environment built on trust, collaboration, and autonomy. Research has found that employees who feel valued, empowered, and given opportunities for growth tend to be more motivated, satisfied, and productive. On the other hand, leaders who rely on a command-and-control leadership style associated with excessive reliance on authority can stifle creativity, hinder innovation, and create a sense of disengagement among team members.

Wrapping Up

Legitimate power, used responsibly, serves as the backbone of authority. It establishes clear lines of authority, promotes organizational stability, and enables efficient decision-making. Additionally, it provides one in a position of authority with the formal right to lead. However, legitimate power, used recklessly and almost exclusively, can lead to lower employee satisfaction, resistance, and result in low morale. Effective leaders know that balance is key to the effective use of legitimate power. Leaders who take a balanced approach between authority and the use of other power bases that foster empowerment, trust, and collaboration create positive and impactful environments that inspire individuals, teams, and organizations to achieve greatness.

This installment of The Corner will tackle the “inventory searches.”

Bulletin Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney and make no claim to be an attorney. I developed this scenario/training bulletin based on my 38 years of law enforcement experience, my professional application of the Fourth Amendment (based on case law) in the field as a law enforcement officer, and my extensive study of case law pertaining to search and seizure.   

I developed and am providing this training bulletin for information only. I make no claim that my interpretations and perceptions of case law provided in the answers to the scenarios are correct in any or all circumstances. All government agents and any other person gathering information from this presentation should consult their respective law enforcement agencies, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. 

Let’s Begin

I field a lot of questions concerning an officer’s ability to conduct an inventory search of a vehicle when the officer is going to impound it and what the legalities are for charging the occupants (driver and/or passengers) if the officer finds contraband that the officer can form probable cause to believe any or all the occupants had control over the contraband. As such, we will discuss United States Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, and Colorado state court opinions concerning inventory searches; however, first, we will discuss how officers, in my opinion, came to rely on, and become over-reliant on, using inventory searches.

In 2009, The United States Supreme Court rendered its Arizona v. Gant opinion that changed precedent concerning searching a vehicle incident to the arrest of the vehicle’s occupants. The ruling severely curtailed an officer’s ability to warrantlessly search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest. The ruling meant that officers could conduct a search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is unrestrained and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or if the officer has a reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle is unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.  

After the Gant ruling became precedent, officers began relying more on inventory searches to recover contraband, which could lead to additional charges against the vehicle’s occupant(s). I must note that inventory searches could not be used to further criminal investigations but if the inventory search followed standard department policy and protocol if contraband was recovered the occupant(s) could be charged for the contraband.

The recovery of contraband via inventory searches since Gant has led to defense attorneys arguing the vagueness and validity of law enforcement tow policies. Many department’s policies were challenged resulting in the successful suppression (motions) hearings, dismissal of charges against defendants, and departments rewriting their tow policies.

To gain a better understanding of an inventory search, its proper use, and how case law has evolved concerning its use, below we will a few federal and state court cases.                      

United States Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Inventory Searches

• South Dakota v. Opperman (1976): The case of South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) involved a dispute over a routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded car. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the officer’s inventory search of the vehicle in which the officer located marijuana inside the glove compartment violated the Fourth Amendment; however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that inventory searches of impounded vehicles are constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that automobiles have a lesser expectation of privacy compared to homes and offices, and the mobility of vehicles creates exigent circumstances where strict warrant requirements are impractical. Additionally, the Court recognized the legitimate public safety interests and caretaking functions of law enforcement in impounding and inventorying vehicles. The Court concluded that such inventory searches serve the dual purposes of protecting the owner’s property and the police from potential claims or disputes and are therefore reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

• Colorado v. Bertine (1987): The Court, in its review of this case, addressed whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of evidence obtained during the inventory search of a vehicle. The case involved the arrest of Steven Lee Bertine for driving under the influence of alcohol. After Bertine’s arrest, officers conducted an inventory search of Bertine’s van and discovered controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and cash in a closed backpack. Bertine argued that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that officers conducted the inventory search (of Bertine’s vehicle) in accordance with standard police procedures and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court opined that inventory searches serve legitimate government interests, such as protecting the owner’s property, preventing false claims, and ensuring the safety of the police.

• Florida v. Wells (1990): The Court addressed a case where a Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped Wells for speeding and subsequently arrested him for driving under the influence. The officer conducted an inventory search of Wells’ car, and during the search, the officer located a locked suitcase in the trunk. The officer forced open the suitcase and found marijuana inside. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the Florida Highway Patrol had no specific policy governing the opening of closed containers during inventory searches. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the need for standardized criteria or an established routine for inventory searches and concluding that the search, in this case, was not sufficiently regulated.

In summary, the Court established that inventory searches are constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, considering the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles and the practicality of warrant requirements in mobile situations. The Court opined that inventory searches serve legitimate purposes, such as protecting property, preventing false claims, and ensuring officer safety. However, the Court made it clear that law enforcement agencies to have standardized criteria or established routines for conducting inventory searches to maintain the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. The absence of such regulations can lead to a violation of constitutional rights, as seen in the Florida v. Wells case.

The 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. v. Sanders (2015):

• U.S. v. Sanders (2015): Aurora (Colorado) Police Department (APD) officers were looking for Sanders, who had an outstanding probation warrant for violating her probation terms in relation to a controlled substance charge. The officers found Sanders’ vehicle in a store parking lot and then saw Sanders and another person come out of the store. The officers contacted Sanders and the other person and arrested Sanders for the warrant. The officers decided to impound Sanders’ vehicle because they believed that due to the criminal activity in the area, the car, which contained much of Sanders’ belongings, would most likely get broken into or stolen if left in the parking lot. The officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle, located illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle, and charged Sanders.   

I am intimately aware of this decision as this was an Aurora (Colorado) Police Department arrest (APD). I was a Captain at APD and received a telephone call from the arresting officer immediately after the federal magistrate suppressed the inventory search of Sanders’ vehicle. The officer, who had just testified, called me to tell me about the Magistrate’s ruling. The officer told me the magistrate suppressed the search for two reasons: (1) Sanders’ vehicle was on private property and APD’s tow (impoundment) policy does not address criteria/standard protocols for impounding vehicles on private property, and (2) APD’s policy does not address criteria for impounding vehicles based on community caretaking concerns.

As I talked with the officer, I reviewed APD’s policy and told the officer the magistrate’s ruling was correct. After my discussion with the officer, I immediately contacted Aurora’s Deputy City Attorney to tell him about the ruling and let him know that we needed to change APD’s tow policy and possibly the city’s vehicle impound ordinance. The Deputy City Attorney told me he believed APD’s policy and the city’s ordinance were fine and that he believed the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals would overturn the magistrate’s ruling. Well, approximately three months later, the 10th Circuit affirmed the magistrate’s ruling.  The 10th Circuit determined the vehicle’s impoundment was unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) it was not guided by the 21 standardized criteria identified in the City of Aurora’s ordinance; and (2) it was not justified by a legitimate community-caretaking rationale. The 10^th Circuit held “that impoundment of a vehicle located on private property that is neither obstructing traffic nor creating an imminent threat to public safety is constitutional only if justified by both a standardized policy and a reasonable, nonpretextual community-caretaking rationale.”

The 10th Circuit’s ruling led to the rewriting (actually I rewrote the policy with review by the APD’s legal advisor) of APD’s impoundment policy and adding community caretaking language.

Several Colorado court opinions, which we will identify and briefly discuss below, have followed the Sanders decision, and have further restricted an officer’s ability to conduct an inventory search and impound a vehicle.  

Recent Colorado Court Decisions Affecting Inventory Searches

• People v. Brown (Colo. 2018): This is another case involving the APD. In this case, APD officers received an anonymous report of a suspicious person driving a gray BMW in the area. Officers observed a gray BMW fail to stop at a stop sign. The officers pulled the vehicle over and discovered the driver was driving on a suspended license. The officers decided to issue a summons and release the driver and impound the driver’s vehicle pursuant to routine police procedure authorized by the city’s ordinance. The officers inventoried the vehicle’s contents in preparation for tow and discovered several bags of crack cocaine inside the vehicle. The officers subsequently arrested the driver. The Colorado Supreme Court held the inventory search violated the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The Colorado Supreme Court specifically found:

The record failed to demonstrate that the seizure of the defendant’s vehicle was justified as an exercise of the police caretaking function or was otherwise reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of local ordinances or police policies and procedures broad enough to grant the officers discretion to impound the vehicle of a driver merely summoned rather than arrested for driving with a suspended license.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that impoundment of the Defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search after the officer issued a citation for driving while license suspended was outside the scope of the officer’s community caretaking function.

• People v. Quick (2018): In this case,an officer observed a vehicle, driven by a sole male occupant, commit several traffic violations. The officer activated his patrol vehicle’s emergency lights, and the male pulled the vehicle into the private parking lot of a liquor store. The male got out of his car and began walking toward the store. The officer contacted the male and asked for his driver’s license. The male ultimately produced an ID card rather than a valid driver’s license. The officer realized that he had previously contacted the male and that the officer (on the prior contact) arrested the male for possession of a weapon by a previous offender (POWPO). The officer ordered the male to return to his vehicle. The officer verified that the male’s had a suspended license. The officer patted-down the male, informed the male he was going to receive a summons for driving on a suspended license, and his vehicle was going to be impounded. The officer told the male he was going to look inside the car for its VIN number and while doing so, the officer saw a gun in plain view inside the vehicle. The officer recovered the gun and arrested the male for POWPO.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in its People v. Quick (2018) opinion, found that where Quick was merely cited, and not actually arrested, for driving with a suspended license, and where the only justification offered for seizing his car was the likelihood that he would continue to drive and thereby endanger public safety, the initial seizure of his car did not fall within the community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

• People v. Allen (2019): This is a rather lengthy scenario so bear with me.

An officer on patrol observed a vehicle run a stop sign. The officer pulled in behind the vehicle and attempted to initiate a traffic stop for the traffic violation. The officer activated the patrol vehicle’s emergency lighting equipment; however, the vehicle, containing two occupants, failed to yield. The vehicle traveled for a few blocks before pulling into a hotel parking lot. Before the vehicle stopped, it traveled at a very slow speed in the parking lot for a long distance (approximately the length of a city block). The officer noticed the vehicle’s front seat passenger ducked down in the front seat several times and the officer believed the passenger’s actions were consistent with someone who may be attempting to hide something under the seat. The officer sounded his patrol vehicle’s siren a couple of times and the vehicle finally pulled into a spot in the parking lot and stopped. Another officer arrived as the vehicle stopped and both officers approached the vehicle and contacted the occupants. The driver provided a valid driver’s license but could not provide the vehicle’s registration or insurance. The driver told the officer he was in the process of purchasing the vehicle from the registered owner. The passenger verbally identified himself to the officers. One of the officers recognized the passenger’s name from a briefing by other officers in which the officers had information the passenger was carrying a handgun and selling methamphetamine. Based on the passenger’s movements prior to the vehicle stopping and the information the officers had concerning the passenger, the officers asked the passenger to exit the vehicle so an officer could pat-down the passenger. No weapons were located on the passenger. One of the officers then conducted a brief search of the passenger seat area for weapons and located one live round of ammunition. One of the officers began talking with the driver who was still seated in the vehicle. The officer asked the driver to exit the vehicle and the driver complied. The officer conducted a pat-down search of the driver and did not locate any weapons. The officer then asked the driver if there were any guns or illegal drugs in the vehicle, and the driver said that he was not allowed to own a gun because he was a convicted felon.

The passenger then asked the officers if he could leave, and the officers said yes. The officers then told the driver he was receiving a ticket for running the stop sign and failing to provide insurance. The officers also told the driver he would be free to leave once the ticket was issued but the officers were going to impound the vehicle due to the lack of registration and proof of insurance. The officer allowed the driver to enter the vehicle and grab some belongings. The officer then issued the ticket to the driver and the left. The officers then began conducting an inventory search of the vehicle to prepare it for impound and while searching, the officers found a semi-automatic pistol underneath the driver’s side floormat, and methamphetamine in the center console. The officers, upon recovering the firearm and drugs, located and arrested the driver.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the inventory search violated Allen’s rights. The Colorado Court reasoning is below:

Here, the officers seized and inventoried the Cadillac because, in the exercise of their discretion, they decided to impound it. But the People did not present any evidence at the motions hearing to establish that the officers did so in accordance with any written or oral standardized criteria or policies. In fact, the People did not introduce any evidence that such criteria or policies existed. Because the existence of standardized criteria or policies is a necessary condition of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, we conclude that the seizure and subsequent inventory of the Cadillac were not reasonable and violated Allen’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

• People v. Thomas (CO. COA, 2021): An officer made a traffic stop on a vehicle in a residential area for rolling through a stop sign and failing to signal a turn. The driver and sole occupant provided identification and the vehicle’s registration to the officer but could not produce proof of current insurance. The officer checked the driver’s identification, discovered the driver had a warrant for his arrest, and subsequently arrested the driver. The officer conducted an inventory search of the vehicle in preparation for impoundment and found a handgun, illegal narcotics, and drug paraphernalia. The officer subsequently charged the driver.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the inventory search violated the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the court of appeals found “the prosecution provided no evidence” that the inventory search and seizure of items “found during the search furthered some community caretaking purpose beyond the officer’s compliance with his department’s procedure.” The court of appeals provided the following reasoning:

Thomas’s vehicle was legally parked on a residential street. The evidence did not show that the street was busy, that the vehicle was obstructing traffic, that it was dangerous or disabled, or that it was blocking any driveway. The prosecution presented no evidence that it was illegal, hazardous, or even unusual to leave a vehicle parked in that location. Without such evidence, the prosecution did not demonstrate any interest in public safety or convenience that justified removing Thomas’s vehicle.

The prosecution below presented no evidence that the vehicle’s location in the residential neighborhood (six blocks from Thomas’s home) made it vulnerable to vandalism. That is, the prosecution presented no evidence that parking a vehicle overnight in that location created an appreciable risk of vandalism or theft, or that Thomas’s arresting offense would cause the vehicle to remain unattended for an extended period of time before he could post bail. Indeed, the evidence presented at the hearing suggested that the vehicle would not have been left unattended for long because Thomas’s wife, the co-owner, was only a short distance away and could have taken custody of it. This case presents the novel question whether the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement permits a police officer to impound a vehicle whenever the driver is arrested and no one else is present to take custody of the vehicle.  We conclude that the answer is “no.”  Because the prosecution here did not show that the seizure furthered a valid community caretaking function, impounding the legally parked vehicle was unreasonable.  The evidence discovered during the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was therefore inadmissible.

Takeaways

The federal and state court decisions provided in this article highlight the importance of officers knowing, understanding, and following their respective departments’ standardized criteria and policies when conducting inventory searches. Concerning the impoundment of a vehicle on private property, officers must articulate the vehicle is obstructing traffic and/or creating an imminent threat to public safety to do so. Additionally, any vehicle impoundment must be justified by both a standardized policy and a reasonable community-caretaking rationale.

My recommendation to officers is that they do not impound a vehicle unless there is a clearly justifiable circumstance (e.g., the vehicle is obstructing traffic, is a hazard, is creating a hazard) you get consent to do so from the driver or registered owner, you exhausted a reasonable attempt to locate a person to take responsibility for the vehicle if the driver is arrested and will be incarcerated for a lengthy period of time, or you have articulable community caretaking rationale, which is also part of your department’s standard criteria an policy.

I hope you found this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions on this topic or other topics.

Several years ago during in-service training, my Department’s (then) Deputy Chief proclaimed during in-service training, “Morale is a personal issue.” The Deputy Chief went on to say (essentially) officers can choose to come to work happy or sad; the Department has nothing to do with an officer’s morale. He continued by offering that if officers do not like it here, they can go somewhere else because there are plenty of people who are more than willing to take the officers’ places. So much for a positive, upbeat, and motivating speech from one of my Department’s top managers. While I do agree with the Deputy Chief that people choose their level of motivation, I disagree that organizations have nothing to do with people’s motivation. I believe managers of organizations must create an environment through influence in which people will choose to be positively motivated. The former Deputy Chief’s comments have always stuck with me, because they are typical of the status quo, traditional command and control management style used, touted, and rewarded by law enforcement agencies.

Effective Leaders vs. Ineffective Managers

Throughout my 38-year law enforcement career, I have worked for some excellent supervisors. These supervisors were effective leaders who demonstrated impeccable character and confidence, led by example, and created positive, encouraging environments that made me feel I was working with rather than for them. These supervisors influenced and inspired me to work hard and be the best law enforcement official I could be. I have also worked for many ineffective managers who subscribed to an authoritarian (command and control) management style. These managers were not inspiring and did not lead by example. Many lacked either character or competence; many lacked both. The effective leaders propelled me to follow and emulate them; the ineffective leaders drove me to promote.

Recognizing the True Cost of Low Morale

A friend of mine (and fellow command-level officer from another law enforcement agency) sent me an article published in Police Chief Magazine written by David Cruickshank titled Recognizing the True Cost of Low Morale. Cruickshank’s (2012) article discussed the affect and cost poor morale has on organizations. Cruickshank pointed to the traditional law enforcement management style of command and control as the culprit of low morale and organizational stress. Cruickshank identified the following as the “five primary issues impacted by a morale problem” (para. 9): turnover, absenteeism, low productivity, civil liability, and officer suicide.

Cruickshank’s (2012) article is “on point.” Organizational stress is a byproduct of non-supportive and often caustic management practices, which are the norm, rather than an anomaly, for American law enforcement agencies. Cruickshank’s comments back up my longstanding belief that law enforcement agencies are responsible for creating a positive environment, so employees are happy and positively motivated to do the job. I opine the problem with many articles and books written about leadership and morale is such articles and books never clearly address the real issues and why things do not change, which is the broken law enforcement culture that grooms and promotes the wrong people into the driver’s seat of organizations. Cruickshank hinted at this when he wrote the following:

Top administrators are generally in the twilight of their careers and are therefore hesitant to institute change. Senior law enforcement professionals have worked their entire careers to advance and are unlikely to risk failure or admit that there are issues within their agencies after coming so far. Accordingly, they keep to the ways they know–the same ways that got them to where they are.

The Broken Law Enforcement Culture

Traditional law enforcement management is one of command and control, which uses legitimate (authority) and coercive (punishment) power bases (French & Raven, 1960)—almost exclusively—to get things done. This “do it because I said so or else” management style creates an “us against them mentality” within organizations, which causes separation and disconnection between the command and lower ranks. Additionally, law enforcement agencies are bureaucracies that create conformist followers (i.e. “yes people”), because of command-and-control management. Such bureaucracies reward those who conform to this style of management with promotions and good assignments. Individuals who attempt to buck the command and control management style for a servant or transformational leadership style (i.e., the use of referent and expert power bases [French & Raven, 1960]), which is preached as the leadership style of choice in the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) Leadership in Police Organization’s (LPO) class, are often punished or banished for attempting to buck the norm and change the culture and management style. Couple this with the common traits of those that are often driven to promote (e.g.,. a need for power, arrogance, and narcissism) and one can see why the command and control style and the “good ole boy” systems are alive and well in law enforcement agencies. Research conducted by McQuaid in 2012 (as cited in Kiisel, 2012) showed that approximately 65% of employees thought their bosses sucked because the bosses’ demonstrated behaviors associated with poor managers (e.g., micromanaging, “do as I say not as I do attitude, poor communication, playing favorites, playing office politics, etc.).

The Need for Change

Authors and researchers can write, talk, research, and present all the findings they want to explain the differences between bad managers/leaders and effective ones. Unfortunately, nothing will change until management stops grooming and rewarding bad managers and bucks the status quo to change the management culture. Change will only happen when those that display effective manager/leader behaviors decide to promote and fill the seats, taking them from the old heads. Easier said than done, you say? Yes it is, because many do not want to work with those currently in the seats. Think about this, who do you surround yourself with, people you like or people you do not like? Many will not test for promotion, because if they do test and are promoted, they are now peers with people they do not like or agree with (from a management/leadership perspective). I have talked to several people about this very issue and they all say they do not want to promote and be around those people. My rebuttal is “well then you will have to continue to work for them.”

I can go on and on, standing on my soapbox, but I will stop. The other issue is that municipalities, when it comes to hiring police chiefs, need to start hiring those that demonstrate effective leader behaviors. Unfortunately, this again is often not the case, because the city officials in power often have the same command-and-control mentality and look to hire conformists as chiefs, who will gladly accept that role, for the financial rewards and to fuel their egos, arrogance, and quench their need for power. As such, this vicious poor management cycle continues.

My Challenge to You
 
I cannot end my commentary without a challenge to all who are sick and tired of poor managers and ineffective management. I challenge each of you to write down 10 behaviors you associate with effective managers/leaders. Behaviors are actions that individuals demonstrate. So, if I sat down with you and asked you to name an effective manager/leader, I would ask you to identify the behaviors the person displayed that influenced you to believe the person was an effective manager/leader. After you write those 10 behaviors down, I want you to think about someone you believe was a poor manager/leader. Write down 10 behaviors the person demonstrated that caused you to label that person a poor manager/leader. Once you have written down both sets of behaviors, I want you to read both and ask yourself these questions: “What set of behaviors do I like?” “Who would I rather work for, the person demonstrating the effective behaviors or the person demonstrating the ineffective behaviors?” I surmise you like effective manager/leader behaviors and want to work for the person demonstrating such behaviors. If my assumption is correct, then my challenge is that you demonstrate effective manager/leader behaviors at whatever management level or rank you hold in your organization. I must note you do not have to hold a managerial rank to be a leader and demonstrate effective manager/leader behaviors. My challenge is for you to be the leader you would follow and be the follower that if you were the leader, you would want to follow you. Additionally, I want you to answer this question: “What type of behaviors are typically displayed by managers in the organization I work for?” If your answer is the poor manager/leader behaviors you identified, then my challenge to you is to promote, challenge, and change the status quo traditional management style, and unseat those who subscribe to, tout, and maintain it. If you choose to do nothing, do not complain about your organization’s poor management, because you are part of the problem. Rather than choosing to be part of the problem, be part of the solution.   

Hi all! As we continue our exploration into power bases, it is time to discuss coercive power. Coercive power, at first blush, appears to be a negative power base and if it is used consistently to instill fear, it is. However, if one uses coercive power effectively and responsibly, it becomes a valuable tool in one’s leadership arsenal. In the following, we will define coercive power, discuss its uses, both good and bad, and explain how you can use it to achieve desired outcomes.

Understanding Coercive Power

One can describe coercive power as a type of influence that relies on the use of fear, threats, or punishment to control or manipulate others. Those that use coercive power almost exclusively to influence others, often instill fear in others by leveraging their authority, control over resources, or ability to inflict punishment. By exploiting fear, they aim to maintain dominance and compel compliance from those under their influence.

I remember vividly having a discussion with a supervisor (he was the most despised supervisor on the department) about the environment he created (and his positional authority that gave him the ability to punish others) due to his reliance on and use of coercive power. This supervisor had adversely affected morale because of his constant threats towards and belittling of line-level police officers and professional staff. I had tried to buffer this supervisor’s actions as I reported directly to the supervisor (I was second-in-charge of the police district/substation). Well, things came to a head, so I decided I must speak to him about his management style and the negative impact it had on everyone. I walked into his office and asked to speak to him. He was less than thrilled to see me and reluctantly said “yes.” I then asked him if I could shut his office door and he quickly responded, “Why, you’re not going to beat me up are you?” I was a bit surprised by his response and said, “No, I just want to talk to you about your leadership style.” For the next several minutes, I explained to this supervisor the debilitating impact his management style had on everyone at the station. Not surprisingly, he did not care. In fact, he stated, “I would rather be feared than loved.” I offered suggestions and assistance to him concerning changing his style; however, he had no interest in doing so. Before we ended our discussion, I told him that if he changed or at least attempted to change before he retired (he retired about 18 months after this discussion), many people would forget about his past management style, and they may even like him. However, I also told him that if he continued to manage as usual, when he retired, people would through parties in his honor and not invite him. Well, he did not change and when he retired, my understanding is about 10 people went to his retirement party the department held for him (I did not go). About two weeks later, a few sergeants from the district station through a party in his honor and did not invite him. I believe between 200-300 people showed up at that party to celebrate the fact that the supervisor had retired. I did go to that party, and it was great!!! 

One must understand that the use of threats of punishment and/or actual punishment are inherent aspects of coercive power; however, it is essential we understand and know where the line is that separates coercive power from abuse. Coercion becomes abusive when it crosses ethical boundaries, causes harm, or violates rights. Understanding the balance is key to assessing and addressing the potential misuse and/or abuse of coercive power and using coercive power ethically.

Using Coercive Power Ethically

It is imperative that when deciding to use coercion to influence one approaches its use with a strong, ethical framework. Doing so ensures that it is employed responsibly with a focus on maintaining fairness, respect, and the well-being of individuals. Below are some key considerations for using coercive power ethically:

• Justified and Proportionate: The use of coercive power must be justified and proportionate to the situation in which it is used. One should only use coercion when its use is necessary and when alternative approaches are not successful or practical to address the situation.

• Focused on the Behavior, Not the Person: When utilizing coercion, it is essential to maintain a focus on the behavior you are trying to correct, rather than targeting or attacking the person.

• Use Coercive Power Fairly and Impartially: One must use coercive power in a fair, consistent, and impartial manner.  Fairness involves ensuring consistent treatment, considering different perspectives, and avoiding favoritism and discriminatory practices.

The Effective Use of Coercive Power

Now that we have discussed the ethical aspects of coercive power, let’s delve into the practical side of its use. How can we use coercive power effectively to achieve our desired outcomes? We can do so by setting clear expectations, using coercive power at the right time, and looking at alternatives to its use.

• Establish and Communicate Expectations: To effectively use coercive power, one must establish and communicate clear expectations and the potential consequences of not meeting the expectations. Clearly defining rules, standards, and desired outcomes helps individuals understand the expectations placed upon them and the consequences they may face for not meeting expectations.

• Time it Right: Timing is key to the effective use of coercive power. It is important to recognize when and where to apply coercion. The use of coercion, in some situations, is necessary to maintain order, enforce rules, or address urgent matters. That stated, it is equally important to use judgment and determine whether another form of influence is more suitable to address the situation.

My college baseball coach, the legendary John Scolinos, was a timing master. We were playing Cal (Berkley) at their baseball stadium. Cal’s fans were brutal on the opposing team and its fans. Numerous rambunctious Cal fans sat right behind our dugout. The fans were giving us the business and I believe many were inebriated. Cal’s dugouts were garden-level style, so when a player would enter the dugout, the player would be face-to-face and intimately close to the fans, within a foot or two. Coach Scolinos had very clear expectations of his players’ demeanor toward fans, the opposing team, and the umpires. Coach preached to us to keep our mouths shut and beat the opposing team with bats, arms, gloves, and the score. Coach also did not allow profanity. Coach disciplined players who violated these rules. Coach ended up sending up a player, “Ziggy,” to pinch hit. When Ziggy’s name was announced, the public announcer and fans began making fun of Ziggy’s name. Ziggy struck out on three straight pitches without swinging. As he walked back to the dugout, the fans were yelling obscenities at Ziggy and as he approached, the dugout there were a couple of fans standing in the bleachers right near the dugout, literally within a foot of the field. These fans were giving Ziggy the business and as Ziggy began to enter the dugout, he yelled at the fans, put his hands up right in their faces, cussed at them, and flipped them off. Coach was standing at the other end of the dugout and saw Ziggy’s reaction to the fans. We all (the players) went silent because we knew Coach’s expectations and Ziggy clearly violated the rules. Well, Coach used his judgment and humor to address the situation instead of punishment. Coach stood there quietly, with his arms folded, and one hand rubbing his chin. Coach paused, slightly shook his head, and then, with his gravely, Dick Tracy-sounding voice, said, “By Golly Ziggy, you’re mad at the world!” Coach then kind of smirked and didn’t say anything more. Coach’s reaction put us all at ease and we all laughed knowing that Ziggy’s fate could have been much worse. Timing is everything!       

• Look for Alternative Strategies: While the use of coercive power is effective in certain situations, it is beneficial to explore the use of non-coercive strategies/power bases whenever possible. For example, offering rewards, recognition, autonomy, and other meaningful incentives, may create the needed/wanted motivation, rather than motivation created through fear or punishment. Research has shown that positive reinforcement lasts much longer than negative reinforcement. Exploring alternative power bases rather than using coercive power can foster a positive and empowering environment and minimize the potential negative consequences associated with coercive power.

Wrapping up

Coercive power, when used irresponsibly, excessively, with malice, and to instill fear is detrimental to individual and organizational morale, and most likely will create a hostile and oppressive environment. However, coercive power is a valuable tool when used ethically and responsibly. By recognizing the line between coercion and abuse, focusing on behavior rather than attacking the person, and employing coercion proportionately and justifiably, leaders can effectively harness its potential. The ethical use of coercive power requires maintaining fairness, impartiality, and respect for the rights and well-being of others.

To use coercive power effectively, leaders must establish clear expectations, communicate consequences, and use the power wisely. That stated, whenever possible, exploring alternative non-coercive strategies for motivation is encouraged. By offering incentives, recognition, and autonomy, a leader can create a positive and empowering environment and minimize the negative consequences associated with coercive power.

This installment of the Search and Seizure Corner will discuss curtilage. Recently, I received an inquiry about curtilage and its impact on officers walking onto a driveway of a residence to check the VIN on a vehicle parked on the driveway. Officers knew the residence and had located stolen vehicles at the residence and on the driveway. The question concerned the officers’ ability to enter the driveway of the residence and check the vehicle’s VIN without a warrant.

As such, I felt compelled to write this training article to address all things curtilage. This article will define and discuss curtilage and provide relevant curtilage case law from the United States Supreme Court, the 6^th, 7h, and 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court.  

Disclaimer     

I am not an attorney and make no claim to be an attorney. I developed these scenarios based on my 38 years of law enforcement experience, my professional application of the Fourth Amendment (based on case law) in the field as a law enforcement officer, and my extensive study of case law pertaining to search and seizure.

I developed and am providing this presentation for information only. I make no claim that my interpretations and perceptions of case law provided in the answers to the scenarios are correct in any or all circumstances. All government agents and any other person gathering information from this presentation should consult their respective law enforcement agencies, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. 

How do the Court and courts define curtilage?

Below are excerpts from various Court opinions that define curtilage:

The United States Supreme Court, in its Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) opinion wrote:

The curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life…” and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage; and they have defined the curtilage, as did the common law, by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. (Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 [1984])

The United States Supreme Court, in its California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213 (1986) opinion stated, “curtilage is the area surrounding the home that is ‘intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically,’ and is where ‘privacy expectations are most heightened.’”

The Court, in its Florida v. Jardines (2013) wrote this about curtilage:

We therefore regard the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home’—what our cases call the curtilage—as ‘part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes’…. While the boundaries of the curtilage are generally ‘clearly marked,’ the ‘conception defining the curtilage’ is at any rate familiar enough that it is ‘easily understood from our daily experience.’ Here there is no doubt that the officers entered it: The front porch is the classic exemplar of an area adjacent to the home and ‘to which the activity of home life extends.’

The Court, in its Collins v. Virginia (2018) opinion provided further clarification concerning curtilage: 

The “‘conception defining the curtilage’ is . . . familiar enough that it is ‘easily understood from our daily experience.’” Jardines, 569 U. S., at 7 (quoting Oliver, 466 U. S., at 182, n. 12). Just like the front porch, side garden, or area “outside the front window,” Jardines, 569 U. S., at 6, the driveway enclosure where Officer Rhodes searched the motorcycle constitutes “an area adjacent to the home and ‘to which the activity of home life extends,’” and so is properly considered curtilage, id., at 7 (quoting Oliver, 466 U. S., at 182, n. 12)…. So long as it is curtilage, a parking patio or carport into which an officer can see from the street is no less entitled to protection from trespass and a warrantless search than a fully enclosed garage. In physically intruding on the curtilage of Collins’ home to search the motorcycle, Officer Rhodes not only invaded Collins’ Fourth Amendment interest in the item searched, i.e., the motorcycle, but also invaded Collins’ Fourth Amendment interest in the curtilage of his home.

The United States Supreme Court, in its United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) opinion, provided four factors to help determine curtilage:

Extent-of-curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to the following four factors, at least to the extent that they bear upon whether the area claimed to be curtilage is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s “umbrella” of protection: (1) the proximity of the area to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature and uses to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. (United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 [1987])

U.S. v Knapp (10^th Cir., 1993) applied the Dunn rationale when it found DEA officers who walked into the unfenced home of a backyard and smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the residence did not violate curtilage. Below is an excerpt of the 10^th Circuit’s opinion.

Mr. Knapp next contends the drug enforcement agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by going into the unfenced portion of Mr. Knapp’s yard without a warrant. Only the curtilage of the home warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home itself. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). “[C]urtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the `sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.'” Id. (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. 524, 532, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886)). The district court’s determination that the unenclosed area should not be considered curtilage was factual and therefore subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Swepston, 987 F.2d 1510, 1513 (10th Cir. 1993).

Applying the Dunn factors, we hold the drug enforcement agents committed no violation of the Fourth Amendment by going into the unfenced and unenclosed portion of the yard. Although the agents made their observations from close proximity to the house, the other three Dunn factors tend to indicate the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for this area. The unenclosed portion of the yard extended into an open field which, in turn, was fronted by a highway. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Knapp attempted to shield the unenclosed portion of the yard from public view, nor is there any evidence that Mr. Knapp had any particular use for this area. On balance, the area near Mr. Knapp’s utility meter was not so intimately tied to the uninhabited house that it enjoyed Fourth Amendment protection. See Swepston, 987 F.2d at 1513-15. Moreover, we are comfortable that probable cause to search the uninhabited house was present even without Agent Olachea’s observation of the odor. Thus, the denial of the motion to suppress was appropriate.

The Court made it clear curtilage extends to the immediate areas outside the home’s walls and has provided guidelines to determine curtilage, but what about the driveway and front yard of a residence, do these areas fall outside of curtilage?

We will first look at the driveway of a residence. Several courts have addressed driveways and front yards and have determined that, for the most part, such areas are not considered curtilage. For the California court of appeals, in People v. Mendoza (1981), found that a front yard was not curtilage even with a fence around it and that officers could contact people in the front yard when investigating a crime. Below is an excerpt of the opinion.

 Fencing around the front yard of a residence is a common situation and ordinarily includes a gate at the point where a sidewalk leads to the front door. Such fences have obvious purposes other than excluding the public, such as discouraging dogs, children, handbill deliverymen and others from walking across the front lawn and flower beds. In the absence of a locked gate, a high solid fence blocking the front yard from view, a written notice to keep out or beware of dog,” or perhaps a doorbell at the front gate, anyone having reason to talk to the residents would be expected to open the front gate, walk up to the house and knock on the door. Likewise, if a resident was in the front yard too far away from the [122 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 15] fence to talk with easily, it would be entirely natural and appropriate to open the gate without asking permission and to approach the person in order to converse in normal tones. At least, this would be the case in the absence of a warning from the occupant that the visitor was unwelcome

[1] There is simply no reasonable expectation of privacy in the front yard of a residence under such conditions. It is no more closed off to the public, expressly or impliedly, than any other front yard with a sidewalk to the front door.Even without a fence the public is not expected nor encouraged to walk wherever desired through the front yard; that’s why a sidewalk is provided. The fact that a chain-link fence is installed is not commonly considered a deterrent to entering a front yard to the same extent as if unfenced, in the absence of other evidence to the contrary.

The situation is entirely different where a backyard entry is involved, with or without a fence. Here again, common sense and knowledge of our everyday customs tell us that members of the public, other than friends and relatives, are not normally expected nor invited to enter the backyard of a residence in the average community. fn. 1 Such conduct on the part of a stranger would be considered quite unusual and very likely resented. That portion of a residence is looked on by most home occupants as “private property,” not to be invaded lightly. Significantly, none of the cases cited by defendant or the trial judge refer to front yards, but only to backyards, where members of the public having business with the occupants are not normally invited.

The California Supreme Court recognized the test for determining reasonable expectation of privacy in the following language: “… we do not rest our analysis exclusively upon such abstractions as ‘trespass’ or ‘constitutionally protected areas’ or upon the physical differences between a telephone booth and the land surrounding a residence; we do, however, look to the conduct of people in regard to these elements. Taking into account the nature of the area surrounding a private residence, we ask whether that area has been opened to public use; if so, the occupant cannot claim he expected privacy from all observations of the officer who stands up on that ground; if not, the occupant does deserve that privacy.”Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 626, 638 [108 Cal.Rp. 585, 511 P.2d 33].) [122 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 16]

When the officer approached defendant in the front yard of his home, he was not just “snooping” or acting on a “hunch” in calling on the latter. The officer had information that defendant was dealing in and using heroin. This was sufficient engender a reasonable suspicion of defendant’s involvement in criminal activity, justifying a temporary stop and questioning. (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 888, 894 ([148 Cal. Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957].) The arresting officer first became aware of defendant’s visible evidence of being under the influence of heroin after coming close to defendant and observing him. The officer was then in an area on to the public, where defendant could not “claim he expected privacy from all observations of the officer ….” (Lorenzana v. Superior Court, supra, p. 638). Accordingly, there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches or seizures. (U. S. Const., Fourth Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.)

The Colorado Supreme Court, in its People v. McGahey 500 P.2d 977 (1972) opinion found that an officer driving his patrol vehicle into the driveway of a residence and stopping in the driveway approximately 25 feet from the residence at which point the officer saw marijuana plants inside the residence through the residence’s living room picture window had not violated curtilage of the home and was lawfully in position to see the plants. 

I believe everyone can understand and agree with the Court’s view that curtilage means, in most cases, the side garden, backyard, and breezeway (three-sided garage enclosure) between the garage and home, but I am sure many are wondering how curtilage extends to the front porch, since officers can walk up to and knock on the front door of many homes without having to have a warrant or consent to enter the porch area and knock.

The Court addressed this in its Kentucky v. King (2011) opinion when it opined,

When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak.

The Court, in its Florida v. Jardines (2013) opinion further acknowledged an officer’s ability to enter the front porch and knock on the front door of a residence:

We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951). This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in its People v. Baker (1991) opinion found officers “may constitutionally knock on the door of a residence and seek permission (i.e., consent) to enter to conduct a search of that residence.”

Does the Court contradict itself by saying a residence’s front porch is curtilage?

The answer is no, and is found in the Court’s Florida v. Jardines (2013) opinion in which the Court states,

Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.”

This same logic is what led to the 7^th Circuit’s reasoning in U.S. v. Banks (2023) opinion:

The parallel and equivalency between a home and its curtilage means that law enforcement officers must have a war- rant to enter either, unless one of a few limited exceptions ap- plies. See Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2017 (2021). The exceptions allow warrantless entry when, for example, exigent circumstances exist, the resident consents to entry, or the officers conduct a knock-and-talk… The police reacted to Banks’s Snapchat post by immediately heading to his home to arrest him for unlawful gun pos- session. But they never paused to request a warrant. And that omission matters because the Fourth Amendment very much concerns itself with place, and the location of the planned arrest—Banks’s front porch—is not one the police could enter without consent or exigent circumstances. Everyone agrees that neither existed before the police walked onto the porch, as Banks presented no imminent threat or flight risk in the circumstances. Nor did the police even attempt to conduct their encounter with Banks as a consensual knock-and-talk scenario. The officers needed a warrant to enter Banks’s porch, and their failure to obtain one resulted in a clear Fourth Amendment violation.

The unlawful entry onto the curtilage tainted the evidence they discovered. Through their “unlicensed physical intrusion” onto Banks’s porch, the officers created any exigent circumstances that might have developed during their ensuing struggle with Banks. See Jardines, 569 U.S. at 7. The officers, in short, were unable to rely on those exigent circumstances to authorize the entry onto Banks’s porch.

Is there a difference for single-family residences and multi-family residences concerning curtilage and the front porch?

The answer is yes.Florida v. Jardines (2013) and U.S. v. Banks (7^th Cir., 2023) address the front porch area on single-family residences. Such residences have an expectation of privacy on the front porch based on curtilage. Multi-family locations do not enjoy the same expectation of privacy concerning the front porch. 

United States v. Trice (6^th Cir., 2020) applied the Dunn elements in determining the area around Trice’s front door did not constitute curtilage.

For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, “the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home’—what [the Supreme Court] call[s] the curtilage—[is regarded] as ‘part of the home itself.’” Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6 (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984)). “[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1670 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6). Curtilage is the area that is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, and is where privacy expectations are most heightened.’” Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986)). It is “the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.’” Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 212 (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180).

Conducting a warrantless investigation by placing a camera in this constitutionally protected area would therefore be unlawful, either because it worked a physical intrusion into the curtilage, see Jardines, 569 U.S. at 9–10; Taylor, 922 F.3d at 333; accord United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404–05 (2012), or because it would violate the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy, see Jardines, 569 U.S. at 12–13 (Kagan, J., concurring). Yet, although we agree that Trice’s constitutional rights would have been violated had the camera been placed in the curtilage of his home, we find the search was lawful because the area in which the camera was placed—the wall opposite his apartment door—does not constitute curtilage.

Courts have identified four factors to determine whether an area falls within a home’s curtilage: (1) the proximity of the area to the home, (2) whether the area is within an enclosure around the home, (3) how that area is used, and (4) what the owner has done to protect the area from observation from passersby. Morgan, 903 F.3d at 561 (citing United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987)). “These factors are not to be applied mechanically; rather, they are ‘useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration—whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s “umbrella” of Fourth Amendment protection.’” May-Shaw,

955 F.3d at 569–70 (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301).

The first factor weighs in favor of Trice. The camera was placed in close proximity to his home, on the wall opposing his unit in between the door to his neighbor’s apartment and the door to a storage closet. Investigator Behnen estimated that the distance was “about ten or slightly under ten feet from door to door.” R. 49 at PageID 263–64. This distance is within the range that we have held falls within Fourth Amendment protections. See Morgan, 903 F.3d at 561 (area five to seven feet from home constitutes curtilage); see also Brennan v. Dawson, 752 F. App’x 276, 282 (6th Cir. 2018) (same for area arm’s length from home); Widgren v. Maple Grove Twp., 429 F.3d 575, 582 (6th Cir. 2005) (same for area four to six feet from home).

However, the other three factors weigh strongly against him. The area was not in an enclosure around the home, but instead in a common unlocked hallway. Similarly, Trice did not take any measures to protect the area from observation. Most important for this case, though, is how the area is used. See United States v. Jackson, 728 F.3d 367, 374 (4th Cir. 2013) (finding the third Dunn factor the “most telling” in holding that an outdoor common area did not constitute curtilage of an apartment). Simply put, there is nothing about the hallway wall to suggest that it was “an area adjacent to the home and ‘to which the activity of home life extends.’” Collins, 138 S. Ct. at 1671 (quoting Jardines, 569 U.S. at 7). The hallway in question was a common area open to the public to be used by other apartment tenants to reach their respective units. The exterior doors did not have locks and were at least sometimes ajar, so the hallway was accessible to any passersby. It was also used by other tenants as a passageway to the basement laundry unit.

Further, the camera was placed on a wall opposite Trice’s door, an area over which Trice does not claim to have any authority. We therefore conclude that the camera was not placed within the curtilage of Trice’s apartment. This is consistent with our previous cases holding that readily visible common areas do not constitute curtilage of an apartment.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in its People v. Shorty (1987) opinion, upheld the search of the front porch area near the front door of an apartment that had a separate walkway (steps) to the apartment.  

While the Supreme Court has held that the curtilage surrounding one’s home may be protected under the Fourth Amendment, see Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the fact that a search occurs within the curtilage is not dispositive if the area’s public accessibility dispels any reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Smith, 783 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1986). See also California v. Ciraolo, 106 S. Ct. 1809, 1812 (1986); State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 632 P.2d 44 (1981). In conducting a criminal investigation, a police officer may enter those residential areas that are expressly or impliedly held open to casual visitors. State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 632 P.2d 44 (1981). See generally 1 J. Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused § 3:44, at 673-74 (1985). Reasonable expectations of privacy are diminished in common areas of multi-family dwellings. People v. Shorty, 731 P.2d 679, 681-82 (Colo. 1987)

Summary

Curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. Curtilage as applied to single-family homes often includes side yards, back yards, breezeways between the home and garage, and the front porch. Curtilage is defined by the proximity of the area to the home, whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature and uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. Curtilage areas receive the same expectation of privacy considerations as does the inside of a home, meaning officers cannot enter these areas without a warrant, consent, or an exigent circumstance, except for walking onto the front porch of a single-family residence to knock on the door.

Driveways and front yards are typically not found to fall within the curtilage of the home. In most cases, officers can enter driveways and front yards of residences, and walk onto the front porch of single-family residences to knock on the front door (of the residence) without violating the residents’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Front porch curtilage (expectation of privacy) is applicable to single-family residences and not to multi-family (apartment) areas.

Concerning officers entering a single-family residence driveway to check VIN numbers on vehicles parked in the driveway, it appears, based on the provided case law, that officers can do so without violating the residents’ Fourth Amendment rights so long as the driveway is not within the home’s curtilage. That stated, again, please consult with your respective law enforcement agency, City Attorney’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s Office, or United States Attorney’s Office for their interpretation and application of this information. I hope this article provides clarification on how to navigate curtilage issues. Please reach out with any comments or questions.

Hey there, aspiring influencers and leaders! Throughout my journey of learning, studying, applying, and facilitating discussions on the art and science of leadership, I became focused on what I believe is the key to leadership, influence. After writing and publishing my last article, “Unleashing the Power of Influence and Motivation: Exploring French and Raven’s Power Base Taxonomy,” I decided to drill down a bit further and write a series of articles that discuss each of the power bases in more detail.

Today, we are diving headfirst into the fascinating world of influence and focusing on one of the most powerful sources of power: referent power. Strap in and get ready to unlock the secrets to increasing your influence and becoming a true role model that others admire and follow. So, let’s embark on this ultimate guide to boosting your referent power and taking your leadership game to the next level!

What is Referent Power and Why Does It Matter?

Referent power, I opine, is like the holy grail of influence. Think about someone you like, respect, admire, and trust. Someone you are drawn to who inspires you and earns your loyalty; someone you will walk through fire for, someone you know will not steer you wrong, and has the best intentions for you. This is someone who influences you with referent power.

For me, that someone is my college baseball coach, the legendary John Scolinos. Coach led with referent power. I walked on to Cal Poly Pomona because I wanted to play for Coach. I had the good fortune of learning how to play baseball and learning how to navigate life from Coach’s teachings. Coach Scolinos had the ability to find and develop potential in people (his players and students), including me, that would have, most likely, gone untapped.

I hope you have or have had someone like Coach. If so, you know what I am talking about. If not, then strive to be that Coach for someone else. How do you build referent power? Below, we will identify and discuss behaviors that are associated with referent power.

Developing Authenticity: Be Yourself, Everyone Else is Taken!

A key ingredient to increasing referent power is authenticity. “People can sniff out phony from a mile away” (this is one of Coach’s sayings), so it’s crucial to embrace your true self. Several years ago, a person I worked with told me a story about an interaction he had with our organization’s CEO (Chief). Every morning, at about the same time, the Chief would walk through this person’s office and every time he would walk through the office, the Chief would look at the person and say, “Hi, how is the family?” The person would engage in a brief discussion with the Chief but always felt like the Chief wasn’t really listening or even cared about the person’s answer. So, one day, the person tried a little experiment. When the Chief came into the office and said, “Hi, how is the family?”, the person quickly responded with, “killed’em all, and hung them up in the closet.” The Chief responded, “Oh, that’s great” and walked away. The person knew right there the Chief didn’t care and wasn’t listening. The moral of this story is don’t ask if you don’t care and are not willing to listen. The Chief demonstrated inauthenticity and immediately lost credibility with the person. 

Authenticity builds trust, fosters genuine connections, and makes you relatable to others. So, drop the mask, be comfortable in your own skin, and let your unique personality shine through!

Building Strong Relationships: It Takes Two (or More) to Tango

Referent power thrives on building strong and solid relationships. How do you build strong relationships? You do so by building rapport, building emotional bonds, actively listening; and demonstrating genuine care, empathy, and concern for others. Additionally, people are naturally drawn to those who share common interests, values, or backgrounds. Finding common ground and highlighting shared experiences creates an immediate connection. When people see that you have their best interest at heart, you will build likeability and a strong psychological contract with them, which paves the way for influence through referent power. When people genuinely like and trust you, they are more likely to say “yes” to your requests. Your referent power becomes the driving force behind their positive responses.

Walk the Talk: Leading by Example

Leading by example is the secret sauce to skyrocketing your referent power and likeability. Your actions speak louder than words, and people pay attention to how you behave. People are inspired by those who walk the talk. Be the embodiment of the values and principles you espouse. Whether it’s going the extra mile, demonstrating integrity, or embracing a positive mindset, let your actions inspire others to follow suit.

Embrace a Growth Mindset: Evolve and Inspire

Referent power isn’t stagnant; it evolves with you. Embrace a growth mindset that fuels continuous learning and personal development. Stay curious, seek new experiences, and challenge yourself. By constantly evolving and improving, you inspire others to do the same, amplifying your referent power along the way.

Sense of Humor: Laughter, the Glue of Influence

Let’s take a lighthearted detour, shall we? A well-timed joke or a dash of appropriate humor works wonders in boosting referent power. Humor adds to your ability to connect and build likeability with others. Laughter breaks down barriers, fosters a positive atmosphere, and helps build stronger connections with others. So, sprinkle some humor into your interactions and let the laughter flow!

The Ripple Effect: How Referent Power Influences Others

Referent power doesn’t just impact your immediate relationships; it creates a ripple effect that extends far and wide. Colin Powell said, “Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.” I totally agree! As you increase your referent power, you become a catalyst for positive change and optimism. People around you become motivated, inspired, and more likely to exhibit similar behaviors. Your influence spreads like wildfire, igniting a chain reaction of greatness!

Go Forward, Lead, and Create an Environment For Success!

In this ultimate guide to increasing your referent power, we’ve uncovered the key to influential leadership. By embracing and building referent power, you have the potential to become the role model others admire and follow. Authenticity, strong relationships, leading by example, a growth mindset, and a sense of humor all play vital roles in boosting your referent power. As you develop and embody these qualities, you create a ripple effect of positive change, inspiring others to greatness. So, step into your power, embrace authenticity, and let your influence shine. Remember, you have the power to shape lives, uplift others, and make a meaningful impact. Keep influencing, keep inspiring, and watch as the world around you flourishes.