A simple statement that can help cops win people's trust
Advertisement
As researchers, we've spent more than 500 hours observing, interviewing, and riding along with police officers. We've found that this disconnect is common. Officers feel they're being respectful and polite, while community members — especially people of color, unhoused people, and members of other groups that are disproportionately stopped by or otherwise involved with law enforcement — interpret the interaction as a
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
But
Advertisement
Police officers start their conversations with a trust deficit, and strategies that usually put people at ease in regular social situations — like joking around — can backfire in situations where there's a power imbalance. Even a friendly 'How are you? Can I talk to you for a minute?' can put people on edge when the officer's intentions are unclear.
Enter the transparency statement. It's a simple sentence an officer can give at the start of a wide range of interactions with community members — from traffic stops to meet and greets to simply stopping to check on someone who looks cold. The statement quickly and clearly explains why they've initiated the interaction. While it sounds simple, our studies with real people and police officers show that a transparency statement can make a difference.
A transparency statement is not an exact script. Officers can and should word their transparency statements in a way that captures their true goal for the interaction.
For example, one officer's statement was: 'Hi, I'm Officer [Name], how's it going? I'm out here walking around just trying to get to know my beat and my community. Is it OK if I talk to you for a minute?' In this opening statement, the officer states that their intent is to get to know the community, not take the person to task for wrongdoing.
Another officer's statement was similar but more casual in tone: 'I'm just walking around getting to know everybody that's hanging out in the area to introduce myself and make sure you're doing OK.' Again, this officer makes clear their benevolent intent from the start.
Advertisement
Some officers make such statements naturally. On another ride-along, we observed an interaction between two Latino officers and two Latino middle-aged men who were sitting on the curb of a busy street. The officers opened with 'Cuidado!,', or 'Be careful!' in Spanish, and then suggested the men move, explaining that where they were sitting was dangerous for both them and the cars whizzing by. With clear information about the officers' intentions, the two men understood and packed up immediately.
These officers hit each of the four key elements that we've pinpointed for effective transparency statements. The first is timing. The statement should be made as soon as possible, to set the tone for the interaction from the outset.
Next is benevolence. Officers should communicate an honest reason for the interaction that is ideally motivated by helping the community and specific individuals. This works only if the intention feels genuine — the third characteristic of a good transparency statement.
Last, the statement needs to be personal. Officers should speak in the first person (e.g.., 'I'm worried about your safety') and refer to the situation at hand. Generic statements about department-wide efforts to engage the community don't work as well (e.g., 'Our department has a new initiative to get to know community residents').
In our field studies, transparency statements have a simple but powerful effect. In one experiment, we measured electrical signals given off by participants' skin, which indicate stress, during interactions with police officers. We also analyzed the language spoken during the exchanges and surveyed participants after the interactions.
Advertisement
When officers implemented transparency statements, community members were more likely to respond using language associated with positive rapport and trust-building. They spoke more words during the conversation, suggesting a greater level of engagement. Our skin measurements also indicated they were calmer and more open to the interaction. In tests where an officer did not open a conversation with a transparency statement, skin results showed that stress levels continued to rise over the course of the conversation.
In surveys after the interaction, community members were less likely to report feeling threatened: 40 percent said they felt the threat posed by the officer was low versus 29 percent without a transparency statement. And more people reported that they trusted the police officer and his or her investment in their well-being (55 percent versus 46 percent).
Around one in five adults in the United States has
Teaching the method takes mere minutes, though making it second nature takes practice. After the promising results from our initial experiment, we've begun training officers in one city and will be testing outcomes across the department and the community over the next year.
Transparency statements are a simple concept, and that's part of their beauty. Law enforcement officers face a
Advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
This is what an ICE arrest in Boston immigration court looks like.
As Diaz Martinez left the courtroom, the five officers approached. Most of the other petitioners — men, women, families with children — had walked in and out of their hearings without issue that day. But she was not so lucky. As agents arrested the mother of two, she had a medical episode. Advertisement She pleaded not to be separated from her husband, Wiliz de Leon, whom she had just married the previous Saturday. And she had two children, 10 and 7 years old, who were back in the Dominican Republic. A lawyer standing nearby interjected. 'You don't have to take her into custody,' Sarah Sherman-Stokes, a clinical associate professor of law and associate director of the Immigrants' Rights and Human Trafficking Clinic at Boston University School of Law, told the ICE officials. Sherman-Stokes was there to observe Advertisement 'We're doing our job,' one of the agents said. Diaz Martinez, 29, had been in the US for a little over a year, after crossing the southern border unlawfully and being apprehended by immigration officials. She was fleeing domestic violence in her home country, Sherman-Stokes said, and is seeking asylum. Diaz Martinez's arrest was the result of a new immigration enforcement tactic that has played out across the nation: Department of Homeland Security lawyers have paired this tactic with a new legal strategy: pressing immigration court judges to dismiss pending cases or issue deportation orders against petitioners who have been in the country for less than two years, at their initial hearings. Dismissals and deportation orders leave immigrants more vulnerable to deportation. In Massachusetts, the immigration court arrests began in the last two weeks. Last Tuesday, at least three people were arrested at the Boston court, including a man who said he was a political torture survivor from Angola, according to Sherman-Stokes. Wiliz de Leon left the John F. Kennedy Federal Building in Boston on June 3 after his wife suffered a medical emergency while being arrested by ICE, while she was in the building for an immigration court appearance. He is a U.S. citizen. Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff de Leon, Diaz Martinez's husband, is a US citizen. The couple met in the Dominican Republic about four and a half years ago, and have been together since. They live together in Providence. de Leon told the Globe that the couple had seen reports of arrests at Advertisement 'She was really scared to be deported,' de Leon said in Spanish. Now, de Leon said, the couple felt 'betrayed.' 'We always want to follow the rules,' de Leon said the morning after his wife's arrest, sounding defeated in a phone call. 'I don't understand what the motive for this is.' In a statement to the Globe, a Homeland Security spokesperson said most immigrants who entered the country illegally within the past two years are subject to expedited removals, and blamed the Biden administration for allowing 'millions of illegal aliens' into the United States. 'If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation,' the spokesperson said. ICE did not respond to a request for comment on Diaz Martinez's case. Last Tuesday, as she was taken into custody, she seemed to need medical attention. She was struggling to breathe, had chest pain, and was having trouble standing upright. ICE called Emergency Medical Services, who examined her and eventually brought a gurney. 'I just don't understand. She's doing exactly what she's supposed to do,' Sherman-Stokes said, appealing again to the ICE agents to allow Diaz Martinez to return home. But it didn't sway the officials. An ICE agent accompanied her to the hospital because she was in custody. Her husband was not allowed to enter the ambulance, or, later, her hospital room. 'You have to let him go,' an EMS worker told Diaz Martinez in Spanish, gently, as she lay on the gurney in the hallway of the court. Advertisement Diaz Martinez reluctantly released her husband's hand. That night, she was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, and then to the ICE field office in Burlington, where she has been sleeping on a concrete floor in a holding cell with about 12 other women, and using a foil blanket to cover herself, Sherman-Stokes said. Derege B. Demissie, a criminal defense attorney, filed a habeas petition for Diaz Martinez not to be moved out of state, in collaboration with Sherman-Stokes. A Massachusetts federal judge temporarily granted the motion last week. Sherman-Stokes filed a motion for Diaz Martinez to be released on bond. 'She hasn't stopped crying,' de Leon, 40, said in an interview. He followed up in a text: 'I don't know what to do.' Sherman-Stokes, who has been practicing immigration law for more than a decade, said she had seen asylum seekers enduring agonizing conditions at the US-Mexico border, in detention facilities, and elsewhere. But watching someone get arrested at court, where they were trying to follow the law and request asylum, was uniquely distressing. 'I just can't shake what just happened,' Sherman-Stokes said. 'These are folks trying their very best to comply with the law, and instead they're taken away in handcuffs.' Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
A simple statement that can help cops win people's trust
Advertisement As researchers, we've spent more than 500 hours observing, interviewing, and riding along with police officers. We've found that this disconnect is common. Officers feel they're being respectful and polite, while community members — especially people of color, unhoused people, and members of other groups that are disproportionately stopped by or otherwise involved with law enforcement — interpret the interaction as a Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But Advertisement Police officers start their conversations with a trust deficit, and strategies that usually put people at ease in regular social situations — like joking around — can backfire in situations where there's a power imbalance. Even a friendly 'How are you? Can I talk to you for a minute?' can put people on edge when the officer's intentions are unclear. Enter the transparency statement. It's a simple sentence an officer can give at the start of a wide range of interactions with community members — from traffic stops to meet and greets to simply stopping to check on someone who looks cold. The statement quickly and clearly explains why they've initiated the interaction. While it sounds simple, our studies with real people and police officers show that a transparency statement can make a difference. A transparency statement is not an exact script. Officers can and should word their transparency statements in a way that captures their true goal for the interaction. For example, one officer's statement was: 'Hi, I'm Officer [Name], how's it going? I'm out here walking around just trying to get to know my beat and my community. Is it OK if I talk to you for a minute?' In this opening statement, the officer states that their intent is to get to know the community, not take the person to task for wrongdoing. Another officer's statement was similar but more casual in tone: 'I'm just walking around getting to know everybody that's hanging out in the area to introduce myself and make sure you're doing OK.' Again, this officer makes clear their benevolent intent from the start. Advertisement Some officers make such statements naturally. On another ride-along, we observed an interaction between two Latino officers and two Latino middle-aged men who were sitting on the curb of a busy street. The officers opened with 'Cuidado!,', or 'Be careful!' in Spanish, and then suggested the men move, explaining that where they were sitting was dangerous for both them and the cars whizzing by. With clear information about the officers' intentions, the two men understood and packed up immediately. These officers hit each of the four key elements that we've pinpointed for effective transparency statements. The first is timing. The statement should be made as soon as possible, to set the tone for the interaction from the outset. Next is benevolence. Officers should communicate an honest reason for the interaction that is ideally motivated by helping the community and specific individuals. This works only if the intention feels genuine — the third characteristic of a good transparency statement. Last, the statement needs to be personal. Officers should speak in the first person (e.g.., 'I'm worried about your safety') and refer to the situation at hand. Generic statements about department-wide efforts to engage the community don't work as well (e.g., 'Our department has a new initiative to get to know community residents'). In our field studies, transparency statements have a simple but powerful effect. In one experiment, we measured electrical signals given off by participants' skin, which indicate stress, during interactions with police officers. We also analyzed the language spoken during the exchanges and surveyed participants after the interactions. Advertisement When officers implemented transparency statements, community members were more likely to respond using language associated with positive rapport and trust-building. They spoke more words during the conversation, suggesting a greater level of engagement. Our skin measurements also indicated they were calmer and more open to the interaction. In tests where an officer did not open a conversation with a transparency statement, skin results showed that stress levels continued to rise over the course of the conversation. In surveys after the interaction, community members were less likely to report feeling threatened: 40 percent said they felt the threat posed by the officer was low versus 29 percent without a transparency statement. And more people reported that they trusted the police officer and his or her investment in their well-being (55 percent versus 46 percent). Around one in five adults in the United States has Teaching the method takes mere minutes, though making it second nature takes practice. After the promising results from our initial experiment, we've begun training officers in one city and will be testing outcomes across the department and the community over the next year. Transparency statements are a simple concept, and that's part of their beauty. Law enforcement officers face a Advertisement
USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded
LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded What started as a small protest against immigrant arrests escalated over a few days, after President Trump called in the National Guard. Show Caption Hide Caption National Guard and protesters clashed over ICE protests Hundreds of demonstrators fought back with the National Guard as ICE protests escalated. The tensions in Los Angeles started small and intensified over the course of the weekend, with both protesters and federal officials blaming each other for the escalation. Though details are still emerging, here's what we know now about how the situation unfolded. Immigration raids in Los Angeles on the afternoon of June 6 sparked a small protest. The next day, larger protests began in the town of Paramount, south of Los Angeles, linked to rumors of a possible immigration raid. Towards evening on June 7, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard members to the area. That night, protesters threw rocks, bottles, and fireworks at officers. Later that same night, local police declared a small part of downtown Los Angeles an unlawful assembly area, and large numbers of protesters were cleared from the site. Here's a timeline of the events. Friday, June 6 Homeland Security agents detained several people outside a Home Depot just west of downtown Los Angeles on Friday morning. A little later in the morning, another raid took place at an Ambiance clothing store in LA's Fashion District in downtown. During that operation, people gathered around to photograph and video the officers. A few protesters also arrived. All told, four different search warrants were executed in Los Angeles on Friday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a spokesperson for Homeland Security told the Los Angeles Times. At least 44 people were arrested. At one of the sites, the president of the Service Employees International Union, David Huerta, was arrested for allegedly interfering with federal officers. The union said Huerta was exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity. By around 6:30 p.m. local time on Friday night, more than 100 people gathered at the immigration services building and detention center in downtown Los Angeles to protest the raids, according to Reuters. At around 7 p.m. local time, the Los Angeles Police Department declared it an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse. About half an hour later, multiple police vehicles and at least 50 police officers in riot gear arrived. Some protesters threw pieces of broken concrete at the officers, who responded by firing tear gas and pepper spray. They also used flash-bang concussion rounds to disperse the crowd. Saturday, June 7 Around 9 a.m., Border Patrol agents gathered in a gated industrial office park in Paramount, a Latino suburb south of downtown Los Angeles, according to the Los Angeles Times. Word spread on social media that raids were planned at a nearby Home Depot, and protesters began to gather, though it does not appear that officials engaged with immigrants at the store. Police and Los Angeles Sheriff's officers arrived, and a very localized protest began, centered in the area around the Home Depot. About 350 to 400 protesters gathered. Some threw objects at the agents. According to Los Angeles Times reporters who were on the scene, each time protesters threw anything at the agents or the police, tear gas and flash-bang rounds were fired back by federal agents. One video on X showed protesters blocking a bus, which the Los Angeles Times identified as a U.S. Marshals bus. Another showed a car that had been vandalized. By 4 p.m., social media posts showed Los Angeles police and sheriffs declaring the gathering an unlawful assembly and using loudspeakers to tell protesters that anyone who remained would be arrested. Over the next few hours, the clash continued with protesters throwing things at officers, setting off fireworks, and burning at least one garbage can. By midnight, the demonstrators began to leave the area. Multiple people had been arrested. Another protest also broke out in the nearby city of Compton, where a car was set on fire. Compton Mayor Emma Sharif called for calm, posting online that "we urge everyone to remain peaceful. Violence and the destruction of property are not the solution." The Los Angeles Police Department issued a statement commending "all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly." But it went on to say, "while today's events concluded without incident, the Los Angeles Police Department remains fully prepared to respond swiftly and appropriately to any potential acts of civil unrest. Our commitment to safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of all Angelenos continues – day and night." According to Homeland Security, on Saturday night, rioters surrounded the immigration services building and detention center, "assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer-funded property. " In response, Trump signed a presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. In a statement, the White House said that "violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California," making the deployment necessary. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X: "Federal law enforcement operations are proceeding as planned this weekend in Los Angeles County. I urge the public to refrain from interfering with these lawful actions. Anyone who obstructs federal agents will face arrest and prosecution." At 5:15 p.m. local time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X that deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles "is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." He said there was "currently no unmet need" in the city. "This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust." Sunday, June 8 Early in the morning of June 8, several dozen National Guard troops arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center three blocks from Los Angeles City Hall. By 10:30 a.m., as many as 300 members of the California National Guard had been deployed in three separate parts of the city. Crowds of protesters began arriving in the area around the federal complex – which is mostly made up of city, state, and federal building – around noon. The protests were not widespread, and most of the city was quiet. The situation began to escalate as the afternoon wore on. Many protesters waved Mexican flags or hybrid Mexican-American flags and chanted anti-ICE slogans. Some were also seen throwing water bottles and other objects at officers and law enforcement vehicles. Videos shared on social media and footage from local television stations showed officers in riot gear, with the sound of flash-bangs in the background. At least five Waymo self-driving taxis were vandalized by protesters who spray-painted them with anti-Trump and anti-ICE slogans. At least two were set on fire. At one point, a crowd of protesters walked onto the 101 Freeway, blocking traffic in both directions. They were confronted by officers in riot gear, and by 5 p.m. local time the freeway was cleared. LAPD said on X that it had placed officers across the city on "tactical alert." The police department later declared an 'unlawful assembly' for the Civic Center area and the historic Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles, an area covering a small portion of the sprawling city of 500 square miles. It authorized the 'use of less lethal munitions." The department issued a dispersal order and said arrests were being made. In an emailed letter released on Sunday afternoon, Governor Newsom formally asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to rescind Trump's order to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles. National Guard troops and armored cars were stationed in a business park that contains a Department of Homeland Security office in the city of Paramount, the Los Angeles Times reported. By 6:30, Los Angeles police said a 'number of people have been arrested' at the Civic Center area. At 8 p.m., authorities moved in aggressively with flash-bangs and tear gas grenades, sending hundreds of people running, their eyes streaming with tears. Helicopters clattered overhead as protesters fled the area to the honking of car horns and periodic cheers. Contributed: Trevor Hughes
