Oral History Program Scott Richardson Interviewed by Lindsey Kapp 8 December 2016 Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Scott Richardson Interviewed by Lindsey Kapp 8 December 2016 Copyright © 2025 by Weber State University, Stewart Library Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Weber State College/University Student Projects have been created by students working with several different professors on the Weber State campus. The topics are varied and based on the student's interest or task for a specific assignment. These oral history assignments were created to help Weber State students learn the value and importance of recording public history and to benefit the expansion of the Weber State oral history collections. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Richardson, Scott, an oral history by Lindsey Kapp, 8 December 2016, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Abstract: The following is an interview with Detective Scott Richardson conducted by Lindsey Kapp on December 8, 2016, in Richardson’s office at the Farmington Police Department. Richardson reflects on his career and gives insight into the differences between what it’s like being the police force in the current day as opposed to 20 years ago. LK: This is an oral history interview with Scott Richardson conducted by Lindsey Kapp on December 8, 2016, at 1:30 PM in Mr. Richardson's office at Farmington Police Department. In this interview Mr. Richardson discusses his recollections and experiences as a police officer. So, first question, how long have you been working in law enforcement? SR: 21 years. LK: 21 years. Those have all been as—like what are the different…? SR: So, I started out in corrections with Weber County Jail. Worked there for about a year, also did some reserve work, which is basically a volunteer officer, with South Ogden before I came here to Farmington. So, 20 years here in Farmington, 21 total. LK: Very nice. You worked in the different positions, obviously you worked patrol first. What’s the process of becoming to the level of detective? SR: Oh, it varies, but here in Farmington we don’t have that many detective positions, so a lot of times you just kinda gotta wait. I was in patrol for 14 years straight. You know, I did some things in patrol, different functions, but still patrol first and foremost. When they had some openings in detectives, that's when I was transferred over, basically. Kind of like you have to interview for it. Once a 1 position opens, a group of people that are eligible interview for it and they pick the one they want. LK: And you were the winner, there you go. SR: Ta-da! Yep. LK: What initially sparked your interest in pursuing law enforcement as a career? SR: Well, mostly, I got married at a young age, so I kind of wanted to get going on a career without doing all the college stuff. Law enforcement—unfortunately or fortunately, however you look at it—does not require a college degree. That appealed to me, but also I’d been in the military prior, and I kind of liked the—I was in the reserves, military reserves, so I liked the aspect of wearing a uniform and kind of that military type. Police work’s kind of paramilitary, but it just seemed exciting to me. LK: Have you enjoyed your years as a police officer? Do you feel like it’s fulfilling work? SR: Oh, absolutely. Not all the years have been fulfilling, but yeah, in general I would say [that]. It’s been tough. You know, it challenges you in different ways, mostly emotionally or mentally, than maybe I was prepared for, but once you get through some of that it’s actually quite fun. LK: Awesome. What are some of the most memorable moments of you in the field, whether it be in detective work or patrol or the other aspects? SR: Most memorable moments, geez. Going back a few years, but I remember there was this guy that I was trying to find and arrest. I knew he was a heroin addict and he was supplying heroin to some people. I was finally able to stop him and 2 get probable cause for an arrest and booked him into jail. I ran into him a few months later and he was working in a business here in Farmington, and he was still on probation for the arrest I had made on him. So, we just started talking. He looked much heather. His body, I mean, he’d been off the drugs for a while, and he told me about how he’d been sitting in jail and was like “I don’t want to quit this stuff, I’m having too much fun.” But then after sitting in jail for three or four days he said, “You know, this is stupid. I’ve got to quit this stuff,” so he did, and to this day is clean. He and I actually developed kind of a little friendship. He helped me out with some other cases, and because he was suspended I gave him a ride home from work. Still remember his name. He’s gone on to do something productive with his life. So, that's kind of one of the stories [that] when I think back on, I enjoy. You know, it's not so much being able to arrest people, because that doesn't always fix the problem, but when you see people change their lives or when you can help facilitate or even bring some comfort to some people. Right now, I have a lot of chance to work with victims of sexual assault, sex abuse, rape, you know, that type of stuff. Whether they are children or adults, a lot of them lean on you a little bit, and it's nice to be able to at least get them going in the right direction. We don't always have a positive outcome or a conviction in their case, but it's not always what they’re looking for. Sometimes they don’t care. Sometimes they just wanna fight the fight and have the guy or girl be held accountable. I get a lot of feedback from some from some of these victims and it’s very positive and kind of drives me. 3 LK: It makes it easier to deal with all the crappy parts of it, definitely. So, you’ve obviously been in the game for a long time. What are some of the differences in like when you started, when you were first in it, verses police officers who are just starting out, both in the field and in the way they are developed as police officers? What are some differences that you see? SR: Well, let’s see, when I [was] first hired, it was kind of a golden era for law enforcement. We had a lot of community support, we were looked at as heroes, it was kind of a respected position. These days, not so much. I mean, we still get a lot of community support, but in the media we’re not portrayed as heroes; oftentimes we’re the bad guys. So, that's changed, the rules, and the fact that it used to be that because you wore the badge you were trusted. You know, you could say something and it was fact. You go to court to testify; you were given the benefit of the doubt because you were a law enforcement officer. These days, that’s not the case. In fact, juries are given instruction that just because you’re a law enforcement officer doesn't give your testimony any more weight than anybody else's. I find that sad. LK: I would agree with you. SR: You know, there’s been incidents to warrant that, but I would say that my experience in 20 years is that the guys and gals that I’ve worked with, they have integrity, they’re honest people, they want to do the right thing. Very few have I seen are out here for their own ambitions or self-aggrandizement, whatever you want to call it. So, that’s kind of the change, and so with that, you know, the type of person that wants to do this job is different. People with an education, with any 4 type of college experience, can make much more money going somewhere else than they can staying in law enforcement. So, that makes it harder for the type of people that are attracted to this job and puts more work on us to filter out the bad ones. LK: Do you feel like the training and the way that they prepare police officers to go out into the world has changed drastically, versus how you were trained when you were initially going through and they were training you, “Okay, this is the rules and regulations?” Has it increased, like there are way more rules now than there was before? What’s the difference in the training aspect of it? SR: Well, there is a lot more emphasis on training, but not just on the amount of training but the quality of training. Like with firearms and with use of force type training, they’ve changed things on how we train. They tried to stress inoculate the officer. They want them to not only be able to shoot mechanically, but also decision making-wise, you gotta put stress on the officer. They’re doing a much better job with the scenario-based type training that they do, especially in the academy and in in-service, so I think that that has improved. As far as rules, we’ve always had a lot of rules, but the rules are always changing. We could have done something one way a few years ago, but the courts have ruled or made a decision that has changed that. So, in that regard, even though we do something a certain way for a lot of years, now all of a sudden it's different or it's changed because of courts. Now we have to adjust to doing it a different way, and sometimes that leads to mistakes. But also, trying to 5 change people and the way they do their job after they’ve done it a certain way for a long time is not always a pleasant experience. LK: Do you feel like as a police officer you have to have a certain mentality when you go to work every day in the way that you perceive yourself, versus when you’re like at home with your kids? SR: Well yeah, I would say you have to perceive yourself as something different. Not as not being human, I mean, you’re still a human, but I think once you put the uniform on, or in my case your badge and your gun in a detective role, is that you’re expected to act and behave a certain way and you represent certain things. First of all, you represent justice, you represent law, and so it's a responsibility we don’t take lightly. We put on the uniform or the badge, and you want to be looked at as being that professional, as opposed to when you’re at home you’re just who you are. But of course, the things you do at home, if you’re having problems at home, you can’t carry that into the work or you might have problems, you know. If you’re dealing with a problem at home and now you’re out handling a call and those emotions are taking over, you’re not in a good place. So, I think you have to keep yourself in check. Not that we don’t cry, we just cry at home in our pillows at night instead of on scene or in the office. But we just have to remember what we represent. In doing so I think, yeah, you have to put on this persona that’s maybe a little bit different than who you would normally be in a relaxed atmosphere. 6 LK: Do you think that the stuff that you deal with here—like, obviously as a detective you deal with less street tickets and more sexual violence, stuff like that, do you think that affects you when you leave the office, in like affecting your family or the way you perceive the world? Does it make you a harder person, or are you able to separate viewing the most horrible person on the planet versus seeing your kid? Can you separate that emotion so that you’re able to function? SR: Well, I can function. For me, separating the two has always been a challenge. You deal with a case involving a three-year-old victim, and you go home and I see my three-year-old granddaughter, or something to that effect. You can’t help but think, or you're always conscious in the back of your mind that that stuff goes on, and you worry about your own children and grandchildren have to face that, or your wife and yourself. Of course, you find situations that are scary and fearful, and sometimes you carry that outside of the job. That’s probably one of the biggest struggles, I would say, is separating the two. Not becoming cynical, not becoming hardened to the point where nobody likes to be around you. That's a constant challenge, a daily challenge, to not fall prey to that, you know, where you just want to shut everybody out. LK: Do you think that potentially that could be part of the reason as to why we see these stories in the news where cops are not necessary acting in the way that they should, they’re more aggressive, they’re not—do you think that dealing with those things every single day, and that hardness, do you think that’s maybe a reason that that’s happening? 7 SR: Absolutely. I think, you know, everybody handles stress or these circumstances differently, but if you’re getting bombarded with it on a daily basis and you’re not separating the two, if you become that cynical person or you’ve lumped everybody into being bad guys, you know, the “There’s those that have been arrested and those that will be arrested,” that kind of mentality, then absolutely I think that feeds into maybe the some of the brutality cases you’re looking at, or some of the mistakes officers make and how they treat people. ‘Cause we’re dealing with soccer moms and we’re dealing with the good public on a speeding ticket. But, you know, you pull them over, and now they don’t appreciate being pulled over, and now they start acting like maybe one of these criminals that they’ve dealt with in the past, and they start treating them the same way. So, sure, I can see that easily, and I totally understand it when I see that in the news. LK: Is there any kind of like programs or ways that the city or the government offers police officers ways to deal with that? Are there programs in place, and if there aren't, should there be? Is there a way to do that? SR: Well, through Farmington they offer an employee assistance program, which is basically therapy or counseling for guys that might—we like to call it waxy buildup. You know, when you’re waxing a floor you gotta scrape all of the wax off at some point and then rewax it, right? Well, officers get the same thing. Over time, they get that waxy buildup of hardness and cynicism. Well, they need some help sometimes in breaking that down and starting over. Some cities offer that, not all cities do, but I think that’s definitely a good program. The problem with that is that’s a volunteer basis. Like, for me, I would have to submit myself to go do 8 that. Not all officers are willing to do that, because they see it as a sign of weakness. If they don’t take advantage of the programs offered, it’s just like the program wasn’t there to begin with. LK: That’s true. So, we’ve kind of touched on this a little bit, but what are your feelings on how the media and the news are portraying police officers? Is it accurate? It is unfair? Is it skewed? Do you think that there’s not a fair amount of good and bad? What’s your thoughts on how we’re currently portraying our police to the world? SR: I would say we get good and bad, mostly bad, especially when an officer they perceive makes a mistake. Now, understanding that just because an officer has to use force and somebody dies who maybe was unarmed does not be mean that the officer was not justified or it wasn’t reasonable, but the media will portray it as such. Even though they don’t have all the facts, and when they do get all the facts it’s maybe months later and they don’t come out and tell you the facts. They’ve already made their decision when the initial story [happened], so then they’ve created a public outcry or a public attitude about this circumstance. You know, Michael Brown case was a perfect example [of] an officer that shot an unarmed man, but he was justified, as it came out later. Obviously, there was a race portion to that. A white officer, black male, they thought that was a reason why he was shot. But all the facts that came out later showed the officer was clearly justified, but the media had already tried him, so to speak, and found him guilty. 9 I think that we see a lot of that. The media is more than happy to jump on a story without having all the facts but filling in the blanks, so to speak, and usually it’s not in favor of the police. But at the same time you see, and most of it is in social media, where you see positive things. You don’t see it on mainstream television or radio so much as you do in social media, the positive aspects of police work and the good things we do. LK: It’s good that we have that at least. Do you feel like the media intentionally skews it? Is that an intentional thing? Is it they just want to get on the story so quickly that they don’t care about getting all the facts? Or do you think that it’s, “This story’s gonna get more readers, is gonna get more of a reaction if there’s—?” SR: —Sensationalism, sure. Yeah, if everything was hunky dory and the officer did everything and whatever they did was right, there’s no story there. It was just an officer doing his job and that’s how it ended up. But if the officer messed up, or there’s a possibility that he messed up, that’s the story. That’s what gets everybody’s attention and grabs ‘em, so they walk ‘em down that path. Who cares about it two months later? I mean, news is [snapping fingers] right here, right now. If everything comes out two months later, that’s old story, we’re moving on. I think that’s the nature of their business. I do think they drive it that way, though. I mean, obviously we have a thirst for these kinds of stories in the public. I think they drive it, though. I think they feed off that, they feed off our desire to see sensationalism. LK Do you think cop shows kind of give a bias on how cops act? Just for example, Chicago PD, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen that show, but it shows cops that 10 don’t really follow the rules. Do you think that by watching all these crime shows that are on now that people have an expectation of how the cops really are, even though that’s not necessarily true based on what Hollywood’s showing us? SR: I quit watching cop shows a long time ago because I got tired of the way they’re portrayed. Especially the movies. You know, they’re all guns a-blazing and kicking down doors. Hollywood portrays us as we just like shooting people, or we use our guns on every situation. We’re usually dysfunctional in some way. We drink a lot or have family problems, right? That’s how we’re portrayed in the media and movies and shows, so I quit watching them because it wasn't the way that I know law enforcement to be, and I didn’t appreciate that. It just wasn’t entertaining to me. I haven’t seen Chicago PD. LK: Don’t watch it, you wouldn’t like it [laughs]. SR: I used to watch Cops, which was the ride-along, you know, the realist, or what do they call it, real TV? LK: Yeah, reality TV. SR: Reality TV, yeah. That kind of piqued my interest, but even that, I look at that and I can see where they’re kind of playing it up for the camera, the officers are, because they know the camera’s there. But yeah, I quit watching it for that very reason, I didn’t like the way they portrayed [us], and I do think that that’s how people think that we really are. I mean, we can talk about the CSI effect. You know, the CSI TV show, they think that we can go do all this fun stuff with a fingerprint, or that we should be able to find a fingerprint at every scene, or DNA, and it’s just not true. Even if we do find 11 DNA, we don't have the case solved in an hour. It takes months, years. We call it the CSI effect. LK: That’s very accurate. SC: I was in a jury trial and the attorney was asking some of the potential jurors if they were watching the show Orange is the New Black, which is about female inmates. Some of the stuff that they portray in that has led to a perspective of correctional officers. This happened to involve a corrections employee, so that’s why they were wanting to know if potential jurors might be influenced by that television show. So, yeah, it affects our perception. LK: So, when you first started 20 years ago, this whole mass technology did not exist, and now we’re dealing with a situation where everybody has a camera on their phone at all times. There’s this huge connection to the internet and exposing it to a lot of people basically instantaneously. How has that changed how police officers conduct themselves pretty much all the time? Whether they’re pulling someone over or dealing with someone whose family members have committed suicide, whatever the case may be. How has that changed how you conduct yourself, knowing that potentially you could be on anybody's camera at any time? SR: For me personally, not a whole lot, because in uniform you’re always being watched anyways. We felt like we are being videotaped, so to speak, or watched by everybody, and we’re readily recognizable. If we show up somewhere, people are watching us anyways, because they want to see what's going on. So, now that fact they can just record it doesn't really change anything as far as how I act 12 and behave, but now many more people can see it and judge me for the way I act and behave. But hopefully I’m already doing the right things because I was doing it to begin with. Like I said, if you’ve got the right attitude as a police officer, you should be holding yourself to a higher standard. If you don’t, then I think you’re going to run into some problems. The public holds us to a higher standard, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, just for what we represent. If we’re not, if we just think we can be regular Joe on and off duty, then I think we’re mistaken, and that’s where you see trouble. LK: What are some of the ways that law enforcement can protect themselves from being seen in a bad light in the media and on the news? Do you guys have training for that? Do you talk about it? Or is it just kind of general knowledge? SR: Yeah, I would say that we don’t get training per se other than what we learn from others’ mistakes or what we see on TV. Like, we don’t want to come across that way or look that way if we ever have to deal with that situation. But we don’t go to training that says this is how you should portray yourself or deal with the public or the bad rap we’re getting. I haven’t had anything. It’s just kind of a more personal, individualized, what changes you’re going to make to help combat that. We can do a lot of simple things, really. I mean, the way that we talk to people and keep them informed. They just want to know what we’re doing, especially victims and witnesses, people involved with the case. I think we can do a better job of keeping them informed. Plus, it’s just good business. They’re your customers, so keep talking with them. Even though you might not have anything new to tell them on their case, keep them updated. 13 That’s something I’ve tried to do better. I developed rapport with them, and they can kind of see that, “Hey, he cares,” ‘cause I do. I mean, I don't want to be emotionally involved with all my cases or that would be unhealthy, but I do care. I want them to see that and not just see me as somebody they’ve seen on television that’s cynical and hard. That, and a lot of times I just try to not be that robot. You know, you can put on the uniform and hold yourself to a higher standard and not come across as a robot but have personality. LK: Have personality, that’s good advice. RS: Yeah, instead of just, you know, [moves arms imitating a robot]. LK: Do you think that… Obviously, when you started, you stated that it was a trusted position, it was viewed as a hero, and now it’s not really as much. Do you think that there’s not just a lack of trust but a growing fear when seeing police officers? Even for people who don’t necessarily do something wrong, that because of all this bad hype, all this, “The officers are attacking,” the bad media, that people are becoming fearful of police officers? If that were to be the case, how would that affect you as an officer? RS: Well, fearful I think not just of police, but of government, and because we’re the most visible part of government, then yeah, and the enforcement part. I think there’s a little bit of that, and that’s why we are scrutinized so heavily is ‘cause people are afraid we’re going to abuse that authority. But we also have the situation where maybe I’m in a store on a break or whatever and a mother brings her child up to me and says, “Here’s a policeman. If you do something wrong, he’s gonna come get you.” I’ve heard that throughout 14 my career, a mother teaching this to their kid that I’m one to be feared, because if they screw up, I’m going to be there to hold them accountable, so to speak. I think maybe that has played a lot into it, that mentality, or using us as a motivation to not make mistakes, because we’ll be the ones there. So, now they’re adults, they’ve grown up all their life with this thought that “If I screw up, the police are gonna be there to get me.” That creates some fear. [I have] pulled over ladies, mostly females, that are extremely fearful of being pulled over. Not necessarily for the officer being an authority figure, but it’s just something they fear in getting a ticket. Now, all these years they get pulled over and they just start bawling because it’s kind of been an apprehension for them, and they’ve actually told me this. I found that very interesting that some people drive around in fear of being pulled over instead of just driving and doing what you’re supposed to do [laughing]. LK: [Laughing] Just don’t break the law, there you go. RS: I just found that interesting, but I think that all plays into it a little bit too. We constantly have to battle that stigma that some parents have taught their kids. Then we need to start dealing with these kids that are trouble makers, and we have to try and win them over. It’s an uphill battle. I kind of forgot what your initial question was, but I think I answered it. LK: [Both laughing] You answered it, you’re good. Lately—and I’ve dealt with this on my own situation where I have been dealing with a police officer and I’ve been approached by someone who was very aggressive to the thought of a police officer being in the vicinity. So, I’m sure you’ve had your dealings with people 15 who say you pull them over for a simple ticket, and they were speeding, they deserved to get pulled over, and they are very aggressive. What’s an example of a time when that’s happened, and how did you deal with a more aggressive person? SR: Well, that’s quite common on traffic tops like you mention. Some people, your mere presence sets ‘em off, for whatever reason. The number one thing we do train and teach our officers to do is to deescalate. Much easier said than done. If you have somebody that’s already up here [motioning with hand], you want to try and bring it back down here. So, if they’re here and I shoot to here [lifts hand higher] as far as my emotional response to them, then I’m not deescalating. So, the initial thing is when I deal with an offender that is already amped up, I’m just gonna try and get to the root of the problem. What are they mad about? Is it just cops in general? Is it the fact that they got a ticket a week ago? I’m just going to talk to them, try and get a baseline where this person’s coming from and deal with that. Sometimes I can just skirt around it and it puts them at ease, so to speak, or it calms them down a little bit to where we can talk. But there are some people that just keep going up and up, and then I don’t have the option to be Officer Friendly anymore. I’ve got to look at this person as a threat, so to speak, especially depending how far they take this. If they’re not complying with the things that I am asking for then, you know, we have to deal with that. I mean, if I don't deal with it, who’s going to take care of those people? What are they going to do next time they get pulled over? Whether that’s just writing a ticket or it comes to some type of arrest for a violation, I don’t know. It 16 just depends on the circumstances. I can’t say I do this for every time, ‘cause it’s based on the person. But yeah, that’s another thing that kind of hardens us, dealing with that on a regular basis. LK: Yeah, dealing with angry people all the time. Do you think that when you first started that you dealt with near as many angry, aggressive people as you do now? SR: Well, now I don’t do traffic stops, I’m in a different role, but no, I would say that I probably dealt more with angry motorists in the first part of my career, and that was because I didn’t have a good bedside manner, so to speak. I was still young and just thought wearing the badge was all I needed and having the uniform on was enough to earn respect. The older I got, the more experience I had in dealing with that and recognizing that I’m not going to get the respect just because I’m wearing a uniform. So, I tried to win ‘em over more. I’d spend more time on my bedside manner and how I talked to people and interact with them. So, I’d say towards the end of my patrol career I was running into far less angry motorists. They might have been angry at first, but I calmed them down pretty quick. Not to mention I was probably more selective in who I was pulling over. LK: [Laughing] Yes. So, there are some controversial issues that have been coming up recently, like body cameras. What’s your opinion on body cameras? Are you pro, are you against? What’s the purpose? SR: I’m pro-body camera. The problem we have—and as far as law enforcement, I got no issues wearing a body camera. The problem is how do we protect somebody’s privacy if we need to? You know, if you’re going into somebody’s 17 home, dealing with kids. The other big problem is going to be legislation. You know, if there’s laws that require us to have our camera on at certain times, ‘cause we forget to turn it on if it is a manual thing that we have to do. Are we going to be punished if it’s a forgetful thing? Of course, people look at that and say “You meant to not turn it on,” and I understand that. The other big thing is logistically, all that video, we got to store it. For how long? Who knows. Not only do we have to store it, but then we have to copy it multiple times. Especially if this is involving a serious case, we’re gonna have to copy it for the courts, we’re gonna copy it for the prosecutors, for the defense side, and that takes a lot of time. Especially the bigger the file, depending on your setup or your technology, it could take you hours to copy one disc of video depending on how it is formatted in your department. So, logistically, I see that being a huge issue that we’re gonna have to deal with. But as far as me wearing a boy camera so people see what I am doing, I got no issues with that. LK: Nice. Do you feel like the explosion of technology has helped you to be a better cop? Like, given you more tools to be a better or cop? Or do you think it’s more hindering in that there are more rules and regulations over all the technology that could possibly occur? SC: I think both, actually. With this emergence of technology, it’s given us a lot more tools, but some of those tools have been taken away by the courts because they feel like it’s violating somebody's privacy. The thermal imager is one that comes to mind, where you can see the thermal report coming from a home. It’s not inside the home, just what leaves the house. Thermal imagers can’t see through 18 walls; it just detects heat signatures. I can’t see through a wall, or even a window for that matter, and see you standing behind it with the thermal imager. It doesn’t work like that. But the courts took that tool away without having a warrant, because they believed in some super sci-fi stuff that they thought thermal imagers were looking through walls. That was disappointing. But that was a good tool. Like I said, with a warrant, it just requires a lot more information before you can actually pull it out. But you know, we talk about videos and stuff being everywhere has helped with identifying suspects. Social media has helped a great deal. I’ll send pictures of the suspect to victims on Facebook, or they’ll just send me it through Facebook or social media, and they identify the people for me. I’ve had that happen. Somebody had some things stolen from their car. I was able to get some video of it and sent it to the victim, she put it out over social media, and somebody identified the person for her. So, I think it’s a great help, especially with the amount of cases we have to do and the amount of time we can put into each of those cases. So, video, there’s also tracking devices that have [been a] great help. They seem to be doing a lot with that in bank robberies and theft. You know, where you put a tracker in there, that’s a great technology. GPS devices, great technology. And there’s more coming. It’s constantly changing. That’s one of the things that I like about this job is that it does change constantly with the tools. Taser, I mean, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding the taser because it is a great tool. I have been tasered, so I know what it feels like. I would 19 recommend that over pepper spray any day. I mean, how many people have been saved by that device when it might have been a situation where you had to use lethal force in the past? Now you can use the taser to subdue that person and they get to live. It’s one less death. Somebody’s threatening suicide with a knife, how do you get the knife away from them? Or maybe they threaten somebody else with a knife and you shoot ‘em, well, with the taser you have an option. Bean bag rounds out of shot guns, rubber bullets, pepper balls, all this stuff is emerging technology in weapons area, but yeah, it’s a huge help. But at the same time as we integrate these things, somebody is going to look at it and then throw some rules onto it so it takes the fun out of it. And there are cops that maybe become too dependent on the taser and use it too much. That becomes a training issue. Do we give up our old tools? That’s one of the problems with the taser is that officers have quit trying to talk to people. Instead of trying to talk somebody down, they just taser them. They lose their verbal skills because they become too dependent on some of these other tools that they have. LK: So, it can be a great thing, but it also can be a hinderance, like most things. SR: Yeah. LK: How has technology changed crime? SR: Well, I’ll tell you, when I first started identity theft was… I don’t even know if we dealt with identity theft at all 20 years ago when I first started. People’d steal checks, now they steal credit cards. We [deal with] a lot of internet crime. That’s the biggest change, ‘cause the internet was just getting started. It wasn’t in every 20 home or every computer didn’t have it when I started, but now that everyone has it you’re seeing a lot more internet crime. You’re seeing money being frauded out of people through internet crime. You’re seeing minors being enticed by older men and women, which was not something you would see at all when I started 20 years ago. So, yeah, crime has definitely changed. The types of crimes I investigate has changed drastically. We still get our bank robberies, which baffles me, because people can make more money off an internet scam than they can robbing a bank. I don't know, I guess it’s just what their skill set allows ’em to do. LK: Do you feel like crime has increased because of technology, or it has just changed? SR: That’s a good question. I feel like it’s just changed. Well, Farmington has grown as far as population and businesses, so in that regard our crime has increased. We’ve had to add more officers because of bigger populations. So, it’s hard for me to sit here and say that crime has increased because of technology, but I feel like it’s definitely changed the type of crime. I would say that it’s probably held pretty steady, maybe a fluctuation up and down here and there. But types of crimes, violent crime went down for a long time. It’s now coming back. Yeah, it’s increasing, but that was probably due to a lot of the drug laws we had. The minimum mandatory sentences with drug laws required that drug dealers had to go away for 10 years, and those laws are going away. Now they’re out within one or two, so we might see an increase in crime that’s drug related. LK: What would cause something like that to change? Why are they changing that? SR: The minimum mandatories? 21 LK: Yes. SR: Because we can’t afford to house everybody in prison now. We don’t have enough prison space and it’s too expensive to keep people behind bars for that long. To be honest, that’s the driving force is the money. We as a country incarcerate more of our population than any other country on the planet. I don’t have those numbers right off of the top of my head, but I know our rate of incarceration is higher than anybody else. We can’t sustain that. We can’t sustain that level without going bankrupt. So, that’s the driving force why we’d do away [with those laws], because we’ve packed our prisons with drug [motions with fingers] “offenders,” but those same drug offenders that are the same ones that commit violent crime, burglaries, robberies also. That’s just not what they got arrested for at the time or charged with, but because they were behind bars they weren’t out doing those other things. But now our legislatures are looking at that saying, “Well, we have to get rid of the drug offenders. We’ll house the violent offenders. That’s the priority.” We’ll see how that works out for us. That’s kind of the change we’re seeing now. You’re seeing a big push for that from not only state level but federal level to get rid of minimum mandatory sentencing. LK: What is it that causes us to have the highest percentage of people that we incarcerate versus any other country? What’s different about what they do that causes it so that they—do they just have more crime and they just don’t take care of it? Or do they do something different that maybe we should implement in order to help our society be more peaceful? 22 SR: I wouldn't say that they are more peaceful. ‘Cause you look at some of these other countries like China, they execute a lot more people than we do. So, that might be one of the reasons. But maybe they have other programs, social programs in place. Some of their laws aren't as strict as far as like drugs and things like that. You know, legal marijuana or legal heroin. That’s kind of I think what you’re seeing is they’ve decriminalized some of our drug laws, like heroin and methamphetamine used to be felonies; they’re now misdemeanors to possess. So, you’re kind of seeing that go to that direction that some of these other countries probably already have done. Does that mean they have less crime? I don’t think so, but the incarceration is based on how many people you’re incarnate and what your population size is, so that’s some of the driving force. But if you try to compare us to China, who’s a big country, or Russia, those are much more fierce in their putting people behind bars. Their due process doesn’t exist. LK: All right. So, you started 20 years ago, you’ve seen 20 years of change. How do you think we’ll look 20 years from now? SR: 20 years from now? Well, I definitely think you’re gonna see more of your crime being computer driven or over the internet. More of that’s gonna happen. I think law enforcement obviously will increase, probably to the point where you don't have to hire as many officers because you’re relying more on technology. The beat cop won’t be the driving force. Like, right now majority of your police departments are patrol officers. I can see a day where you have fewer patrol officers and more investigators working behind the scenes. 23 I would hope at the same time that police departments work on a proactive level, which is always better than reactive, which seems to be a large part. Unfortunately, investigations is all reactive because [the] crime’s already happened. I would hope that the technology and resources will be put towards proactive policing. I think that you do see a lot of that. But I think that officers are always going to be needed. They’re always going to need weapons. You know, carry guns. I don’t think you can [do] away with guns. I think the technology for guns is going to change. They’re already dealing with fingerprints, that you’ll have to have a fingerprint identification to be able to use a firearm, that type of thing, so if your gun was taken from you somebody else couldn’t use it. You know, interesting things like that. Sci-fi. I see that, kind of. So, it’ll be interesting. I hope I’m around to see it. LK: Absolutely you should be. [Both laughing] That’s not even a question. How do you think movements like Black Lives Matter has affected people's viewpoints on law enforcement and how they interact? Do you think it affects, or do you think that’s a completely separate issue from law enforcement? SR: No, it’s absolutely affected us. I think that whole movement was based on a perception of lies that they created. They spread a false narrative about law enforcement and what we’re all about, using some mistakes and unfortunate circumstances. They can take one example to portray an entire career field. That’s what they based that on. But it’s a social movement. You think of the ‘60’s, you had a lot of social movements. Cops kind of went through the same thing back then. We had a lot 24 of case law that came down. You had Miranda come out of the 60s, early 70s. So, Miranda warnings, you know, “You have the right to remain silent” and all that. That was case law that brought that about during that time. I think the aspect they’re trying to draw attention to is worthy, but the way they’re doing it is false, so I don’t respect that movement for that reason. I understand they’re a social force that wants to make some changes, but I don’t know that the changes they’re trying to make are accurate in the way they perceive them or describe them. LK: Do you think that—‘cause I know that a tool that police officers use is profiling, and they’ve brought up racial profiling business. What’s the reasoning behind using profiling, and why it isn’t necessarily a racial thing and why it’s a helpful tool for you in law enforcement? SR: Well, profiling, we like to call it criminal profiling, and sometimes that does include race. If you have a predominately white area, so to speak, and then you have another race, like we’ll use Hispanic, that is patrolling the neighborhoods, not that that’s illegal, but it might be something you need to keep an eye on, just because that person isn’t normally associated with that area. Doesn’t make it illegal, doesn’t mean you’re going to arrest the person, but if you’re trying to prevent crime and be proactive, then you might start looking for other indicators of criminal behavior based on that fact first. So, when you talk about profiling, yeah, we’re not trying to racially profile, we’re trying to criminally profile. If somebody’s in an area that they wouldn't normally be, they’re gonna get your attention to start looking for indicators, but that should not be the sole indicator. 25 LK: Do you think that the media or that society has skewed it so that when a cop talks about profiling, or a person of a race that feels that they’re unjust in the way that they’re treated, do you think that’s something they use as like, “Well that’s the reason, it’s unjust, it’s not fair, it’s—”? SR: Yeah absolutely. I’ve pulled over cars in the middle of the night. I have no idea what race the driver is, but the first thing he tells me is “You pulled me over because I’m Black,” or Hispanic, and that’s the furthest thing from the truth. I pulled them over for a traffic violation, so how could it be a racial thing? Yet on my ticket, or on the stats that the state wants, we have to indicate that, the race of the driver. So, I think that they’ll play that to whatever their agenda is, maybe to get out of something or get a pass on something, sure. LK: You were talking about how back in the 60s they kind of dealt with a similar issue, not necessary Black Lives Matter, but similar things to that, and then we got back to a situation where we trusted cops, we perceived them as heroes. Do you think we'll ever get back to that again, where society won’t view them as this fearful force and not someone there to protect you? SR: Yeah, I think we can win ‘em back, so to speak. I see it as kind of a roller coaster thing. But at the same time, I think we lose a little bit of ground every time. So, to get right back to where we were? I don’t think so. I think we can get a lot of it back, but each time… And as public changes and society changes, the morality and all that stuff’s going away, so now they view us as trying to tell them what to do. The further we get down that path, the more we lose. So, yeah, I don't think we’ll get it all back, but I think we’ll get parts of it back. 26 LK: I just lost my train of thought, geez. Obviously 20 years ago the morals of the country were very different than they are today. It’s changed drastically. Do you think that… Oh geez, I just lost it. That change, where 20 years ago rules were considered [the] norm, and now we’re getting to the point where it’s like, “You can’t tell me what to do.” So, how is that going to change in the future? Is that the same thing, it’s a roller coaster where one decade rules are considered, “Yeah, we need those, like logically, yes we do,” and then the next decade everyone’s like, “I want to be able to do what I want, but I still want you to come if someone burglarizes my house”? How do we get back to that thought of rules are important, there’s a reason that they’re there, and this whole “Everyone gets to do whatever they want” isn’t realistic? SR: Sheesh, if I had the answer to that I’d be a rich man. That’s not necessarily a law enforcement issue; that’s a society issue that affects law enforcement. But I don’t know. Like I said, the further you move away from governed by law and rules to “I can do whatever I want,” the further you move away from that over time, the harder and harder it’s ever gonna be to get back. That’s why I say I think you lose a little bit each time. You might ride the roller coaster, but as you go up, when you come back down you don’t go all the way back down. It’s not as much of a valley, and then maybe it’s a higher rise, as far as a mountain top away from that base line, so to speak, of morality. LK: All right. So, last question. If you could give one piece of advice to someone who’s just starting out, they have 20, 30 years ahead of them as being a cop. 27 What is the advice you would give to them to be the best cop, to make the most difference in that profession? SR: Mostly it would be just to be decent. Not that you have to cry with everybody, but don’t lose your compassion. I would say that’s probably a hard part for cops, is [to] remember they can still have compassion and still do this job effectively. I think that tends to get tossed out pretty quick as a sign of weakness if you’re compassionate. I would tell them otherwise, that compassion is what endears you to people. It will help change the perspective that we have. First of all, they need to know they can still be person, especially not to change that if they are compassionate, definitely not to lose it. If they’re not compassionate, try and find some. That would be my number one thing, but just not to get swallowed up in this job. Family first, job second or third. It is a lifestyle. It’s not just a job, it’s a lifestyle, and if they don’t think of it as that then they can run into some troubles. Like I said, if what they do off duty doesn’t matter to them, doesn’t think it affects their ability to do this job, they’re wrong, because it does. It’s who you are, it’s not what you do. That would be my advice. LK: Sounds like good advice. Well, thank you, and I appreciate you doing this interview with me. SR: My pleasure. 28