U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Are Campus Law Enforcement Administrators Ready for Behavior Pattern Recognition?

NCJ Number
217099
Journal
Campus Law Enforcement Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 6 Dated: November/December 2006 Pages: 17-21
Author(s)
Richard W. Bloom Ph.D.
Date Published
November 2006
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article examines whether the investigative tactic of "Behavior Pattern Recognition" (BPR) could be a useful campus security tool, and if so, how it can be used and the challenges in developing it.
Abstract
BPR has two components: developing reliable and valid indicators that show intent to violate the law or engage in significant misconduct and the identification of individuals who harbor such intent. Indicators of intent to violate the law include any combination of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that raise suspicion in the mind of a trained law enforcement officer. Under BPR, such suspicious persons are interviewed, using strategies and tactics that elicit more information that can help an officer determine whether the individual intends to violate the law. Depending on the information collected and analyzed, the suspected individual can then be placed in custody or be allowed to continue his/her pursuits. BPR could be useful as a tactic in campus security because it can stop illegal behavior before it occurs; however, it must be used sensitively and appropriately in order to prevent antagonizing the innocent student majority. This can be avoided by training campus security officers in the major indicators of suspicious behavior, such as wearing heavy clothing that is inappropriate for a hot day, loitering at a campus location inappropriate for the time of day or the schedule of student activities, and nonverbal signs of nervousness and anxiety. The intent of the development of such indicators is to ensure that innocent students are not detained for questioning when engaged in acceptable student social and class activities. Further, interview strategies should not be confrontational, threatening, or assertive. The student should simply be encouraged to provide an explanation for the indicators that have raised the officer's suspicion.