Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Weapons Manipulation and Threat Response Course - Montreal, Canada

The Canadian Tactical Training Academy team would like to thank all our attendees and convey our appreciation to the great Lt. Steven Joe for another amazing course! Your knowledge and expertise always go above and beyond the students expectations!!!

CTTA is pleased to announce A FIRST EVER HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT OPERATORS CAMP to be held in the spring 2014 in Louisiana, USA!!!!!

Looking forward to seeing you all, friends & family down in the Bayou State!!!


Wednesday, 2 January 2013

Canadian Tactical Training Academy, Unitas World, and Nisr Al-Aman Invited to Exhibit at Police Expo in Tripoli, Libya

CTTA’s Police Training Programs Target Security and Stability 

Montreal, Quebec–(December 31, 2012) – The Canadian Tactical Training Academy (CTTA) (Pink Sheets: CTTG)

Unitas World Development Inc. and The Canadian Tactical Training Academy in conjunction with Nisr Al-Aman, its Master Distributor in Libya, announced today that that they will exhibit in the upcoming police expo in Tripoli, Libya.

Under the auspices of the Minister of Interior, the Department of Supply Affairs will host the first annual exhibit for police uniforms & equipment which will be held during the period of January 10th to 13th, 2013 at the Tripoli International Fair Grounds.

Manufacturers and dealers and suppliers have been invited to participate in exhibiting up-to-date policing tasks, training programs and clothing, equipment, machinery, devices and tools required for a modern police force.

The invitation to exhibit was extended by the Ministry of the Interior to Mr. Khaled Itaychany, President of Nisr Al-Aman, who stated that “the internationally recognized specialized and proven techniques used by Unitas World and CTTA in training law enforcement personnel is in demand in Libya as the country trains its new police force”.

Unitas World and CTTA deliver targeted police training courses related to various aspects of police work including Police Management and Leadership courses for those participants who exhibit an aptitude for command.

Mr. Angelo Marino, Vice President of CTTA, and President of Unitas World will attend the exposition and represent the companies. Mr. Marino commented, “We are pleased to have been invited to Tripoli and we are working closely with our Master Distributor in Libya, Nisr Al-Aman. We have much to offer with respect to the planned training programs in Libya. Unitas World and CTTA has managed or delivered training programs as well as field security, protection and investigative operations in over 50 countries. We are looking forward to the opportunity to provide professional training services in Libya.”


Wednesday, 14 November 2012

CTTA’s Police Training Programs Target Nation Building in Libya

Montreal, Quebec–(November 14, 2012) – The Canadian Tactical Training Academy (CTTA) (Pink Sheets: CTTG)

The Canadian Tactical Training Academy  (“the Company”) announced today that an agreement has been reached with CANGATEWAY to act as its master agent and represent the Company in Libya.
After visiting CTTA’s Montreal offices and meeting with management, Mr. Khaled Itaychany, Vice President of CANGATEWAY stated that “the specialized and proven techniques used by CTTA in training law enforcement personnel would be in demand in Libya as the country trains its new police force”.

Intelligent Crowd Control Methodology (Trade Mark Pending) is an important aspect of CTTA’s training curriculum. This approach adheres to Canadian guidelines respecting human rights.
Mr. Itaychany, a resident of Montreal, travels frequently to his native Libya. He will represent CTTA in its efforts to achieve specific goals in the area which includes law enforcement training and selling equipment such as bullet-proof vests and riot gear to the police force.

Mr. Itaychany, who is well known in government circles will also open doors in Libya and intends to schedule meetings with the various ministries responsible for law enforcement.

Mr. Angelo Marino, Vice President of CTTA, commented, “We are pleased to have entered into a working relationship with CANGATEWAY and Mr. Itaychany. We have much to offer with respect to the planned training programs in Libya.

CTTA is already in Qatar, Kuwait, and other countries to discuss Security Training, Logistics, and Consulting Services opportunities with various government agencies.  The opportunity to provide professional training services in Libya is enormous “

About The Canadian Tactical Training Academy
The Canadian Tactical Training Academy (CTTA) is an organization devoted to the training of law enforcement, security, investigation, protection officers and all those who dedicate themselves to maintaining peace.

The Academy also provides tailored security and safety-oriented civilian training at both the individual and corporate levels.

CTTA offers recognized tactical training programs of the highest level, as well as specialized programs for the fields of Intelligence and Investigation, Executive Protection and both Public and Private Security and Safety.

CTTA`s Mission is to facilitate professional training and operational objectives by offering the tools and guidance required to enhance careers and ensure survival!

CTTA offers specialized programs such as: Executive Protection, Investigation and Surveillance, Rapid Integrated Survival Kombat (RISK) System, Tactical Firearms, Handcuffing, Airport and Airline Security (IATA and ICAO standards), Ports Facilities and Maritime Security (ISPS Code), Basic SWAT Techniques, Corporate Safety Awareness, and much more.

CTTA`s civilian training programs are recognized by numerous notable corporations, and its instructors are proud members of several prestigious law enforcement and security associations.

The Canadian Gateway for Education (CANGATEWAY) is a private Canadian training and development consortium established as a Canadian consultant for the Libyan private sector and the Libyan Government with regards to higher education reform and workforce training.

CANGATEWAY works with its partners to outline and identify the needs of Libyan institutions and how to engage Canadians institutions in the nation’s rebuilding efforts.

CANGATEWAY gives greater focus on workforce training in the following key areas: The training of peace and law enforcement officers, business management, hospitality and tourism, English language and technical training.

Risk factors and cautionary statement about forward-looking information
This press release includes forward-looking statements about our plans and future performance, including those under Outlook for 2011. These statements use such words as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “contemplate,” “target,” “continue,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. They reflect our expectations and speak only as of the date of this press release. We do not undertake to update them. Our expectations (or the underlying assumptions) may change or not be realized, and you should not rely unduly on forward-looking statements.

Jocelyn Moisan, Angelo Marino and John Farinaccio
Canadian Tactical Training Academy
7000 Cote de Liesse, Suite 8
Montreal, Quebec, H4T 1E7, Canada
Phone: 514-373-8411


Tuesday, 19 June 2012

To Lie or Not to Lie: The Use of Deception During An Interrogation

If the agents involved in the recent Colombia incident are interrogated, should the investigators tell them they have evidence that they don't really have? It depends on a number of considerations.

Earlier this year a case was reported in which a detective doctored a crime lab report to use as a prop during an interrogation. While the suspect did not confess, the detective's tactics spurred legal questions regarding the use of deception during an interrogation. The legal twist was that even though the report used as an interrogation prop was manufactured by the investigator, it was based on factual verbal information provided by the crime lab. In other words, the manufactured evidence contained truthful information that incriminated the suspect but the report was not a bona fide report from the crime lab. 1

Legal Considerations

The legal test for deceptive practices during an interrogation has remain unchanged for more than 40 years. The use of deception during an interrogation must be considered within the totality of circumstances when deciding the admissibility of a confession.2 Deception that shocks the conscience of the court or community will generally result in a suppressed confession. An example of deception that "shocks the conscience" is lying to the suspect about the possible consequences he faces, e.g., telling a homicide suspect that the legislature just dropped first degree murder to a misdemeanor. Similarly, an investigator who elicits a confession after falsely telling the suspect that he is his court appointed public defender has "shocked the conscience".

A second legal guideline regulating deceptive practices, stemming from a 1989 case, makes a distinction between manufacturing evidence against the suspect (which is not permissible) and false verbal assertions (which generally are permissible). 3 In that case the investigator manufactured a fictitious crime lab report indicating that the suspect's DNA was found during an autopsy of the victim. After reading the "crime lab report" the suspect confessed. The suspect's confession was later suppressed at trial. If the investigator had falsely told the suspect that his DNA was found during the victim's autopsy this would have been permissible - but the investigator went too far by manufacturing the lab report. Other than these exceptions, there are many decisions upholding the use of verbal deception during an interrogation.

There is no per se legal restriction against the use of "props" during an interrogation. However, the prop must truly be a mere visual aid such as a blank DVD where the suspect is falsely told that it is the surveillance video showing the suspect removing property from a building. To determine whether a prop crosses the line of being improper, ask the following question: "Could an analysis of the purported evidence incriminate the suspect?" If the answer is "yes" the prop should not be used. In the DVD example, even if the DVD was labeled "Surveillance Video, May 12, 2012" anyone who played the DVD would realize that there was absolutely nothing on it that would incriminate the suspect.

Procedural Considerations

Most investigators have experienced some success with deceptive practices during an interrogation. For example, the investigator may produce a file containing a number of blank pages. As the investigator thumbs through the pages in the file he states, "This is a report from an eye-witness who saw you outside the building that night; this is a report indicating your fingerprints were found inside the building; this report shows that you made a large cash purchase two days after you went into that apartment building." A guilty person who believes that the investigator, in fact, has all of this incriminating evidence is more likely to tell the truth.

On the other hand, consider the investigator who falsely tells a suspect, "We found your fingerprint inside that house." Unbeknownst to the investigator, the suspect wore gloves during the burglary that he committed. Obviously, under this circumstance the deceptive tactic completely backfires. The investigator will lose credibility, the suspect will become more confident in his ability to lie and the interrogation will deteriorate very quickly.

Suffice it to say, lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence is a risky interrogation tactic. To reduce this risk the investigator who anticipates the possibility of mentioning fictitious evidence during the interrogation may first test the fictitious evidence during the interview by asking a bait question.

Consider the investigator who is contemplating making a false statement during the interrogation concerning an eye-witness who saw the suspect at the scene of the crime. During the interview the investigator may ask the following bait question, "Is there any reason a witness, who was walking their dog down Washington street that night, would tell us that they saw you leave the apartment complex around 7:00?"

If the suspect offers an emphatic denial to this bait question it would be an indication to the investigator that he should not mention a fictitious eye-witness during the interrogation. On the other hand, if the suspect offered a hesitant or qualified response to this bait question, the investigator should have confidence in mentioning an eye-witness during the interrogation. The following are other procedural considerations relating to deceptive statements during an interrogation:

  1. Consider deception as a last resort effort to overcome stubborn, weak denials typically offered by a guilty suspect.
  2. Do not lie to a suspect who claims not to remember his actions at the time of the crime. There are reported cases of internalized false confessions where innocent suspects claim that they were convinced by the investigator that they must have committed the crime, even though the suspect had no initial recollection of committing the crime. Obviously, the use of deception by the investigator could increase the likelihood of this occurrence.
  3. Do not use false evidence to threaten inevitable consequences. A number of previous web tips have addressed the dangers of convincing an innocent suspect that he or she will suffer negative consequences regardless of whether the suspect acknowledges guilt. When this tactic is reinforced with false claims that the investigator has evidence implicating the suspect in the crime, a false confession is a real possibility.
Miscellaneous Considerations

Some private companies have established internal policies that prohibit corporate investigators from making false statements during an interview or interrogation of an employee. The basis for this policy is generally based on corporate ethical considerations as opposed to legal requirements. Especially when a corporate investigation centers around administrative acts of wrong-doing, the use of deceptive practices may fall outside of the realm of acceptable standards of practice and open the employer to possible civil liability.

Police officers who work in small communities often arrest and re-arrest the same suspects, or relatives of that suspect on a regular basis. In a tight-knit community the officer's reputation will often dictate his success in developing informants and eliciting confessions from suspects. If the officer establishes a reputation of being a straight shooter and honest he is likely to be successful. On the other hand, if the officer has a reputation of lying to suspects and not being trustworthy, his ability to solve cases through gathering street information or by interrogating suspects is greatly hindered. Under this circumstance, the investigator will be more successful by establishing a reputation of being truthful.

The same advise applies to the corporate investigator who will quickly establish a reputation of either being credible or someone not to trust. It must be remembered that both innocent and guilty suspects will not cooperate with an investigator they do not trust; the one case that might be solved by making deceptive statements during an interrogation could result in the failure to resolve many future cases.

Finally, investigators who electronically record interrogations should consider their ability to explain their use of deception practices to a jury. The defense, of course, will argue that the recorded deception somehow renders the defendant's confession as untrustworthy. A competent prosecutor should be able to address this issue by educating the jury with respect to the law and emphasizing that the confession is corroborated with information only the guilty person could have provided.


Deceptive practices are prevalent within society and largely considered an acceptable part of doing business or preserving social relationships. When a store asks a customer to register for a free birthday gift they don't want to send the customer a gift - they want to find out how old the customer is so they can market products appropriate to someone that age. We have all been served a meal that was less than appetizing and yet, deceptively, we would finish our portion, compliment the chef and leave a generous tip. These examples involve everyday practices of law abiding citizens. What about when dealing with criminal suspects? Certainly courts and society recognize that investigators often need to resort to deceptive practices in an effort to learn the truth from a criminal suspect. Indeed, the law extends great latitude within the area of making false statements to a criminal suspect.

However, as addressed in this article, just because lying to a suspect is accepted by the courts and will generally not cause an innocent person to confess, there are other considerations that may cause an investigator to avoid making false statements to a suspect. These involve circumstances where the investigator's deceptive conduct may negatively affect the investigator's (or employer's) ability to solve the crimes, as well as affect their reputation.

1 Reported in "Austin Police Use of Doctored DNA Report in Interrogation Raises Legal Questions," Statesman.com, Jan. 30, 2012
2Frazier v. Cupp 394 U.S. 731 (1969)
3 Cayward v. Fl 552 So 2nd 971 (1989)

Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.