Police Leaders Are Wilting Under Scrutiny—It's Time to Train Them Better

It’s been a bad month for public communications responses to high-profile violence. 

Following the mass shooting at Brown University, many Americans criticized Providence police and city leadership for their communications response, and for good reason. First, officials claimed there was no immediate threat even while admitting the shooter was still at large. Then, when asked whether the suspect is still nearby, the mayor responded ”honestly, we have no way of knowing.” If they have no idea if the suspect is still in the city, how can they say there’s no danger? The chief also had to be corrected mid-answer on whether they have footage from both inside and outside the building. Later, the chief said he wasn’t going to comment on the scarcity of surveillance or what the shooter yelled before he started killing.

Saying any version of “no comment” is about as big a crisis communications blunder as saying “we’re hiding the truth” – both aggravate the public and sow distrust.

There’s more.

The Los Angeles Police Department's handling of the initial press briefing following the tragic stabbing deaths of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife was also disorganized and evasive. The briefer repeatedly declined to confirm basic details already leaking to media outlets, including the victims' identities, despite family confirmations. He insisted that no suspect was being pursued, even as reports emerged that their son, Nick, had been questioned.

These instances have exposed a glaring weakness: police leaders wilting under media scrutiny, fumbling responses that erode public confidence when it's needed most. In these pressure-cooker moments, chiefs and sheriffs often come across as evasive or unprepared, turning tragedies into PR disasters. But here's the kicker: the skill set for preventing and investigating crime is worlds apart from establishing credibility in a crisis. When leaders excel at the former but flop at the latter, it leaves communities distrustful and officers demoralized.

I've handled law enforcement crisis communications at the highest levels, including as a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, and I've seen what works and what doesn't. From coordinating with federal agencies during national incidents to advising on local flare-ups, the playbook is clear: Preparation prevents panic.

Social media pressure and the speed of life make it worse. Misinformation and rumors spread faster than ever before. The need to manage that is harder, with viral clips and armchair experts igniting outrage before facts emerge. A single social media post can morph a routine stop into a national scandal, forcing leaders to respond in real-time without derailing investigations.

While advising police leaders in 31 officer-involved shootings in just the last five years, I’ve learned there really is a right way to communicate in these high-profile cases.

So I train police chiefs, sheriffs, and other government leaders to update the public in a way that maintains transparency and accountability. We drill scenarios, honing messages that inform without inflaming.

It's a myth that police leaders have to say “no comment” or refrain from providing basic details. Because I've prosecuted a wide range of crimes, including murder, I know what law enforcement leaders can say without undermining the integrity of the investigation and prosecution. 

They don’t need to release every bit of information and detail all the evidence, but that amount of material is rarely needed to preserve trust. A well-timed update can defuse tension without tipping hands to suspects or tainting jury pools.

When preparing to tell the public about a high-profile crime, leaders should identify the best channels of communication (it's not always a news conference) and the target audiences. Social media blasts work for quick alerts; community meetings build rapport in tense neighborhoods.

Leaders who know their community can identify the most likely questions and predict the information that will help the public feel confident that the right people are in charge. The common ones include: “What happened?” “Who's accountable?” “Am I at risk?”

At a time when police are under attack from those who sneer at the rule of law, leaders must work harder to show why their mission matters. Critics paint cops as villains, ignoring the daily heroism in chaotic streets. But effective communications can flip the script. 

The recent poor performances underscore the need for leaders who are competent in police work and at least as competent in crisis communications work.

Good policing depends on public trust. And public trust depends on leaders who know what to say, when to say it, and how to say it -- before the crisis hits. That’s because crisis communications isn’t a distraction; it’s now a core function of law enforcement.