Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher

by Effective Interviewing

ments, employment agencies, and labor unions. Employers with fifteen or more employees

  were covered beginning July 26, 1994. The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment

  practices, including job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation,

  training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to recruitment,

  advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits, and all other employment-related activities.

  An employer may not ask or require a job applicant to take a medical examination before

  making a job offer. It cannot make any pre-employment inquiry about a disability or the

  nature or severity of a disability. An employer may, however, ask questions about the abil-

  ity to perform specific job functions and may, with certain limitations, ask an individual

  with a disability to describe or demonstrate how she or he would perform these functions.

  An employer may condition a job offer on the satisfactory result of a post-offer medical

  examination or medical inquiry if this is required of all entering employees in the same

  job category. A post-offer examination or inquiry does not have to be job-related and

  consistent with business necessity.

  An employer is free to select the most qualified applicant available and to make decisions

  based on reasons unrelated to a disability. For example, suppose two persons apply for a job

  as a typist and an essential function of the job is to type 75 words per minute accurately. One

  applicant, an individual with a disability, who is provided with a reasonable accommodation

  for a typing test, types 50 words per minute; the other applicant, who has no disability, accu-

  rately types 75 words per minute. The employer can hire the applicant with the higher typing

  speed, if typing speed is needed for successful performance of the job.

  Drug addiction is also protected under the ADA; however, current or casual drug use is

  not protected under the ADA. A test for the illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical

  examination under the ADA; therefore, employers may conduct such testing of applicants

  or employees and make employment decisions based on the results. The ADA does not

  encourage, prohibit, or authorize drug tests. If the results of a drug test reveal the presence

  of a lawfully prescribed drug or other medical information, such information must be

  treated as a confidential medical record.

  An alcoholic is considered to have a disability and is protected by the ADA if he or she is

  qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to pro-

  vide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge, or

  deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance

  or conduct. An employer may also prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can

  require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

  If an individual has a known disability that would reasonably appear to interfere with or

  prevent performance of job functions, that person may be asked to demonstrate how these

  functions will be performed, even if other applicants are not asked to do so [2].

  The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires businesses to have employees sign a dis-

  closure form granting authorization to perform a background check. The FCRA is not just

  238

  15. PRE-EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING

  restricted to credit reports but includes all “consumer reports.” Laws will vary from state to

  state in how and what information can be used during the pre-employment screening

  process.

  You will find a copy of the authors’ pre-employment booklet in Appendix C. Using it

  will allow you to perform effective pre-employment screening interviews to ensure that

  you and your clients or department hire the best applicants applying for the job.

  SUMMARY

  • The best source of information comes from the applicants themselves.

  • To get information the interviewer must:

  • Plant seeds for truth and gain rapport

  • Ask assumptive questions

  • Exaggerate the problem

  • Share

  • Ask projective questions

  References

  [1] U.S. Department of Justice, American with Disabilities Home Page. Available at http://www.ada.gov.

  [2] National Law Enforcement Recruiters Association, Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities

  Act and Hiring Police Officers. Available at http://www.nlera.org/?p 17.

  C H A P T E R

  16

  Passenger Screening with Verbal

  and Nonverbal Cues

  One of the hottest topics in today’s security-conscious world is how to balance airline

  travel convenience with fail-proof passenger safety. Believe us, there is no simple solution

  to this problem. In the United States we have seen airline security going from almost none

  in the pre-1960s, where passenger safety amounted to no more than the pilot checking the

  fuel and “kicking the tires” of the airplane, to today, where full-body back scanning x-ray is

  soon to be widespread. How did we get here, and what interviewing and interrogation

  techniques can our transportation and security experts employ to make our travel more

  convenient but not increase our vulnerability to attack?

  Before the airline hijackings of the late 1960s and ’70s, the biggest threat to the flying

  public was the “mad bomber” scenario, which surfaced in the 1950s. Two of several

  noteworthy incidents back then shocked airline security professionals. Reminiscent of

  other family murderers, 31-year-old philanderer John Henry Grant decided to solve all

  his financial and social problems by taking out $25,000 in life insurance on his wife and

  two children, then planting a bomb in their luggage. The bomb was set to go off in the

  air as the plane traveled between Los Angeles and San Diego, California. Fortunately the

  device failed and all onboard were spared. Grant was caught in short order and sent to

  prison [1].

  In November 1955, when John Graham sent his mother off to visit relatives in Alaska

  with a suitcase bomb consisting of twenty-six sticks of dynamite he had “thoughtfully”

  packed for her, neither law enforcement nor airline security were expecting that someone

  would blow up an airplane with forty-four passengers to collect his mother’s life insurance.

  Ten minutes after the DC-6 left Denver’s Stapleton Airport, it crashed in flames, leaving all

  onboard dead. Graham became a suspect when a witness reported that prior to the flight he

  had nervously purchased flight insurance for his mother. Investigation by the FBI found

  bomb-making materials in Graham’s home. He was subsequently convicted and was exe-

  cuted 2 years later [1].

  These events as well as the rash of airplane hijackings of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in

  the airlines x-raying baggage and having passengers pass through metal detectors. These

  passenger screening procedures caused minimal inconvenience to the flying public and

  Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

  239

  # 2011, Elsevier Ltd.

  240

  16. PASSENGER SCREENING WITH VERBAL AND NONVERBAL CUES

  were quickly accepted as necessary and unobtrusive. As for enhancing airline security, for

  the most part, the airline sc
reening procedures were disjointed and nonuniform with many

  potential threats slipping through the cracks. Each domestic airport and airline interpreted

  the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s directives relating to security slightly differ-

  ently. At some foreign airports, security screening was cursory or nonexistent. The private

  contract security companies that staffed most security checkpoints were for the most part

  atrocious. More alarmingly, the flying public’s safety was in the hands of minimum-wage

  employees with little or no formal training. Many of these private contractor screeners were

  subsequently found to have criminal records, which in some instances were covered up by

  their employers.

  On September 11, 2001, things changed dramatically. There is no need to rehash here

  those tragic events. However, the world suddenly woke up to the need for proper airline

  passenger screening. Those nineteen assassins shook the country and the airline industry

  to its core. Airline safety became an international priority. Tighter ticketing procedures

  were put in place. No one could fly without proper government-issued picture identifica-

  tion. Each passenger was asked if they had packed their own bags and if they were carrying

  a package for anyone else. Pen-knives, nail clippers, and other sharp objects were banned

  from carry-on luggage.

  Passenger screening procedures were further refined, and security screening became the

  responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which was formed

  under the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Various “red-flag” indicators

  were developed. Did the passenger buy the ticket with cash? Was it a one-way ticket?

  Was the passenger flying alone? Did the passenger’s trip originate from, or pass through,

  a high-risk country? Did the passenger have check-in luggage? However, the main focus

  appeared to be cockpit safety – reinforcing the cockpit doors and restricting access. Some

  pilots who were willing, “on their own dime,” could volunteer for DHS training to carry

  firearms while in flight. A “Sky Marshal” program was reactivated, and new officers were

  trained to fly undercover on high-risk flights.

  Everything seemed to be right on track with airline security when, in December 2001, the

  28-year-old, British-born, self-admitted Al Qaeda member Richard Colvin Reid tried to

  blow up his shoes, which contained an explosive, aboard American Airlines Flight 63. What

  was the government’s response to this development? From then on, all passengers were

  required to remove their shoes for x-ray screening.

  To add insult to injury, on December 25, 2009, Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmu-

  tallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian who had been co-opted by Yemeni Al Qaeda members, while

  a passenger aboard a Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, attempted to set off a bomb

  concealed in, of all places, his underwear. If the security procedures already in effect had

  functioned as designed, Abdulmutallab would have never been allowed to board that

  flight. In fact, had the persons responsible for screening passengers “connected the dots,”

  as many of our leaders like to say, Abdulmutallab would have never even have been issued

  a visa to enter the United States in the first place.

  Unfortunately the system failed, and now passengers will be subject to a full-body

  back-scanning x-ray to board a plane. In addition, while in flight passengers must now

  remain in their seats 1 hour before landing. Again, all our security reactions seem to be

  “knee-jerk” reactions. We should be proactive in airline security.

  16. PASSENGER SCREENING WITH VERBAL AND NONVERBAL CUES

  241

  For the past six decades one airline has gotten it right – Israel’s national airline, El Al

  (El Al is Hebrew for “to the skies”). Widely recognized worldwide, El Al passenger security

  screening is the toughest and most effective in the world, and they do not apologize for it.

  Although there have been many attempts against the carrier, only one hijacking, in 1968,

  was successful [2].

  What are the techniques employed by El Al that have protected it so well?

  The answer is actually very simple. Having been a target of terrorists for so long, El Al

  takes a total security approach. They developed, constantly refine, and enforce strict secu-

  rity procedures at the airports as well as in flight.

  Security at the airport begins at the curb and relies on armed security officers and

  plain-clothes operatives in and around the passenger areas, luggage, and airplanes. We will

  not discuss the physical security measures on the ground or in the air, which are substan-

  tial, but will focus on what interviewing techniques are used with the passengers.

  Passengers are asked to arrive to the airport 3 hours before the flight. This is to allow

  ample time for El Al security professionals to do their job. Each and every passenger, adult

  or child, is interviewed by highly trained security specialist teams. Before being allowed to

  even approach the ticket counter, every passenger is stopped by El Al security officers. The

  security officers ask the passenger open-ended and assumptive questions similar to those

  mentioned before in this book: “Where are you coming from?” “What is the purpose of

  your trip?” “Who do you know in Israel?” “What is your occupation?” “Who asked you

  to take something on this trip with you?” “Tell me how your bags got packed?” “Where

  did you get your last name?” “Can you speak Hebrew?” “How long do you plan to stay

  in Israel?” “What are you going to do there?” The interviewer is looking for verbal and non-

  verbal cues of deception. El Al security and ticketing staff have been extensively trained to

  listen for pitch, cadence, and answering changes in the voice.

  These security officers will use follow-up questions to clarify answers and to increase or

  decrease the tension. If the passenger’s answers are nonresponsive, illogical, or generally do

  not make sense, the passenger is red-flagged. Body language is expertly observed. Body

  posture, eye contact, face blanching or blushing, and profuse perspiration are all being

  assessed. The security officers use comparison-type questions as discussed in Chapter 6

  of this book.

  Political correctness is not a consideration here; El Al security officers ask questions in a

  somewhat authoritarian manner, not unlike the high school assistant principal questioning

  the tenth-grader walking in the hallways during class time. This approach is deliberate and

  matter of fact. The purpose is to maintain psychological control and place stress on any pas-

  senger who is up to no good. Remember, the student caught in the hallway with a hall pass

  feels nowhere near the stress of one without a pass.

  If the passenger gets through the first phase of questioning, El Al ticket counter person-

  nel again question them. Although it may not be as extensive questioning as by the first

  team, the passenger will be again asked assumptive-type questions such as, “What are

  you carrying in your baggage given to you to carry by someone else?” “Who did you let

  pack your bags?” In fact, the passenger may be again questioned at the gate. This multilayer

  approach allows behavior assessment to be made by more than one questioner, sub
stan-

  tially increasing the chances that a high-risk passenger will not make it through all the

  checkpoints without being identified.

  242

  16. PASSENGER SCREENING WITH VERBAL AND NONVERBAL CUES

  FIGURE 16.1

  In April 1986, it was just such interview screening by El Al security officers that pre-

  vented the death of 387 passengers on an El Al flight from Heathrow to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gur-

  ion Airport. An unwitting, pregnant 32-year-old Anne Mary Murphy was traveling to Israel

  to meet her Jordanian fianceé’s family when El Al security officers stopped and questioned

  her. It was determined that her Jordanian boyfriend, Nezar Hindawi, had told her he

  wanted to marry her, but she would have to go meet his parents in Israel before he could

  do so. In preparation for her trip, Nezar Hindawi packed the 10-pound bag of explosives

  into her suitcase without her knowledge. The disaster was averted and Hindawi still sits

  in a British prison. It was determined that the bomb had been prepared by Syria and

  provided to Hindawi [3].

  Keep in mind that anxiousness or nervousness may be a normal reaction for some pas-

  sengers who are fearful of flying, or just put off by being asked seemingly personal ques-

  tions by a stranger. El Al security officers expertly observe these passengers and quickly

  sort out those who are not a risk. The critical thing about the interviewing process is that

  unless the security officer is satisfied that the passenger does not pose a threat to the secu-

  rity of the airplane and other passengers, that passenger does not get onto that airplane,

  period! El Al does not rely on any other country’s security systems and procedures. El Al

  takes full responsibility for all of its own security measures.

  The 2004 report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

  [4], commonly referred to as the “9/11 Commission Report,” clearly identified the problem facing the United States as a result of terrorist aggression against American people and

  property worldwide. The Commission made several recommendations that, had they been

  implemented, most likely would have prevented Abdulmutallab from even boarding the

  Delta flight in Amsterdam: for example, moving forward with the use of biometric identifi-