Since the beginning of modern policing, officers have been trained to rely on their instincts, common sense and five basic senses while performing their duties. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing national emphasis on relying almost exclusively on video evidence and body-worn camera footage when evaluating police actions. Video is undoubtedly a valuable tool in the courtroom, but what about the long road that leads to the courtroom? What about the decisions officers must make in real time, often in seconds, long before a judge or jury reviews the footage?

Most people learn about the five senses as children: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. These senses guide us through everyday life. Yet there is another sense that often goes unrecognized but plays a critical role in policing: the “gut feeling.” Some call it instinct, intuition, hypervigilance, the “sixth sense” or even the “Spidey sense.” Regardless of what it’s called, most officers understand exactly what it means — that inner voice that tells you something is not right.

After years in law enforcement, I have come to believe that this instinct is one of the most important skills an officer can develop. It is something that must be honed over time through experience, observation and exposure to countless situations. Unfortunately, I have also observed younger officers, and sometimes supervisors, ignoring that small signal when the hair stands up on the back of their neck because they cannot immediately articulate why they feel uneasy.

Part of this hesitation may come from a cultural shift, local and national, driven by media narratives suggesting that if something is not clearly visible on camera, it did not happen. That mindset filters into courtrooms, public discussions and departmental conversations, and eventually onto the street, putting lives at risk and setting criminals free. But policing has never been that simple.

This process is not guesswork; it is the result of accumulated experience combined with sensory input.

The human body is constantly receiving information from the environment, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. Sensory input is continuously processed by the brain, helping us interpret what is happening around us. Believing that this process stops simply because we are not actively focusing on it is unrealistic.

Consider a simple example from everyday life, not long ago, while I was asleep in the middle of the night. My wife wakes up much earlier than I do for work, and normally I never notice when she gets up. On this particular morning, however, her alarm had not been set correctly and never went off. For no conscious reason, I suddenly woke up. Realizing the time, I woke her before she was late for work.

Why did that happen? I never wake up at that time. I had no reason to believe her alarm had failed. Yet my brain recognized that something was out of place. Even while asleep, my body was processing environmental cues and routine patterns. When those patterns were disrupted, my brain responded.

This phenomenon is not coincidence. The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, processing enormous amounts of information every second (National Research Council, 2015). Even during sleep, the brain continues to interpret signals and patterns.

Now, let’s consider how this applies to law enforcement in everyday life on the street. When an officer experiences that “Spidey sense” during a call or traffic stop, it is often because the brain has detected something that does not align with past experience or environmental expectations. Perhaps a person’s body language is inconsistent with their explanation. Maybe something about a vehicle, a smell, a sound or a subtle visual cue does not add up. These signals may not immediately register consciously, but the brain recognizes them.

Trusting your instincts means recognizing that your body has detected something that deserves further examination.

This is where experienced officers continue the investigation. They ask additional questions. They observe more closely. They rely on their training and natural curiosity to develop reasonable suspicion and, eventually, probable cause if appropriate. This process is not guesswork; it is the result of accumulated experience combined with sensory input.

Some critics argue that if officers cannot immediately identify the exact factor that raised their suspicion, they should not act on it. That assumption is flawed. Instead, officers must learn to follow that instinct and then articulate the observations that led them there.

Often, the clues are subtle. Perhaps your eyes noticed something you had not consciously processed yet. Maybe you heard an unusual sound. Perhaps a faint chemical odor caught your attention. Even taste can be part of sensory awareness. Officers who have worked around violent crime scenes often describe the metallic sensation associated with the smell of blood, even though they have not actually tasted it. These sensory inputs tell the brain that something requires further attention.

Policing is as much about observation and articulation as it is about enforcement. The art of articulation lies in explaining to others — supervisors, attorneys, juries and the public — why you did what you did. This explanation is often feared by the next generation of law enforcement because it can feel like there was a mistake at hand. This is not the case; it is a natural response to gain information. The explanation or articulation should be viewed as the opportunity to explain how you took a simple call and made a meaningful discovery or arrest from it. 

Trusting your instincts does not mean acting recklessly. It means recognizing that your body has detected something that deserves further examination. A backpack may seem heavier than expected. A chemical odor may suggest narcotics. The sound of tools shifting inside a bag may indicate burglary equipment. A concealed firearm may alter the natural swing of someone’s arms as they walk.

These are not guesses. They are patterns officers learn to recognize throughout their careers.

There is also growing scientific interest in the connection between intuition and the brain–body relationship. Research exploring the link between sensory perception, decision-making and intuition has been described within the field of psychophysics, examining how the brain interprets and responds to environmental stimuli (Nogrady, 2024).

While the science behind intuition continues to develop, the practical lesson for policing remains clear: officers must continue to cultivate and trust their instincts.

The next time you respond to a call, conduct a traffic stop or investigate an accident scene, pay attention to that subtle signal telling you something is not quite right. It may be nothing. But sometimes, that instinct, developed through training and experience, may be the very thing that keeps you and others safe.

In policing, trusting your instincts is not superstition. It is survival.