Fairfax County Ad Hoc Police Commission

[cclaxton]

I just attended the first in a long set of Police Commission meetings for Fairfax County, VA that was created in response to a number of police incidents:
1) The (possibly unlawful) shooting of John Geer by a police officer http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/l...ew-questions/; (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/02/the-john-geer-case-new-details-from-the-police-file-raise-new-questions/;)
2) The problems associated with a case that has taken more than a year, and the lack of transparency, and the associated Justice Department investigation and the lack of participation by the Commonwealth's Attorney General.
3) Fairfax County Use of Force Policies overall;
4) The use of a SWAT team to shut down a high-class poker game in a rich neighborhood where when no weapons were present and an undercover officer was on the scene;
5) Other incidents of over-use of SWAT for incidents that did not require it including at least one where a man was killed.
6) Policies around Civil Forfeiture (The poker game netted thousands of dollars in civil forfeitures)
7) Developing an action plan on how to better deal with mentally ill people who are having a crisis or acting-out and police are responding;
8) Consideration of a permanent investigation service whose job is to investigate police shootings and other suspicion of police misconduct.

The goal of the commission is to set a new standard in police oversight and use of force and measured response for mentally ill people. They want to be the best in the nation in every one of these areas.

I attended the Commission meeting last night. It has quite a impressive list of people representing just about every aspect of these issues: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/policec...missioners.htm (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/policecommission/commissioners.htm)

I have sent a letter to the commission asking them to:
1) Prohibit Civil Forfeiture by policy by Fairfax County and rely on Criminal Forfeiture alone.
2) Establish better threat assessment policies and refrain from use of SWAT or No-Knock unless it is justified and known threats exist for entry;
3) Support the establishment of an independent prosecutor and oversight board for all controversial police activities.

More can be read here. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/policecommission/

I will be following this closely and will report on their progress, if any.

Cody

[cclaxton]

Related changes to Fairfax County Attorney. Attorney tried to protect the county by restricting release of information to the families of Geer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/fairfax-county-attorney-lays-out-plans-for-change-after-geer-controversy/2015/03/24/c592bd66-d22f-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html?hpid=z4
Cody

[cclaxton]

Media articles on the commission:
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2015/mar/24/emotional-beginning-fairfax-county-ad-hoc-police-p/
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2015/03/23/geer-fairfax-county-police-policies-review-commission-meets/70323284/

Cody

[HCM]

When addressing how police interact with the mentally ill please keep in mind they can be extremely dangerous.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15479-SJPD-LODD

[cclaxton]

When addressing how police interact with the mentally ill please keep in mind they can be extremely dangerous.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15479-SJPD-LODD

Agreed. The current discussion is to consider a program called CIT (Crisis Intervention Team). They will consider other types of similar programs.
The more we provide LE's with the best training, especially for the mentally ill, the better they can respond in ways that don't lead to death or unnecessary incarceration by either party.
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

Memphis PD started the CIT training program which so many other places have modeled their training after. They did so in response to several deadly force incidents where EDPs were shot by the police.

I help teach the CIT program at my old job, we have two classes a year in which we run 60+ people through. All of the academy recruits are put through this week long class. It's a good program.

[Lon]

CIT training is great stuff. We send a couple guys a year through CIT training and co host the training with our local Career Center. It's a great program. But all the CIT trained officers in the world won't change some situations. Unfortunately, some people don't understand that.

[David Armstrong]

Agreed. The current discussion is to consider a program called CIT (Crisis Intervention Team). They will consider other types of similar programs.
The more we provide LE's with the best training, especially for the mentally ill, the better they can respond in ways that don't lead to death or unnecessary incarceration by either party.
Cody
My daughter co-ordinates and manages the local CIT training program and likes it a lot. She says she thinks it should be mandatory for every officer. Her hubby is in LE and he found it very helpful.

[jnc36rcpd]

I suggested CIT training be placed in the recruit curriculum when I was assigned to the academy. I was told it would increase the length of the training program to an unacceptable level. Considering the percentage of our cliental that are mentally ill, that made no sense to me.

[trailrunner]

I live in Fairfax County, less than three miles from where the Geer incident happened. I also remember the incident you refer to in number 5.

[Chuck Haggard]

I suggested CIT training be placed in the recruit curriculum when I was assigned to the academy. I was told it would increase the length of the training program to an unacceptable level. Considering the percentage of our cliental that are mentally ill, that made no sense to me.

That will change, it will just take a few dead people to get it changed. Oh, and losing a few millions dollars over those people being dead.

[Dagga Boy]

The recruits and officers are too busy with their cultural and racial sensitivity training to worry about training on how to deal with a complex issue they get all the time.

[cclaxton]

The recruits and officers are too busy with their cultural and racial sensitivity training to worry about training on how to deal with a complex issue they get all the time.
LOL, Good one! :cool:
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

The recruits and officers are too busy with their cultural and racial sensitivity training to worry about training on how to deal with a complex issue they get all the time.

It shocks me when departments turn down CIT training, because it is perceived as being "kinder-gentler" towards EDPs, but I guess many of them don't have shills on the national news ranting about it.

[Gadfly]

5) Other incidents of over-use of SWAT for incidents that did not require it including at least one where a man was killed.

7) Developing an action plan on how to better deal with mentally ill people who are having a crisis or acting-out and police are responding;

2) Establish better threat assessment policies and refrain from use of SWAT or No-Knock unless it is justified and known threats exist for entry;



Most agencies already have a checklist for using Swat. You go down the checklist and is more than X number of things get checked, you use the Swat guys. Our check list has things like:
known security cameras
Reinforced doors or windows
known large/multiple/or aggressive dogs
known history of criminal assault or violence
known weapons or prior weapons convictions
large number of occupants of the structure
history of suspect resisting or evading
high risk or evidence destruction

The form is two pages long and we also have to list things like:
known number and age of children
visible children indicators like toys and swing sets
amount of people believed to be in the building
proximity to schools, churches, playgrounds
distance and location of nearest medical center

I obviously can't speak for police across the country, but from what I have seen, you typically cant get Swat to come out to play without having some articulable reasons. It takes time and $$$$ to use Swat, and chiefs hate to waste time and money.

The problem is, cops don't have a crystal ball for when Swat is "really needed". Sometimes you check off the list and then get in the house and realize your brought way more to the party than you needed. Other times, you expect nothing and a s--t storm erupts. Then the media and public ask "where was Swat"?

Saying to only use Swat "when you really need them" is like saying only wear your seatbelt when you expect a crash or only carry a gun in the bad part of town. You really never know when you will need them. The best you can do is guess or use a check list, and even then you will appear to have made the wrong call half the time.

In a world of police Monday morning quarterbacking, I doubt you will ever make the public happy no matter the amount of oversight you get.

[cclaxton]

Most agencies already have a checklist for using Swat. You go down the checklist and is more than X number of things get checked, you use the Swat guys. Our check list has things like:
known security cameras
Reinforced doors or windows
known large/multiple/or aggressive dogs
known history of criminal assault or violence
known weapons or prior weapons convictions
large number of occupants of the structure
history of suspect resisting or evading
high risk or evidence destruction

The form is two pages long and we also have to list things like:
known number and age of children
visible children indicators like toys and swing sets
amount of people believed to be in the building
proximity to schools, churches, playgrounds
distance and location of nearest medical center
I am not a LEO so I am outside my lane here. But a few questions:
A) Wouldn't SWAT want to have really good intelligence and be privy to comprehensive surveillance so that they can peer-review the request for their assistance and can develop a entry/arrest plan that minimizes risk?
B) What worries me is the circumstantial information that would lead to a SWAT plan. For instance, maybe there are no toys or bikes in the yard, so there is little evidence of children, but, in fact, are children living in the home?
C) You mentioned "known weapons", but that is such a black/white determination. Just because you want to arrest a guy for gambling and he owns some guns doesn't make him a violent threat, right?
D) Why wouldn't the agency simply wait and be patient and pick the right time to arrest someone, for instance walking to a vehicle, rather than risk his wife and kids, or visitors? (We had an incident years ago where a SWAT team entered a house to arrest a guy, and the babysitter was sleeping on the couch with a kid. Yep, they killed her. And, the guy wasn't even there. My point kinda goes back to surveillance and intelligence.)
E) Evidence destruction does not rise to the level of SWAT, IMHO. Everybody tries to destroy evidence. The risk to SWAT and to others in the home/building doesn't justify it.


I obviously can't speak for police across the country, but from what I have seen, you typically cant get Swat to come out to play without having some articulable reasons. It takes time and $$$$ to use Swat, and chiefs hate to waste time and money.

This reminds me of the old saying, "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In some jurisdictions SWAT teams don't get a lot of action. Fairfax County is one of those jurisdictions...we are not like South LA.


The problem is, cops don't have a crystal ball for when Swat is "really needed". Sometimes you check off the list and then get in the house and realize your brought way more to the party than you needed. Other times, you expect nothing and a s--t storm erupts. Then the media and public ask "where was Swat"?
Actually, if investigators and law enforcement does a thorough job, you should know what is needed, and that isn't magic; that is just good intelligence and good surveillance and good analysis and a smart decision on what is needed. The first question should be: "Is there a way to make the arrest(s) in a way that puts innocent people at no risk (or less risk)? It should not be so black and white. It seems to me there needs to be an "appropriate" level of force. But instead there seems to be the "abundance of caution" approach which leads to the "when you have a hammer..."


Saying to only use Swat "when you really need them" is like saying only wear your seatbelt when you expect a crash or only carry a gun in the bad part of town. You really never know when you will need them. The best you can do is guess or use a check list, and even then you will appear to have made the wrong call half the time. In a world of police Monday morning quarterbacking, I doubt you will ever make the public happy no matter the amount of oversight you get.
I disagree with the analogy. If that were the case when someone gets pulled over for a DUI the SWAT team should be there to arrest them. We ABSOLUTELY should know when we need them, and that is really the point. You said yourself they are guessing. When it comes to police use of SWAT, we cannot be guessing. That is going to lead to...well, the problems we have now. This is about learning from past experience. Football teams always look at what they could have done better in the last game, and law enforcement should be doing the same.
Cody

[jnc36rcpd]

A. SWAT teams want the best intelligence and surveillance they can on a target suspect or location.

B. No matter how good your intelligence, there is always the risk that Murphy enters the picture. Our agency has, on occasion, be reluctant to utilize county SWAT because of fear of grandma living in the house unbeknownst to
detectives. On one occasion when use of SWAT was declined, the street crime sergeant simply let the search warrant expire. Better another suburban dope slinger go free than an unacceptable risk to officers and suspects by
serving a warrant with an ad hoc group of investigators and patrol.

C. True that presence of weapons is somewhat black and white. Most threat matrices I have seen do not rate weapons as an automatic callout unless they are fully automatic. I recall the incident that I suspect you reference in
which an FCPD SWAT officer unintentionally shot a suspect during a gambling raid. While I have no inside knowledge of the incident, I recall it being a bog money game with intelligence that an armed guard was present. That
would likely result in SWAT deployment in many jurisdictions.

D. Apprehending the suspect walking to his or her car or snagging them on a car stop are legitimate tactics, but often easier said than done. The suspect may not leave the house for hours or days. Neighbors may burn the
surveillance to the suspect. The suspect may feel that the plainclothes officers quickly approaching are robbers or rival gang members and the shootout commences.

E. While I cannot speak for all agencies, the trend among SWAT teams is to avoid dynamic entry to prevent evidence destruction. Of course, narcotics officers realize that, even with repeated sales to undercovers, there is unlikely
to be significant jail time for offenders if a decent amount of dope is not seized. I suspect the trend to avoid SWAT deployments will result in narcotics officers doing more dynamic/quasi-dynamic raids on their own.

The National Tactical Officers Association is very clear that dynamic entry should not be a default response by SWAT teams serving warrants. Options include surround and callout and limited penetration as well as the above mentioned traffic stops and catching them walking to the car. I will also note that NTOA did a study several years ago which indicated that fewer shots were fired and fewer injuries occurred if SWAT teams were present during critical incidents. While I have a prestigious low NTOA membership number, it unfortunately does not give me the juice to order another study.

[Chuck Haggard]

Sometimes you have to read the threat when "guns" are involved.

Child porn, not seen as being a violent crime, but people who get caught with it can be really desperate. That evidence is also something people can destroy given time to do so. Two reasons why one might lean towards SWAT on a child porn case/search warrant.

[Gadfly]

I am not a LEO so I am outside my lane here. But a few questions:
A) Wouldn't SWAT want to have really good intelligence and be privy to comprehensive surveillance so that they can peer-review the request for their assistance and can develop a entry/arrest plan that minimizes risk?
B) What worries me is the circumstantial information that would lead to a SWAT plan. For instance, maybe there are no toys or bikes in the yard, so there is little evidence of children, but, in fact, are children living in the home?
C) You mentioned "known weapons", but that is such a black/white determination. Just because you want to arrest a guy for gambling and he owns some guns doesn't make him a violent threat, right?
D) Why wouldn't the agency simply wait and be patient and pick the right time to arrest someone, for instance walking to a vehicle, rather than risk his wife and kids, or visitors? (We had an incident years ago where a SWAT team entered a house to arrest a guy, and the babysitter was sleeping on the couch with a kid. Yep, they killed her. And, the guy wasn't even there. My point kinda goes back to surveillance and intelligence.)
E) Evidence destruction does not rise to the level of SWAT, IMHO. Everybody tries to destroy evidence. The risk to SWAT and to others in the home/building doesn't justify it.



To try and answer...
A) Swat does want to be privy to the intel and they do collect their own intel most of the time. Most times, Swat has days to plan a raid. Sometimes they may only have a couple of hours. Crooks don't always cooperate by working with the police schedule. Sometimes, you have to roll with the info you have.

B)Again, we can do due diligence and still make mistakes. You plan and prep and Murphy and his law jump in. Say you watch a house for weeks. No kids, no toys, no swings. You have a C/I enter the house and see no kids clothes or toys. You hit the house, and guess what, the guys sister came in from out of town with her kids in the middle of the night to get away from her drunk boyfriend. It happens. Sometimes you simply can not sit watching the house 24/7, especially in a rural or sparsely populated area where you stick out if you sit too long. We could watch for 40 hours, spread over 2 weeks, and still miss things. Its not like TV.

C)known weapons would be prior arrests for weapons crime (agg assault/ armed robbery). The only reliable indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Or the C/I or under cover officer report the suspect always has a pistol in his waistband. Or when they have been in the house to make a dope buy, they have seen a shotgun propped up in the corner. That is know weapons in the building, and vests/shield/helmets may be appropriate. Or would you want to make entry with just your pistol rated vest if you KNEW there was a gun on the other side of the door?

D)Agencies are patient and do wait for most arrest. You don't always get that time. Sometimes you have to go right now. I just did warrants earlier in the week. We had 6 targets at 5 separate addresses. If we did not get them all at the same time, we would end up having them skip town. So we did 5 warrants at 6am. Swat did one location because of the checklist. Regular agents and officers did the other locations. If you arrested one at a time, would get #1 and the rest would flee. Guess what? No shots fired, no dogs killed, no pepper spray, no wrecked cars, and 5 suspects in custody (we had one foot chase that was short). The vast majority of warrants are executed uneventfully. But the media only hears about the screw ups, the other 98% go off peacefully and quietly.

E) Evidence destruction potential is real. If I want to hit the house where there are 2 kilos of heroin, I have to hit fast. Two kilos of powder can be flushed or washed down the sink in about 30 seconds. So a 10 year prison sentence can be erased by turning on the faucet... you don't think suspects know this? Again, when the police get it right, the news is limited. When police get it wrong, then it makes a splash. Now, you cant flush stolen TVs, so the type of evidence makes a huge difference when arguing the potential for destruction of evidence.

I am not on Swat. I can't sit here and defend EVRY use of Swat around the country. I know there have been high profile screw ups. I know the public is frantic because they see it as constant. I cant defend some of the screw-ups. But it really is a small percentage of enforcement activity. I see the lengths we go to try and get it right. No one wants to end up sued, unemployed or in jail.

Swat is a valuable tool, but in the end, they are just human (like all officers). Humans make mistakes, even when trying to do the right thing.

[Gadfly]

Sometimes you have to read the threat when "guns" are involved.

Child porn, not seen as being a violent crime, but people who get caught with it can be really desperate. That evidence is also something people can destroy given time to do so. Two reasons why one might lean towards SWAT on a child porn case/search warrant.

We have had more violence regarding child porn than any other type of case. Fortunately, no agents hurt. But we have had officers seize a computer and before they pulled out of the driveway..."bang". Suspect suicide. He knew what was on that hard drive. Another time they had seized the computer, found the porn, got the warrant for the arrest, and before they could knock on the door..."bang". Guy shot himself when he saw the cars in the driveway. Both times could have turned into a major gunfight had the guy decided to go down fighting instead of simply killing himself.

Both guys had no prior criminal history and had steady employment.

[Kukuforguns]

5) Other incidents of over-use of SWAT for incidents that did not require it including at least one where a man was killed.

7) Developing an action plan on how to better deal with mentally ill people who are having a crisis or acting-out and police are responding;

2) Establish better threat assessment policies and refrain from use of SWAT or No-Knock unless it is justified and known threats exist for entry;



Most agencies already have a checklist for using Swat. You go down the checklist and is more than X number of things get checked, you use the Swat guys. Our check list has things like:
known security cameras
Reinforced doors or windows
known large/multiple/or aggressive dogs
known history of criminal assault or violence
known weapons or prior weapons convictions
large number of occupants of the structure
history of suspect resisting or evading
high risk or evidence destruction

The form is two pages long and we also have to list things like:
known number and age of children
visible children indicators like toys and swing sets
amount of people believed to be in the building
proximity to schools, churches, playgrounds
distance and location of nearest medical center

I obviously can't speak for police across the country, but from what I have seen, you typically cant get Swat to come out to play without having some articulable reasons. It takes time and $$$$ to use Swat, and chiefs hate to waste time and money.

The problem is, cops don't have a crystal ball for when Swat is "really needed". Sometimes you check off the list and then get in the house and realize your brought way more to the party than you needed. Other times, you expect nothing and a s--t storm erupts. Then the media and public ask "where was Swat"?

Saying to only use Swat "when you really need them" is like saying only wear your seatbelt when you expect a crash or only carry a gun in the bad part of town. You really never know when you will need them. The best you can do is guess or use a check list, and even then you will appear to have made the wrong call half the time.

In a world of police Monday morning quarterbacking, I doubt you will ever make the public happy no matter the amount of oversight you get.
As a non-LEO, my concern for the presence of known guns on the matrix relates to states like California and New York, where the states register ownership of guns. Ownership of guns is a Constitutionally protected and should not - BY ITSELF - justify the use of SWAT. I do own a large dog and California's records indicate that I own firearms. I'd hate to think that was enough to justify a dynamic SWAT entry.

What I see from some jurisdictions, is a use of dynamic SWAT entries to reduce danger to officers without acknowledgement of the fact that dynamic SWAT entries raise the risk to the resident(s). There needs to be some acknowledgement that dynamic SWAT entries increase the danger to residents and recognition that the suspect(s) is considered innocent until proven guilty.

What I also see is an unwillingness to hold officers criminally liable when they shoot innocent people, acting innocently, during these raids. LEOs frequently justify their actions by saying (accurately) that the situation is chaotic and fast-paced and they need to make quick decisions. That's all true. It's much more true for the resident on the other end of the raid. The resident was not expecting this and expecting a confused/scared resident to comply with an order within 2 seconds is wholly unrealistic. Why bother giving the command if you are going to give a confused/scared person 2 seconds to comply?

And yeah, I agree, there's never going to be a perfect balance. I think many jurisdictions have a pretty good balance. Other jurisdictions, seem to view the residents as the enemy.

[cclaxton]

Sometimes you have to read the threat when "guns" are involved.

Child porn, not seen as being a violent crime, but people who get caught with it can be really desperate. That evidence is also something people can destroy given time to do so. Two reasons why one might lean towards SWAT on a child porn case/search warrant.
This is the only application I can see for "Sneak and Peek Warrants", and if they find the evidence without the perp noticing, then I would think you don't need SWAT at that point unless there are other factors, such as previous episodes of violence, illegal weapons, etc.
Cody

[HCM]

H
We have had more violence regarding child porn than any other type of case. Fortunately, no agents hurt. But we have had officers seize a computer and before they pulled out of the driveway..."bang". Suspect suicide. He knew what was on that hard drive. Another time they had seized the computer, found the porn, got the warrant for the arrest, and before they could knock on the door..."bang". Guy shot himself when he saw the cars in the driveway. Both times could have turned into a major gunfight had the guy decided to go down fighting instead of simply killing himself.

Both guys had no prior criminal history and had steady employment.

Some additional examples:
http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/u-s-marshal-nypd-detective-shot-west-village-authorities-article-1.1882825

http://m.wftv.com/news/news/local/one-dead-after-officer-involved-shooting-leesburg/ncfjT/#__federated=1

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14110499-officer-critical-after-being-shot-during-child-porn-raid?lite

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22717715/officer-involved-shooting-tied-to-child-pornography-investigation

http://myfox8.com/2012/05/20/fairfax-police-fatally-shoot-man-in-springfield/

[jnc36rcpd]

Cody, are "sneak-and-peak warrants" part of the FCPD review commission mandates? The LEO's posting here all seem to be saying that a threat matrix is what determines SWAT deployment. That said, child pornography suspects have been noted as posing a significant risk of suicide or possibly aggravated assault on LEO's. Why do you feel this should not be a SWAT deployment? In your opinion, how should am Internet Crimes-Against-Children unit handle an arrest or search warrant for a suspect?

[HCM]

As a non-LEO, my concern for the presence of known guns on the matrix relates to states like California and New York, where the states register ownership of guns. Ownership of guns is a Constitutionally protected and should not - BY ITSELF - justify the use of SWAT. I do own a large dog and California's records indicate that I own firearms. I'd hate to think that was enough to justify a dynamic SWAT entry.
.

By themselves they aren't. There would have to be probable cause to believe you had committed a felony for a search or arrest warrant to be issued in the first place. A person under indictment /pending charges for a felony is a prohibited person.

However normally, as Gadfly said, info regarding "presence of guns" is based on prior criminal history, observations of a CI or social media. If you think prohibited persons. are shy about posting photos of themselves with firearms you don't know much about the criminal element.

[Kukuforguns]

By themselves they aren't. There would have to be probable cause to believe you had committed a felony for a search or arrest warrant to be issued in the first place. A person under indictment /pending charges for a felony is a prohibited person.

However normally, as Gadfly said, info regarding "presence of guns" is based on prior criminal history, observations of a CI or social media. If you think prohibited persons. are shy about posting photos of themselves with firearms you don't know much about the criminal element.

Yes, I understand that in order for a warrant to be issued, the warrant application would have to identify probable cause that criminal conduct occurred. I also understand that owning a gun and that owning a big dog are not by themselves illegal. My concern relates to the assumption that ownership of firearms indicates a propensity to violence or destruction of evidence. For example, if the investigating agency applies for a warrant to find evidence that I imported wood of a protected species (18 U.S.C. § 3371 et seq.) to floor my house and then learns that I own a gun and that I own a big dog, the criteria of the list (depending on the agency) would suggest a dynamic SWAT entry. I'm not going to be able to destroy the evidence in a short period of time. I have no criminal background or violent history. Why would SWAT be indicated?

I never suggested that I thought the criminal element is particularly bright (thankfully, my exposure is purely vicarious). That is why I specified a concern about using gun registrations to support a dynamic entry.

[cclaxton]

Cody, are "sneak-and-peak warrants" part of the FCPD review commission mandates? The LEO's posting here all seem to be saying that a threat matrix is what determines SWAT deployment. That said, child pornography suspects have been noted as posing a significant risk of suicide or possibly aggravated assault on LEO's. Why do you feel this should not be a SWAT deployment? In your opinion, how should am Internet Crimes-Against-Children unit handle an arrest or search warrant for a suspect?
I am the wrong guy to ask, as I am not an LEO. But as a citizen I want SWAT/LEO to be smart about use of force and use appropriate force and intervention. In the case of child porn suspects, if they shoot themselves before the cops enter the house, how can that be a threat to police? If they kill themselves after the police leave, then how can that be a threat to police? Once you have the evidence, then I would think all you have to do is find a good opportunity to arrest them, such as leaving for work, going grocery shopping, mowing the lawn, etc. From the stories here these are usually employed men with seemingly normal lives. I would hope that since it is very likely/possible that someone who was just arrested for child port is at high risk of suicide that we address that like we would hold the suspect and have them evaluated and placed on a suicide watch and treated.

As far as I know "sneak and peek warrants" are not a part of the FCPC oversight.
Cody

[Hambo]

As a non-LEO...

What I see from some jurisdictions, is a use of dynamic SWAT entries to reduce danger to officers without acknowledgement of the fact that dynamic SWAT entries raise the risk to the resident(s). There needs to be some acknowledgement that dynamic SWAT entries increase the danger to residents and recognition that the suspect(s) is considered innocent until proven guilty.


You're not in LE, so your knowledge of SWAT comes from? Let me enlighten you. If you check actual statistics, you'll find that SWAT is at the bottom of any PD's ranking for OIS. The tactics used have been refined over time and are used precisely to avoid killing people.

Another thing the SWAT haters should keep in mind is that high risk warrant service is only one facet of SWAT's mission. We did almost as many barricaded subject jobs as warrants, and hostage situations were part of our deal as well. SWAT units were formed because there are situations that patrol can't handle. By law, the PD can't just say "fuck it, out of our league" and leave. Hence SWAT was developed in the same way PDs are instituting CIT for the mentally ill.

To answer Claxton's question above, believe it or not, the PD tries to bring everybody in alive. As counter-intuitive as it seems, SWAT gets called to prevent suicides as well.

[Chuck Haggard]

Info is often not just "has guns", although that may or may not tip the scale. Everyone here is a gun owner, we kinda "get it" when it comes to gun ownership.

Info may be "has lots of guns and a big safe he keeps them in". Or it may be like one of the hits I did, "has pistol on night stand, SKS under the couch, shotgun propped up next to the back door jamb, says he hates the po-leece".

[Chuck Haggard]

BTW, dynamic entries for dope are becoming thing of the past, although SWAT is still used, safer tactics are being utilized for the job.

[Trooper224]

Before any well meaning but woefully ignorant and borderline delusional citizen sits on their community's version of the Salem Witch Hunt for cops, they need to spend one month riding on patrol, getting spit on by addicts and felons, cleaning the urine and feces out of the cruiser, going to the hospital to get tested for Hep C and HIV due to a needle stick, etc. They also need to spend time serving thosewarrants on child porn and other low risk stuff where big bad Swatties aren't really needed, as well as providing a cathartic experience for that mentally deranged individual waving a knife in the middle of downtown instead of even thinking about using deadly force, because crazies should get a free pass. Then, and only then, should they be allowed to tell me how to do my job. You want me to deal with the dregs so you don't have to? Then sit down, have a Coke and a smile and shut your pie hole tree huggers.

[LSP552]

"SWAT" discussions are difficult without context. There is such a wide range of what "SWAT" really is, from 5 fat guys in BDUs who think they are an adequate hostage incident response to places who bring 20 guys on true high-risk warrants, complete with dual breach and brake & rake.

The worst offenders I've seen for overuse of SWAT typically are the smaller units who want to serve every drug warrant....because high-risk. They are mostly narcs with toys.

The flip side is under utilization of SWAT because investigators like to make the actual arrest, even if the guy is a known shooter. That sometimes doesn't end well for anyone.

There is a time and place for every tool in the tool box. You shouldn't use a hammer for a screw.

[Kukuforguns]

You're not in LE, so your knowledge of SWAT comes from? Let me enlighten you. If you check actual statistics, you'll find that SWAT is at the bottom of any PD's ranking for OIS. The tactics used have been refined over time and are used precisely to avoid killing people.

Another thing the SWAT haters should keep in mind is that high risk warrant service is only one facet of SWAT's mission. We did almost as many barricaded subject jobs as warrants, and hostage situations were part of our deal as well. SWAT units were formed because there are situations that patrol can't handle. By law, the PD can't just say "fuck it, out of our league" and leave. Hence SWAT was developed in the same way PDs are instituting CIT for the mentally ill.

To answer Claxton's question above, believe it or not, the PD tries to bring everybody in alive. As counter-intuitive as it seems, SWAT gets called to prevent suicides as well.

1) My knowledge comes from investigations conducted after tragic incidents involving dynamic entries, ride-alongs with police, and serving as a commissioner on a public safety commission that oversees aspects of my city's police department.
2) Given that SWAT is used only in limited circumstances whereas patrol officers are in constant contact with the public, I would have predicted that OIS involving SWAT are low.
3) Actually, by law, police can say, "fuck it, out of our league" and leave. See this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Civil_suit_by_Lozito) for the result of a civil suit brought against the NYPD because its officers locked themselves in a subway car while a spree killer attacked the plaintiff just outside the car.
4) My concerns about using SWAT in other situations (such as barricades) is dependent again on the context. For example, I think SWAT is ideal for barricade situations.

You seem to be of the opinion that I'm anti-SWAT. Nope. Not anti-police. I get that police have a very tough job. I'm amazed at how well many officers perform. Just because police have a tough job does not mean I should close my eyes to problems and blindly trust others to reach the perfect balance.

[Chuck Haggard]

Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing.


SWAT, real SWAT, on a scene has traditionally been what lowers the level of violence on an activity, whatever that may be. I know in LA the percentage of officers involved shootings is far lower when SWAT is on scene vs having the patrol guys take care of business.

[Kukuforguns]

Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing.


I hadn't really been aware/thought of that distinction. Zero training does not make me feel better.

[Chuck Haggard]

I hadn't really been aware/thought of that distinction. Zero training does not make me feel better.

You'd be shocked at how common that is.

[Lon]

Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing.


This is a huge distinction that many misunderstand. I've been on both sides of the spectrum. When I was a Narc, we served most of our own warrants. Dynamic entry warrants, mostly. Because Dynamic. And we wanted the dope for our case. At first I was cool with that mindset. After a couple years, I was like "this is fucking stupid, why risk lives for dope?" We got lucky that no one was killed. We did quite a bit of dynamic entry training, but didn't use shields, helmets or long guns. Not because we didn't want to, our boss felt that if we needed those we should use SWAT. Most of us were current or former SWAT, so we had lots of training. Luck runs out eventually. I got out before mine ran out. The unit now doesn't have near the experience they used to. I hope their luck holds because they still do dynamic entries for dope.

Now I am a huge opponent of dynamic entry for evidence.

I was in SWAT at the same time I was a Narc and used SWAT a couple times when the suspects were really bad men. Now I'm the SWAT Commander and I would refuse any request for my guys to serve a drug warrant that included a dynamic entry. Surround and call out or breach and hold are the only tactics I would authorize.

Personally, I would suggest you be more concerned about dynamic entry tactics for dope or evidence vs. the use of SWAT itself.

Those of us who have done this job for any length of time can give many examples of violent confrontations with bad guys that started over the most trivial offense. You never know what is in the mind of the bad guy. When it comes to search warrants inside someone's home, sometimes it's better to have SWAT do it just in case. But they can do it in a manner that'll prevent innocent lives from being lost.

[John Hearne]

This reminds me of the old saying, "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In some jurisdictions SWAT teams don't get a lot of action. Fairfax County is one of those jurisdictions...we are not like South LA.

I'm confused. If officers in Fairfax County receive wounds that cause deaths in South LA, don't those Fairfax Officers die just like in South L.A?

[cclaxton]

I'm confused. If officers in Fairfax County receive wounds that cause deaths in South LA, don't those Fairfax Officers die just like in South L.A?
Well, certainly, and I am sure there are some other similarities. My point is that Fairfax County SWAT doesn't get the demand for their services like LAPD officers do in South LA. Thus, they are more inclined to be used in order to justify their existence and get some operational time doing their work. So, Fairfax PD may be more inclined to use them in situations that are less justified than in LA.
Cody

[LSP552]

Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing.


This topic makes me foam at the mouth. Having led a large state unit for many years, I'm more than familiar with the toys not training crowd. Grant funds related to the war on drugs resulted in every small agency on the planet wanting a "SWAT team". Unfortunately, most of them never realize their limitations and often considered themselves completely mission capable. The cost of training, equipping and maintaining a a true SWAT team would shock most folks.

Done right, SWAT is safer for all involved. It's also extremely expensive. But not near as expensive as doing it wrong.

[DocGKR]

"Before any well meaning but woefully ignorant and borderline delusional citizen sits on their community's version of the Salem Witch Hunt for cops, they need to spend one month riding on patrol, getting spit on by addicts and felons, cleaning the urine and feces out of the cruiser, going to the hospital to get tested for Hep C and HIV due to a needle stick, etc. They also need to spend time serving thosewarrants on child porn and other low risk stuff where big bad Swatties aren't really needed, as well as providing a cathartic experience for that mentally deranged individual waving a knife in the middle of downtown instead of even thinking about using deadly force, because crazies should get a free pass. Then, and only then, should they be allowed to tell me how to do my job. You want me to deal with the dregs so you don't have to? Then sit down, have a Coke and a smile and shut your pie hole tree huggers.

This.


"Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing."

And this.


"Unfortunately, most of them never realize their limitations and often considered themselves completely mission capable. The cost of training, equipping and maintaining a a true SWAT team would shock most folks.Done right, SWAT is safer for all involved. It's also extremely expensive. But not near as expensive as doing it wrong."

And definitely this.



Very few jurisdictions of under 500,000 people can typically afford a true multi-mission, completely capable, full-time SWAT team.

[El Cid]

Most of the overuse of SWAT I've seen is a result of administrators in their air conditioned offices believing any risk is too much for patrol/investigators. They often see SWAT as a magic talisman.

OP, the thing I would focus on in your shoes is not the use of a tactical team, but rather how they are being used. We won't discuss tactics on an open forum, but I'd look to the larger agencies who have successful programs and see how they do business. Some agencies are even lucky enough to have full time teams. Many of the use of force concerns from the public/media/town councils with SWAT is the same uninformed nonsense that has been leading the nightly news for the last couple years with patrol officers. It's a lack of knowledge and understanding of the law with regard to when such force is allowed and appropriate.

On the subject of child porn offenders, they are much more dangerous than most would believe - even to some in LE. Deputy Todd Fatta was killed in one such attempt and the Sheriff's Office came under fire because SWAT was not used.

http://sheriff.org/posts/post.cfm?id=b00f6088-2642-44d3-8bc4-3b212e44043d

[runcible]

3) Actually, by law, police can say, "fuck it, out of our league" and leave. See this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Civil_suit_by_Lozito) for the result of a civil suit brought against the NYPD because its officers locked themselves in a subway car while a spree killer attacked the plaintiff just outside the car.


Are you under the impression that the linked court case affects the conduct of all police organizations in all of the U.S.?

[cclaxton]

OP, the thing I would focus on in your shoes is not the use of a tactical team, but rather how they are being used. We won't discuss tactics on an open forum, but I'd look to the larger agencies who have successful programs and see how they do business.
That is exactly what they are looking at. I think they are looking at LAPD as one such agency that has a lot of experience and better operational processes and policies. To be clear: I don't know if LAPD is so highly rated. I just heard someone mention it in the meeting.
Cody

[Gadfly]

My agency is also getting away from dynamic entries. Surround and call out is more common now. The last national training I attended, they asked "what in that room is worth you killing for or you dying for"? There are only a couple of answers we had. A) hostages B) fellow officers in danger. Anything else is surround and call out or "slow and deliberate" entry with mirrors or cameras.

More and more SWAT stands for "sit, wait, and talk".

My group worked human trafficking for years. We made many dynamic entries with out swat assistance. The very nature of the crime meant there was multiple "hostages" (5 to 100 smuggled aliens in a house) and multiple guards holding them for days or weeks while waiting payment. Durring that time, the aliens were under feed, beaten, and the females were often raped. Once we knew of a location, we typically went in quickly. It was far more luck than skill that kept us safe. The news would call that a swat raid, but it was just a group of regular agents working with what we had. It was not always pretty. As I mentioned, we were very lucky no one every decided to shoot it out.

I wish we all had more training, but there is only so much time. Our agency mandates 8 hours training per quarter. For our swat, (SRT) it is 2 days per month to practice. For a large agency like Housto Police, they can afford to fund a full time year round swat team. As Doc GKR points out, it is rare that an agency can afford the expense of a fulll time dedicated team. Many agencies get one day of firearms per year, and no entry training at all.

[TGS]

Very few jurisdictions of under 500,000 people can typically afford a true multi-mission, completely capable, full-time SWAT team.

Question: As opposed to multi-mission teams, are there mission-specific SWAT teams, and are they appropriate and/or effective?

[DocGKR]

There are a variety of mission specific groups, but then they are not truly a SWAT team, are they.

[Lon]

Question: As opposed to multi-mission teams, are there mission-specific SWAT teams, and are they appropriate and/or effective?

Mission specific teams would be like my old drug unit. We/they are trained for serving search warrants and taking down cars. They are not SWAT. But are oft labeled as "SWAT" in the media.

Whether or not they are appropriate or effective depends entirely on their level of training. I know examples of both.

[TGS]

There are a variety of mission specific groups, but then they are not truly a SWAT team, are they.

I guess what I'm trying to learn is given the expense of a multi-role team, whether a smaller jurisdiction can still mount some sort of proficient tactical team in an approproate manner for their...um..."routine" uses. If so, what have you (or anyone else) seen work? AFAIK, in NJ the common mention of SWAT is almost always a county based team. Higher risk missions like hostages seem to bring out the State team, as I imagine they're better trained and equipped. As an outsider, it almost appears to be a tiered system, even if unofficially.

Lon, thanks for the input.

[DocGKR]

A smaller agency or group of agencies might be able to field a team of officers specifically trained to do certain tasks--but that does not make them a true fully capable SWAT team, despite what the agency bureaucracy or media may call them.

[Hambo]

True hostage rescue capability is a rarity in LE.

[cclaxton]

Before any well meaning but woefully ignorant and borderline delusional citizen sits on their community's version of the Salem Witch Hunt for cops, they need to spend one month riding on patrol, getting spit on by addicts and felons, cleaning the urine and feces out of the cruiser, going to the hospital to get tested for Hep C and HIV due to a needle stick, etc. They also need to spend time serving thosewarrants on child porn and other low risk stuff where big bad Swatties aren't really needed, as well as providing a cathartic experience for that mentally deranged individual waving a knife in the middle of downtown instead of even thinking about using deadly force, because crazies should get a free pass. Then, and only then, should they be allowed to tell me how to do my job. You want me to deal with the dregs so you don't have to? Then sit down, have a Coke and a smile and shut your pie hole tree huggers.

The police operate at the consent of the governed.

That gives all us "woefully ignorant and borderline delusional citizen(s)" a right and an obligation to be informed, set policy, budget and even procedure, when appropriate. And, of course, we should all take very seriously the opinions on operational methods and procedures that Law Enforcement and Prosecutors advocate. Yes, LE is being required to deal with the dregs of society, that is part of the job. But just because the job is risky and hard doesn't give Law Enforcement the right to do that job any way they please.
Cody

[El Cid]

The police operate at the consent of the governed.

That gives all us "woefully ignorant and borderline delusional citizen(s)" a right and an obligation to be informed, set policy, budget and even procedure, when appropriate. And, of course, we should all take very seriously the opinions on operational methods and procedures that Law Enforcement and Prosecutors advocate. Yes, LE is being required to deal with the dregs of society, that is part of the job. But just because the job is risky and hard doesn't give Law Enforcement the right to do that job any way they please.
Cody

Yes - as with any armed force there must be checks and balances with appropriate oversight. I don't believe anyone here is suggesting any element within LE be granted autonomy to do whatever we please. That said, those in the positions of oversight and policy would do well to get out on the street and see what the job entails. The more educated policy makers are on why LE uses certain tools and techniques, the better off everyone will be. You mention this in your post, but how many of your peers understand this concept?

A good example is civilian oversight of the military. The civilian assigns the mission and may include some restrictions (limiting collateral damage - no bombing or shelling of mosques for example). But the military is the expert at knowing how best to accomplish the mission. When the civilian authority begins dictating specifics of how, then you have a recipe for disaster and loss of life. LBJ choosing targets to be bombed in Vietnam is a great example. So was Clinton placing such severe limits on aircrew in Allied Force that the mission was compromised and we had an F-117 shot down. The pilot was rescued but the technology recovered in the wreckage was exploited by all our enemies.

If I suddenly found myself on an oversight board for an airline, I'd familiarize with how and why they do what they do and ask a shit-ton of questions before ever contemplating giving direction. A person can successfully lead a group of people without being a technician but it requires trust in the technicians. Unfortunately LE is one of those jobs that EVERY person on the street believes they know how to do better than those actually doing it.

Does Fairfax run a "citizens academy" or something like that? It can be a very helpful mechanism for showing how challenging LE can be and letting the private citizens see that cops are just good people trying to do a very demanding job for a largely ungrateful society.

[Chuck Haggard]

Without fail, every single Citizen's Academy student that completes the course and does ride-alongs says something to the effect of "I had no idea..."

People think they know something about police work because they watch TV shows. It's really that simple to most people.


I get it, I really do, because I also don't want to be subject to arrest without PC, thrown in jail without trial, or have King George's troops living in my house, but I also don't go to the dentist's office and tell him how he should drill my tooth to fix that cavity.

[LSP552]

A person can successfully lead a group of people without being a technician but it requires trust in the technicians.

It also requires earning the trust of the technician. One earns that trust by learning as much, not rushing to judgement, leaving preconceived notions at home, and acting with the best interest of the community at large.

[Kukuforguns]

Are you under the impression that the linked court case affects the conduct of all police organizations in all of the U.S.?
I was responding to a statement made by Hambo that:

By law, the PD can't just say "fuck it, out of our league" and leave."
As the linked case indicates, Hambo's global statement is incorrect. Do you wish me to find a similar case from every jurisdiction in the United States? Not everyone jurisdiction has had a lawsuit brought against a local LEA seeking to impose liability for a failure to act. In any event, here are some other cases that reach a similar conclusion:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/748/opinion.html)Deshaney v. Winnebago Couty Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189)
If Hambo, or you, wishes to contest my assertion that police do not have an affirmative duty (duty meaning liability for failing to perform) to act to protect the lives of those they serve, feel free to link to those cases.

[Lon]

The State of Ohio holds us responsible:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.44


2921.44 Dereliction of duty.
(A) No law enforcement officer shall negligently do any of the following:

(1) Fail to serve a lawful warrant without delay;

(2) Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.

(B) No law enforcement, ministerial, or judicial officer shall negligently fail to perform a lawful duty in a criminal case or proceeding.

(C) No officer, having charge of a detention facility, shall negligently do any of the following:

(1) Allow the detention facility to become littered or unsanitary;

(2) Fail to provide persons confined in the detention facility with adequate food, clothing, bedding, shelter, and medical attention;

(3) Fail to control an unruly prisoner, or to prevent intimidation of or physical harm to a prisoner by another;

(4) Allow a prisoner to escape;

(5) Fail to observe any lawful and reasonable regulation for the management of the detention facility.

(D) No public official of the state shall recklessly create a deficiency, incur a liability, or expend a greater sum than is appropriated by the general assembly for the use in any one year of the department, agency, or institution of the state with which the public official is connected.

(E) No public servant shall recklessly fail to perform a duty expressly imposed by law with respect to the public servant's office, or recklessly do any act expressly forbidden by law with respect to the public servant's office.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor of the second degree.


An M2 can get you 90 days in jail and a fine.

These Deputies were convicted in a case involving the death of an intoxicated person they failed to protect:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2013/2013-ohio-3440.pdf

[Kukuforguns]

The State of Ohio holds us responsible:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.44



An M2 can get you 90 days in jail and a fine.

These Deputies were convicted in a case involving the death of an intoxicated person they failed to protect:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2013/2013-ohio-3440.pdf

Thanks for the citation and analysis. For those who don't read the opinion, it's the Taco Bell case where officers actually apprehended the drunk offender, drove the offender to a Taco Bell where he knew no one, and then left him unsupervised at the Taco Bell, and the drunk offender walked into traffic with fatal results.

The statute, however, will not penalize the officer "when it is [not] in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance." Since the law does not expect officers to predict the future, I expect any competent attorney would argue that a reasonable officer could conclude that he could not have apprehended an offender or halt an offense by himself or with available assistance. This would seem to be exactly what Hambo meant when he said, "out of our league." Juries typically give officers substantial leeway in connection with reasonable judgment.

Before someone concludes that I think that officers should have an obligation to handle a situation that is "out of our league," I don't. I don't expect officers to commit suicide. The Taco Bell case involved a situation in which the officers clearly did have the ability to apprehend the subject (because they did), but instead of resolving the situation, they created a new problem with predictable dangers.

[Coyotesfan97]

Much of what people think of as "SWAT" is not SWAT, it's dope teams, many of them dudes with some gear and zero training. These are not the same thing.


SWAT, real SWAT, on a scene has traditionally been what lowers the level of violence on an activity, whatever that may be. I know in LA the percentage of officers involved shootings is far lower when SWAT is on scene vs having the patrol guys take care of business.

This! You don't like SWAT dynamic entries? Stand by for narcs wearing beards and street clothes doing dynamic entries to save the dope with minimal entry and shooting training. If you limit SWAT stand by for the unintended consequences of sending under trained inexperienced Officers to do the same job.

[Coyotesfan97]

I am the wrong guy to ask, as I am not an LEO. But as a citizen I want SWAT/LEO to be smart about use of force and use appropriate force and intervention. In the case of child porn suspects, if they shoot themselves before the cops enter the house, how can that be a threat to police? If they kill themselves after the police leave, then how can that be a threat to police? Once you have the evidence, then I would think all you have to do is find a good opportunity to arrest them, such as leaving for work, going grocery shopping, mowing the lawn, etc. From the stories here these are usually employed men with seemingly normal lives. I would hope that since it is very likely/possible that someone who was just arrested for child port is at high risk of suicide that we address that like we would hold the suspect and have them evaluated and placed on a suicide watch and treated.

As far as I know "sneak and peek warrants" are not a part of the FCPC oversight.
Cody.

We have this little saying that suicidal is one step from homocidal. If you care so little about yourself that you're willing to kill yourself what's to stop you from killing the nice Detectives who are there to put you in prison for life. We've had several sex offenders barricade up or engage in shootouts when the Detectives showed up. Guess who got called to resolve it?

Sneak and peek warrants? Never saw one. Never saw one used. The Feds are the only ones I know of who use them. The Intel guys told me they have special teams that travel the country serving them. You don't know when, you don't know how but they serve it for you.

[Ptrlcop]

Sneak and peak warrant? Sounds like movie stuff to me. We don't have that capability and I seriously doubt any judge around here would even sign such a thing.

Also, you can't just get no knocks on a whim. You also need to justify the need and judges here are pretty reluctant to sign them.

[Gadfly]

"Sneak and peek" warrants are used to instal cameras and microphones in sensative areas. But, unless you are John Gotti or Osama Bin Ladden, no judge us going to sign one. I have never see or heard of one being issued in our world. I have only seen the FBI get them in High profile organized crime cases. Joe Meth Head is not going to merit one. They are very rare indeed.

[cclaxton]

Sneak and peak warrant? Sounds like movie stuff to me. We don't have that capability and I seriously doubt any judge around here would even sign such a thing.

Also, you can't just get no knocks on a whim. You also need to justify the need and judges here are pretty reluctant to sign them.
http://watchdog.org/197382/sneak-peek-virginia/

It passed both houses of the Commonwealth. It is on the Governor's Desk right now. I have written him to veto this version, which is overly broad. Just because someone dates girls with high heels, short skirts and makeup doesn't mean they are hiring them. But the prosecutor could see it that way and justify a sneak and peek. I think evidence of child porn is enough for the warrant.

Cody

[Ptrlcop]

In my reading of that article they are talking about subpoenas not warrants. This would seemingly not cover giving police to conduct a burglary for evidence at your home.

[Lon]

In my reading of that article they are talking about subpoenas not warrants. This would seemingly not cover giving police to conduct a burglary for evidence at your home.

That's my reading as well. This is nothing new. Records are obtained all the time with a subpoena. Here we use a Grand Jury Duces Tecum on a regular basis. Your right to require a warrant for some records does not apply when a third party has that information. Some records do require a warrant or at least a court order signed by a judge.

My idea of a sneak and peak warrant is what the Feds have done for organized crime, counterintelligence investigations and maybe anti-terror investigations. This is nowhere near that. They aren't going into people's homes with this, at least as I read it.

[Coyotesfan97]

The full bill
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?151+sum+SB919

The summary of the bill

SUMMARY AS PASSED: (all summaries)
Administrative subpoenas; electronic communication services nondisclosure of subpoena. Authorizes the Attorney General, as attorneys for the Commonwealth are currently authorized, to issue administrative subpoenas to obtain certain records and other information from electronic communication service and remote computing service providers if relevant to a law-enforcement investigation of certain pornography, abduction, and prostitution crimes. The bill requires such subpoenas to contain a provision ordering the service provider not to notify or disclose the existence of the subpoena to another person, other than an attorney to obtain legal advice, for a period of 30 days after the date on which the service provider responds to the subpoena if the attorney for the Commonwealth or Attorney General makes written certification that there is reason to believe that the victim is under the age of 18 and that the disclosure of the existence of the subpoena will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual; lead to flight from prosecution, the destruction of or tampering with evidence, or the intimidation of potential witnesses; or otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation. This bill is identical to HB 1946

[Lon]

Okay. So are they talking subscriber info/screen name stuff or more detailed search info like messages back and forth etc.? Subscriber/screen name info I can understand and agree with, but anything more detailed then that I would be opposed to getting without a warrant.

[cclaxton]

The full bill
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?151+sum+SB919

The summary of the bill

SUMMARY AS PASSED: (all summaries)
Administrative subpoenas; electronic communication services nondisclosure of subpoena. Authorizes the Attorney General, as attorneys for the Commonwealth are currently authorized, to issue administrative subpoenas to obtain certain records and other information from electronic communication service and remote computing service providers if relevant to a law-enforcement investigation of certain pornography, abduction, and prostitution crimes. The bill requires such subpoenas to contain a provision ordering the service provider not to notify or disclose the existence of the subpoena to another person, other than an attorney to obtain legal advice, for a period of 30 days after the date on which the service provider responds to the subpoena if the attorney for the Commonwealth or Attorney General makes written certification that there is reason to believe that the victim is under the age of 18 and that the disclosure of the existence of the subpoena will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual; lead to flight from prosecution, the destruction of or tampering with evidence, or the intimidation of potential witnesses; or otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation. This bill is identical to HB 1946
First, a subpoena is being used as a clever vehicle to get at potentially incriminating evidence when not enough evidence exists to get a warrant. That violates the 4th Amendment.
Secondly, a sneak and peak subpoena may include information or documents or data that is covered under privilege or protection. When the target of the subpoena, or his attorney, have not been notified, they have lost their right to assess privilege and protection.
Thirdly, a sneak and peek subpoena doesn't give the target of the subpoena, or his attorney from objecting to the subpoena since they have no knowledge of the subpoena.
Fourthly, it is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the subpoena is used as a way around the 4th Amendment, then you have essentially crushed the very intent of the 4th Amendment.

If there is enough evidence to get a subpoena, then there should be enough evidence to get a warrant.
Cody

[Lon]

Cody, I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this, but it appears you have a misunderstanding about how the criminal justice system works and what constitutes a 4th Amendment violation (at least as far as the courts are concerned). Your personal opinion on what violates the 4th Amendment does not line up with what the courts have ruled for decades. And what the state legislatures have passed as law. The power to issue subpoenas is well established.

The short version is this: The 4th Amendment protects a person, their house, their papers and effects. The key word is THEIR. The 4th Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. When I obtain a subpoena for records from a cell phone company, I'm obtaining records held by a 3rd party, not the individual under investigation. Depending on the evidence being sought, a subpoena may not be enough. For most documentary evidence (that isn't medical or some other established privilege in nature), a subpoena/Duces Tecum is all that is needed. Along the same lines, you don't need a warrant to have a witness testify at trial or grand jury. You need a subpoena. Once they get to the hearing they can be compelled to testify by a judge, right? That's evidence. Same principle here. Papers can't testify, they can only be produced as evidence. The appropriate time to object to any evidence obtained via a duces tecum (documents) or testimony obtained via a subpoena ad testificandum (used to compel a person to testify at grand jury ) is later on in a motion to suppress. Any issues regarding privilege are hashed out there. Most of the companies we issue subpoenas to have legal counsel of their own who know what is privileged and what isn't. They aren't shy about arguing privilege and they can file a motion to have the subpoena quashed if they think there's a privilege issue. This is just basic criminal procedure.

Sorry, didn't mean to lecture.

My reading of this Bill is that it will give the VA AG the power to issues subpoenas in certain cases, just like the Commonwealth Attorneys already have the power to do. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this will get vetoed.

[Hambo]

SWAT units were formed because there are situations that patrol can't handle. By law, the PD can't just say "fuck it, out of our league" and leave. Hence SWAT was developed in the same way PDs are instituting CIT for the mentally ill.


I have to quote myself because kukuforguns is headed off the reservation. If you read Lon's quote of Ohio statute, which I worked under, I believe my point stands. To wit, patrol gets shooting call that turns out to be a barricaded murderer/hostage taker. They weren't going to get in their cars and hit the road, they called SWAT. If it was beyond our capabilities, we could call a larger city's team, the FBI field office's SWAT team, or they could call in HRT. In the meantime we had to do the best we could even if it hit the fan.

As it was explained to me early on: you, young hero, have a duty to act. Not doing so is negligence, which WILL result in departmental consequences, as in you'll be looking for a new job. You may also face legal consequences. Clear enough?

[cclaxton]

Cody, I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this, but it appears you have a misunderstanding about how the criminal justice system works and what constitutes a 4th Amendment violation (at least as far as the courts are concerned). Your personal opinion on what violates the 4th Amendment does not line up with what the courts have ruled for decades. And what the state legislatures have passed as law. The power to issue subpoenas is well established.

The short version is this: The 4th Amendment protects a person, their house, their papers and effects. The key word is THEIR. The 4th Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. When I obtain a subpoena for records from a cell phone company, I'm obtaining records held by a 3rd party, not the individual under investigation. Depending on the evidence being sought, a subpoena may not be enough. For most documentary evidence (that isn't medical or some other established privilege in nature), a subpoena/Duces Tecum is all that is needed. Along the same lines, you don't need a warrant to have a witness testify at trial or grand jury. You need a subpoena. Once they get to the hearing they can be compelled to testify by a judge, right? That's evidence. Same principle here. Papers can't testify, they can only be produced as evidence. The appropriate time to object to any evidence obtained via a duces tecum (documents) or testimony obtained via a subpoena ad testificandum (used to compel a person to testify at grand jury ) is later on in a motion to suppress. Any issues regarding privilege are hashed out there. Most of the companies we issue subpoenas to have legal counsel of their own who know what is privileged and what isn't. They aren't shy about arguing privilege and they can file a motion to have the subpoena quashed if they think there's a privilege issue. This is just basic criminal procedure.

Sorry, didn't mean to lecture.

My reading of this Bill is that it will give the VA AG the power to issues subpoenas in certain cases, just like the Commonwealth Attorneys already have the power to do. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this will get vetoed.
Lon,
Thanks for the posting. Not being a jerk at all. I appreciate your explanation.
First, it is my understanding that this law allows law enforcement or prosecutors to simply say: We need this information (often internet/email) related to an investigation regarding legal violations. This would ordinarily require a search warrant issued by a judge who will at challenge prosecutors to show some evidence or witness that can justify the warrant. With this legislation, prosecutors and LE's can simply demand any information and justify it with a simple: ongoing investigation or wrongdoing. That is, in my view, a gutting of the 4th Amendment. *Maybe* you could challenge the evidence gained, but if it's incriminating (and they ALWAYS try to find *something* to justify their search), the cat is out of the bag...no going back.

I think our 4th Amendment rights have been slowly whittled away by these instruments as well as other similar instruments so that we effectively have a Law Enforcement situation where they can look at anything they want and worry about the consequences later, hoping they will find *something* incriminating so that the search/subpoena/warrant was justified.

My understanding of the standard subpoena process for criminal cases is that a subpoena is issued to a person or business to provide specific information. The attorneys for that person or business have the opportunity to establish the validity and/or challenge the subpoena based on privilege or protection or it could be issued for the wrong person, or be completely invalid and be challenged. That challenge would go before a judge and the judge would hear whether privilege, protection or validity are at play. The judge could quash the subpoena or establish which parts of the subpoena may infringe on privilege or protections. This happens all the time in civil litigation (some of which I have first hand knowledge.)

Papers/Documents are still evidence. Let's not forget that evidence, especially digital records can be easily falsified with no evidence of editing. Some servers will keep records of WHEN an edit occurred, but rarely (some gov't operations maybe) do they track WHAT content was edited. With just a little bit of technical skills, someone can hack into a neighbors WiFi network, edit some documents, or post some incriminating content (child porn) and then submit an anonymous report to the police about their neighbor. All that can be done without the neighbor knowing, and then LE can sneak and peek on neighbor's computers and find the evidence, and before you know it the neighbor is no longer a nuisance. Parking problem solved. And, the neighbor and his attorney have to try and challenge that in-court AFTER the court/prosecutors have already seen the evidence of a child porn neighbor. (And, of course, prosecutors never make mistakes...that's why we rarely see any claims of wrongful prosecution, right?).

The 4th Amendment right was established for GOOD CAUSE. We should be able to live by it and not flush it down the toilet because we think the means justifies the ends.
Cody

[HCM]

Cody,

What you are describing is some type of sneak and peek warrant allowing law-enforcement to legally remotely hack into someone's home computer? I ask this for clarification because what you are describing is NOT, what is authorized by the bill posted earlier in this thread. The bill appears to be clearly targeted towards subpoenas for information from third-party providers. For example, if a detective working a human trafficking case involving minor children being offered for prostitution on websites like craigslist or Backpage.com subpoenas the website operator for information on who posted the ad, do you believe that craigslist or Backpage should give the pimp heads up about the subpoena so they can kill the child or move them out of state?

You normally do not have a life or death steaks and civil litigation, which is why there are some differences between the civil and criminal subpoena processes.

Please reread what Gadfly and Lon wrote and the text of the bill.

[joshs]

Cody, I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this, but it appears you have a misunderstanding about how the criminal justice system works and what constitutes a 4th Amendment violation (at least as far as the courts are concerned). Your personal opinion on what violates the 4th Amendment does not line up with what the courts have ruled for decades. And what the state legislatures have passed as law. The power to issue subpoenas is well established.

The short version is this: The 4th Amendment protects a person, their house, their papers and effects. The key word is THEIR. The 4th Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. When I obtain a subpoena for records from a cell phone company, I'm obtaining records held by a 3rd party, not the individual under investigation. Depending on the evidence being sought, a subpoena may not be enough. For most documentary evidence (that isn't medical or some other established privilege in nature), a subpoena/Duces Tecum is all that is needed. Along the same lines, you don't need a warrant to have a witness testify at trial or grand jury. You need a subpoena. Once they get to the hearing they can be compelled to testify by a judge, right? That's evidence. Same principle here. Papers can't testify, they can only be produced as evidence. The appropriate time to object to any evidence obtained via a duces tecum (documents) or testimony obtained via a subpoena ad testificandum (used to compel a person to testify at grand jury ) is later on in a motion to suppress. Any issues regarding privilege are hashed out there. Most of the companies we issue subpoenas to have legal counsel of their own who know what is privileged and what isn't. They aren't shy about arguing privilege and they can file a motion to have the subpoena quashed if they think there's a privilege issue. This is just basic criminal procedure.

Sorry, didn't mean to lecture.

My reading of this Bill is that it will give the VA AG the power to issues subpoenas in certain cases, just like the Commonwealth Attorneys already have the power to do. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this will get vetoed.

This is an oversimplification of the third-party doctrine. The question isn't only who holds the records, but also whether the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those records/communications notwithstanding the fact that they are held by a third party. The often cited case for the third party doctrine is Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), but that case only dealt with the numbers dialed into a specific telephone, and not the contents of calls themselves.

There are also numerous statutory protections for stored communications that essentially apply the standard 4A framework to stored communications. The widespread existence of these laws may actually affect the reasonable expectation analysis conducted in Smith. See, e.g., https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/smith-v-maryland-turns-35-its-healths-declining.

[cclaxton]

Cody, What you are describing is some type of sneak and peek warrant allowing law-enforcement to legally remotely hack into someone's home computer? I ask this for clarification because what you are describing is NOT, what is authorized by the bill posted earlier in this thread. The bill appears to be clearly targeted towards subpoenas for information from third-party providers. For example, if a detective working a human trafficking case involving minor children being offered for prostitution on websites like craigslist or Backpage.com subpoenas the website operator for information on who posted the ad, do you believe that craigslist or Backpage should give the pimp heads up about the subpoena so they can kill the child or move them out of state? You normally do not have a life or death steaks and civil litigation, which is why there are some differences between the civil and criminal subpoena processes. Please reread what Gadfly and Lon wrote and the text of the bill.

If a citizen/suspect has no internet connection or private network connection with a third party carrier, then they would not be able to use an administrative subpoena to collect the data according to my reading. However, in this connected world EVERYBODY has a network connection of some type. Whether it's cell phone data or private VPN or internet or dialup (who has this?), we live in a connected world. Once you are connected, servers are collecting information, whether it's Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, security software, electronic banking, paypal, etc. They are all looking for updates, authenticating against servers, etc. Most people expect this data to be private, and based on what Josh posted, it seems like the courts are moving in that direction, certainly many states are.

It would be very easy to hack a person's computer, place something on that computer that generates network data that would look like a violation to LE. I am sure LEO's who think they are on to a child porn subscriber wouldn't ever do such a thing, right? After all, even though it would be nearly impossible to track the hack, they are all honorable, right? (The means never justifies the ends, right?) Or, an annoyed neighbor would never do such a thing, right? Or a soured ex-spouse would never....right?

You can't trust the integrity of the data going over these networks. There is no way to establish a chain of evidence. It makes it very easy to frame someone. And, you don't even know it might be happening.

It boggles my mind that we somehow thing the 4th Amendment should be infringed *more* because it's a criminal case as opposed to a civil case. I know some divorcees who might disagree with you.

And, the fact there is no judicial oversight for the subpoena means prosecutors are just free to ask for anything. And the service providers are protected from unlawful disclosure or mistakes.

And we don't find this alarming?

Or, do we just want a police state because we can catch sexual predators easier?

Cody

[ford.304]

So, wading in to go back a few pages -- what I see from this discussion:

1. No knock raids are generally considered to be a bad idea by civil liberties advocates *and* the serious cops on this forum.

2. Actual SWAT teams are super expensive, unlikely to shoot someone accidentally, and also don't generally like serving no-knock warrants for dumb things.

3. Civil liberties advocates mistakenly call the "four half-trained guys in balaclavas" in some police forces, who *do* execute no-knock warrants, SWAT. This really annoys the real SWAT guys, and muddies the debate (and leads to some dumb reform suggestions).

4. Police departments in this country are many and varied, and their policies on no knock raids and similar vary significantly as well. Some places require extreme surveillance and checking. Others are more lax. All still require a judge's signature (who may be more or less strict himself). Even when using extreme care, mistakes can be made because we are all human.

5. Police do a hard, shitty job, and civilians don't know the half of it. This makes it difficult to have discussions on the topic without sounding anti-cop, unappreciative, or just ill-informed on specifics.

So, my question for the cops here is -- as a civilian who cares about NOT shitting on good police departments and cops, while still looking to reform the other departments whose policies I find dangerous and misguided... what terms should we (as civil rights advocates) be using to focus this debate?

What *should* we call the teams of guys doing no-knock raids to avoid evidence destruction, not loss of life, who aren't SWAT (but want to dress like them because it makes them feel cool).

How can we suggest reforms that need to affect *many* or *some* departments without attacking *all* departments?

[HCM]

If a citizen/suspect has no internet connection or private network connection with a third party carrier, then they would not be able to use an administrative subpoena to collect the data according to my reading. However, in this connected world EVERYBODY has a network connection of some type. Whether it's cell phone data or private VPN or internet or dialup (who has this?), we live in a connected world. Once you are connected, servers are collecting information, whether it's Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, security software, electronic banking, paypal, etc. They are all looking for updates, authenticating against servers, etc. Most people expect this data to be private, and based on what Josh posted, it seems like the courts are moving in that direction, certainly many states are.

It would be very easy to hack a person's computer, place something on that computer that generates network data that would look like a violation to LE. I am sure LEO's who think they are on to a child porn subscriber wouldn't ever do such a thing, right? After all, even though it would be nearly impossible to track the hack, they are all honorable, right? (The means never justifies the ends, right?) Or, an annoyed neighbor would never do such a thing, right? Or a soured ex-spouse would never....right?

You can't trust the integrity of the data going over these networks. There is no way to establish a chain of evidence. It makes it very easy to frame someone. And, you don't even know it might be happening.

It boggles my mind that we somehow thing the 4th Amendment should be infringed *more* because it's a criminal case as opposed to a civil case. I know some divorcees who might disagree with you.

And, the fact there is no judicial oversight for the subpoena means prosecutors are just free to ask for anything. And the service providers are protected from unlawful disclosure or mistakes.

And we don't find this alarming?

Or, do we just want a police state because we can catch sexual predators easier?

Cody

Actually there have been several cases where people have been caught planting child porn on people's computers to settle personal grudges as well as people using their neighbors wifi to download child porn. The key part being they were caught. It's a known issue and one addressed during forensic examination of seized computers. There was a recent federal appeals court decision which involved detectives using "mooch finder" software to exonerate a person whose neighbor was using their unsecured wifi to download child porn.

The courts will continue to apply the checks and balances of the 4th amendment to the digital age but there are some practicalities which cannot be avoided if you are going to police a 21st century society.

[cclaxton]

Actually there have been several cases where people have been caught planting child porn on people's computers to settle personal grudges as well as people using their neighbors wifi to download child porn. The key part being they were caught. It's a known issue and one addressed during forensic examination of seized computers. There was a recent federal appeals court decision which involved detectives using "mooch finder" software to exonerate a person whose neighbor was using their unsecured wifi to download child porn.

The courts will continue to apply the checks and balances of the 4th amendment to the digital age but there are some practicalities which cannot be avoided if you are going to police a 21st century society.
Well, these are the cases that you know of. I know servers, software, networks, and technology really well, and I know for a fact that all this stuff can be covered up or traces removed. If you are an amateur, you will get caught.

The problem with this legislation is that the courts are not involved....this allows prosecutors and LE to just rummage through peoples internet data, violating privilege and protections and privacy without any due course. Oh, after 30 days we will tell you we were looking at all your internet and texts and listening to your phone calls because we confused you with someone else.

The Judicial process isn't perfect either, but at least there is someone there who is supposed to verify LE has a good reason to invade people's privacy. I am all for catching criminals, but not at the expense of my privacy and sacrificing the 4th Amendment in the process.
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

As far as citizens go, people quite literally get the police that they vote for, in a round about way.


As an example, most serious shooters consider firearms training for "the cops" to be somewhere between inadequate and a bad joke. Someone sets the budget for how much ammo a program gets, and how many days the troops get sent to the range, and "the cops" are not the people setting those budgets, the elected officials are.

How many here have questioned their local city or county elected officials about the quality and quantity of training their local LE agency/department gets?

A stunning amount of stupid shit that cops end up doing on the street is due to them not knowing any better.

In some places this can be seen coming from a mile away. Example, Chicago PD has in the past (and I am told this is still the case) had no, as in zero, in-service training requirement outside of yearly firearms qual after the officer graduates the academy.

[KeeFus]

As far as citizens go, people quite literally get the police that they vote for, in a round about way.


As an example, most serious shooters consider firearms training for "the cops" to be somewhere between inadequate and a bad joke. Someone sets the budget for how much ammo a program gets, and how many days the troops get sent to the range, and "the cops" are not the people setting those budgets, the elected officials are.

How many here have questioned their local city or county elected officials about the quality and quantity of training their local LE agency/department gets?

A stunning amount of stupid shit that cops end up doing on the street is due to them not knowing any better.

In some places this can be seen coming from a mile away. Example, Chicago PD has in the past (and I am told this is still the case) had no, as in zero, in-service training requirement outside of yearly firearms qual after the officer graduates the academy.

QFT! Thats exactly what most departments currently get.

[Coyotesfan97]

A wiretap court order is a whole other animal. They aren't legally listening to you without it. If you haven't been involved in one you wouldn't believe the hoops and expense of writing one and working it. You are not getting a wiretap easily.

There is a lengthy investigation required to justify it, your affidavit is lengthy, you have to justify it to the court, you need monitors and surveillance teams sometimes 24/7 while the wire is up, the prosecutor and the Judge will want updates, the Judge can limit what is listened to, and there's generally a time limit on a T3.

Did I mention the expense to the agency?

[HCM]

I
A wiretap court order is a whole other animal. They aren't legally listening to you without it. If you haven't been involved in one you wouldn't believe the hoops and expense of writing one and working it. You are not getting a wiretap easily.

There is a lengthy investigation required to justify it, your affidavit is lengthy, you have to justify it to the court, you need monitors and surveillance teams sometimes 24/7 while the wire is up, the prosecutor and the Judge will want updates, the Judge can limit what is listened to, and there's generally a time limit on a T3.

Did I mention the expense to the agency?

You're not kidding regarding the expense. As part of the justification you normally have to show exhaustion - basically you have to try other conventional investigative techniques in order to show they they don't work in your case and you have "exhausted" reasonable alternatives to a wiretap.

[Lon]

Cody,

Have you read the bill? They can't listen to phone calls with these subpoenas, they can't read texts with these subpoenas, here's what they can get:


D. Records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service means name, address, local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations, length of service, including start date, and types of service utilized, telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address, and means and source of payment for such service.

They are specifically required to:

excluding the contents of electronic communications as required by § 19.2-70.3, to an attorney for the Commonwealth or the Attorney General pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued under this section.

19.2-70.3 has the following language:

C. Except as provided in subsection D, a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service, including a foreign corporation that provides such services, shall disclose the contents of electronic communications or real-time location data to an investigative or law-enforcement officer only pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate, a juvenile and domestic relations district court, a general district court, or a circuit court, based upon complaint on oath supported by an affidavit.....

Paragraph D says:

D. A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service, including a foreign corporation that provides such services, shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service, including real-time location data but excluding the contents of electronic communications, to an investigative or law-enforcement officer pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued pursuant to § 19.2-10.2 concerning a violation of § 18.2-374.1 or 18.2-374.1:1, former § 18.2-374.1:2, or § 18.2-374.3 when the information sought is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Am I missing something else with this bill?

Anyway, I understand your concerns with the erosion of the 4th Am. I don't share them in this instance, but I understand them.

[Lon]

A wiretap court order is a whole other animal. They aren't legally listening to you without it. If you haven't been involved in one you wouldn't believe the hoops and expense of writing one and working it. You are not getting a wiretap easily.

There is a lengthy investigation required to justify it, your affidavit is lengthy, you have to justify it to the court, you need monitors and surveillance teams sometimes 24/7 while the wire is up, the prosecutor and the Judge will want updates, the Judge can limit what is listened to, and there's generally a time limit on a T3.

Did I mention the expense to the agency?

I wouldn't try a T3 for anything short of a homicide or a kidnapping. And only then as a last resort. Was part of several when I worked dope. Talk about a clusterfuck.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Example, Chicago PD has in the past (and I am told this is still the case) had no, as in zero, in-service training requirement outside of yearly firearms qual after the officer graduates the academy.

Nebraska only began requiring X-hours of annual in-service training for all LEOs 2-3 years ago. Please note that a lot of agencies went above and beyond, but it wasn't required by the state.

[Hambo]

So, wading in to go back a few pages -- what I see from this discussion:

1. No knock raids are generally considered to be a bad idea by civil liberties advocates *and* the serious cops on this forum.

2. Actual SWAT teams are super expensive, unlikely to shoot someone accidentally, and also don't generally like serving no-knock warrants for dumb things.

3. Civil liberties advocates mistakenly call the "four half-trained guys in balaclavas" in some police forces, who *do* execute no-knock warrants, SWAT. This really annoys the real SWAT guys, and muddies the debate (and leads to some dumb reform suggestions).

4. Police departments in this country are many and varied, and their policies on no knock raids and similar vary significantly as well. Some places require extreme surveillance and checking. Others are more lax. All still require a judge's signature (who may be more or less strict himself). Even when using extreme care, mistakes can be made because we are all human.

5. Police do a hard, shitty job, and civilians don't know the half of it. This makes it difficult to have discussions on the topic without sounding anti-cop, unappreciative, or just ill-informed on specifics.

So, my question for the cops here is -- as a civilian who cares about NOT shitting on good police departments and cops, while still looking to reform the other departments whose policies I find dangerous and misguided... what terms should we (as civil rights advocates) be using to focus this debate?

What *should* we call the teams of guys doing no-knock raids to avoid evidence destruction, not loss of life, who aren't SWAT (but want to dress like them because it makes them feel cool).

How can we suggest reforms that need to affect *many* or *some* departments without attacking *all* departments?

Not to be a dick, but first you need to understand what you're talking about. Take your obvious concern about 'no knock' warrants. How many are signed by a judge in your city/county? For what reason are they signed? If you don't know the answers, you might be chasing something that doesn't even exist in your locale. The same goes for policies you find misguided. Have you read local department rules and policies, or are you just guessing based on what you see on TV? Show me policies, laws, SOPs, or guidelines that you want to reform and we'll be happy to talk to you. If you're just parroting what you see on the news, well, you can guess the answer.

[Lon]

Ford, pm inbound.

[ford.304]

Not to be a dick, but first you need to understand what you're talking about. Take your obvious concern about 'no knock' warrants. How many are signed by a judge in your city/county? For what reason are they signed? If you don't know the answers, you might be chasing something that doesn't even exist in your locale. The same goes for policies you find misguided. Have you read local department rules and policies, or are you just guessing based on what you see on TV? Show me policies, laws, SOPs, or guidelines that you want to reform and we'll be happy to talk to you. If you're just parroting what you see on the news, well, you can guess the answer.

No offense taken. "Worry about your own neck of the woods" is an entirely valid critique. I mean, I wouldn't call reading several books worth of research from multiple journalists and lawyers (as well as officer representative rebuttals and FSI studies) "parroting what you see on the news" -- but I'll 100% admit I have no beef with my local department, and that discussing this in an abstract way on an internet forum is going to do nothing but (at best) give me, personally, a better perspective on the situation. Which, by the way, it has, so thank you all :-)

[cclaxton]

Cody, Have you read the bill? They can't listen to phone calls with these subpoenas, they can't read texts with these subpoenas, here's what they can get: They are specifically required to:
19.2-70.3 has the following language:
Paragraph D says:

Am I missing something else with this bill?
Anyway, I understand your concerns with the erosion of the 4th Am. I don't share them in this instance, but I understand them.
Yes you are. The legislation is built to change the law. From what to what?
My reading is that it changes the judicial requirement. Notice that it specifically refers to child porn makers or consumers and to prostitution. The law is changed to allow the prosecutors to simply tell LE to go monitor CONTENT of network traffic and servers, text messages (which are stored on servers), and any other transactions related to this target. There is no requirement to go to a court and verify evidence or justify it to a judge.

If that were the case then there would be no reason to change the law.

Para C refers to all types of investigations other than child porn, etc.
Para D says content shall be provided for specific investigation such as child porn, etc. There is no judicial review.

Cody

[TGS]

Example, Chicago PD has in the past (and I am told this is still the case) had no, as in zero, in-service training requirement outside of yearly firearms qual after the officer graduates the academy.

Hmmm. Had a conversation the other night with a buddy of mine who has been a border patrol agent for 8 years and he has done zero continuing education since FLETC. He's even on a task force working on vehicles, has still had not been taught how to dust for fingerprints. Pretty abysmal.

Also, Vermont still has municipally appointed constables, a position which requires zero actual police training. They're generally regarded as complete abortions as LEOs.....for obvious reasons, most places have been migrating towards real police officers (if it hasnt been completely done by now).

[Lon]

Yes you are. The legislation is built to change the law. From what to what?
My reading is that it changes the judicial requirement. Notice that it specifically refers to child porn makers or consumers and to prostitution. The law is changed to allow the prosecutors to simply tell LE to go monitor CONTENT of network traffic and servers, text messages (which are stored on servers), and any other transactions related to this target. There is no requirement to go to a court and verify evidence or justify it to a judge.

Cody

Last post on this then I'm tapping out and crawling back under my rock. Here's a link to the bill that we are (at least I am) referring to:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?151+ful+HB1946ER+hil

The highlighted areas are what have been added/changed to the EXISTING law. Nothing about the judicial process has been changed.

I'm out. Good luck with your endeavors.

[Hambo]

No offense taken. "Worry about your own neck of the woods" is an entirely valid critique. I mean, I wouldn't call reading several books worth of research from multiple journalists and lawyers (as well as officer representative rebuttals and FSI studies) "parroting what you see on the news" -- but I'll 100% admit I have no beef with my local department, and that discussing this in an abstract way on an internet forum is going to do nothing but (at best) give me, personally, a better perspective on the situation. Which, by the way, it has, so thank you all :-)

Cool. Not knowing what you know or don't know, I was thinking of specific knowledge as a continuum. On one end I have friends who do parrot what's on the news or net about non-specific critiques such as "militarization of police". On the other end is a person who has actual knowledge of how their local police agencies operate. I don't agree with much Cory writes, but at least he's looking at police in his community.

[joshs]

Yes you are. The legislation is built to change the law. From what to what?

The only changes are to allow the AG to issue the same subpoenas as attorneys for the commonwealth already can and the inclusion of the 30 day secrecy provision. Everything else is already current law.

[ford.304]

Cool. Not knowing what you know or don't know, I was thinking of specific knowledge as a continuum. On one end I have friends who do parrot what's on the news or net about non-specific critiques such as "militarization of police". On the other end is a person who has actual knowledge of how their local police agencies operate. I don't agree with much Cory writes, but at least he's looking at police in his community.

I totally get that. I'll admit I wrestle with how to have the conversation -- I could pull out some of my research material and stick in a big list of cites of the type of incidents I was thinking about -- but that very quickly starts to sound like an attack, and that wasn't my goal in posting here. On the other hand, what do I expect ya'll to say? "Yeah, you're right, a lot of police departments, whom I have no personal knowledge about either, suck according to these incidents."

I guess the intent was to get similar to what I get from learning from cops about the use of force cases on the news. No, this *was* reasonable because such and such. Or this type of thing isn't reasonable, because surround and call out is simply a better way to handle the problem. I'm finding it a useful jump from "the system is wrong" to "these guys were doing it wrong, and if they'd taken training with me they'd have known that."

Thanks for your patience.

[cclaxton]

The only changes are to allow the AG to issue the same subpoenas as attorneys for the commonwealth already can and the inclusion of the 30 day secrecy provision. Everything else is already current law.
Thanks for clearing that up, Josh.

So the big deal is really the 30 day secrecy.

Still...not happy with these things. I guess the 4th Amendment was already dead.
Cody

[Hambo]

I totally get that. I'll admit I wrestle with how to have the conversation -- I could pull out some of my research material and stick in a big list of cites of the type of incidents I was thinking about -- but that very quickly starts to sound like an attack, and that wasn't my goal in posting here. On the other hand, what do I expect ya'll to say? "Yeah, you're right, a lot of police departments, whom I have no personal knowledge about either, suck according to these incidents."

I guess the intent was to get similar to what I get from learning from cops about the use of force cases on the news. No, this *was* reasonable because such and such. Or this type of thing isn't reasonable, because surround and call out is simply a better way to handle the problem. I'm finding it a useful jump from "the system is wrong" to "these guys were doing it wrong, and if they'd taken training with me they'd have known that."

Thanks for your patience.

I'm sure a lot of police departments do suck in one way or another. I'll go one better, some departments, or maybe most departments, have an up and down suck factor based on chiefs and admin. So it's possible to say that department X couldn't collectively find their ass with both hands in the '90's, but finally got it together under a new chief in early '00's. The reverse is also possible.

As for your second paragraph, if these guys are doing in wrong in some other state, what exactly are you and I going to do about it from Ohio and Florida respectively? It is possible that the residents of said town are OK with crappy enforcement and bad training. Is it our job to fix it for them?

Just some more random thoughts on the issue.

[Chuck Haggard]

The bosses create the culture. My last boss started wrecking all the work we've done over the past 20-25 years to get to where we were. New boss is heading right for the icebergs at full steam, hence me bailing out when I did.

It's shocking how much the culture of a PD can be effected by one or a few guys.

[Kukuforguns]

The bosses create the culture. My last boss started wrecking all the work we've done over the past 20-25 years to get to where we were. New boss is heading right for the icebergs at full steam, hence me bailing out when I did.

It's shocking how much the culture of a PD can be effected by one or a few guys.

Which is one of the reasons why residents should be paying attention to their local PD. When you read the reports on Ferguson, it's hard not to criticize the residents. They got what they voted to get.

[cclaxton]

Which is one of the reasons why residents should be paying attention to their local PD. When you read the reports on Ferguson, it's hard not to criticize the residents. They got what they voted to get.
I like to say, "We get the government we deserve." That also means when large segments of the population don't vote and don't get involved in their community or their government, smaller interest groups drive the policies or bureaucrats make it up.
Cody

[cclaxton]

UPDATE: Fairfax County Settles Lawsuit with family in Geer case. Does not look good for Geer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fairfax-pays-295-million-to-settle-suit-in-john-geer-police-killing/2015/04/21/5fe3d818-e834-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?hpid=z2

When the county settles before the prosecution indicts.....the part I can't figure out is how the two police officers disagree so much on the facts. The officer that was closest had the best view and he said that Geer was shot needlessly. Torres remains defiant.
Cody

[Kyle Reese]

I like to say, "We get the government we deserve." That also means when large segments of the population don't vote and don't get involved in their community or their government, smaller interest groups drive the policies or bureaucrats make it up.
Cody

Those people kvetch the loudest, in my experience.

[cclaxton]

UPDATE: Fairfax Prosecutor finally convenes Grand Jury to possibly indict officer Torres. All officers nearby did not see him move his hands to his waist. Only Torres says this. Not looking good for Torres.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/22/fairfax-prosecutor-to-convene-special-grand-jury-in-john-geer-police-killing/?hpid=z2
Cody

[Ptrlcop]

Boy, that blue wall of silence really covered up for that cop(sarcasm)

[jnc36rcpd]

I don't think the County Police, Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, nor the U.S. Attorney's Office did anyone any good by letting this case drag on for months. A difficult decision needs to be made: charge a police officer for what may have been an error in judgment or an accident or rule that the shooting was either justified or a reasonable mistake. People would have been unhappy with either decision, but simply kicking the can down the road for months was unfair to everyone.

While I hate to offer opinions on tactics based on media reports, I think it would have been a better idea to extract the officers from their close proximity to the suspect. Torres was allegedly thirteen feet from Geer. Had he been farther away, Torres would have been under less threat and stress and may have felt less urgency to shoot.

Copy that on the blue wall of silence, Ptrlcop. A long since retired officer on my agency used to opine "They lie; we lie. It all works out in the end." After hearing that stupidity enough times, I finally retorted that "No, cops tell the truth. No one is going to get fired or prosecuted for lying and we can be ordered to take polygraphs." I never heard that nonsense again, though I suspect he still spouts it in retirement.

[cclaxton]

My speech at the Fairfax County Police Commission Public Comment night:
It was received well and I got the loudest applause of any speaker. Got lots of compliments:
______________________________
Civil forfeiture allows police and prosecutors to seize cash and property based on a suspicion, and then force the owners to sue the government to get their property back. The government does not have to charge the owners with any crime, nor does the government have to prove the cash or property was used in a crime. The owners have to prove it was NOT used in a crime. Let me repeat this: The OWNERS have to prove their cash or property was NOT used in a crime. This violates the very foundation of our judicial system: That you are INNOCENT until proven guilty. Prosecutors have enabled legalized extortion by the very government that is sworn to protect us FROM extortion. And, seized property and cash can go right into the operating budget for law enforcement...a conflict of interest that also cannot stand.

I call on THIS commission to strongly recommend to the Fairfax Supervisors to BAN ALL use of civil forfeiture in Fairfax County as a matter of policy. Prosecutors are still able to use criminal forfeiture as a means to seize cash and property, charge the owners with a crime and….here is an interesting concept: PROVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED TO TAKE THEIR CASH AND PROPERTY. JUSTICE requires us to act.

Now, on the topic of use of force: Fairfax County Police have used an excessive amount of force in too many instances, and too often have ended in lethal results. This has to stop. ALL use of Special Operations must have better oversight. No police should have held a muzzle on Mr. Geer while he was standing at the door of his own home. Officers can quickly cover the citizen with their muzzle with plenty of time to take a shot.

Use of Special Operations or SWAT teams for domestic disturbances and to raid poker games in Mclean are excessive...SWAT team members muzzling unarmed citizens with firearms...when safer and less lethal tactics were appropriate. No-knock warrants need to be approved by an oversight board and the home addresses and identities need to be triple-checked, and JUSTIFIED before they enter that home.

Our police must be retrained to keep their muzzles off citizens until they become a threat, SWAT and Special-Ops raids need to be vetted and justified, and safer and smarter tactics must be used when no active shooter or threat is present. We are citizens, not targets. Thank You.

REFERENCES

Washington Post Investigation Results
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/)http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

Mandrel Stuart had his funds seized by Fairfax County and was forced to sue to get the funds back. Fairfax had to pay his attorney fees.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/)http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/

Seized Assets and Funds Audit, 2011
(http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/audit/pdf/reports/2011reports/11-10-01_policedept_for_public_final.pdf)http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/audit/pdf/reports/2011reports/11-10-01_policedept_for_public_final.pdf

Other States abusing civil forfeiture:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/they-fought-the-law-who-won/)http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/they-fought-the-law-who-won/

Using “Low Ready” instead of pointing the gun (muzzling) the suspect is fast:
(https://www.swatmag.com/articles/the-low-ready-position)https://www.swatmag.com/articles/the-low-ready-position

Police Tactics that take into account the level of the threat: Don’t Muzzle Citizens
(http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-8/issue-2/training/ready-or-not.html)http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-8/issue-2/training/ready-or-not.html

The muzzle of the weapon is raised only when engaging a target.
(http://cqb-team.com/shooting.php)http://cqb-team.com/shooting.php

Perpetuating Bad Habits of Holding a Firearm
http://www.spartancops.com/target-habituation-law-enforcement-firearms-training/

[cclaxton]

Report from the Subcommittee Meetings:
Oversight Subcommittee
- Committee has collected documentation from other jurisdictions that have Citizen Police Oversight Boards and is in the process of reading and evaluating them;
- There seems to be consensus, even among the LE members, that *something* must be done. There is a divergence between the LE members and the citizen members;
- There is a question about the mission of the Oversight Committee and its' mandate. The Subcommittee Leader is going to the BOS for that answer;
- The subcommittee universally agreed that the Citizen Police Oversight Board would not get directly involved in any investigations or hire their own investigators, but the CPOB *could* have authority to ask for an investigation or ask to to review the Internal Affairs Investigation. No agreement but discussion of it.
- It was pointed out that in the 74 year history of the Fairfax Police not a single Police Officer has ever been charged in a shooting;
- One citizen made the point that the perception of bias exists, and made this point: If Fairfax Airlines had a crash, and the loved ones asked who is leading the investigation, and the answer was: Fairfax Airlines is leading the investigation...there is the perception, if not the likelihood, of a bias. He was making the case that, even though Internal Affairs may have impeccable integrity, the perception is that they are biased in favor of police.
- One citizen put forward the idea that the Virginia State Police should run Internal Affairs Investigations to help to remove the perception of bias, if not actual bias. This has some support at the State level.
- There is a *framework* for what a CPOB would look like. That is a very rough draft and not really any consensus on it.

Use of Force Subcommittee:
- A review of the Threat Assessment process was given. I found the lack of objective criteria to be lacking. Basically, if the Detective thinks SWAT is needed, SWAT goes in.
- One lady talked about a case involving her college-aged son. They had weed in the house (amount unclear), and the SWAT team was sent in, muzzling everybody int he house even after they were handcuffed, and when they had no firearms or weapons and when they did not resist arrest.
- The father of Sal Culosi was there arguing that firearms should not be pointed at unarmed people. In this case Sal was shot by accident when a SWAT team member accidentally put his finger on his HK pistol trigger.
- It is also a big question why the threat assessment for catching a sports gambler required the SWAT team when Sal never carried a firearm. This was known because there was an undercover agent working directly with Sal.
- Use of low cover was briefly discussed. One Police Officer made the case that the gun should always be pointed at center mass and should only be lowered the closer you get to the subject. That sounded stupid to me.
- A Videos was shown talking about use of low cover.
- One officer made the case that the use of force training was 50 hours, more than the State minimum of 30 hours. He went on to say that the type of training was what Virginia State requires. He seemed to be making the case that Fairfax County Police have good tactics because this is they way everybody else does it....not a good argument from my view.
- The uniformed police officers were very willing to provide any and all documentation to the subcommittee on use of force policies, threat assessment processes, etd.
- No one from the Detectives office was present and this seems to be a huge gap since it is the Detectives that usually order SWAT or Special Ops.
- I found the uniformed police to be ready to embrace changes. I found the higher level people resistant to changes. This is just my assessment talking with them after the meeting was over. This seems to be consistent with others who have been questioning how Police make their use of force decisions.

My sense of this is that the uniformed cops would like to see better training and are open to changes in tactics and policy, and they seem to be pointing at the Detectives and the Leadership on why things aren't changing and why there has been stonewalling.

Again, these are just my perceptions, as I am not privy to the backroom discussions that are really going on. It was interesting the Chief of Police did not attend the meeting.

That is all for now.
Cody

[jnc36rcpd]

cclaxton, you actually seem like a reasonable person in your endeavors to improve Fairfax County law enforcement. That said, I'll throw some thoughts out here.

Someone claimed that her house was raided, people were muzzled, no one resisted arrest, no weapons were there, and much of this happened after everyone was hooked up. OK, any police reports or even newspaper articles about this? Did it even happen?

Sal Culosi was unintentionally shot by an FCPD SWAT officer. As I recall, as the officer exited his vehicle, the door swung back on his arm and he unintentionally fired his weapon. You may know more than me, but I have never heard that the officer intentionally put his finger inside the trigger guard or pointed it at Culosi. If you know how to prevent a trigger finger closing on a trigger during a violent physical event when a weapon muzzle can not be completely controlled, please let us know.

I have never heard that Culosi was a violent person, but he was involved in high stakes gambling. As I recall, the games had armed security. I believe that suspicion was the reason that SWAT was deployed on this warrant service.

[Hambo]

cclaxton, I'm not a neurosurgeon, in fact I'm not even a doctor. I have no specific knowledge of neurosurgery. Hence I leave criticism of neurosurgeons to other neurosurgeons or doctors with an understanding of what they do. Do you have training or qualifications that make your criticism of the PD SWAT unit valid? Or is this just a list of things you don't like? Do you have some other axe to grind (previously pissed off by cops, etc)? Why should people with years of training and experience change how they operate based on the opinions of people with zero experience or training?

[MDS]

cclaxton, I'm not a neurosurgeon, in fact I'm not even a doctor. I have no specific knowledge of neurosurgery. Hence I leave criticism of neurosurgeons to other neurosurgeons or doctors with an understanding of what they do. Do you have training or qualifications that make your criticism of the PD SWAT unit valid? Or is this just a list of things you don't like? Do you have some other axe to grind (previously pissed off by cops, etc)? Why should people with years of training and experience change how they operate based on the opinions of people with zero experience or training?

I'm not Cody, he and I don't always agree on things, and I certainly don't pretend to speak for him. But coppering and neurosurgery are different in many ways. For example, when a neurosurgeon kills someone, there's a good chance they'll get sued for malpractice and pay a heavy price, compared to all the different kinds of immunity that cover a cop's actions. Also, it takes more years of training to become a newly-minted neurosurgeon, than it takes months to become a newly-minted cop. Also, I'm unaware of any maximum IQ (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html) for neurosurgeons anywhere. Also, and I don't really have any evidence to support this, but my gut feeling is that more neurosurgeons than cops have vacation homes in the California wine country. ;) These difference exist for good reasons, for example, I think police need much of the immunity they enjoy. But it's disingenuous at best, drawing on a cop-neurosurgeon analogy to criticize someone who would dare to ask questions about how police operate.

I'm no cop basher. But bashing on folks for questioning civil authority is even worse. Cody is asking questions, and patiently seeking answers in a civil discourse. If I asked my neurosurgeon to explain my upcoming surgery to me, I'd expect some kind of explanation that made sense to me - or I'd go find another neurosurgeon, regardless of how many years of training and experience they might have. It's not cop-bashing to expect some transparency from our civil authorities; on the contrary, it's downright American. If more people would participate in civic activities, like the conversations that Cody is having with his police department, and if communities would vote their conscience instead of for "the lesser of two evils" or whichever politician promises more bread and circuses, we might have fewer riots and more transparent government.

[Hambo]

OK, replace neurosurgeon with plumber, or any other professional whose skills you do not possess. I'm not bashing, I seriously want to know why people without the necessary qualifications for a job feel their criticism is relevant. Asking for transparency, clarification, or an explanation is one thing. Telling people how to do their jobs better when one possesses no actual knowledge of how the job is or might be done is pointless. Cody ventured into this area when he wrote about not liking the criteria for SWAT call-outs. What would he have them do? What makes his opinion more worthwhile than the experience that lead to current practice?

[ford.304]

OK, replace neurosurgeon with plumber, or any other professional whose skills you do not possess. I'm not bashing, I seriously want to know why people without the necessary qualifications for a job feel their criticism is relevant. Asking for transparency, clarification, or an explanation is one thing. Telling people how to do their jobs better when one possesses no actual knowledge of how the job is or might be done is pointless. Cody ventured into this area when he wrote about not liking the criteria for SWAT call-outs. What would he have them do? What makes his opinion more worthwhile than the experience that lead to current practice?

I most certainly do, actually, question my plumber when he works on my house. Because it's *my* house, not his -- his incentives do not match up with mine. He may be making the best choice for the job -- or he may just be trying to scam me into another couple hours of labor, or trying to get around doing it "right" to do it "quick and cheap" and get out of there. Blind trust will not show the difference between any of those options.

It's a classic principal-agent problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem

The solution of "just trust me, I'm an expert," absolutely does *not* work in a situation where you are talking about an entire agency of people vs an entire community. I don't know my local detective - he could be an awesome guy, or a complete jerk, or just accidentally misinformed by whatever article he happened to read. Experts in all fields *must* be able to justify their actions and why they took them.

Do you hold the same opinion about your congressman? "My constituents never went to law school, never sat in committee meetings or passed a law. How dare they question how I govern/tell me what the 2nd amendment means!"

I'm not saying that many complaints aren't driven by ignorance -- but people have a right to have it *proved* to them that the police are doing things because it follows reasonably from an agreed upon balance between officer safety/efficiency and "customer" rights. Trust me doesn't cover it.

Now, your point *does* mean that we should take a less hostile tact. "You say this is necessary -- please tell me why it is necessary, because it seems unnecessarily dangerous/rights-infringing to me" and then keep digging on the answer, rather than just assuming nasty things about anybody.

[cclaxton]

cclaxton, I'm not a neurosurgeon, in fact I'm not even a doctor. I have no specific knowledge of neurosurgery. Hence I leave criticism of neurosurgeons to other neurosurgeons or doctors with an understanding of what they do. Do you have training or qualifications that make your criticism of the PD SWAT unit valid? Or is this just a list of things you don't like? Do you have some other axe to grind (previously pissed off by cops, etc)? Why should people with years of training and experience change how they operate based on the opinions of people with zero experience or training?
My experience with Fairfax Police has always been exceptional. I have no personal beef with them.
But, in my 25 years living here I have seen Fairfax Police make some lethal mistakes and the Commonwealth Attorney has protected them from prosecution even when the County compensates the victim's families.

Law Enforcement works under the authority of THE PEOPLE and under the Board of Supervisors. We have a right and an obligation to ensure the people we entrust to carry out enforcement activities against THE PEOPLE do so in an appropriate manner. We have a right to argue about what is appropriate. In fact, that is exactly what this Police Commission is about. I spoke with at least two officers last night who fully support what the Police Commission is doing and embrace changes that would help them do their jobs according to the kind of policing THE PEOPLE expect.

Some in Law Enforcement think it is their job to tell THE PEOPLE to stay out of their business...and to..."Trust us, we know what we are doing." That works well when innocent people don't get killed, and when our rights are honored and we are treated with the respect the Constitution demands. And, 98% of the time that is true in Fairfax County. It is the 2% of the incidents and cases that require Law Enforcement to stand up to their mistakes, to their foul play, and to their overzealous use of force. It is that 2% that Fairfax County Law Enforcement needs to improve, and through what they learn with that 2%, improve Law Enforcement for the other 98%.

I thank police for their service and their courage and the willingness to do a sometimes gross and difficult job. But IMHO they need to learn to keep their muzzles off of citizens until they are actually a threat. From what I have seen in footage and in testimony Fairfax Police's first reaction is to get a muzzle on a suspect when no weapon is present or is even expected. Use of a gun has, in some cases, become a means to put a violent threat to force a citizen to comply with a simple command such as, "Show me your hands". Really, you need a gun pointed center mass to get a person to show their hands?
Cody

[cclaxton]

cclaxton, you actually seem like a reasonable person in your endeavors to improve Fairfax County law enforcement. That said, I'll throw some thoughts out here.

Someone claimed that her house was raided, people were muzzled, no one resisted arrest, no weapons were there, and much of this happened after everyone was hooked up. OK, any police reports or even newspaper articles about this? Did it even happen?

Sal Culosi was unintentionally shot by an FCPD SWAT officer. As I recall, as the officer exited his vehicle, the door swung back on his arm and he unintentionally fired his weapon. You may know more than me, but I have never heard that the officer intentionally put his finger inside the trigger guard or pointed it at Culosi. If you know how to prevent a trigger finger closing on a trigger during a violent physical event when a weapon muzzle can not be completely controlled, please let us know.

I have never heard that Culosi was a violent person, but he was involved in high stakes gambling. As I recall, the games had armed security. I believe that suspicion was the reason that SWAT was deployed on this warrant service.
I think this article sums it up pretty well.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal
There were no armed guards at Sal's house. He was barefoot and wearing a Tshirt.
All the evidence points to a mistake made by Officer Bullock.
If this was an ordinary citizen who accidentally shot another citizen, that citizen would be charged and likely convicted of a crime, even if a mistake.
My issue with this is the Commonwealth Attorney and the Police Dept failed to act in a way that would provide Justice to the Culosi family.
The other big issue that has generated the Police Commission is the lack of transparency related to controversial police activities. The Oversight Committee is trying to address that as a part of the overall process.
Cody

[cclaxton]

If more people would participate in civic activities, like the conversations that Cody is having with his police department, and if communities would vote their conscience instead of for "the lesser of two evils" or whichever politician promises more bread and circuses, we might have fewer riots and more transparent government.

Thanks.

There is something else happening that I should mention as well: Law Enforcement, families of victims of police errors, and average citizens are talking to each other in a way I have never seen before. Sure, we have had local "crime awareness" picnics when police come and eat burgers and talk about crimes in the neighborhood. But this is the first time that police have to look victims families in the eye in a social environment and begin to answer for why this happened. For many victims families and average citizens, it helps them to learn about the many processes and workings of the enforcement and prosecutorial system. It helps them to understand the issues police have in doing their jobs. Many people had never before seen a threat assessment because up until this commission the Police didn't allow citizens to read threat assessments. They were kept confidential.

I think this is bringing awareness to both sides of enforcement and prosecution. Well, I am not convinced that the prosecutors are willing to change anything since they sit in a very powerful position right now. But this is not so much about prosecutorial misconduct but about enforcement activities.

It is really great thing happening here....I think it is creating a basis for improved relations between citizens and those who enforce the laws and those who prosecute crimes.

I just wish more people were involved...the subcommittee meetings had maybe 10 regular citizen observers there.

I encourage each and every one of you to go talk to your law enforcement leadership and encourage them to have similar meetings so that the community can work through the very difficult and controversial things that happen through enforcement.
Cody

[cclaxton]

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/policecommission/materials/5401-general-order.pdf
General Order 540.1 on Use of Force by Fairfax County.
Still reading.
Cody

[KevinB]

If this was an ordinary citizen who accidentally shot another citizen, that citizen would be charged and likely convicted of a crime, even if a mistake.

An ordinary citizen would not have been ordered to go to the house... That aspect right there is the difference.

jnc36rcpd was much more kind of worded than I would be -- your obsessed with this aspect, to the point IMHO of paranoia.
To my reading it is like your hiding something.

Really you link to a Balko article? Hardly the source of impartial LE reporting.

[cclaxton]

An ordinary citizen would not have been ordered to go to the house... That aspect right there is the difference.
So, just because police/SWAT are ordered to go to a house to arrest someone, they should be allowed to get away with accidentally and negligently killing someone who showed no lethal threat? I fail to understand how that means the officer should face no criminal consequences. Don't we expect Law Enforcement to actually operate BETTER than the average citizen?


jnc36rcpd was much more kind of worded than I would be -- your obsessed with this aspect, to the point IMHO of paranoia.
To my reading it is like your hiding something.
Is there a reason you want to make this personal? I suggest we talk about the very legitimate topic of police/SWAT not operating with sufficient muzzle control, and sufficient safety, and using the muzzle of a weapon to force compliance with unarmed citizens. This paves the way down a dangerous road of a police state. I am not saying police should not defend themselves or enforce the laws. I am saying that police need to exercise AT LEAST the same safety protocols we expect of ordinary citizens, and be able to operate with firearms drawn even BETTER than ordinary citizens. It is not I that have been opaque. It is the Fairfax Police who have stonewalled information in the Geer and the Culosi cases, to name the most prominent ones. As I said, all my interactions with Fairfax Police have been great. But that has not been the case for a number of citizens, who are unable to fight for Justice from the grave.


Really you link to a Balko article? Hardly the source of impartial LE reporting.
If you have reasons to debunk the Balko article, then please provide the facts and the rebuttal. I am all for a transparent discussion of the topics.
Cody

[jnc36rcpd]

Balko's article expects us to believe unsourced reporting as being factual. For instance, he attaches animations of what the plaintiff's attorney argues happened. He never mentions who these investigators/criminalists are or what their background is. He tells us how the investigation allegedly progressed, but doesn't source his information.

You are quick to assert that police muzzle unarmed citizens. What means would you recommend police use to determine a citizen is unarmed?

I would agree that Fairfax County does neither its citizens nor its police officers any good with their reluctance to release information on officer-involved shootings for months and years.

[cclaxton]

Balko's article expects us to believe unsourced reporting as being factual. For instance, he attaches animations of what the plaintiff's attorney argues happened. He never mentions who these investigators/criminalists are or what their background is. He tells us how the investigation allegedly progressed, but doesn't source his information.

You are quick to assert that police muzzle unarmed citizens. What means would you recommend police use to determine a citizen is unarmed?

I would agree that Fairfax County does neither its citizens nor its police officers any good with their reluctance to release information on officer-involved shootings for months and years.
Many, if not most, news articles or journalism do not name their sources, or refer to them generally. The real question is whether the Balko information is true or not, and is it factual or not. It may be that LE investigative information was not available...we don't really know. I am not saying I take the Balko article as true. But it challenges us to get to the truth. If you or others here have information that would counter the information, or the facts, then it should be presented.

As far as what a police officer/SWAT member should do? Last I checked the Use of Force Continuum has not been thrown entirely in the trash. I would start there. The muzzle should be pointed in a safe direction UNTIL the suspect becomes lethal, not before. Guns can be drawn at low ready, high ready, whatever ready, but not pointed until the suspect is actually a threat. That is my opinion as a voting citizen of Fairfax County and last I checked, the Police serve the citizens, not the other way round.
Cody

[voodoo_man]

So, just because police/SWAT are ordered to go to a house to arrest someone, they should be allowed to get away with accidentally and negligently killing someone who showed no lethal threat? I fail to understand how that means the officer should face no criminal consequences. Don't we expect Law Enforcement to actually operate BETTER than the average citizen?


I'll just step in on this one.

Why do you think a SWAT team goes to a house over two or three officers? Is it because there is a situation that has proven itself to be dangerous, time and time again, backed up by data, that requires this type of response? Yes. Police action is widely data driven.

Who have you heard get away with "accidentally and negligently killing someone" especially when they "showed no lethal threat" in our justice system in the last five years? Before you go off googling results of SWAT team members getting acquitted of charges, understand that they were in fact charged in the first place.

You expect an average citizen, who is exactly like you in every way, other than their profession to operate better than you? Do you expect doctors to have superhuman ability of some sort as well?

Not being condescending or negative, if it comes off as that way I apologize in advance, I am just trying to convey the concept that when a SWAT team shows up, it is because the situation has proven, through verifiable data, that only a SWAT team can handle the task without it becoming too dangerous for the officers and the subject(s) in question. Even then, the chance of a SWAT team member or two going through the door first of getting killed are very high.

[voodoo_man]

As far as what a police officer/SWAT member should do? Last I checked the Use of Force Continuum has not been thrown entirely in the trash. I would start there. The muzzle should be pointed in a safe direction UNTIL the suspect becomes lethal, not before. Guns can be drawn at low ready, high ready, whatever ready, but not pointed until the suspect is actually a threat. That is my opinion as a voting citizen of Fairfax County and last I checked, the Police serve the citizens, not the other way round.


You can talk all the concepts you want, but like this guy found out (http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/8097484-Video-Anti-police-protester-undergoes-use-of-force-scenario-training/) saying it and doing it are two different things.

[cclaxton]

I have seen many...too many...cases where Fairfax County has shot and killed innocent civilians or non-threatening suspects. With the Patriot Act, and the threat of domestic terrorism, I see a ratcheting up of the use of SWAT, No-Knock Warrants, Civil Forfeitures (Which I view as Unconstitutional), Sneak-and-Peek Entries(which I view as unconstitutional), and warrantless wiretaps. These are the tools that can turn America into a police state. I don't think that makes me paranoid, but does cause me to raise concerns and make sure we have checks and balances and are being smart, respectful of citizens and Constitutional.


Who have you heard get away with "accidentally and negligently killing someone" especially when they "showed no lethal threat" in our justice system in the last five years? Before you go off googling results of SWAT team members getting acquitted of charges, understand that they were in fact charged in the first place.
Officer Torres who killed John Geer in Fairfax County Aug 29, 2013 while standing in the front door of his own home with no weapon or threat presented, for one. Why impose a 5 year limit? Fairfax Police admitted it was an accident that resulted in killing Sal Culosi. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502245.html That officer was never charged although Fairfax County paid a $2M compensation to the family.


You expect an average citizen, who is exactly like you in every way, other than their profession to operate better than you? Do you expect doctors to have superhuman ability of some sort as well? I do expect my doctor to be a better surgeon than me. Yes, I do expect police to operate using lethal force better than the average citizen. The decision by police to draw a gun and be at the ready, and to place the muzzle on that person's center mass are two different decisions, and should have two different Use of Force triggers (pardon the pun).


Not being condescending or negative, if it comes off as that way I apologize in advance, I am just trying to convey the concept that when a SWAT team shows up, it is because the situation has proven, through verifiable data, that only a SWAT team can handle the task without it becoming too dangerous for the officers and the subject(s) in question. Even then, the chance of a SWAT team member or two going through the door first of getting killed are very high.


I don't want to see a single police officer killed in the line of duty, and neither do I want to see a single citizen who is not a lethal threat killed either. But I don't think that is realistic. We are all equal under the law, or at least we should be. I honor and appreciate all the hard-working, dedicated police officers who put their lives on the line and who have died in the line of duty, but that doesn't mean we should endorse policies that result in innocent citizens losing their lives so that cops won't. That is the road to a police state.

In the end, public safety has not been served when police kill innocent civilians who present no threat. And, isn't Public Safety the mission?
Cody

[voodoo_man]

There are no doubt dozens upon dozens of cases which can be cited for officers shooting a person you may believe posed no lethal threat. That is why the courts do not have a "reasonable by cody standards" level of measurement. They have a "reasonable through the eyes of the officer at that moment" standard. Your opinion is your own and when it goes against case lawx precedent and years of data driven policy, then you may want to reevaluate your stance.

Furthermore, while there are many officers, like myself, who into harms way, all LEOs want to go home at night. there will never be any policy that hinders or prevents an officer from doing what he must in order to survive. Legal or not, if you were in immediate danger would you worry about muzzling someone or what the courts will do? No. You will act. You and me, everyone here, are not different. We chose different professions but does that mean we have to be held to some super human standard? Absolutely not, that concept is laughable. Another concept to understand, if you want LEOs to be held to a massive standard that you set, by all means, start donating hundreds of thousands of dollars so that the average person can be trained to that standard. It costs millions of dollars to get a person into a top tier operator, and they get killed from time to time, why should it be any different with LEOs, based on your standards?

But back to reality, since nothing you are frustrated about will change because the street officer, the one you are complaining about, has no say in the matter. The top brass, the politicians, and other interested and wealthy parties get to play the policy/law game.

Direct your frustration at them.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm on record several times as stating that cops do not shoot nearly as many people as they should, however, the flip side is that they routinely muzzle people they have zero business putting a muzzle on.

Voodoo, re-read what you just posted and think about what message you just sent, because from the perspective of this particular street cop/firearms trainer/combatives guy who has also worked the hood for a long time and dealt with numerous serious assholes over the years, your message is not a good one, and it's something that will bite you in the ass under the wrong circumstances.

[Ptrlcop]

The fact that you think an officer should be criminally charged for making a mistake while doing the job asked of them shows some lack of understanding regarding our legal system. Courts have repeatedly held that mistakes happen and civil liability is the remedy for those mistakes, not criminal charges.

[cclaxton]

The fact that you think an officer should be criminally charged for making a mistake while doing the job asked of them shows some lack of understanding regarding our legal system. Courts have repeatedly held that mistakes happen and civil liability is the remedy for those mistakes, not criminal charges.
I think *some* cases should end up with criminal charges, but certainly not all. In Fairfax County most criminal charges against police are for things like fraud, theft, battery, perjury, etc, and those are criminal charges. Surely, you don't think those should be civil. The appropriate application of criminal charges sends a message that the police must live under the same laws. If I am a pizza driver and hit a pedestrian late at night who is dressed in black in a crosswalk by mistake, should I be able to use the defense that I drive for a living and therefore I should not be criminally charged? I don't think that defense will fly in almost every jurisdiction I know of.

And, then there is the question of whether you consider "negligence" a mistake. A police officer should very well know the rules of gun safety. When a police officer ignores those rules and policies and is negligence in the performance of their duty, then criminal charges are appropriate. One analogy would be a Train Engineer who falls asleep, smokes week on duty or is texting and causes a train crash, he should be charged with negligence. If this is truly a mistake, such as has happened during training exercises where someone forgot to check downrange before exercising live fire, then not.

When these things come together: Use of SWAT for catching a sports gambler combined with a negligent discharge, then, yeah, criminal charges are appropriate. This is where policy and training have to change, and this is one of the areas we are focusing on in the Subcommittees.

Again, I am not a police basher. I truly appreciate all the great work they perform and the risk and the sacrifice that police endure. But like any job, they need to face the consequences when they are negligent.
Cody

[Ptrlcop]

You clearly need to do more research as to what criminal negligence consists of as none of your examples are even close.

I your pizza driver scenario I doubt he would even get a citation. Hell if the pedestrian survived he would probably be cited for a pedestrian movement into traffic

[Ptrlcop]

I'll give you an even better example. My grandmother was killed by a truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel. He was issued an inattentive driving citation(a small fine) and his insurance company settled with my grandpa for his loss.

I no way should that truck driver go to jail or face criminal penalties for his MISTAKE(different from negligence).

In life sometimes shit happens.

[cclaxton]

Another concept to understand, if you want LEOs to be held to a massive standard that you set, by all means, start donating hundreds of thousands of dollars so that the average person can be trained to that standard. It costs millions of dollars to get a person into a top tier operator, and they get killed from time to time, why should it be any different with LEOs, based on your standards?

I am a big supporter of increasing training funds for the police department. The good news is that Fairfax County is well funded and this will likely happen. The street cops I talk to do not have your view. They have told me off the record that they want to change the way they use force because they want to be held in high regard on the street. It helps them do their jobs when the public has that confidence. I think the problems seem to be coming from entrenched attitudes in upper management.
Cody

[voodoo_man]

I'm on record several times as stating that cops do not shoot nearly as many people as they should, however, the flip side is that they routinely muzzle people they have zero business putting a muzzle on.

Voodoo, re-read what you just posted and think about what message you just sent, because from the perspective of this particular street cop/firearms trainer/combatives guy who has also worked the hood for a long time and dealt with numerous serious assholes over the years, your message is not a good one, and it's something that will bite you in the ass under the wrong circumstances.

Mind highlighting what gave you that impression?

[voodoo_man]

I am a big supporter of increasing training funds for the police department. The good news is that Fairfax County is well funded and this will likely happen. The street cops I talk to do not have your view. They have told me off the record that they want to change the way they use force because they want to be held in high regard on the street. It helps them do their jobs when the public has that confidence. I think the problems seem to be coming from entrenched attitudes in upper management.
Cody

Lets not get things twisted or misunderstood.

I am completely for changing the way things are done, including use of force, as long as it is in the best interest of all parties, especially the officers.

Education of the general public on these topics is the first step to having the community better understand what happens and why it happens, not changing things without understanding why things need to be changed.

The problems do not seem to be coming from upper management.

They are.

[MDS]

Lets not get things twisted or misunderstood.

I am completely for changing the way things are done, including use of force, as long as it is in the best interest of all parties, especially the officers.

Education of the general public on these topics is the first step to having the community better understand what happens and why it happens, not changing things without understanding why things need to be changed.

The problems do not seem to be coming from upper management.

They are.

Your confidence in your conclusions is inspiring and I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'd love to partake in it. To that end, would you mind expounding a bit on what happens and why it happens, and maybe share some ideas on what changes would be in the best interests of all parties involved?

[voodoo_man]

Your confidence in your conclusions is inspiring and I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'd love to partake in it. To that end, would you mind expounding a bit on what happens and why it happens, and maybe share some ideas on what changes would be in the best interests of all parties involved?

My statements are based from my personal experience. If there is a specific topic you want me to opine on please reference that topic. Be advised, however, proof or evidence required to believe what I present may be unverifiable.

[MDS]

My statements are based from my personal experience. If there is a specific topic you want me to opine on please reference that topic. Be advised, however, proof or evidence required to believe what I present may be unverifiable.

Oh, that's surprising. And more than a little disappointing. I was excited, for example, when you mentioned several times how current policies are the product of data-driven analyses. I was excited, for example, when you mentioned that you support various changes, including in UOF policies. I was excited, for example, when you proposed educating the public around what happens and why it happens. I guess I misread all that, and the bold confidence in the tone used to express it, to imply that some of your conclusions, at least, were rationally built up from evidence of some verifiable variety. And I guess I hoped, in the spirit of forwarding a civilized discussion, that you could share some of that evidence and rationale, so that we ignorant but interested citizens could share some of that confidence. Because confidence is a trait sorely lacking, in more than one sense, in our well-intentioned but again ignorant interest in how our communities are policed.

If, on the other hand, you simply disagree with Cody on these issues, for reasons of subjective values, anecdotal experiences, and intuitive certainties, well that's certainly a valid perspective and I wouldn't want to dismiss or diminish it. But in that case I don't see how to share in the confidence of your conclusions, nor how you could dismiss or diminish Cody's perspective, born as they are from his values, experiences, and intuitions, and moreover supported by objective observation of incidents which we can all agree show real opportunities for improvement.

So you tell me. On which of your conclusions, in which you sound so confident, could you elaborate in a data-driven way, to prescribe policy fixes or at least educate us around what happens and why? And most especially advice for civic participation that might make a difference. Because I appreciate your service and sacrifice as an officer, i truly do, but if we won't make a difference in the Fairfax area police policy, or at least educate folks who are trying to make a difference there, then we should get off this thread, and get out of the way of folks who are "in the arena."

[voodoo_man]

Guess I was not clear, I apologize for that.

The information is there, I just cannot provide it without creating an issue for myself. Internal numbers are not something posted online, saying OPSEC is a cop out, but it doesn't make it any less legitimate.

As for what I have postes based on personal experience. Ill gladly explain as long as you are not asking me to put myself in a situation where posting information may get me in trouble.

Furthermore, if I was dismissive of anyones opinions, I already stated that was not my goal here. It is difficult, however, to have a conversation with someone who is very steadfast in their opinions without any basis for those opinions other than an emotional response of "how things should be."

Its the old, theory vs. reality, argument.

Lastly, if you would rather me not post my personal experience I will remove my commentary from this thread without prejudice. My approach and lack of filter when educating may be nonstandard but it does not mean it is incorrect. Take the negative spin that is often attached on the internet, especially in forums, out of it. I have no negative intentions or motives, I purely wish to educate since that, as ive stated twice now, is the fastest way to bridge any gaps in police-community relations.

[Chuck Haggard]

Mind highlighting what gave you that impression?


there will never be any policy that hinders or prevents an officer from doing what he must in order to survive. Legal or not, if you were in immediate danger would you worry about muzzling someone or what the courts will do? No. You will act. You and me, everyone here, are not different.


What I am reading right here is that you do not care what the law says, or what anyone else says, in the moment you will do what you think is the right thing to do, and the rest of that shit be damned.

This sort of statement and attitude is exactly how bad shit happens, and is how cops get jammed up in court if something goes sideways.

[voodoo_man]

What I am reading right here is that you do not care what the law says, or what anyone else says, in the moment you will do what you think is the right thing to do, and the rest of that shit be damned.

This sort of statement and attitude is exactly how bad shit happens, and is how cops get jammed up in court if something goes sideways.

I can see how that can be construed that way. That was not what I intended it to come across as, more along the lines that we are all in the same boat and no one is unique when in fear for their safety. More experienced, maybe, but never unique.

[Chuck Haggard]

I can see how that can be construed that way. That was not what I intended it to come across as, more along the lines that we are all in the same boat and no one is unique when in fear for their safety. More experienced, maybe, but never unique.

So we can agree that either the thought expressed is indeed messed up, or the thought you meant to convey was poorly communicated?

[MDS]

Gotcha. If you can't share the information on which policy is based, well it is what it is. I can buy that, but it doesn't provide any relief. Consider: in a representative government, where the voters are supposed to have a say in how their government does things, too much secrecy must needs lead to ignorant voting, and from there to ineffective policy.

Maybe we can agree that lack of transparency is an important part of the disconnect, and that a good first step would be to revisit the balance of opsec vs informing the electorate? That sounds like a solid prescription that people like Cody can take to their cops, and move those discussions in meaningful ways. Because the only alternative is to say "listen, trust us, we're the cops and you should just trust that we do things right, that we cop to our mistakes and fix them straightaway." That's not what any of us are advocating, I don't think, so we absolutely need enough transparency for regular folks to reach their own conclusions with some reasonable level of confidence.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm not sure why agency policy and general orders wouldn't be open to the public.

I'm not talking tactical/OPSEC stuff, because none of that is in a policy that I have ever seen.

[MDS]

That makes sense, Chuck. What about the data and rationale for policies? If I understand voodoo, he's saying much of that is held back for opsec?

[Chuck Haggard]

I know in my state all of that would be open records, and IMHO should be.

If someone wanted to know what out evidence check in procedure was, or vehicle operations/chase procedure, UOF reporting policy, etc., then they have no issues getting that info.

[MDS]

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/policecommission/materials/5401-general-order.pdf
General Order 540.1 on Use of Force by Fairfax County.
Still reading.
Cody
Finally took a look at this. On the one hand, it seems like muzzling isn't exactly encouraged, but only triggers a need to report. I wonder how receptive they'd be to a small tweak that discourages muzzling until further into the uof continuum? Maybe as simple as a new rule that says don't muzzle until a decision to shoot has been made, and muzzling, while still labeled as non lethal, triggers much of the same paperwork as shooting (because after all, if there's muzzling, there's an intent to shoot, given the new rule...)

Totally just thinking out loud, from ignorance, hoping someone can pipe in on why that might be a good or bad idea...

[SouthNarc]

Just skimmed it myself. Those look like IACP template SOPs.

[voodoo_man]

So we can agree that either the thought expressed is indeed messed up, or the thought you meant to convey was poorly communicated?

Or that it was misunderstood from its meaning. This is the internet after all, if you figured out a way to read inflection of tone by all means share it.


Gotcha. If you can't share the information on which policy is based, well it is what it is. I can buy that, but it doesn't provide any relief. Consider: in a representative government, where the voters are supposed to have a say in how their government does things, too much secrecy must needs lead to ignorant voting, and from there to ineffective policy.

Maybe we can agree that lack of transparency is an important part of the disconnect, and that a good first step would be to revisit the balance of opsec vs informing the electorate? That sounds like a solid prescription that people like Cody can take to their cops, and move those discussions in meaningful ways. Because the only alternative is to say "listen, trust us, we're the cops and you should just trust that we do things right, that we cop to our mistakes and fix them straightaway." That's not what any of us are advocating, I don't think, so we absolutely need enough transparency for regular folks to reach their own conclusions with some reasonable level of confidence.

There is a serious lack of transparency, but that is literally ten steps above my pay grade. I can neither suggest change nor implement change in my PD, so you will forgive me for telling you that there are other trees to bark up since this one isnt high enough on the food chain.

As ive stated, the issue is with the top, not the street guys. Focus on them and politician's.

On the topic of firearms and policy, there is usually no policy that tells an officer when he is allowed to pull his duty weapon or when he is allowed to point it at someone. Yes there is the law, but as we know, case law applies differently to LEOs working the street. No such policy will be created any time soon that dictates when and how a LEO can implement hia firearm.

[Hambo]

Finally took a look at this. On the one hand, it seems like muzzling isn't exactly encouraged, but only triggers a need to report. I wonder how receptive they'd be to a small tweak that discourages muzzling until further into the uof continuum? Maybe as simple as a new rule that says don't muzzle until a decision to shoot has been made, and muzzling, while still labeled as non lethal, triggers much of the same paperwork as shooting (because after all, if there's muzzling, there's an intent to shoot, given the new rule...)

Totally just thinking out loud, from ignorance, hoping someone can pipe in on why that might be a good or bad idea...

Pretend you're an officer serving an arrest warrant on someone who shot two people. Suspect was identified on video and is known to carry a gun. He is obviously willing to shoot people. Do you want to keep your muzzle pointed at the deck unless you decide you have to shoot him? Do you feel comfortable that far behind the curve?

You said you "just got around to reading this (UOF policy in the link)". So anything you posted between Cody's link and the quote above was done in ignorance. Cody said at one point he was still reading the UOF policies but had posted a litany of complaints prior to ever starting to read them. This is exactly what I was posting about earlier. People have conceived ideas of how LE should work from everything except actual knowledge and yet they feel compelled to tell LE how to do the job right.

[Hambo]

I know in my state all of that would be open records, and IMHO should be.

If someone wanted to know what out evidence check in procedure was, or vehicle operations/chase procedure, UOF reporting policy, etc., then they have no issues getting that info.

Many PDs have all of their SOPs posted online if people bothered to look.

[KeeFus]

Finally took a look at this. On the one hand, it seems like muzzling isn't exactly encouraged, but only triggers a need to report. I wonder how receptive they'd be to a small tweak that discourages muzzling until further into the uof continuum? Maybe as simple as a new rule that says don't muzzle until a decision to shoot has been made, and muzzling, while still labeled as non lethal, triggers much of the same paperwork as shooting (because after all, if there's muzzling, there's an intent to shoot, given the new rule...)

Totally just thinking out loud, from ignorance, hoping someone can pipe in on why that might be a good or bad idea...

Interesting thread...

In regards to muzzling and SOP's...my agency is preparing for reaccredation from CALEA (which could be its own damn thread). As we were preparing one of the Captains was preparing a use of force review. In that review one officer had filed a UOF report everytime he had pointed his weapon at someone...just like policy says. This initially raised a red flag and the question from the Captain was why is he doing this? My response: "How many guys dont do a UOF report after pointing their weapon at someone...and why do you think that is?" He looked at me perplexed. I explained that labeling an officer because he points his weapon at someone to protect himself from an unknown threat is why officers would not do one to begin with. They want to avoid the label from admin. Then he understood. Its much easier to do your job without being labeled. The officer didnt get labeled but admin types (this guy is usually pretty street savy which is why he understood so quickly) who have long ago forgot how to police look at incidents in this way. They worry more about perception of an event more so than the reality of the event, ie. how will this make us look vs. damn, that officer did a good job on that felony arrest etc. Want to talk about lowering morale?

[cclaxton]

Finally took a look at this. On the one hand, it seems like muzzling isn't exactly encouraged, but only triggers a need to report. I wonder how receptive they'd be to a small tweak that discourages muzzling until further into the uof continuum? Maybe as simple as a new rule that says don't muzzle until a decision to shoot has been made, and muzzling, while still labeled as non lethal, triggers much of the same paperwork as shooting (because after all, if there's muzzling, there's an intent to shoot, given the new rule...)
Totally just thinking out loud, from ignorance, hoping someone can pipe in on why that might be a good or bad idea...
I think they would be open to that change. There is an entire subcommittee dedicated to a review of Use of Force. It wouldn't surprise me if they rewrite the entire policy. Also, there is discussion of citizen oversight of Use of Force policies and activities. There will likely be a Citizen Police Oversight Board, much like the School Board, appointed by the Board of Supervisors (The Elected Representatives). That CPOB will likely be able to make recommendations to the Police and BOS and changes can be made through a continual evaluation of what works...or doesn't. Police Dept Management is pushing back hard on the CPOB, but even Pro-Police Commisioners are saying, "We can't recommend doing nothing on citizen oversight." I think it will be a political matter on the scope of the CPOB's authority and influence.

But there is a lot of work to be done before the Police Commission puts all that into a document that will be reviewed and diced-up by the Board of Supervisors before a vote to approve the amended policies and a CPOB process.
Cody

[cclaxton]

Interesting thread...

In regards to muzzling and SOP's...my agency is preparing for reaccredation from CALEA (which could be its own damn thread). As we were preparing one of the Captains was preparing a use of force review. In that review one officer had filed a UOF report everytime he had pointed his weapon at someone...just like policy says. This initially raised a red flag and the question from the Captain was why is he doing this? My response: "How many guys dont do a UOF report after pointing their weapon at someone...and why do you think that is?" He looked at me perplexed. I explained that labeling an officer because he points his weapon at someone to protect himself from an unknown threat is why officers would not do one to begin with. They want to avoid the label from admin. Then he understood. Its much easier to do your job without being labeled. The officer didnt get labeled but admin types (this guy is usually pretty street savy which is why he understood so quickly) who have long ago forgot how to police look at incidents in this way. They worry more about perception of an event more so than the reality of the event, ie. how will this make us look vs. damn, that officer did a good job on that felony arrest etc. Want to talk about lowering morale?

Does this mean there is a stigma within departments about officers who are quick on the gun?

One of the big gaps identified in the Use of Force Subcommittee is the lack of a database of how many times officers a) drew their guns, b) pointed it at suspects, c) fired their gun, d) hit their targets, e) used alternative forms of Control, f) were fired on before or after they arrived, g) died or survived, h) whether the suspects had a lethal weapon or other lethal threat or not, i) had injuries, j) died, k) circumstances leading to the confrontation (was the officer serving a warrant or was this a spontaneous incident), l) SWAT was involved, m) etc.

That is not to say reports weren't written and management has incident summaries, and management reports-out on a variety of statistics on a regular basis. But none of that is kept in a database over time so that further analysis can be done on trendlines, threat analytics, etc. Yes, even in a relatively well-funded county this has never been done.

But a database is only as good as the data that you put into it. And, if data is not being collected because officers don't report it...that skews the analytics. Fairfax Police have been so close-fisted on this information for so long it has become engrained in their culture. This is one of the big problems they are trying to fix.

Keefus: How would you recommend they fix this fear to report? Anonymous reporting? Traditional management methods?
Thanks,
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

Or that it was misunderstood from its meaning. This is the internet after all, if you figured out a way to read inflection of tone by all means share it.




there will never be any policy that hinders or prevents an officer from doing what he must in order to survive. Legal or not, if you were in immediate danger would you worry about muzzling someone or what the courts will do? No. You will act. You and me, everyone here, are not different.

No, I mean your wording, you clearly indicated that you might not care whether what you did was "legal or not". This clearly indicates that you will be willing to do an illegal act if you think you need to.

[MDS]

Whew! Let me just say that with such a contentious topic, it's good to be able to have a civilized discourse. Please, let's remember to keep it that way. An hour to think through an emotional response can go a long way!


[...]you will forgive me for telling you that there are other trees to bark up since this one isnt high enough on the food chain.

As ive stated, the issue is with the top, not the street guys. Focus on them and politician's.

That's fair, but if you doing have anything to contribute, why post? I suspect it's because......


On the topic of firearms and policy, there is usually no policy that tells an officer when he is allowed to pull his duty weapon or when he is allowed to point it at someone.

......there are some things you can help us understand, after all! Yet the Fairfax uof policy linked to above very clearly defines that pointing a gun at someone is non-deadly force, and therefore is covered in the uof continuum. So here is a policy that apparently "tells an officer" when he can point a gun at someone, when you clearly day that there is usually no such policy. I know I'm the ignorant guy here, so I'm asking. What am I missing?


Pretend you're an officer serving an arrest warrant on someone who shot two people. Suspect was identified on video and is known to carry a gun. He is obviously willing to shoot people. Do you want to keep your muzzle pointed at the deck unless you decide you have to shoot him? Do you feel comfortable that far behind the curve?

You said you "just got around to reading this (UOF policy in the link)". So anything you posted between Cody's link and the quote above was done in ignorance. Cody said at one point he was still reading the UOF policies but had posted a litany of complaints prior to ever starting to read them. This is exactly what I was posting about earlier. People have conceived ideas of how LE should work from everything except actual knowledge and yet they feel compelled to tell LE how to do the job right.

I don't want to pretend, I don't have the background to meaningfully do that. So I could say, well at Rogers school, IIRC, I was able to consistently hit a 8" plate at 7yd in .25s from the low ready. But that probably wouldn't apply to the cop world for a million reasons. I just don't know what those reasons are, and I'm just hoping for some help in learning about them. Maybe there are studies about cops losing fights because they started with a low-muzzle deficit? Hell, maybe those studies are classified, I have no idea. But if we agree that it's important to educate the ignorant but interested citizens, then some kind of information transfer has to happen at some point..... That's all I'm saying, it's no kind of attack or anything, just plain, simple, honest questions. Dumb, maybe, but honest.

So everything I posted before and after I read that uof policy was posted in ignorance. That's why the only things I posted were a) my sentiment that Cody's involvement is commendable; b) my thoughts on why ignorant but interested citizens might rightly want to understand police policy and the rationale behind it; and c) some questions to help me understand that a little better.

In that spirit, I hope we can keep this civil, focus on Cody's civic participation, and continue to share knowledge without making things personal.


[amin types] worry more about perception of an event more so than the reality of the event, ie. how will this make us look vs. damn, that officer did a good job on that felony arrest etc. Want to talk about lowering morale?

That's a common complaint! This sucks bad enough in any job, it can only be worse when the job puts your life so far out on the line like policing does. In my ignorance and naivete, it seems like the only way to have generally good perception and generally good policing at the same time, is for the folks who do the perceiving to have enough information to perceive things in a generally accurate way. That's why I think this community interaction that Cody's a part of so cool, I bet he is going to learn a ton, in the end, that will help him perceive more accurately. Does that line of thinking sound right to you? Where does it fall apart? Again, no attack here, just plain, honest questions looking for plain, honest comments.


I think they would be open to that change. [...] But there is a lot of work to be done before the Police Commission puts all that into a document that will be reviewed and diced-up by the Board of Supervisors before a vote to approve the amended policies and a CPOB process.
Cody

Sounds like this won't be a quick process. Frankly, it probably shouldn't be. Please keep it up, and keep us informed!

[Chuck Haggard]

Interesting thread...

In regards to muzzling and SOP's...my agency is preparing for reaccredation from CALEA (which could be its own damn thread). As we were preparing one of the Captains was preparing a use of force review. In that review one officer had filed a UOF report everytime he had pointed his weapon at someone...just like policy says. This initially raised a red flag and the question from the Captain was why is he doing this? My response: "How many guys dont do a UOF report after pointing their weapon at someone...and why do you think that is?" He looked at me perplexed. I explained that labeling an officer because he points his weapon at someone to protect himself from an unknown threat is why officers would not do one to begin with. They want to avoid the label from admin. Then he understood. Its much easier to do your job without being labeled. The officer didnt get labeled but admin types (this guy is usually pretty street savy which is why he understood so quickly) who have long ago forgot how to police look at incidents in this way. They worry more about perception of an event more so than the reality of the event, ie. how will this make us look vs. damn, that officer did a good job on that felony arrest etc. Want to talk about lowering morale?

If you have officers not reporting what is clearly a reportable UOF then you have a very, very serious cultural issue on your job. I was an expert witness for an agency that was doing exactly this, if your culture isn't what your SOPs says it should be, then what is in writing doesn't matter when you go to court, and it's going to cost everyone a lot of money, even if no one goes to jail.

On my old department that failure to report may have cost someone their job, it certainly would have been two weeks off without pay and a lot of scrutiny for years afterwards.



I'll say it again, cops muzzle WAY too many people that they have no business muzzling, it's typically the worst shooters that are the worst offenders, they tend to be "fear biters" (to steal a K9 term...) because they are not confident in their abilities. Way too many times there is zero articulation on the officer's part except for "I wanna be ready" or "officer safety", that just does not cut it.

Uncle Scotty is well known as a gunfighter, and he notes what ref using low ready vs muzzle on target?

It has an extensive and proven track record. Many suspects actually commented on the fact that they felt we were “ready” for them when confronted with a low ready position. When the very real bad guys issue statements to this effect, it tends to validate the overall issue.

Muzzling people isn't the speed advantage that most people think it is, you gain very little by doing so, one often blocks the view of the suspect's hands and waistband as well, and IMHO it should be reserved for cases where the officer can clearly articulate they are right on the edge of actually shooting that person, and why that is the case.

[voodoo_man]

@MDS, there is no policy that tells an officer when he can pull his firearm, who he can point it at and in what situation. It doesnt exist. You can construe other policy, like UoF, to mean something it does not, but that will only muddy the waters of understanding.

Also, before people start getting ahead of themselves, policy is not set in stone. It is a set of guidelines, principles to allow officers to use when making decisions. The multiple examples I give are choke holds and shooting at/into moving vehicles. both of which I have direct experience with and both of which are perfectly legal to do within reasonable circumstances.


No, I mean your wording, you clearly indicated that you might not care whether what you did was "legal or not". This clearly indicates that you will be willing to do an illegal act if you think you need to.

Just going to leave this out there and thatll be the end of my contribution on this topic - if your life is on the line, immediate deadly threat. Do you consider what is legal or what is required to survive?

[Chuck Haggard]

@MDS, there is no policy that tells an officer when he can pull his firearm, who he can point it at and in what situation. It doesnt exist. You can construe other policy, like UoF, to mean something it does not, but that will only muddy the waters of understanding.

Also, before people start getting ahead of themselves, policy is not set in stone. It is a set of guidelines, principles to allow officers to use when making decisions. The multiple examples I give are choke holds and shooting at/into moving vehicles. both of which I have direct experience with and both of which are perfectly legal to do within reasonable circumstances.



Just going to leave this out there and thatll be the end of my contribution on this topic - if your life is on the line, immediate deadly threat. Do you consider what is legal or what is required to survive?


There is definitely case law that says muzzling people is in fact a use of force, and we know that any police use of force needs to be articulably reasonable under Graham doctrine.


Yes, I would consider what was legal or not to survive, and have that training and war-gaming done well ahead of time. That's kind of what good street cops do.

If I was a survive at all costs type of guy I wound't have been doing shit like this during my career;
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

Nor would I have been doing things like high risk dope warrants as a knock-and-announce when it would have been tactically easier for me to do an explosive breach and flash-bang the fuck out of everyone, laws reference search warrant service be damned.

[MDS]

@MDS, there is no policy that tells an officer when he can pull his firearm, who he can point it at and in what situation. It doesnt exist. You can construe other policy, like UoF, to mean something it does not, but that will only muddy the waters of understanding.

Gotcha, OK. I must be missing something, and I really want to work through it if you'll forgive my ignorance and oblige me.

The Fairfax UoF policy states, in IV/A/2 states,
The pointing of a firearm in response to the actions of a subject to establish control and gain compliance shall be considered non-deadly use of force.

That seems to imply that pointing a gun at someone is only authorized if some kind of force is authorized, no? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

[KeeFus]

Does this mean there is a stigma within departments about officers who are quick on the gun?

One of the big gaps identified in the Use of Force Subcommittee is the lack of a database of how many times officers a) drew their guns, b) pointed it at suspects, c) fired their gun, d) hit their targets, e) used alternative forms of Control, f) were fired on before or after they arrived, g) died or survived, h) whether the suspects had a lethal weapon or other lethal threat or not, i) had injuries, j) died, k) circumstances leading to the confrontation (was the officer serving a warrant or was this a spontaneous incident), l) SWAT was involved, m) etc.

Keefus: How would you recommend they fix this fear to report? Anonymous reporting? Traditional management methods?
Thanks,
Cody

In todays environment? Is that a serious question? Hell yes theres a stigma! Agencies like ours now have an "early warning system" in place to IA an officer who uses force options...thereby labeling an officer as this or that.

Why would you need to know if an officer draws their gun? When he draws it at home to secure it should he also report that? In regards to "b", we do report when we actually muzzle a suspect but why is that important as long as each incident is documented? In regards to "c", our policy states that firing your weapon (even if we dispatch an animal) is a UOF and as such should be reported. As far as I can tell they do...my guys on my shift do, which is why I had the conversation with the Captain. I encourage the low-ready position. In regards to "d", one of our guys fired his gun at a suspect and missed...it was not only reported and on video but investigated...he was cleared. As far as rounds fired that hit...why is that important? In gun fights people often miss...I have. "E", UOF options up to weapons are included in our reporting. In regards to the other information it seems ike a huge fishing expedition. Any incident that has led up to shots being fired, in my AO, is investigated.

I dont think its a fear to report as much as its information that does nothing but establish a number...and then the "OMFG, look at how many times officer X did this." I think that if citizens want to sit on an oversight committee that should attend the academy and ride for awhile...then offer up how they think they can fix something. Arm chair quarterbacking incidents without any other insight than just wanting to run roughshot over an agency is wrong.

[MDS]

Arm chair quarterbacking incidents without any other insight than just wanting to run roughshot over an agency is wrong.

What if I told you we're not trying to run roughshod over anyone? What if I said we're ignorant but also interested? What if I said all we really want is to understand at some rational level what happens, why it happens, and what sorts of things are done to measure and improve? Would that be threatening somehow? Would that qualify as running roughshod?

I mean, if you're saying Cody should shut up, sit down, and let the cops do their job without any explanation...... I guess I don't know what to say to that. That would be a very scary message from police in a free society.

[KeeFus]

What if I told you we're not trying to run roughshod over anyone? What if I said we're ignorant but also interested? What if I said all we really want is to understand at some rational level what happens, why it happens, and what sorts of things are done to measure and improve? Would that be threatening somehow? Would that qualify as running roughshod?

I mean, if you're saying Cody should shut up, sit down, and let the cops do their job without any explanation...... I guess I don't know what to say to that. That would be a very scary message from police in a free society.

Sorry if I came across that way...not what I was trying to send. All that data seems pointless to garner. Im sure that as pressure continues to increase on LE as a whole for more reporting on this or that these over sight committees will get what they want. I do not think that it will change a whole lot other than putting together a bunch of numbers.

[SouthNarc]

I think that if citizens want to sit on an oversight committee thhy should attend the academy and ride for awhile...then offer up how they think they can fix something.


Word.

[Jay Cunningham]

it's typically the worst shooters that are the worst offenders, they tend to be "fear biters" (to steal a K9 term...) because they are not confident in their abilities


This is very interesting to me... compelling phraseology.

[Chuck Haggard]

BTW, one reason my agency tracked "active pointing" (what the last Chief named muzzling people) as part of our UOF stats was to get numbers on how many people in near deadly force incidents that we didn't shoot.

Think about how useful that info might be.............

[MDS]

Sorry if I came across that way...not what I was trying to send. All that data seems pointless to garner. Im sure that as pressure continues to increase on LE as a whole for more reporting on this or that these over sight committees will get what they want. I do not think that it will change a whole lot other than putting together a bunch of numbers.
Fair enough, thanks for your candor.

Word.
FWIW, I believe Cody has been on multiple ride alongs. Obviously not the same as academy and experience, but it does say something about motive.

[SouthNarc]

That's good!

[KeeFus]

BTW, one reason my agency tracked "active pointing" (what the last Chief named muzzling people) as part of our UOF stats was to get numbers on how many people in near deadly force incidents that we didn't shoot.

Think about how useful that info might be.............

Yes, it could...for some reason I am doubtful. Now all you need is a twitter feed to announce when LE points a gun at you.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nolan-smith-on-twitter-durham-pd-pulled-gun-on-me/14674811/

[Chuck Haggard]

Yes, it could...for some reason I am doubtful. Now all you need is a twitter feed to announce when LE points a gun at you.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nolan-smith-on-twitter-durham-pd-pulled-gun-on-me/14674811/

I can tell you for a fact that this information is VERY useful, and has been on several occasions. I'm not talking academic theory stuff here.

[voodoo_man]

There is definitely case law that says muzzling people is in fact a use of force, and we know that any police use of force needs to be articulably reasonable under Graham doctrine.


Yes, I would consider what was legal or not to survive, and have that training and war-gaming done well ahead of time. That's kind of what good street cops do.

If I was a survive at all costs type of guy I wound't have been doing shit like this during my career;
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

Nor would I have been doing things like high risk dope warrants as a knock-and-announce when it would have been tactically easier for me to do an explosive breach and flash-bang the fuck out of everyone, laws reference search warrant service be damned.

You are not picking up what I am putting down and ill leave it at that.

I worked narc, I ran warrants (still do), good street officers vary from PD to PD, so lets not play that subjective game. I will continue to do what is necessary for me to go home, if that goes against dogma, doctrine and policy, then they are wrong.


tcha, OK. I must be missing something, and I really want to work through it if you'll forgive my ignorance and oblige me.

The Fairfax UoF policy states, in IV/A/2 states,

That seems to imply that pointing a gun at someone is only authorized if some kind of force is authorized, no? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

It doesnt imply anything. There can be no policy that tells an officer when they can draw their firearm, that simple. They can try to paper push it all they want, their dept lawyers wont let them do it because no department has a policy that specifically dictates this. Try to find one.

[MDS]

You are not picking up what I am putting down and ill leave it at that.

I worked narc, I ran warrants (still do), good street officers vary from PD to PD, so lets not play that subjective game. I will continue to do what is necessary for me to go home, if that goes against dogma, doctrine and policy, then they are wrong.



It doesnt imply anything. There can be no policy that tells an officer when they can draw their firearm, that simple. They can try to paper push it all they want, their dept lawyers wont let them do it because no department has a policy that specifically dictates this. Try to find one.
I think I see what you're putting down, and you'll forgive me if I leave it flopping on the floor. If you don't want to explain when it is and is not OK to point a gun at someone, that's your prerogative. But veiled mysterious invocations of "do watcha gotta do" won't help educate the poor ignorant masses or help earn public confidence on your profession.

It's a nice day, I'm going to go climb a hill. :D

[voodoo_man]

I think I see what you're putting down, and you'll forgive me if I leave it flopping on the floor. If you don't want to explain when it is and is not OK to point a gun at someone, that's your prerogative. But veiled mysterious invocations of "do watcha gotta do" won't help educate the poor ignorant masses or help earn public confidence on your profession.

It's a nice day, I'm going to go climb a hill. :D

Ok...

I stated facts. If you disagree, great. But that doesnt change the facts.

[KeeFus]

I can tell you for a fact that this information is VERY useful, and has been on several occasions. I'm not talking academic theory stuff here.

Not doubting that at all. The numbers can be looked at many ways. One as you said, look at how many folks we didnt shoot. But to me, that leaves room for an ad hoc commission to say something to the effect of: hey, if you didnt need to shoot him then why deploy a firearm at all. Thats why I posted that very recent story from Durham...it's all about perspective. You can not supplant being "in the moment" into their minds once they think they see a problem and take issue. Can that information be useful to admin LE people who still know how to police? Yes.

In regards to ride-alongs...and I'm not trying to belittle anyone or be an ass. Theyre nothing but dog-and-pony shows. Every ride-along I've ever had I was told to just ride them around and let them see some things they wouldn't normally see. No warrant service, no hot calls, God forbid you get in a chase (foot or car), etc. Thats not police work...thats appeasement. One of the guys we are getting ready to hire is about half way through the process and wanted to ride. He's been through BLET but he is not an officer (read: covered by insurance). He was put with someone who usually isnt that active. He saw a few folks get arrested for DWI but otherwise he stayed in the car. Thats not being a LEO. They were not really risking anything.

[MDS]

But to me, that leaves room for an ad hoc commission to say something to the effect of: hey, if you didnt need to shoot him then why deploy a firearm at all.

I would hope there is a reason to deploy the firearm every time, though, right? Or is the decision based mostly on instinct, a gut feeling that can't be put into words? Again, no attack, just an honest question!

[cclaxton]

FWIW, I believe Cody has been on multiple ride alongs. Obviously not the same as academy and experience, but it does say something about motive.
It's been like 5 years ago. It was more like a guided tour. They called it a Ride-Along, and I did ride with an officer on two incidents, but mostly it was "here is what a typical day is like for an officer." Picking up a shoplifter at the Mall and pulled over someone for speeding. That was before I even owned a handgun. My focus at the time was how they patrolled the neighborhoods.

Many decades ago in Florida I did a ride along. That was a lot more interesting. They had to arrest a guy for burglary and patrolling through a neighborhood known for crime, and settle down a domestic dispute. But times were different then.

Fairfax County Ride-Along program doesn't let citizens in the car when a chase occurs, or send them to domestic disturbances. I didn't see a lot of value in it, other than getting to know the officer much better.
Cody

[HCM]

Just to clarify, IANAL but the FLETC Legal division is very clear on the fact an LEO pointing a gun at a suspect ( i.e. Muzzling/ active pointing) is not legally a use of force but rather a display of authority. However, it still requires specific reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) force may be necessary since when an LEO points a gun at a suspect it is normally done in conjunction with commands. If the suspect complies with those commands while at gun point it then becomes a seizure/ detention under the fourth amendment which requires specific RAS. If the suspect does not comply with the officers commands they are not siezed and it remains a display of authority, albeit an apparently ineffective one.

None of that prohibits an agency from making "muzzling/active pointing "a reportable incident by policy and none of that justifies pointing a gun at a suspect on generic "safety/ officer safety grounds without specific RAS.

[HCM]

I would hope there is a reason to deploy the firearm every time, though, right? Or is the decision based mostly on instinct, a gut feeling that can't be put into words? Again, no attack, just an honest question!

I was taught deploying a firearm as an LEO requires reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) deadly force may be necessary. The working street level definition of RAS I was taught was "hunch plus one" - if I have a hunch/gut feeling/Spidey sense that I need my gun out, and I have at least one specific articulable fact to support that then I have RAS.

That one fact could be prior knowledge I have regarding the suspect or situation, it could be something I noticed about the suspect like a bulge at his waistline or it could be something the suspect did or failed to do.

[cclaxton]

Why can't a police officer assert authority with a gun in a ready position, using verbal commands but not actually pointed at the person, much less firing?
My concern is the ND, poor judgement, or the sudden movement that results in the officer firing. This seems to be what happened to Lamar Jones.
https://youtu.be/RG_2qvXE3e4
Cody

[KeeFus]

I would hope there is a reason to deploy the firearm every time, though, right? Or is the decision based mostly on instinct, a gut feeling that can't be put into words? Again, no attack, just an honest question!

Example: Last week one of my guys was serving a warrant. Suspect is 25 yoa w/m and has a lot of medical history that im aware of (ive arrested him before). Suspect takes off into the residence & shuts door. I get there and go to front door while 2 others go around back. I see the dufus hiding near the front door and tell him to open the door. He refuses so I reiterate how much of an ass he's being and I'm going to kick the door. He quickly darts to the back door where he sees the other officers. He then runs upstairs in an attempt to flee/hide. We force entry. One of my guys has a taser and the other his sidearm at the low ready. Dude finally starts coming down the stairs and is an unknown threat. Had my guy not been at the low-ready and was pointing his weapon at him he would have done paperwork. As this guy continues to descend the stairs he takes off his shirt but is mouthy as hell...and he's calling his mama on his cell. There in the steps of that house we finally made him turn around so we could see around his waist, made him take his shirt off...so he would not be a threat. One of my guys was into the taser, taser, taser mode when I told him not to taser him...dudes got a bad heart valve from years of drug use and we dont need an in-custody death. Would have been a totally judicious use of the taser though.

A lot in play...yes? Of course everything was documented in a report but sometimes you just have to be there...in the moment...relying on training, experience, & common sense. All that to say this: an officer needs to be able to articulate why he used any level of force. Simply laying hands on some one to effect an arrest...no. If they cant its up to the admin/staff to train/retrain the officer. Call it what you want be it a gut feeling, instinct, sixth sense, whatever.

I hope that answers your question. Probably doesnt though.

[MDS]

Why can't a police officer assert authority with a gun in a ready position, using verbal commands but not actually pointed at the person, much less firing?
My concern is the ND, poor judgement, or the sudden movement that results in the officer firing. This seems to be what happened to Lamar Jones.
https://youtu.be/RG_2qvXE3e4
Cody
I dunno, Cody, do you think a different ready would have changed that outcome? It kind of looks like a decision to shoot on the officer's part...?

[HCM]

Why can't a police officer assert authority with a gun in a ready position, using verbal commands but not actually pointed at the person, much less firing?
My concern is the ND, poor judgement, or the sudden movement that results in the officer firing. This seems to be what happened to Lamar Jones.
https://youtu.be/RG_2qvXE3e4
Cody

You can't micromanage everything, the situation will dictate. The paticular facts of each situation drive the train. If you have RAS to have a gun out as an LEO legally there is no difference between low ready, high ready,and aimed in. It may help your argument for reasonableness, or make a difference according to agency policy.

I agree with MDS the officers ready position didn't matter in the video you linked.

One thing you need to understand is law-enforcement use of force will never be a perfect/ zero defect process. You do as much as you can to mitigate it but there will always be mistake of fact situations.

It's a matter of when, not if it something will go wrong. The question then is simply how bad and what have we done to mitigate it?

Remember, the landmark Supreme Court case on law-enforcement use of force, Graham versus Connor was a mistake of fact case.

[HCM]

Example: Last week one of my guys was serving a warrant. Suspect is 25 yoa w/m and has a lot of medical history that im aware of (ive arrested him before). Suspect takes off into the residence & shuts door. I get there and go to front door while 2 others go around back. I see the dufus hiding near the front door and tell him to open the door. He refuses so I reiterate how much of an ass he's being and I'm going to kick the door. He quickly darts to the back door where he sees the other officers. He then runs upstairs in an attempt to flee/hide. We force entry. One of my guys has a taser and the other his sidearm at the low ready. Dude finally starts coming down the stairs and is an unknown threat. Had my guy not been at the low-ready and was pointing his weapon at him he would have done paperwork. As this guy continues to descend the stairs he takes off his shirt but is mouthy as hell...and he's calling his mama on his cell. There in the steps of that house we finally made him turn around so we could see around his waist, made him take his shirt off...so he would not be a threat. One of my guys was into the taser, taser, taser mode when I told him not to taser him...dudes got a bad heart valve from years of drug use and we dont need an in-custody death. Would have been a totally judicious use of the taser though.

A lot in play...yes? Of course everything was documented in a report but sometimes you just have to be there...in the moment...relying on training, experience, & common sense. All that to say this: an officer needs to be able to articulate why he used any level of force. Simply laying hands on some one to effect an arrest...no. If they cant its up to the admin/staff to train/retrain the officer. Call it what you want be it a gut feeling, instinct, sixth sense, whatever.

I hope that answers your question. Probably doesnt though.

Keith, I know you know this but for the others: Y'all are way beyond hunch plus one. There are several examples there of things the suspect did and failed to do which justified pointing a gun and or a taser at him: supect failed to follow lawful commands, attempted flight and once he ducked upstairs and you lost sight of him he could have easily armed himself so he certainly became an unknown, potentially lethal threat.

[KeeFus]

Keith, I know you know this but for the others: Y'all are way beyond hunch plus one. There are several examples there of things the suspect did and failed to do which justified pointing a gun and or a taser at him: supect failed to follow lawful commands, attempted flight and once he ducked upstairs and you lost sight of him he could have easily armed himself so he certainly became an unknown, potentially lethal threat.


^^^Yes!

[cclaxton]

I dunno, Cody, do you think a different ready would have changed that outcome? It kind of looks like a decision to shoot on the officer's part...?
Maybe. Most rapid decisions like this are made on the subconscious level, and thus the importance of training. When training to first go to a ready position, and THEN to a muzzle-ON position, are we not training our subconscious to look for shoot/no-shoot indicators at the point where we move from ready to Fire? From what I see in the video the officer reacted to the fast movements of the citizen and his subconscious had no opportunity to assess. Perhaps the officer's firewall (forgive the obvious pun) would have gated his DECISION enough to prevent him from actually firing? (Thus saving his job, too.)

I had an experience when I first got into IDPA shooting at a club that had a side match where we shot a blind stage in a 360 degree shoothouse where they had pictures stapled on targets of cellphones, saws, wrenches, handguns, rifles, and sometimes a handgun and a badge. It was a 100s par time. The first 6-7 times I went through that shoothouse I would either shoot a non-threat or shoot a badge (sorry guys...unintentional). But, once I retrained myself to think before pulling the trigger, now I can shoot it every time without shooting a non-threat or a badge. It took time to develop that subconscious firewall, and now I am much more confident in my ability to make a shoot/no-shoot decision.

Maybe I am missing something else, but that is my rationale.
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

. The paticular facts of each situation drive the train. If you have RAS to have a gun out as an LEO legally there is no difference between low ready, high ready,and aimed in. It may help your argument for reasonableness, or make a difference according to agency policy.
.

Actually, yes, there is a difference.

[HCM]

Maybe. Most rapid decisions like this are made on the subconscious level, and thus the importance of training. When training to first go to a ready position, and THEN to a muzzle-ON position, are we not training our subconscious to look for shoot/no-shoot indicators at the point where we move from ready to Fire? From what I see in the video the officer reacted to the fast movements of the citizen and his subconscious had no opportunity to assess. Perhaps the officer's firewall (forgive the obvious pun) would have gated his DECISION enough to prevent him from actually firing? (Thus saving his job, too.)

I had an experience when I first got into IDPA shooting at a club that had a side match where we shot a blind stage in a 360 degree shoothouse where they had pictures stapled on targets of cellphones, saws, wrenches, handguns, rifles, and sometimes a handgun and a badge. It was a 100s par time. The first 6-7 times I went through that shoothouse I would either shoot a non-threat or shoot a badge (sorry guys...unintentional). But, once I retrained myself to think before pulling the trigger, now I can shoot it every time without shooting a non-threat or a badge. It took time to develop that subconscious firewall, and now I am much more confident in my ability to make a shoot/no-shoot decision.

Maybe I am missing something else, but that is my rationale.
Cody

You said it yourself, you "retrained yourself to think" - The officer in the video you linked saw the suspect reach into the car and and called out gun when the suspect came back out with his wallet. That is an issue with his assessment process i.e. Thinking and decision to fire, not his ready position or his execution of the decision to fire.

And now I don't know what other facts might've prompted the officer's decision to fire, but the fact the officer clearly asks the suspect to show him his drivers license makes it hard to argue reasonableness in the officer's favor since the suspect was essentially doing what the officer told him what to do.

[HCM]

Actually, yes, there is a difference.


Of course there is a real world difference. However our agency attorneys disagree. In fact we no longer teach low ready with the handgun ( which I do not agee with). Of course we still teach low ready with long guns but logic and government service don't always go together

[MDS]

Example: Last week one of my guys was serving a warrant. Suspect is 25 yoa w/m and has a lot of medical history that im aware of (ive arrested him before). Suspect takes off into the residence & shuts door. I get there and go to front door while 2 others go around back. I see the dufus hiding near the front door and tell him to open the door. He refuses so I reiterate how much of an ass he's being and I'm going to kick the door. He quickly darts to the back door where he sees the other officers. He then runs upstairs in an attempt to flee/hide. We force entry. One of my guys has a taser and the other his sidearm at the low ready. Dude finally starts coming down the stairs and is an unknown threat. Had my guy not been at the low-ready and was pointing his weapon at him he would have done paperwork. As this guy continues to descend the stairs he takes off his shirt but is mouthy as hell...and he's calling his mama on his cell. There in the steps of that house we finally made him turn around so we could see around his waist, made him take his shirt off...so he would not be a threat. One of my guys was into the taser, taser, taser mode when I told him not to taser him...dudes got a bad heart valve from years of drug use and we dont need an in-custody death. Would have been a totally judicious use of the taser though.

A lot in play...yes? Of course everything was documented in a report but sometimes you just have to be there...in the moment...relying on training, experience, & common sense. All that to say this: an officer needs to be able to articulate why he used any level of force. Simply laying hands on some one to effect an arrest...no. If they cant its up to the admin/staff to train/retrain the officer. Call it what you want be it a gut feeling, instinct, sixth sense, whatever.

I hope that answers your question. Probably doesnt though.
I missed this response until now. It certainly does answer my question - this scenario is dripping with rationale for tasing, tackling, muzzling, and if dude ran down the stairs holding his phone the wrong way, maybe even shooting. So thanks for that.

It occurs to me that you might help me understand the flip side of this with a different story. Would it be possible to share a story where some level of force was used - any level, really - and it was found to be objectively wrong? How are those situations handled? As always, not looking to attack. Everyone's human and I wouldn't expect anyone to get the boot because they raised their voice at the wrong time, just curious how uof doctrine is trained and coached over time.

On a related note, I was reading a report on uof from the IACP from 2011. I was struck by one statistic in particular - of all cops killed in the line of duty, almost all cops with 5 or less years on the job either fire or attempted to use their weapon during the incident. Whereas NO cops with more than 5 years - zero of them - fired their weapon, and very very few even tried to. It's almost like once you kind of settle down a bit and stop "going to the gun for every little thing," you're less likely to be ready for "that day." Or something. Not really a question here, though I'd love to hear some thoughts, but more a reminder that codifying an effective uof policy is a non-trivial endeavor.

[HCM]

The standard as found in Graham vs Conner is the use of force must be objectively reasonable based on the facts as known by the officer the officer at the time force is used.

Just to avoid any confusion, the term objectively reasonable in this context means reasonable based on facts and based on the officers training and experience. You can be judged reasonable even if you got the facts wrong. Graham vs Conner is the classic case of an officer making a mistake of fact whose actions were reasonable given the facts as and the officers knowledge and experience.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386

[SLG]

I'm not advocating muzzling people unnecessarily, but regardless of any agency's specific policy or thoughts on the matter, muzzling someone is NOT a use of force.

Also, in the FWIW category, I know some very experienced cops who I consider to be squared away, who are firm believers in pointing guns at bad guys. Maybe their thought process is outdated, but these guys were mentors of mine, almost 20 years ago when I became a cop. They worked some of the most violent square miles in America, and came to some strong opinions based on much experience with violence and violent people. To put that in perspective, I'm talking about one square mile that had 300 homicides a year. Just one square mile in a much larger city. Not many departments will ever have that level of experience.

[jnc36rcpd]

MDS, it sounds like the IACP report is derived from the FBI Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Summary. For the moment, we are still at the point that few enough officers are murdered annually that a few cases can result in a statistical fluke. While the LEOKA is extremely valuable, it focuses primarily on murdered officers and much less on those assaulted.

I will also remark that policies requiring a report whenever a gun is drawn will result in a significant number of officers not drawing when they should. I believe Jeff Chudwin mentioned an agency near his that had such a policy. When multiple departments responded to high risk incidents, officers from other agencies would have weapons drawn. Officers from this particular agency would just place their hand on their holstered pistols in the "CHiPs" manner (that of the TV show, not necessarily the agency). There are significant risks to that protocol, both of officers being injured and killed because they were too slow to shoot and, I suspect, of some officers firing in appropriately because they knew they were trying to catch up to a suddenly appearing potential threat.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've also seen officers forced into stupid stuff via requiring a report to draw the pistol, going that far is retardery, plain and simple. It leads to very dangerous practices on the street.

[Dagga Boy]

I'm not advocating muzzling people unnecessarily, but regardless of any agency's specific policy or thoughts on the matter, muzzling someone is NOT a use of force.

Also, in the FWIW category, I know some very experienced cops who I consider to be squared away, who are firm believers in pointing guns at bad guys. Maybe their thought process is outdated, but these guys were mentors of mine, almost 20 years ago when I became a cop. They worked some of the most violent square miles in America, and came to some strong opinions based on much experience with violence and violent people. To put that in perspective, I'm talking about one square mile that had 300 homicides a year. Just one square mile in a much larger city. Not many departments will ever have that level of experience.

No, muzzling someone is an "assault" and it is an assault with a deadly weapon.....legally speaking and usually a felony. Now, there are multiple ways in which an assault can be justified in penal codes. In the "old" days it was simply a given that officers were justified in legally assaulting people, and unless you fired, most of the time a report was not generated. It is not the old days. If you as a police officer can articulate a reason to point a deadly weapon at another person, it makes sense to document that in some manner with the articulation. It is why I used the low ready so much once exposed to it....I didn't need to write anything, and if I got to the point of putting a muzzle on something.....they likely got to take a trip to jail and the articulation of the force used to effect the arrest is documented within the arrest report.

I haven't commented much because this a a thread of 19 pages of commentary by a ton of folks who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Police Policy.....is often written by people with no business writing police policy. To have people with no background in LE writing it is asking for epic stupidity. Why would anyone write policy that is more restrictive than the penal code and case law? This is stupid and why agencies and officers get into trouble. I have a pretty good idea why attorney's employed by municipalities and counties write stupid policy's....Job security. If the agencies and their employees get sued, they stay employed. They come up with more good idea fantasy world stuff that is un-workable in reality and creates civil liability when there was no criminal liability. Cops and agencies tend to get in trouble and sued because of violating their own policies, not because they did anything wrong. People who sue LE agencies LOVE big policy books. Lets talk about some awesome sauce policies my old places attorney's came up with.....and stuff a citizen group would love.

Use of rifles. They would only be allowed in cases of the suspect being armed with a rifle themselves, or wearing body armor. Well that sounds like a great way to keep the JBT's from using those evil military guns in an un-reasonsable manner:confused:. So here was the argument I made in a closed door screaming session. A suspect is inside his home barricaded with a firearm. Officers deploy patrol rifles and take cover behind vehicles across the street to make best use of cover and protect the officers. The suspect exits his residence and points and fires a .25 auto pistol at officers. One officer returns fire with a patrol rifle and hits the suspect in the center of the chest and he expires at the scene. By every legal standard, it is a good shoot. No crime was committed, no egregious conduct, no issues. Good tactics, proper use of a tool, and proper use of lethal force that is both reasonable and justified in the penal code. What you do have is an officer who has done nothing wrong, but has now violated department policy. The city will lose a civlil suit because of the policy violation and a great shoot just became a "bad" shoot by virtue of a feel good restrictive policy. I ended up winning and I wrote the patrol rifle policy instead of the attorney who would have benefited in employment standing and financially from the lawsuit resulting form that policy.

How about another fan favorite.....hitting people with flashlights. Most places have a policy banning it and they get regularly sued for hitting mostly criminals who deserved it, and they lose those lawsuits. The fix for that.....ban metal flashlights and force some little tiny plastic light on officers. So you took a very good tool away because those stupid cops keep violating policy. Now, you get faster escalation and officers hurt because they cannot use the object that is always in their hands at night (which is smart for positive identification of threat) and now force them into dropping that illumination tool to transition to a worthless ASP to get to a impact tool in a situation that has likely escalated since the officer identified the need for an impact weapon but could not use the one already in their hand. Now look at my old place. Flashlights were treated as an impact weapon, and trained as such where we actually hit a bag with them during baton training. We hit folks all the time. We rarely got sued once the cop suing lawyer read our policy because the accompanying police report justified the use of the impact weapon to take their criminal client into custody, AND their client was likely convicted of a crime. We had a massive lawsuit for one of our guys knocking a guys teeth out with a Maglite during a violent arrest the night before the guys wedding (drunken bachelor party went bad). Guy lost the lawsuit and legal fees for both......we stopped getting sued for hitting people with lights, and, more importantly we did not lose an important and effective tool.

Do you need well written policies. Yes. Who should be writing them? Administrators who have not been in a police car working a beat in 20 plus years? Lawyers with zero police experience? Citizen committees with people who have not a clue what they are talking about and media generated experience? Picking on Cody here...how long have you practiced law and what is your courtroom experience in regards to your heavily spouted Constitutional law? What is the practical application of those laws looking like? The people who should be writing policy should be the most experienced and most up to date with recent, and relevant experience. I wrote or fixed and updated a ton of policy on firearms, edged weapons, air crew operations, bicycle patrol, etc. I should not have been writing policy on Missing Persons reporting....but we had people who did that for a living and were better trained and equipped to write and update that policy than the same city attorney or citizens group that doesn't know jack about use of force either.

If you have problems with bad searches and constitutional violations, they will come up very quickly in criminal court and those seeking to be made whole in civil court. If you are winning in both....I'd say that you have good training and policy.

Training is really the most critical component.......and the biggest problem. People try to replace proper, recent and relevant best practices training with a policy written by someone with zip for experience in the field they are writing.

Overall, these are leadership issues, laziness, and poor city governments. Most problems are not stemming from the LEO's who get blamed for everything, but from much higher levels of city government. Who benefits from things like asset seizure? That is where things need to change and oversight needs to be. What laws are enforced also comes from the community and the government they elect. In the Eric Garner case, does anyone think the cops on that gave a heck if he was selling unsealed individual cigarettes. That came from city government who want their tax money and local businesses who are paying the tax and don't want cheaters taking business from them.

Use of force is dictated by proper legal application of that within legal codes. Any policy needs to simply refer to that. The big issue is that you need to train and educate officers of those legal codes and impart specific standards and testing to ensure they can safely do their jobs, protect the public and not violate criminal law in the process. That takes training, not policy delivered from the good idea fairy.

Sorry for the rambling rant. I just couldn't take it any longer, and I will admit to not being able to read the entire thread due to not wanting to stroke out when my already fragile blood pressure gets totally out of control.

[SLG]

No, muzzling someone is an "assault" and it is an assault with a deadly weapon.....legally speaking and usually a felony.

Actually, no. That concept varies from state to state. Maybe in CA it is considered a felony assault (I don't know, as CA law matters not one bit to me), but that is absolutely not true in other places.

[Lon]

Good post Nyeti. I finally got my agency to take the damn UoF Contiuum out of our policy and go with a strictly constitutional standard a few years ago. When I got our patrol rifle program up and running years ago the Chief at that time put ridiculous stipulations on their use (required supervisor approval, etc.). Thankfully those are gone now, but at least we got the program up and running before most agencies around here did.

I'm in the "muzzling is a use of force" camp. Here's a couple good articles (with case cites)from AELE on the topic:

http://www.aele.org/law/2010all10/2010-10MLJ101.pdf

http://www.aele.org/law/2010all11/2010-11MLJ101.pdf

Our policy and training require us to do a UoF report when we actually intentionally point a gun at someone. Requiring a report anytime you unholster the gun is ignorant.

[Chuck Haggard]

Actually, no. That concept varies from state to state. Maybe in CA it is considered a felony assault (I don't know, as CA law matters not one bit to me), but that is absolutely not true in other places.

Around here pointing a gun at someone would be Agg. Assault as far as a criminal case goes, which is a persons felony crime.

I'd digging up my case law cites ref muzzling people being a use of force by the police.

[Lon]

Around here pointing a gun at someone can get you a 1st degree misdemeanor charge. Pointing a gun AND threatening to kill/shoot the person can get you a felonious assault charge.

[Dagga Boy]

Actually, no. That concept varies from state to state. Maybe in CA it is considered a felony assault (I don't know, as CA law matters not one bit to me), but that is absolutely not true in other places.

Well, I think Title 18 of the US code calls it depravation of rights under color of authority. You may be familiar with it.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I may want to cover my actions to document the reasonableness of my threatening the use of a dangerous weapon as a police officer......you know, in case the FBI shows up. See those local guys have to deal with those State laws that don't matter to you, as well as those Federal laws.

This is why training people to know and understand statutes that may apply to what actions you are doing as a police officer is so much more effective than having some policy that is often not in line with the law.

[SLG]

Nyeti,

I'm not a lawyer, but having been trained on that statute formally, in more than one place, I would say you need to re-read it. Not only does it not contradict my view, it does contradict yours. A low ready position (or any other ready position AFAIK) would be considered a "threatened use of a dangerous weapon"

As far as the FBI showing up, I think maybe you've been watching too many movies. Every single UoF/CoL investigation that I've seen has been undertaken to exonerate the officers involved, not to punish them.

At any rate, I don't consider myself a legal expert, and I will bring this topic up with the AUSA's office on Monday.

[SLG]

Good post Nyeti. I finally got my agency to take the damn UoF Contiuum out of our policy and go with a strictly constitutional standard a few years ago. When I got our patrol rifle program up and running years ago the Chief at that time put ridiculous stipulations on their use (required supervisor approval, etc.). Thankfully those are gone now, but at least we got the program up and running before most agencies around here did.

I'm in the "muzzling is a use of force" camp. Here's a couple good articles (with case cites)from AELE on the topic:

http://www.aele.org/law/2010all10/2010-10MLJ101.pdf

http://www.aele.org/law/2010all11/2010-11MLJ101.pdf

Our policy and training require us to do a UoF report when we actually intentionally point a gun at someone. Requiring a report anytime you unholster the gun is ignorant.

I just skimmed those articles. They are talking about situations where it is clearly unreasonable to point guns at people. Are you really trying to argue that any time a weapon is pointed at someone without shooting them that it is unreasonable?

As I said before, I don't advocate muzzling people when it isn't appropriate. There are times though when it is. And at those times, it is not illegal in anyway, nor unreasonable.

[Chuck Haggard]

My point was that muzzling people is a UOF, and as such requires one to have some level of articulable reasonable justification to do so, this clearly leaves it open for there to be many situations where muzzling a bad guy is justifiable. Muzzling people without a good reason is something I see way too much of in police work though.

[Dagga Boy]

I am not saying it is an assault. Most states have assault laws it falls under. The Feds really don't. Local LE need to understand their local laws and how it applies to them and the exemptions. LE normally falls under most of the exemptions. This runs from driving to assaults of various levels. When those statues start getting into felony levels, I think it is good current practice to document it. Old days, your word was good. Those days are long gone. I also recommend that you can articulate a potential felony crime before you start putting muzzles on people. This is the beauty of the low ready. Misdemeanor at best if you are wrong, and not rating documentation in most cases. Once that gun comes up onto another human, things change. This is simply best practices.

We have seen different UoF/COA investigations. Trust me, they are not good things. I would be happy to have some agents involved and not happy with others. Also highly dependent on the area. SO, I would think it prudent to cover all aspects under the law in my reporting. That way it is a huge help if I get one who is trying to exonerate and a huge hurdle to one intending to punish.

[SLG]

My point was that muzzling people is a UOF, and as such requires one to have some level of articulable reasonable justification to do so, this clearly leaves it open for there to be many situations where muzzling a bad guy is justifiable. Muzzling people without a good reason is something I see way too much of in police work though.

Maybe I got lost in the pages here.

I certainly agree that you have to be able to articulate why you pointed a weapon at someone, and from that standpoint, I see why you consider it a UoF. My original point was just that you are not ACTUALLY using force on a person when you point your gun at them. You are threatening to use force when you point a gun, you are not yet using it.

[SLG]

I am not saying it is an assault. Most states have assault laws it falls under. The Feds really don't. Local LE need to understand their local laws and how it applies to them and the exemptions. LE normally falls under most of the exemptions. This runs from driving to assaults of various levels. When those statues start getting into felony levels, I think it is good current practice to document it. Old days, your word was good. Those days are long gone. I also recommend that you can articulate a potential felony crime before you start putting muzzles on people. This is the beauty of the low ready. Misdemeanor at best if you are wrong, and not rating documentation in most cases. Once that gun comes up onto another human, things change. This is simply best practices.

We have seen different UoF/COA investigations. Trust me, they are not good things. I would be happy to have some agents involved and not happy with others. Also highly dependent on the area. SO, I would think it prudent to cover all aspects under the law in my reporting. That way it is a huge help if I get one who is trying to exonerate and a huge hurdle to one intending to punish.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing about anything here. See my post above to Chuck.

[Lon]

I just skimmed those articles. They are talking about situations where it is clearly unreasonable to point guns at people. Are you really trying to argue that any time a weapon is pointed at someone without shooting them that it is unreasonable?


Not saying that at all. I am saying that pointing guns at people is a use of force. The reasonableness depends on the circumstances in each case.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't think we are actually disagreeing about anything here. See my post above to Chuck.

We do agree. The issue is that we are dealing with state laws that are very specific about what constitute an assault with a firearm (generally some sort of threat coupled with present ability). Those state laws will also have exemptions as to when those assaults are acceptable. Being there is an issue where some officers are muzzling people in situations that do not merit those exemptions. In any case where a felony level assault occurs in today's world, it makes sense to articulate the actions and that either the exemptions were clearly present, or the situation was such that the actions were reasonable under the circumstances. This protects the officer and the agency.

Hypothetical...but normal situation. Officer dispatched to a call of a burglary. Officer is advised the suspect is a little green alien wearing a black jacket and dark pants and is 5' tall. A small .25 auto pistol was stolen in the burglary. Responding officers sees a little green man who is 5'2 wearing a Dark Blue jacket and black pants walking down the street in the area of the call, and away from the location of the burglary. Officer exits his patrol car and contacts the male and ask him to stop. The little green man thrusts his hands into the jacket pockets and the officer draws his firearm to a ready and tells the subject to not move. The subject becomes verbally hostile and tells the officer he is just picking on him because the cop is a racist and hates little green people. Officer asks the subject to very slowly remove his hands from his pockets and place them on a wall next to the subject. He removes only his left hand and gets verbally argumentative and then is grasping at something in his jacket pocket. Officer raises his weapon to cover the subject based on how he is holding his hand in his pocket and his actions and demeanor. Guy gets hostile and removes his hand from his pocket holding a wallet. The officers conducts a pat down and runs a record check on the individual. Another officer brings a witness by and the witness says it is not the suspect. He has no contraband, no record or warrants and not involved in a crime. A smart officer will explain the situation fully to the individual and apologize for the inconvenience. Should the officer generate a report? Twenty years ago not a chance. Might call the boss to give them a run down,but that is it. If you do not cut a report now...you are stupid. Two months later when the lawsuit shows up about the little green man who had a gun pointed at him for walking while green and he didn't do anything....and his lawyer starts pressing the DA for charges, a report explaining the actions would be gold compared to a verbal account. A single paragraph included in the burglary report documenting the contact and circs would be easy. The reality is two fold. Some officers are not using force properly due to a lack of training or they are not responding to training, and some people will lie about their police contact. It is why proper application of force and ability to thoughtfully articulate that application of force is critical.

[jnc36rcpd]

nyeti, this may be an east coast/west coast thing, but I do not see pointing a pistol at someone as automatically a use of force by either a police officer nor anyone else. It may or may not be an assault depending upon the circumstances and it may or may not be justified.
I would agree that it does require documentation by the officer. Like you, I wouldn't have said this a couple of decades ago, but this is now and that was then. I also demand documentation when my officers handcuff someone when the subject is not arrested.

[SLG]

I think I was unclear to begin with, and just want to clarify.

The ATF defines various types of weapons one way. Gun people define them another way. The ATF is certainly not correct, but it is still law.

Muzzling someone may legally be considered a use of force in some jurisdictions, (though not under the constitution, AFAIK), but that doesn't make it an actual use of force. Officer presence and verbal commands are on the continuum, but when you employ them, you are not actually using force.

If you are situationally correct in pointing a gun at someone, then you are not breaking the law as a Police Officer. If you are not situationally correct in pointing a gun at someone and they want to sue, I believe that low ready (or likely any gun out of the holster position) can just as easily be construed as threatening them.

Even if you are situationally correct in pointing a gun, that doesn't mean you are tactically correct. Low ready may be the better option compared to aimed in. Again, under the law as I understand it, that's not really different from aimed in, legally speaking.

One reason I prefer a compressed ready is that you are more likely to NOT be perceived as pointing a gun at someone if your arms are close to your body and not extended. I use this position a lot, and can keep my muzzle pointed at the deck very easily, yet drive the gun out to the target as fast or faster than low ready. It puts me in a better weapon retention situation, and lowers my profile for all involved.

There are other times when I absolutely believe in pointing my gun at the subject.

I have done both of the above on a very regular basis for the last 17 years, in many jurisdictions and in lots of countries, both at war and not. I've never gotten in trouble, never been questioned, never been sued. Both have their place.

Neither is actually using force though.

I hope that helps explain my position. I will still follow up with the AUSA's office on monday.

[SouthNarc]

If you are situationally correct in pointing a gun at someone, then you are not breaking the law as a Police Officer. If you are not situationally correct in pointing a gun at someone and they want to sue, I believe that low ready (or likely any gun out of the holster position) can just as easily be construed as threatening them.


And to look at this from the police perspective, historically a police officer makes no distinction when someone is holding a gun , on whether it's pointed at him. Gun in hand is gun in use. Now...that may very well change with the times with open carry, blue on blue incidents, etc. I'm not saying that binary decision is the right thing...BUT...that's historically what is going on.

So if police officers are not making distinctions on whether guns are or are not pointing at them, should policy make a distinction on whether a police officer does or does not point a gun at someone? Gun is either in hand or not in hand whether we're doing it or it's being done to us.

Now I know someone will say pointing a gun is a rule 2 violation. Personally I have NO IDEA how many people I've pointed a gun at. I will say that everyone I've ever pointed a gun at I've been more than willing to shoot at the time I've pointed a gun at them.

[Poconnor]

I just skimmed this thread and it's giving me a headache. My dept issues colt 1911s and was very gunsite indoctrinated . The low ready was 45 degrees. And that was it. Too often I saw officers point guns at suspects ; oops I meant actors. Don't want to taint the presumption of innocence. I was able to persuade some officers to stop using the gun as a stop!!! exclamation point Command; by reminding them of the four universal firearms rules. Just by asking them how many of the rules they just broke was often enough for learning to occur. I always thought my low ready was moving the sights just below the suspect so I wasn't muzzling them. Distance would dictate how high the gun was. Now we also teach position Sul and retention ready. Then how often have we challenged suspects and they are totally unimpressed with uniformed officers and guns pointed at them. The fuck you I didn't do any thing mentality at work. Usually those incidents are part of another serious incident and the investigative detention is documented in the report. I love the observed a male actor wearing a black hoodie three blocks from an armed robbery that just occurred, actor matched the description of suspect and ignored verbal direction blah blah

[SLG]

And to look at this from the police perspective, historically a police officer makes no distinction when someone is holding a gun , on whether it's pointed at him. Gun in hand is gun in use. Now...that may very well change with the times with open carry, blue on blue incidents, etc. I'm not saying that binary decision is the right thing...BUT...that's historically what is going on.

So if police officers are not making distinctions on whether guns are or are not pointing at them, should policy make a distinction on whether a police officer does or does not point a gun at someone? Gun is either in hand or not in hand whether we're doing it or it's being done to us.

Now I know someone will say pointing a gun is a rule 2 violation. Personally I have NO IDEA how many people I've pointed a gun at. I will say that everyone I've ever pointed a gun at I've been more than willing to shoot at the time I've pointed a gun at them.

That is a really good point that I feel stupid for not realizing sooner! People can and do get shot (correctly) for holding guns, not just for pointing them at cops.

[HCM]

Maybe I got lost in the pages here.

I certainly agree that you have to be able to articulate why you pointed a weapon at someone, and from that standpoint, I see why you consider it a UoF. My original point was just that you are not ACTUALLY using force on a person when you point your gun at them. You are threatening to use force when you point a gun, you are not yet using it.

SLG - this is exactly the position both FLETC Legal attorneys and my agency attorneys take regarding our officers pointing a gun at someone. However they are speaking from a federal constitutional / 4 th Ammendment stand point. However they still teach the specific RAS is required to point a gun at someone regardless of ready position since if the person complies it will become a seizure under the fourth amendment.

We also dropped low ready with the handgun about 10 years ago and now teach compressed ready / high ready / aimed in.

The point regarding individual state assault laws is valid and may be the source of some of our disconnect. In other words, despite the fact that an LEO muzzling someone is not a use of force pursuant to federal constitutional law it may be considered a use of force for state or local officer under state law, depending on the state

Please don't take any of this to mean that I'm advocating pointing guns at people you shouldn't or pointing guns because "generic officer safety "

[jnc36rcpd]

HCM, can you explain your agency dropping the low ready? It seems odd not to offer it as an option for at least some situations. Are your officers shooting better? I've considered suggesting compressed/high ready as an option for some situations, but I think the earth would open and the skies would pour down fire if I mentioned it at a firearms meeting. Thanks and be safe.

[Dagga Boy]

nyeti, this may be an east coast/west coast thing, but I do not see pointing a pistol at someone as automatically a use of force by either a police officer nor anyone else. It may or may not be an assault depending upon the circumstances and it may or may not be justified.
I would agree that it does require documentation by the officer. Like you, I wouldn't have said this a couple of decades ago, but this is now and that was then. I also demand documentation when my officers handcuff someone when the subject is not arrested.

If someone pointed a gun on you on the east coast........would it be an assault? Pretty simple. The key is exemptions. Often defense of life, law enforcement or even a citizen making a lawful arrest or detention, etc. I just think in todays world documentation of that is a solid idea. Others may differ.....good luck, especially if the other parties story changes a week later. Exactly as you note when one of your folks put cuffs on now. I have cuffed tons of folks I didn't arrest, just like pointing guns at tons of people I didn't document or arrest. 1985, you would get laughed at for writing it up, 1995, a supervisor would roll their eyes, 2005, somebody may think it is a good idea, 2015, it is a best practice. Times change.

The difference between a muzzle off a person versus on, is brandishing instead of assault. If everybody thinks this is bullshit theory, awesome. I got to sit in court and watch the guy who was drawing on me get the assault on a peace officer dropped to brandishing in the presence of an officer because I shot him before his muzzle covered me or the officer next to me. The public defender apologized to the DA over it, but that is the law according to the judge. So pardon my first hand facts with a court decision getting in the way. I figure the judge, DA and Public Defender all have a combined legal background greater than mine, so I'll defer to what I think things should be instead of what they are. Additionally, if we could just shoot folks for the mere act of holding a gun without a furtive action, it would sure make dealing with those suicidal idiots walking around with a gun at their side easier to deal with. I think everyone here would agree that shooting someone for mere holding a gun is going to raise some serious eyebrows. Lord, if I could have shot every crook I saw with a displayed gun, I would have been giving Frank Hamer a run for his money, and likely had a Dept. of Justice representative camped out in my PD.

As far as some of the stuff in having outside people come in to dictate police policy......I wonder if those folks would be open to me dictating policy and procedures as well as mission statements in their businesses because I am sure I could make some hospital policies for doctors really good. How about the bank, I have had a bank account forever, so I bet I could write some bad ass banking policy.

If people REALLY want to help. Start talking to politicians and agency chiefs about goals. Real goals, not fantasy stuff. You don't like asset seizure, fine. Find some ways to generate funding outside of that. Don't try to change SWAT team policies over it. If you don't like the way SWAT works, ask the Chief what their matrix consists of......if he glosses over and has no clue, then you have a leadership problem not a SWAT problem. I always told people who were dissatisfied with the police to figure out what they think the currency is for the business of policing. The nature of police work is such that you cannot work like a business with money as the goal. So, you need to find a replacement. If people don't get involved with THAT, then everything else is dictated by the individual whims of your politicians (which includes your chief LEO executive). I used to suggest to folks that my number one concern as a tax paying property owning producer in my community for police was 911 response time. I do not want cops reading books to my kid in school, working floral crimes or city code violations, my concern is how fast will officers be at my home when I dial 911-period. Second to that is beat cops trying to intercept crimes that generate priority one 911 calls, which brings their response time to zero because I don't need to call because the local burglar got pinched prior to breaking into my home for some other offense. Once you get very low response times to 911 calls and a very low crime rate.........knock your self out with other stuff. Obviously, certain units will need to be utilized for control of traffic and things like that, but otherwise most tax paying property owners who fund the local LE are usually on board with exceptional beat patrol work.

[HCM]

HCM, can you explain your agency dropping the low ready? It seems odd not to offer it as an option for at least some situations. Are your officers shooting better? I've considered suggesting compressed/high ready as an option for some situations, but I think the earth would open and the skies would pour down fire if I mentioned it at a firearms meeting. Thanks and be safe.

My understanding is for both legal and practical reasons.

On the legal side, at the Fed/constitutional/4th amendment level our agency attorneys and the FLETC legal training program agree that display of a weapon including pointing/muzzling with a firearm by an LEO is a display of authority, not a use of force, though as noted above it still requires specific RAS. Documentation as part of the arrest or incident report is recommended as best practice but a use of force report is not required since U de federal law it is not a UOF. State law and your agency policy may differ.

From a practical perspective, low ready has some benefits, a huge one being it gives you a better view of your suspect or the area you're searching. However, we've been teaching the press out from the holster for many years. They would refer to it as prepping the trigger and pushing the sights but it is the press out under another name. We found it took more time to come up from below ready then to press out from the compressed hi ready. Both the reaction time and accuracy were better coming from the compressed high ready than from the low ready. You could say our results are biased since our guys start all but one of their qualification Stages from the holster and then pressing out or you could say we're taking advantage of commonality of training.

One of the negatives of the low ready his officers think of it as a "safe "position when in fact they're often muzzling the legs and feet of officers, suspects, or third parties in close proximity. Currently we are teaching the compressed high ready and have them go to a Sul /NRA safety circle position to avoid muzzling people who don't need to be muzzled. They can press out to high ready or aimed in from either of these positions if necessary. It's not a perfect solution, since you can wind up muzzling your own feet when moving in Sul.

One negative to dropping the low ready has been trying to ensure all of our officers understand the difference between the high ready and aimed in and how aimed in blocks your view and hinders you when you are trying to search and/or assess a suspect.

[Dagga Boy]

Just so I am clear.....pointing a loaded firearm at someone is the same as displaying a badge? Or an officer can threaten someone with a firearm that the could not legally shoot, or articulate some level of potential violent threat simply to show they are in charge or have an extra special right. Interesting.

[rsa-otc]

In NJ a LEO or Security pointing a gun at someone is concidered constructive authority the same as verbal commands or hand signals, the lowest level of force.

[Lon]

Muzzling someone may legally be considered a use of force in some jurisdictions, (though not under the constitution, AFAIK), but that doesn't make it an actual use of force. Officer presence and verbal commands are on the continuum, but when you employ them, you are not actually using force.



In other words, despite the fact that an LEO muzzling someone is not a use of force pursuant to federal constitutional law it may be considered a use of force for state or local officer under state law, depending on the state


If by "muzzling", you mean intentionally pointing your gun at someone to get them to comply, the Circuit Courts have ruled on numerous occasions that muzzling someone can be excessive force under the U.S. Constitution. If it's not a use of force, how can it be determined to be excessive force?

From the Baird v. Renbarger decision (7th Circuit):


 The plaintiffs allege that Renbarger violated their Fourth Amendment rights through an unreasonable seizure done with the use of excessive force-in particular, by using a submachine gun to round them up and detain them during the search.   The question whether the seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment depends on whether it was objectively reasonable, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.   Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865.


No officer involved had reported having any suspicion that anyone at the industrial park was armed or dangerous.   Nevertheless, Renbarger slung a 9-millimeter submachine gun around his neck.   McCracken and Renbarger then entered Baird's shop, and McCracken told the people there to get in the center of the building and to sit down on the concrete.   Everyone complied.   Pointing his submachine gun, Renbarger rounded up anyone in the surrounding shops and warehouse, including a group of Amish men who were working nearby.   He collected identification from everyone, except for the Amish, and held them for around two hours while the search was completed.   Meanwhile, the other officers detained everyone in Robinson's shop and searched for the Zephyr.   The Robinson group, too, were entirely compliant.   When the officers found the car, Beard examined the VIN and concluded that it had not been altered.   The officers then left.


 The factors identified in Graham all tend to show that the use of the submachine gun was objectively unreasonable in the setting that Renbarger faced.   First, the search and seizure concerned the crime of altering a special identification number.   See Ind.Code § 9-18-8-12 (2008).   This is a far cry from crimes that contain the use of force as an element, crimes involving possession of illegal weapons, or drug crimes, all of which are associated with violence.   Second, there was never a reason to suspect that there was any threat to the safety of the officers involved.   McCracken had been to the site the day before, and the officers made no mention of danger or violence during the search.   Third, none of the plaintiffs resisted detention or attempted to flee.   Renbarger attempts to defend the reasonableness of his actions by pointing out that he did not know the identities of those who might be on the scene and that he was outnumbered.   But taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we must, we see a scene of peaceable folks (including the famously pacifist Amish) going about their business, while the police inspect various vehicles for identifying information.   Renbarger's subjective concerns do not transform this setting into one calling for such a heavy-handed use of force.   Moreover, the facts show that the police were familiar with the site and had no reason to believe that there would be resistance.


Other circuits have also held that pointing guns at persons who are compliant and present no danger is a constitutional violation.   See, e.g., Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1089 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc ) (holding an infant at gunpoint constitutes excessive force);  Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc ) (pointing a gun at an unarmed suspect who poses no danger constitutes excessive force);  Holland v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1192-93 (10th Cir.2001) (holding children at gunpoint after the officers had gained complete control of the situation “was not justified under the circumstances”);  Baker v. Monroe Township, 50 F.3d 1186, 1193-94 (3d Cir.1995) (detention at gunpoint violated the Fourth Amendment as there was “simply no evidence of anything that should have caused the officers to use the kind of force they are alleged to have used”).   We note that these cases so often involve children because they are much less likely to present the police with a credible threat.   In other words, the unreasonableness of the gun-pointing is more apparent in these cases, though pointing a gun at a compliant adult in a non-threatening situation, as in this case, can also constitute excessive force.

And finally:


We conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Renbarger violated the plaintiffs' clearly established right to be free from excessive force when he seized and held them by pointing his firearm at them when there was no hint of danger.   As a result, Renbarger is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Full opinion here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1418128.html

[SLG]

Haven't we been though this already? If people insist on reading things that aren't there, then a useful discussion on the topic is impossible.

[Dagga Boy]

I guess I ll just be wrong. Nevermind as it really doesn't matter, I knew better than to wade in. My apologies.

[HCM]

K
Just so I am clear.....pointing a loaded firearm at someone is the same as displaying a badge? Or an officer can threaten someone with a firearm that the could not legally shoot, or articulate some level of potential violent threat simply to show they are in charge or have an extra special right. Interesting.

No, as noted - you need specific RAS the person is armed, a threat, etc.

Once that threshold is met, then yes, it is a legally a display of authority, not a UOF unless / until you apply physical force such as shooting / striking them with the gun etc

Again, this is at the federal/constitutional/4th amendment level only. Also there is no free lunch becausei if they comply with your display of authority it's still a 4th amendment seizure which you are responsible for just like your example of handcuffing somebody you're detaining but not arresting.

[HCM]

If by "muzzling", you mean intentionally pointing your gun at someone to get them to comply, the Circuit Courts have ruled on numerous occasions that muzzling someone can be excessive force under the U.S. Constitution. If it's not a use of force, how can it be determined to be excessive force?

From the Baird v. Renbarger decision (7th Circuit):









And finally:



Full opinion here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1418128.html


Lon, first of all, it's obvious the judge in this case has never seen the Amish Mafia reality TV show ... :-)

Seriously, I cant explain the judges choice of words, and not all judges may agree with FLETC and the Givernments legal position but it is in writing and clearly laid out in our training materials. Regardless of the judges language it is clear the officer in the case you cited did not have RAS to believe any of these people were armed or a potential lethal threat so pointing a gun at them would clearly be an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment whether you want to call it a use of force or not.

[Lon]

I think I found part of the disconnect we are having. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (where HCM is at) has a different opinion of pointing a gun at people and the use of force. From the Baird opinion:


In dicta, Wilkins cited with approval the physical injury requirement for Fourth Amendment claims from the Fifth Circuit case Hinojosa v. Terrell, 834 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir.1988).  Wilkins, 872 F.2d at 194.   As noted earlier, however, the physical injury requirement has not been adopted by this circuit, and for good reason.   Rigid insistence on physical injury would be tantamount to a rule under which pointing a gun is always per se reasonable.   This would not be consistent with Graham or Hodari D., which require us to delve further into the facts to determine the context in which the gun pointing occured.

So we are both right. What an officer in other circuits can get sued for, you can't. Gotta love the judicial system.

[SouthNarc]

The 5th and 9th might as well be different planets.

[SLG]

I wish the 9th was on a different planet...

[HCM]

I think I found part of the disconnect we are having. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (where HCM is at) has a different opinion of pointing a gun at people and the use of force. From the Baird opinion:



So we are both right. What an officer in other circuits can get sued for, you can't. Gotta love the judicial system.

Good catch, though our legal folks are usually good about pointing out circuit splits.

[HCM]

The 5th and 9th might as well be different planets.

I spent 7 years working in the ninth circus. You're not kidding

[Gadfly]

Been reading this, but staying out of it. In Houston and at Fletc, we were taught just what HCM said. Pointing/displaying a gun is part of "officer presence", not a use of force until you pull the trigger... At least for our agency.

When I got my Texas Peace officer license back in the mid 90s, were were taught the same thing at the Montgomery Co SO academy.

I guess things are different all over. Sorting through it all keeps the lawyers in business.

[cclaxton]

No, muzzling someone is an "assault" and it is an assault with a deadly weapon.....legally speaking and usually a felony. Now, there are multiple ways in which an assault can be justified in penal codes. In the "old" days it was simply a given that officers were justified in legally assaulting people, and unless you fired, most of the time a report was not generated. It is not the old days. If you as a police officer can articulate a reason to point a deadly weapon at another person, it makes sense to document that in some manner with the articulation. It is why I used the low ready so much once exposed to it....I didn't need to write anything, and if I got to the point of putting a muzzle on something.....they likely got to take a trip to jail and the articulation of the force used to effect the arrest is documented within the arrest report.

I haven't commented much because this a a thread of 19 pages of commentary by a ton of folks who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Police Policy.....is often written by people with no business writing police policy. To have people with no background in LE writing it is asking for epic stupidity. Why would anyone write policy that is more restrictive than the penal code and case law? This is stupid and why agencies and officers get into trouble. I have a pretty good idea why attorney's employed by municipalities and counties write stupid policy's....Job security. If the agencies and their employees get sued, they stay employed. They come up with more good idea fantasy world stuff that is un-workable in reality and creates civil liability when there was no criminal liability. Cops and agencies tend to get in trouble and sued because of violating their own policies, not because they did anything wrong. People who sue LE agencies LOVE big policy books. Lets talk about some awesome sauce policies my old places attorney's came up with.....and stuff a citizen group would love.

Use of rifles. They would only be allowed in cases of the suspect being armed with a rifle themselves, or wearing body armor. Well that sounds like a great way to keep the JBT's from using those evil military guns in an un-reasonsable manner:confused:. So here was the argument I made in a closed door screaming session. A suspect is inside his home barricaded with a firearm. Officers deploy patrol rifles and take cover behind vehicles across the street to make best use of cover and protect the officers. The suspect exits his residence and points and fires a .25 auto pistol at officers. One officer returns fire with a patrol rifle and hits the suspect in the center of the chest and he expires at the scene. By every legal standard, it is a good shoot. No crime was committed, no egregious conduct, no issues. Good tactics, proper use of a tool, and proper use of lethal force that is both reasonable and justified in the penal code. What you do have is an officer who has done nothing wrong, but has now violated department policy. The city will lose a civlil suit because of the policy violation and a great shoot just became a "bad" shoot by virtue of a feel good restrictive policy. I ended up winning and I wrote the patrol rifle policy instead of the attorney who would have benefited in employment standing and financially from the lawsuit resulting form that policy.

How about another fan favorite.....hitting people with flashlights. Most places have a policy banning it and they get regularly sued for hitting mostly criminals who deserved it, and they lose those lawsuits. The fix for that.....ban metal flashlights and force some little tiny plastic light on officers. So you took a very good tool away because those stupid cops keep violating policy. Now, you get faster escalation and officers hurt because they cannot use the object that is always in their hands at night (which is smart for positive identification of threat) and now force them into dropping that illumination tool to transition to a worthless ASP to get to a impact tool in a situation that has likely escalated since the officer identified the need for an impact weapon but could not use the one already in their hand. Now look at my old place. Flashlights were treated as an impact weapon, and trained as such where we actually hit a bag with them during baton training. We hit folks all the time. We rarely got sued once the cop suing lawyer read our policy because the accompanying police report justified the use of the impact weapon to take their criminal client into custody, AND their client was likely convicted of a crime. We had a massive lawsuit for one of our guys knocking a guys teeth out with a Maglite during a violent arrest the night before the guys wedding (drunken bachelor party went bad). Guy lost the lawsuit and legal fees for both......we stopped getting sued for hitting people with lights, and, more importantly we did not lose an important and effective tool.

Do you need well written policies. Yes. Who should be writing them? Administrators who have not been in a police car working a beat in 20 plus years? Lawyers with zero police experience? Citizen committees with people who have not a clue what they are talking about and media generated experience? Picking on Cody here...how long have you practiced law and what is your courtroom experience in regards to your heavily spouted Constitutional law? What is the practical application of those laws looking like? The people who should be writing policy should be the most experienced and most up to date with recent, and relevant experience. I wrote or fixed and updated a ton of policy on firearms, edged weapons, air crew operations, bicycle patrol, etc. I should not have been writing policy on Missing Persons reporting....but we had people who did that for a living and were better trained and equipped to write and update that policy than the same city attorney or citizens group that doesn't know jack about use of force either.

If you have problems with bad searches and constitutional violations, they will come up very quickly in criminal court and those seeking to be made whole in civil court. If you are winning in both....I'd say that you have good training and policy.

Training is really the most critical component.......and the biggest problem. People try to replace proper, recent and relevant best practices training with a policy written by someone with zip for experience in the field they are writing.

Overall, these are leadership issues, laziness, and poor city governments. Most problems are not stemming from the LEO's who get blamed for everything, but from much higher levels of city government. Who benefits from things like asset seizure? That is where things need to change and oversight needs to be. What laws are enforced also comes from the community and the government they elect. In the Eric Garner case, does anyone think the cops on that gave a heck if he was selling unsealed individual cigarettes. That came from city government who want their tax money and local businesses who are paying the tax and don't want cheaters taking business from them.

Use of force is dictated by proper legal application of that within legal codes. Any policy needs to simply refer to that. The big issue is that you need to train and educate officers of those legal codes and impart specific standards and testing to ensure they can safely do their jobs, protect the public and not violate criminal law in the process. That takes training, not policy delivered from the good idea fairy.

Sorry for the rambling rant. I just couldn't take it any longer, and I will admit to not being able to read the entire thread due to not wanting to stroke out when my already fragile blood pressure gets totally out of control.

This is brilliant and not rambling nor a rant in my view. You articulated really well the issues and why this is such a hard problem to solve.

But let me ask you: Since Police Departments still need to run under the governments they serve, what is the best way for the voters and their elected representatives to change the behavior of police to conform with the way citizens want to be policed? This obviously has to include the political process, too. It would be easy if all the politicians were ex-law enforcement I guess, or if most citizens served as law enforcement. But that is not the reality we have to live with.

This question is really for all the LE participating here. Is a Police Commission the answer as long as it has competent, experienced law enforcement representatives?
What is the best way for civilians to affect change in policing?
Cody

[cclaxton]

I had a long conversation with a Montgomery County Officer who runs a squad that principally does search warrants for serious crimes. I asked him about the issue of low ready versus pointing center mass. His answer was this: "I train my squad to be able to do both close ready and muzzles pointed center mass depending on the situation and the suspect(s). New guys are constantly putting muzzles on people just to get them to stop or show their hands." He said he has to train that behavior out of them and get them to react to the situation based on all the threat factors that are present. Sometimes they have guns drawn at the ready but not pointed, other times they point center mass based on the behavior of the person (threat factors).

So he does see the ready position and the gun pointed center mass as two distinct operations/uses (trying to avoid the use of force term). But he also argues that sometimes they go right to center mass depending on the situation.

This seems to fit with what others here have been saying.

He also said that experience plays a major role as well. Younger, inexperienced officers are not nearly as adept at knowing how to apply the use of the firearm in a given situation.

His opinion is that Fairfax County needs much better training so officers are prepared to operate their firearms based on the situation rather than procedure/policy.
Cody

[cclaxton]

I am really impressed with the great discussion going on here. This is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to happen in the Use of Force Subcommittee and is not yet happening.

I want to thank EVERYONE for their participation. This has been very helpful to me, but more it seems to be helpful to everyone here. I see some really brilliant and incredibly experienced replies. Thanks for taking the risk of writing it down.

If this was an easy problem to solve it would already be solved.

I just wanted to say, THANKS.
Cody

[SouthNarc]

What is the best way for the voters and their elected representatives to change the behavior of police to conform with the way citizens want to be policed?

Cody do you believe that ANYONE wants to be policed? For any reason? I retired with over two decades in and when I see blue lights in my rearview mirror, trust me the first thought through my head is NOT "Oh gee, I get to talk to the guys!".

So to answer your question, if police conform to the way people want to be policed then basically what LE would have to do is police everyone except for the people bitching about police service. Looks to me like Baltimore conformed to how the people on the west side wanted to be policed and they burned the fucking city down.

[cclaxton]

Cody do you believe that ANYONE wants to be policed? For any reason? I retired with over two decades in and when I see blue lights in my rearview mirror, trust me the first thought through my head is NOT "Oh gee, I get to talk to the guys!".

So to answer your question, if police conform to the way people want to be policed then basically what LE would have to do is police everyone except for the people bitching about police service. Looks to me like Baltimore conformed to how the people on the west side wanted to be policed and they burned the fucking city down.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that question very well. I get your point, but the laws were created by our elected officials. One example might be that some communities decided to make marijuana enforcement the lowest enforcement priority, for instance.

I don't mean that we ask police to conform to how certain constituencies would like, but how the community or State they serve be policed?

I know that people want law enforcement because when stuff goes bad...who do people call?...The police... at least the vast majority do. Nobody likes being pulled over, but when a drunk ex is banging on the door at 4AM and making threats...people will call the police.

I do think people want to be policed. While there are laws that people hate, such as marijuana laws, I think the issue is HOW we are policed and that is where this gets problematic.

Baltimore has been a problem for 20 years....nothing surprises me anymore. Remember the show "The Wire"?...It's just like that or worse.
Cody

[SouthNarc]

I think everyone wants protection, but I really don't believe people LIKE being policed. I think I'm saying that the way I want to.

We may very well be not far from a favela model in some places. Police come in after everything's over and put down some crime scene tape, chalk it off, talk to a few folks and leave. If it gets outside the favela then a BOPE style unit comes in and kills everything.

[Ptrlcop]

I think everyone wants protection, but I really don't believe people LIKE being policed. I think I'm saying that the way I want to.

We may very well be not far from a favela model in some places. Police come in after everything's over and put down some crime scene tape, chalk it off, talk to a few folks and leave. If it gets outside the favela then a BOPE style unit comes in and kills everything.

Perfectly said. I can't count how many people call because they know we will stop active violence but then provide zero cooperation that would enable any enforcement action.

[jnc36rcpd]

nyeti, interesting concept on exemptions. I would agree that the law is the same here on the right coast, but the concept of exemption hasn't come up as far as I have seen. A LEO presenting or pointing a gun is or was allowed under law. It is not an assault with an exemption; it is simply not an assault. It is not considered an assault unless the officer acts unlawfully. Nonetheless, I think we are held to similar standards regardless of the language. Of course, who knows what changes we will see in use of force law/policy in this day and age, especially in Maryland.

HCM, thanks for the detailed and interesting of your agency's reasoning on high/compressed ready. While I'm not ready to abandon low ready in my agency, I see your agency's reasoning.

[MDS]

I think everyone wants protection, but I really don't believe people LIKE being policed. I think I'm saying that the way I want to.

That's totally fair. But aside from the narrow self-interest that shows up in ANY topic, I think most people have a real and legitimate interest in being policed well. Sure, they're mostly ignorant of what that really means, and are susceptible to media hype about it. Add confounding factors - like stupid laws for which cops are the visible manifestation, the occasional asshole with a badge making the whole profession look bad, etc - and it's not surprising that many people have a warped understanding about the whole thing.

I don't think we disagree on this? But I do think that there's a disconnect just due to such a big difference in how much knowledge and experience we have about police work. Things that seem just ridiculously obvious to you, could easily be totally unknown or vague and mysterious to me.

What this thread is really about, to me, is a simple layman explanation of the policies in place today. I'm the ignorant civilian, granted. But I'm capable of understanding an explanation, if it's presented honestly and openly. If a police agency tells me that it's important to let cops point guns at people even if they don't intend to shoot, I hear them, but if they can't give me a rational explanation for this nor a dozen other policies, then I have to wonder how much of that opacity is my inability to grasp specialized concepts, how much is legitimate opsec, and how much is Johnny Cochran bullshit to cover and distract from laziness, incompetence, or worse. We talked in the Ferguson thread about how long it took to release evidence that painted a different picture from what the race baiters were painting. From some perspectives, opacity may be prudent policy, but it eats away at any relationship.

Of course, it could also be that explaining unpleasant realities is simply unpopular, that cops tend to get burned when they try, and if so much of this opacity is understandable.

More likely, it's my ignorant intuition that the opacity is caused by the political nature of police leadership. Maybe if we made commissioners a limited appointment, say 5 years? Or if we just say that the politician who appoints a chief cannot replace them? Random ideas to make police leadership less political, so that we could realistically demand more transparency.

Sorry for the rant. But there's GOT to be a middle way here, where interested civvies can get a reasonable understanding of the rationale behind policy and SOP, without putting cops on the street in any (additional) danger. Maybe "citizen oversight" is a needlessly provocative name for a group of such interested civvies.

[joshs]

nyeti, interesting concept on exemptions. I would agree that the law is the same here on the right coast, but the concept of exemption hasn't come up as far as I have seen. A LEO presenting or pointing a gun is or was allowed under law. It is not an assault with an exemption; it is simply not an assault. It is not considered an assault unless the officer acts unlawfully.

Under the laws of what state? Every state the I'm aware of considers pointing a firearm at someone to be a crime. Doing so may be justified, but that doesn't mean that the underlying act is not generally criminal. I wouldn't even call it an exemption, since that could be construed as something that must be disproven by the state in all cases. Justification is an affirmative defense, which places the burden of production on the defendant. I think this is why nyeti thinks being able to articulate the justification is important. As has been discussed, the rules for federal LE are different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[SouthNarc]

I think most people have a real and legitimate interest in being policed well.

Maybe they used to have that interest but now? I just don't see it. Now that's a jaded, pessimistic, point of view and one I certainly don't like having. But that's my limited subjective experience with doing the job.

Personally I don't have an interest in being policed. I'm not concerned about defending myself, my family is capable of defending themselves and anything I/we have is not going to be forcibly taken without a fight that I/we will probably win. If something is taken from me surreptitiously then I have insurance to take care of that.

What do most REGULAR people use police services for? Usually it's a minor complaint that's not civil but not egregiously or violently criminal. Your neighbor won't turn his loud, obnoxious music down. Your car got clipped in a parking lot and you need a report. You're using police services to regulate the behavior of others.

So let's look at it this way: This is pistol-forum.com As a group, probably pretty damn adept at protecting themselves. If police service disappeared tomorrow who here would actually feel it? I posit that NO ONE would, because everyone here can defend themselves and no one engages in crime. Other than the petty niggling shit I just listed and drunk drivers, when was the last time ANYONE here utilized police services?

[LSP552]

What do most REGULAR people use police services for? Usually it's a minor complaint that's not civil but not egregiously or violently criminal. Your neighbor won't turn his loud, obnoxious music down. Your car got clipped in a parking lot and you need a report. You're using police services to regulate the behavior of others.


And it's being used to regulate yours. Unless you are a thug, the other most common interaction with police involve you being stopped for speeding or some other minor traffic offense. And most don't like that. Deep down, I still like to think most honest people know they need the police if something really serious happens. They just don't like some of the things that go along with being policed.

[SouthNarc]

And it's being used to regulate yours. Unless you are a thug, the other most common interaction with police involve you being stopped for speeding or some other minor traffic offense. And most don't like that. Deep down, I still like to think most honest people know they need the police if something really serious happens. They just don't like some of the things that go along with being policed.

Yup! If technology allowed for traffic enforcement to be completely automated and there was a speed camera every 2 miles on every roadway in the U.S. then that would cut down on probably 95% of most police interaction with the public, unless you were hit and hurt. And even then it's fire and EMS that's primary there as far as saving lives.

[Hambo]

What this thread is really about, to me, is a simple layman explanation of the policies in place today. I'm the ignorant civilian, granted. But I'm capable of understanding an explanation, if it's presented honestly and openly. If a police agency tells me that it's important to let cops point guns at people even if they don't intend to shoot, I hear them, but if they can't give me a rational explanation for this nor a dozen other policies, then I have to wonder how much of that opacity is my inability to grasp specialized concepts, how much is legitimate opsec, and how much is Johnny Cochran bullshit to cover and distract from laziness, incompetence, or worse. We talked in the Ferguson thread about how long it took to release evidence that painted a different picture from what the race baiters were painting. From some perspectives, opacity may be prudent policy, but it eats away at any relationship.

One of the first things for citizens to understand is that there really isn't any secret shit. In the city I worked for every department published annual reports with all the stats that they bothered to collect. If it wasn't in there, it's because we didn't know it either. Second, it was harder then, but now most things are online. Want to know if CDP officers followed procedure with Tamir Rice? Read their General Police Orders in PDF format. Not every municipality posts SOPs online, but if they don't they're yours for the asking. In fact, there is so much transparency in the state I worked in that our personnel files were available to anyone who wanted to see them.

Now let's get to understanding why a policy is a policy. UOF guidelines are pretty similar everywhere and could be based on a template from a national organization. Or they've been modified by lawyers in consent decrees. Again using Cleveland as an example, you can see what UOF was and what it's going to be with a simple Google search.

This thread shows the great variation in policies dictated by municipalities and the courts. It's really pointless for me to try to remember the rational behind anything because A) I'm sure it's all changed in the last ten years and B) you don't live where I worked.

Citizens who want to know need to ask locally, which Cory has done. However, they need to investigate with their minds open. They need to delete Al Sharpton, CCN, FoxNews, Cops, Adam-12, and whatever else has created their view of LE.

I'm not as cynical as SN and I don't think I can make it alone. Without LE my locale will start looking like Somalia in a week. After the hurricanes ten years ago it took at least 4-5 times the usual number of cops to keep it from becoming just that. We'll miss the blue line when it's gone.

[SouthNarc]

I'm not as cynical as SN and I don't think I can make it alone.

That's when you open carry your long gun and hang out with like minded friends!

I know I sound cynical but I have to say at least around here, people did a pretty good job of policing themselves during Katrina.. The eye of the storm hit 50 miles from my county and we got our ass kicked. Lost 2/3 of our fleet and couldn't get wheeled vehicles into many areas. We were policing on borrowed four wheelers from a local Polaris dealership. On three occasions we stopped a bad guy from getting executed for stealing/looting. Our jail took 3 feet of water too, so there was no taking anyone into custody. Most bad guys "paid at the pump" and that worked pretty well for the most part. So it worked on the MS. Gulf Coast. New Orleans? Not so much..

[cclaxton]

Maybe they used to have that interest but now? I just don't see it. Now that's a jaded, pessimistic, point of view and one I certainly don't like having. But that's my limited subjective experience with doing the job.

Personally I don't have an interest in being policed. I'm not concerned about defending myself, my family is capable of defending themselves and anything I/we have is not going to be forcibly taken without a fight that I/we will probably win. If something is taken from me surreptitiously then I have insurance to take care of that.

What do most REGULAR people use police services for? Usually it's a minor complaint that's not civil but not egregiously or violently criminal. Your neighbor won't turn his loud, obnoxious music down. Your car got clipped in a parking lot and you need a report. You're using police services to regulate the behavior of others.

So let's look at it this way: This is pistol-forum.com As a group, probably pretty damn adept at protecting themselves. If police service disappeared tomorrow who here would actually feel it? I posit that NO ONE would, because everyone here can defend themselves and no one engages in crime. Other than the petty niggling shit I just listed and drunk drivers, when was the last time ANYONE here utilized police services?
Craig,
Isn't there a bigger goal here in terms of prevention of crime? As an individual, yeah I can defend myself. And my one report of a burglary is not, in and of itself, significant. But when investigators put together my burglary with others in the area, and then eventually find the person(s) responsible and arrest them, then isn't the whole community made safer, and I will be less likely to get burglarized again? If police fail to do that kind of work over time then that leaves room for organized crime to get rooted and that brings more crime and becomes a larger job later when it is out of control.

I can hear that you are very frustrated with the state of policing and community reaction and oversight. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but with all that experience you have, you must have some ideas on how to fix it?

Thanks,
Cody

[MDS]

Citizens who want to know need to ask locally, which Cory has done. However, they need to investigate with their minds open.

I hear you. But it's hard to get clear answers to questions like "why is the low ready dangerous?" I like to think my mind is open, but if the best answer I can get is "you don't want to start from that deficiency" and when I ask for details about that deficiency I get painted as meddlesome and anti-cop, that's the kind of opacity I'm talking about. Heaven forbid that police admins admit the possibility of outside ideas ever improving on their own.

Obviously most folks here don't treat my questions that way, there's awesome discussion here that I appreciate and learn from. But when it comes to understanding my local PD it's not as easy as "inquire locally."


I know I sound cynical but I have to say at least around here, people did a pretty good job of policing themselves during Katrina.

Privatize policing? Dude, PM me your address, I want to send you a Libertarian Porn Purveyor t-shirt. :D Sadly, I think my skinemax fantasies are more likely to come true...

[SouthNarc]

Craig,
Isn't there a bigger goal here in terms of prevention of crime?


I'm not sure the public at this point is okay with the proactive measures required to truly prevent crime.

Cody you're absolutely right when you read my frustration, but I'm not at a point where I could be part of any good solution. I'm disgusted with the public (mainly the media) AND the profession. To put things in perspective, the sheriff I retired under is now a convicted felon wearing an ankle bracelet. With good reason.

So...I'm not exactly eager to jump back into any part of policing other than talking about it on internet forums.

[Dagga Boy]

Cody, know how the investigators find your burglar? Fingerprints that came from a low level arrest, or a proactive arrest for dope, burglary tools, trespassing, or just being "suspicious" that leads to the burglar, or leads to flipping a crook who gives up the burglar to get out of an arrest. All the stuff that is now labeled as "harassment" or "cultural crimes". When you stop working that stuff because the community doesn't want their kids "harassed"...week, you stop getting the arrests for 23 neighborhood burglaries and auto thefts that are affecting the same people who don't want "harassment".

[SouthNarc]

Privatize policing?

I would be fine with that.;)

[SouthNarc]

Cody, know how the investigators find your burglar? Fingerprints that came from a low level arrest, or a proactive arrest for dope, burglary tools, trespassing, or just being "suspicious" that leads to the burglar, or leads to flipping a crook who gives up the burglar to get out of an arrest. All the stuff that is now labeled as "harassment" or "cultural crimes". When you stop working that stuff because the community doesn't want their kids "harassed"...week, you stop getting the arrests for 23 neighborhood burglaries and auto thefts that are affecting the same people who don't want "harassment".

There you go. Said very succintly. There's a reason "broken windows" policing worked in NYC.

[Dagga Boy]

Craig and I were typing at the same time. I think the public has sent the message to the people who can fix it that they don't want it fixed and better know how to fix it. Most of us are at the stage of no longer giving a crap and just fine with letting the public learn the hard way. Most of us here (even if we are disagreeable at times) are all the folks who know how to fix it with a proven track record. When you see those people all saying that they no longer have any f@cks left to give you have basically seen a situation where the old rule of "you broke it, you bought it" takes affect, and society can now enjoy their purchase.

[Dagga Boy]

Also...cause Craig and I are typing in sync...

See the discourse here over some simple use of force policy stuff by a bunch of for real subject matter experts in use of force due to regional dyslexia amongst the courts and legal system where things are very different and the folks who actually understand and study this passionately have trouble figuring it out.......How well do you think a bunch of folks like city attorney's, police executives who did not get their job by going through the range, and citizen committes do at creating workable policy?

If you take nothing away from this......policy is often an easy, crappy solution for the lazy rather than recent, applicable, high quality training....which is hard and costs money.

[SouthNarc]

And to follow up with what both Darryl and Wayne have mentioned about management, know that most of the "cops" you're sitting down with in citizen review boards are probably not who guys like us think of as cops. While most of us were working on being better po-leese (narcs, dicks, patrol, SWAT, what have you) they are spending their career building....their career. Look at most chiefs. It's very common to see a chief of police who spent his entire career in DARE or as a school resource officer and never worked a dope case or burglary in his entire life. Or a a guy running for sheriff. If the election is a popularity contest and I spent 18-20 years "interacting" with the populace as a community policing liaison, I get the N/A under my belt, join the Rotary club then I stand a damn good chance of winning the job. Doesn't mean I know shit about police work.

[Hambo]

I'm not sure the public at this point is okay with the proactive measures required to truly prevent crime.


Sad, but true. A small city nearby has an out of proportion gang problem. Warm and fuzzy ain't getting it done, but no one wants to even talk about proactive policing in the current environment. Meanwhile a large portion of the city is unsafe during daylight and deadly after dark.

[SouthNarc]

A good start would be to cut out all those pricks and put real po-leese in those meetings. Centurions and citizens head to head. That might get somewhere.