Fairfax County Ad Hoc Police Commission

[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!
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.