Fairfax County Ad Hoc Police Commission

[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/ny...icle-1.1882825

http://m.wftv.com/news/news/local/on...#__federated=1

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...porn-raid?lite

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22717...-investigation

http://myfox8.com/2012/05/20/fairfax...n-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.