“A secret. A search warrant. A veteran. A trap.”

[HCM]

One thing you have VERY wrong here - search and arrest warrants for child sex and child porn offenses are NOT. “low risk.” These suspect are always high risk for both suicide and Homicide. Not because of the inherent violence of the offense itself but because of the social and moral stigma associated with it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orl...story,amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...th-us-marshals

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tam...3ftemplate=amp

[TGS]

One thing you have VERY wrong here - search and arrest warrants for child sex and child porn offenses are NOT. “low risk.” These suspect are always high risk for both suicide and Homicide. Not because of the inherent violence of the offense itself but because of the social and moral stigma associated with it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orl...story,amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...th-us-marshals

I get that, you previously wrote that.

They had apparently judged it to be a low risk warrant, which is what I'm referring to.

[HCM]

I get that, you previously wrote that.

They had apparently judged it to be a low risk warrant, which is what I'm referring to.

And they paid dearly for that mistake.

[whomever]

... I believe I read that the Frederick Hopkins spouse was called by someone in the department due to fears of litigation prior to warrant being executed,...

FWIW: I have no knowledge other than the OP, but the referenced article says "They have an appointment to interview Seth — but also come armed with the search warrant."

The 'have an appointment' sounds like they weren't unexpected, whether or not some other call was made.


(I grew up in the late 50's/early 60's as an Army brat just outside assorted military bases in the southeast - there were whole neighborhoods where 'combat vet gun owner' would describe almost all the residents. Although 'who had assaulted a city inspector' and the other prior problems would be quite rare; those guys were very, very capable of using a great deal of violence, and having done so frequently in the past, were very, very reluctant to do so without a really good reason. I dunno to what extent the habits of WWII/Korea vets apply to later vets; in many ways we were nicer to that generation than subsequent ones)

[TC215]

One thing you have VERY wrong here - search and arrest warrants for child sex and child porn offenses are NOT. “low risk.” These suspect are always high risk for both suicide and Homicide. Not because of the inherent violence of the offense itself but because of the social and moral stigma associated with it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orl...story,amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...th-us-marshals

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tam...3ftemplate=amp

Yep, I always push for SWAT when we have those here. The last guy our local FBI office smoked was a child porn suspect.

[HCM]

Yep, I always push for SWAT when we have those here. The last guy our local FBI office smoked was a child porn suspect.

We do a lot non SWAT but with more than usual precautions.

[fwrun]

I've only served 10 warrants, so I'm curious to hear from you other guys who have more non-SWAT warrant experience. Does your agency fall into the category of "1 riot, 1 ranger" or do you actually bring some ass even when you're not expecting to need it?

I honestly couldn’t tell you how many warrants I’ve served, but it’s been a whole lot. Where I am, the answer is “it depends.” We send more if we think we will need it. OPSEC considerations gives me pause to be more specific.

[KeeFus]

I'm not sure if it applies to this incident and won't speculate as to whether it will, but in general I think there's a peer-pressure aspect to this work as well. Lots of departments out there have cultures where you'll be "that guy" if you call additional units prior to something breaking bad for assistance on felony arrests. We had an office policy of never having less than 5 for an arrest (unless it was a transfer of custody), preferably 8, + a local representative. My best friend was a prior local with 6 years in plainclothes interdiction on a small-ish PD, so his unit did narcotics, gangs, vice, fugitives, etc all rolled up into one unit. He was happy with our policy, but surprised. In his old PD the culture was that you handled your own arrests on the street, and warrants were usually served by the investigator and a marked unit.....otherwise you'd be that guy.

So, here we have a low-risk warrant being served by 3 LEOs with 2 forensic specialists sitting outside. All the stuff that HCM wrote sounds on point and really hits on the root/causative issue, but I can't help but think if there were at least 2 dudes outside from a cover position, preferably at least 1 with access to a long rifle, that the outcome after boom would have been positively influenced.

I've only served 10 warrants, so I'm curious to hear from you other guys who have more non-SWAT warrant experience. Does your agency fall into the category of "1 riot, 1 ranger" or do you actually bring some ass even when you're not expecting to need it?

When I first started in 1995 it was a rare instance to actually use a “SWAT” team. Narcotics, which was about 5 or 6 guys, usually served their own warrants. Patrol officers like me who worked their beat and actually wrote their own search warrants used people on their patrol squad to hit a house. Nowadays we use a “SWAT” team for almost every hit, regardless the nature of the search warrant.

Arrest warrants are a little different. We serve those with relative ease. Occasionally we have one that gets rooted in a house and we use a number of guys to get the suspect. The last one a couple weeks ago we were looking for a guy that shot someone. We used some Marshals, some deputies, and us...No SWAT guys. In cases like that where the guy is very mobile we just didn’t have time to use them. We found his location from a snitch and simply went.

[LSP552]

I'm not sure if it applies to this incident and won't speculate as to whether it will, but in general I think there's a peer-pressure aspect to this work as well. Lots of departments out there have cultures where you'll be "that guy" if you call additional units prior to something breaking bad for assistance on felony arrests. We had an office policy of never having less than 5 for an arrest (unless it was a transfer of custody), preferably 8, + a local representative. My best friend was a prior local with 6 years in plainclothes interdiction on a small-ish PD, so his unit did narcotics, gangs, vice, fugitives, etc all rolled up into one unit. He was happy with our policy, but surprised. In his old PD the culture was that you handled your own arrests on the street, and warrants were usually served by the investigator and a marked unit.....otherwise you'd be that guy.

In general, investigators to want to serve their own warrants. I’ve seen LSP (and been that guy as a young narc) and a whole bunch of other agency investigators do stuff in the past that definitely wasn’t smart when it came to serving warrants. Making the shift to a threat matrix and then sticking to it requires an agency culture change to eliminate the peer pressure and the desire to “cheat” on scoring.

One of the hardest battles I fought was changing LSP investigative culture on using SWAT for high risk warrants. For that to happen, LSP SWAT had to show their capabilities and senior leaders had to enforce the rules. You also have to define what truly high risk is, and that’s not always easy.

The most dangerous part for investigators is working in the gray zone where the threat isn’t scored high enough for a full SWAT operation. What LSP SWAT does in those cases is to have a small number of guys on site to assist the investigators just in case something goes South. Having 2 or 3 equipped properly trained and equipped SWAT members can make a difference.

[Hambo]

In general, investigators to want to serve their own warrants. I’ve seen LSP (and been that guy as a young narc) and a whole bunch of other agency investigators do stuff in the past that definitely wasn’t smart when it came to serving warrants. Making the shift to a threat matrix and then sticking to it requires an agency culture change to eliminate the peer pressure and the desire to “cheat” on scoring.

One of the hardest battles I fought was changing LSP investigative culture on using SWAT for high risk warrants. For that to happen, LSP SWAT had to show their capabilities and senior leaders had to enforce the rules. You also have to define what truly high risk is, and that’s not always easy.

The most dangerous part for investigators is working in the gray zone where the threat isn’t scored high enough for a full SWAT operation. What LSP SWAT does in those cases is to have a small number of guys on site to assist the investigators just in case something goes South. Having 2 or 3 equipped properly trained and equipped SWAT members can make a difference.

In pre-matrix days our patrol or detective supervisors made their own call on go/no-go for SWAT. In some cases it came down to personal bias, machismo, or other faulty thinking. Changing that culture was difficult to say the least, and it involved waiting for some people to retire or get transferred.