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

[blues]

On the federal side at my own agency, I served hundreds of warrants...many as an SRT member for a period of some years, but most with members of the group or task force I was a member of at the time.

In the Florida Joint Task Force, (DEA & U.S. Customs), I was often the go-to guy for planning an op due to my SRT experience, even following my departure from the team.

At HIDTA, we usually handled warrants with our group members which comprised federal and local police and sheriff's deputies.

Don't remember a protocol being in place early on...it was fairly informal in that the group supervisor would reach out to the SRT leader and request support for an op. Later on I believe the practice became more formalized and SRT was requested more regularly for high risk warrants.

We had a relationship with other teams in South FL...Miami, Miami-Dade, (formerly Metro-Dade), Homestead, BSO etc and could call upon them or their bomb squads as required.

[blues]

Back in NYC in the middle 80's, an event that had a profound effect on and shaped my thinking and practice as a young agent occurred when a former agent at my outfit went to work for ATF which was located a few blocks away in lower Manhattan.

While out serving a warrant with other members of his group and DEA, they were fired upon, he was hit after he had made entry on the apartment, and was left behind the door while the other agents he was with scrambled for cover outside the apartment.

I forget how long he was left without medical assistance, and how long it was before he was rescued. (I believe NYPD ESU came into the picture at that point, but it's a bit foggy now.)


https://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/07/n...riverdale.html

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/02...1909539586000/


I promised both myself and my fellow agents before any op that I would never leave anyone behind, whether on or off SRT. I still get chills thinking about that episode back then.

Agent Blanch died at age 51, following retirement, from drowning in a PA lake.

[Coyotesfan97]

We have a pretty restrictive policy on who serves search warrants. Basically it’s SWAT unless it’s a low risk warrant. It has to be justified to an LT that it is low risk. And units still try to sneak shit by. You use SWAT because then the team is there if the fecal matter hits the oscillator.

I can think of at least three child porn/sex crimes where the suspect either fired shots or threatened Detectives with a gun after they either went to serve a warrant or arrest him that required a SWAT call out after the fact.

When I was in Narcs (and on SWAT) my warrants involved hand to hand drug purchases where I already had PC on the suspect. If we found extra dope during the search it was icing on the cake. SWAT was starting to do searches on warrants slowly and deliberately to lower risks during the entry. SWAT called out twenty guys and did the scouts. They got to do the “fun stuff”.

Other Detectives didn’t want dope flushed so they would try to avoid calling SWAT. They wanted to use the street crime unit that would still do dynamic entries. There were plenty of times facts were downplayed to avoid calling SWAT. Shit hit the fan often enough that the warrant service policy was changed.

All out warrant services with SWAT are surround and call outs. They’ll try to turn the water off if they can get to the valve safely. And Detectives bitch because they write warrants without PC to arrest a particular suspect off of street jumps or garbage pickups so they’re dependent on finding dope to make an arrest. They’re perfectly willing to risk their or others lives to get a dime bag of dope. I just shake my head.

[Clark Jackson]

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

I don't know what this means... "Non SWAT but with more than usual precautions." Not being snarky - legitimately trying to understand. What does with "more than usual precautions" than SWAT mean and what is an example of "usual precautions?" Based on this comment it seems there would be a standard level of precaution, an elevated standard of precaution, and a SWAT level of precaution. Accurate or am I reading this wrong?

[HCM]

I don't know what this means... "Non SWAT but with more than usual precautions." Not being snarky - legitimately trying to understand. What does with "more than usual precautions" than SWAT mean and what is an example of "usual precautions?" Based on this comment it seems there would be a standard level of precaution, an elevated standard of precaution, and a SWAT level of precaution. Accurate or am I reading this wrong?

Yes. By score sheet a warrant target may not rate a SWAT team but it may still be a good idea to be “fully prepared”.

Fully prepared means like having a medic, long guns, ballistic shields etc. more detailed planning but not things like armored vehicles, distraction devices, designated marksman that a SWAT hit brings to the table. As opposed to throwing a vest over your business casual, grabbing a few random patrol guys and showing a photo in a 3 minute huddle.

In my example we are doing so because there is a clear history of child sex / porn offenders being higher risk of being suicidal / homicidal due to the stigma associated with these crimes. However there are many units which operate in this “middle ground” such as USMS fugitive task forces, certain type of gang and narcotics units etc.

Policies will vary. There are issues with both over and under utilization of SWAT. Another variable is whether SWAT is a full time or collateral duty. A full time team looking for work will lobby to do as many warrants as possible. A part time or regional team may need to be conserved as a limited resource.

[Clark Jackson]

Yes. By score sheet a warrant target may not rate a SWAT team but it may still be a good idea to be “fully prepared”.

Fully prepared means like having a medic, long guns, ballistic shields etc. more detailed planning but not things like armored vehicles, distraction devices, designated marksman that a SWAT hit brings to the table. As opposed to throwing a vest over your business casual, grabbing a few random patrol guys and showing a photo in a 3 minute huddle.

In my example we are doing so because there is a clear history of child sex / porn offenders being higher risk of being suicidal / homicidal due to the stigma associated with these crimes. However there are many units which operate in this “middle ground” such as USMS fugitive task forces, certain type of gang and narcotics units etc.

Policies will vary. There are issues with both over and under utilization of SWAT. Another variable is whether SWAT is a full time or collateral duty. A full time team looking for work will lobby to do as many warrants as possible. A part time or regional team may need to be conserved as a limited resource.

Note: my comments below are not about any particular law enforcement event, but are more of a theoretical discussion sparked by this thread. The ideas of being "fully prepared" vs "less-than fully prepared" for law enforcement actions and doing so willingly is interesting to me. I acknowledge this post might be slightly tangential to the original post, but it is related to it IMO.

Appreciate you expanding and clarifying the concept for me, HCM.

From watching t.v. (the plethora of COPS-like shows out there) I understand that there are tiny offices with limited resources and bigger organizations that cover expansive and remote areas (Alaska). It appears the effect is the same. Both organizations have severe limitations in their ability to project influence (personnel & equipment) to given situations within certain time constraints. And sometimes, it appears those organizations cannot achieve more complex tasks regardless of time without outside assistance. With that in mind, do these organizations embrace the "less-than fully prepared" option out of necessity or because it's the easy answer? Also, do you see larger organizations - that do not have the limiters of the previous - embrace the same "less-than fully prepared" option? For the laundry list of reasons already provided in this thread, I can see larger and more capable LE organizations still embracing the "easy" way of doing things which appears to be the "less-than fully prepared" option.

I'm not a fan of being "less-than fully prepared" for anything in life, but I get that it happens. Question: For those organizations that want to be "fully prepared" but default to the "less-than fully prepared" category, is it normal to see a higher level of training and better equipping of that organization's personnel? It seems that if the "let's do it live" method is in full effect there has to be officer safety mitigation somewhere... like a "safety net" of training and equipment.

Additional thoughts:
With the above definitions, in my mind the "preparedness" for warrants looks like a bell curve with "fully prepared" in the middle. The "middle ground" (aka "less-than fully prepared" or "under-prepared") and "SWAT" must then be on the polar opposite ends of that curve.

IMO, your take on "fully prepared" should be the baseline when warrants are in hand.

The baseline then goes up towards SWAT and should not go down towards "less-than fully prepared." Yes, I do think there are times when "less-than prepared" may be the only option on the table, but again those are the exceptions where it is *the only option* for that situation. "Less-than fully prepared" should never be the default SOP.

It seems that responding to calls (patrol officers) are among the most dangerous duties performed by law enforcement personnel. I see three glaring differences in responding to a call and participating in a pre-planned operation: intelligence, planning, rehearsals. A lack of operational intelligence hinders a lot of things, but primarily it kills planning and rehearsals which tends to have a negative effect on the execution of the primary/contingency plans. This is of course amplified when anyone has to execute the primary and/or contingency plans under less-than ideal conditions.

Approaching a pre-planned warrant service the same way you would a call-for-service definitely sounds like "a technique."

[LittleLebowski]

Wasn't there some sort of kerfuffle over the Chief/Sheriff refusing another agency's SWAT team's assistance?

[HCM]

Wasn't there some sort of kerfuffle over the Chief/Sheriff refusing another agency's SWAT team's assistance?

That was after things had already gone bad and they were a state team who would not be able to reach the s end for hours.

[TC215]

Note: my comments below are not about any particular law enforcement event, but are more of a theoretical discussion sparked by this thread. The ideas of being "fully prepared" vs "less-than fully prepared" for law enforcement actions and doing so willingly is interesting to me. I acknowledge this post might be slightly tangential to the original post, but it is related to it IMO.

Appreciate you expanding and clarifying the concept for me, HCM.

From watching t.v. (the plethora of COPS-like shows out there) I understand that there are tiny offices with limited resources and bigger organizations that cover expansive and remote areas (Alaska). It appears the effect is the same. Both organizations have severe limitations in their ability to project influence (personnel & equipment) to given situations within certain time constraints. And sometimes, it appears those organizations cannot achieve more complex tasks regardless of time without outside assistance. With that in mind, do these organizations embrace the "less-than fully prepared" option out of necessity or because it's the easy answer? Also, do you see larger organizations - that do not have the limiters of the previous - embrace the same "less-than fully prepared" option? For the laundry list of reasons already provided in this thread, I can see larger and more capable LE organizations still embracing the "easy" way of doing things which appears to be the "less-than fully prepared" option.

I'm not a fan of being "less-than fully prepared" for anything in life, but I get that it happens. Question: For those organizations that want to be "fully prepared" but default to the "less-than fully prepared" category, is it normal to see a higher level of training and better equipping of that organization's personnel? It seems that if the "let's do it live" method is in full effect there has to be officer safety mitigation somewhere... like a "safety net" of training and equipment.

Additional thoughts:
With the above definitions, in my mind the "preparedness" for warrants looks like a bell curve with "fully prepared" in the middle. The "middle ground" (aka "less-than fully prepared" or "under-prepared") and "SWAT" must then be on the polar opposite ends of that curve.

IMO, your take on "fully prepared" should be the baseline when warrants are in hand.

The baseline then goes up towards SWAT and should not go down towards "less-than fully prepared." Yes, I do think there are times when "less-than prepared" may be the only option on the table, but again those are the exceptions where it is *the only option* for that situation. "Less-than fully prepared" should never be the default SOP.

It seems that responding to calls (patrol officers) are among the most dangerous duties performed by law enforcement personnel. I see three glaring differences in responding to a call and participating in a pre-planned operation: intelligence, planning, rehearsals. A lack of operational intelligence hinders a lot of things, but primarily it kills planning and rehearsals which tends to have a negative effect on the execution of the primary/contingency plans. This is of course amplified when anyone has to execute the primary and/or contingency plans under less-than ideal conditions.

Approaching a pre-planned warrant service the same way you would a call-for-service definitely sounds like "a technique."

Using a SWAT team can be considered “excessive force” under the 4th Amendment. If you use SWAT for everything, you’re going to get sued. That’s why we have threat matrixes.

[HCM]

Note: my comments below are not about any particular law enforcement event, but are more of a theoretical discussion sparked by this thread. The ideas of being "fully prepared" vs "less-than fully prepared" for law enforcement actions and doing so willingly is interesting to me. I acknowledge this post might be slightly tangential to the original post, but it is related to it IMO.

Appreciate you expanding and clarifying the concept for me, HCM.

From watching t.v. (the plethora of COPS-like shows out there) I understand that there are tiny offices with limited resources and bigger organizations that cover expansive and remote areas (Alaska). It appears the effect is the same. Both organizations have severe limitations in their ability to project influence (personnel & equipment) to given situations within certain time constraints. And sometimes, it appears those organizations cannot achieve more complex tasks regardless of time without outside assistance. With that in mind, do these organizations embrace the "less-than fully prepared" option out of necessity or because it's the easy answer? Also, do you see larger organizations - that do not have the limiters of the previous - embrace the same "less-than fully prepared" option? For the laundry list of reasons already provided in this thread, I can see larger and more capable LE organizations still embracing the "easy" way of doing things which appears to be the "less-than fully prepared" option.

I'm not a fan of being "less-than fully prepared" for anything in life, but I get that it happens. Question: For those organizations that want to be "fully prepared" but default to the "less-than fully prepared" category, is it normal to see a higher level of training and better equipping of that organization's personnel? It seems that if the "let's do it live" method is in full effect there has to be officer safety mitigation somewhere... like a "safety net" of training and equipment.

Additional thoughts:
With the above definitions, in my mind the "preparedness" for warrants looks like a bell curve with "fully prepared" in the middle. The "middle ground" (aka "less-than fully prepared" or "under-prepared") and "SWAT" must then be on the polar opposite ends of that curve.

IMO, your take on "fully prepared" should be the baseline when warrants are in hand.

The baseline then goes up towards SWAT and should not go down towards "less-than fully prepared." Yes, I do think there are times when "less-than prepared" may be the only option on the table, but again those are the exceptions where it is *the only option* for that situation. "Less-than fully prepared" should never be the default SOP.

It seems that responding to calls (patrol officers) are among the most dangerous duties performed by law enforcement personnel. I see three glaring differences in responding to a call and participating in a pre-planned operation: intelligence, planning, rehearsals. A lack of operational intelligence hinders a lot of things, but primarily it kills planning and rehearsals which tends to have a negative effect on the execution of the primary/contingency plans. This is of course amplified when anyone has to execute the primary and/or contingency plans under less-than ideal conditions.

Approaching a pre-planned warrant service the same way you would a call-for-service definitely sounds like "a technique."

There is what “should be” and there is what is.

Complacency is also an issue.