Moving Home Page Forums Operational Leadership SWAT Command Decision-Making And Leadership I: Federman v. County of Kern Does your team determine articulable facts justifying the necessity for making an entry?

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #4568
      Anonymous
      Inactive
    • #6361
      mmWayne Griffin
      Participant

      Yes the team is trained on when and how to determine if articulable facts are present to make an entry if necessity. We are able to achieve this when training during barricaded subject scenarios, hostage rescue scenarios, and active shooter/threat scenarios.

    • #6484
      mmDrew Leblanc
      Participant

      Yes. we are taught articulable facts when it comes to making entry, which is usually discussed in the operations brief. If SWAT is there it is usually because of a reason that has already been articulated in a search/arrest warrant. We also train on exigent circumstances, which can alter the plan of action on the scene, in an instant.

    • #6695
      Jeffrey Brown
      Participant

      Absolutely. As we develop the tactical situation we are always determining the articulable facts to justify the tactics were are planning and employing. Unless we have an an emergency entry based suspect actions we are planning our operation with tactics that are court defensible based on articulable facts. The Incident Commander will make his decision to allow planned actions of the SWAT team based on the articulable facts I used to justify the tactics that I recommend. For the most part, the actions recommended by the SWAT Commander are approved by the Incident Commander.

      • This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Jeffrey Brown.
    • #7667
      mmJacob Taylor
      Participant

      Yes. Unless exigent circumstances apply, we are very careful to follow current case law, training and department policy when making decisions about tactics used. “Slowing down” has been one the best tools we have employed when considering options. What is the priority?

    • #7737
      Anthony Kies
      Participant

      Articulable facts is the basis for our entire teams decision if the we are to be used or not. We use articulable fact that support our threat assessment and then determine if the the intel that we received will support team entry. This is obviously trumped on an exigent circumstance situation, however decision that are being made are still dependent on articulable facts that exist.

    • #7752
      mmChris Eklund
      Participant

      Whether a crisis entry or otherwise articulable facts always determine what is necessary as a response.

    • #7958
      Max Yakovlev
      Participant

      yes we do. every team member is trained to ask questions in order to gain knowledge and facts.

    • #8073
      Adam Bradford
      Participant

      Yes, our team is tested at training with multiple scenarios, developing the ability to determine articulable facts. We ensure all members are properly trained and ask certain questions to establish enough information.

    • #8326
      Jon Thompson
      Participant

      Yes, we do. Absent an exigent circumstance (such as a hostage rescue), our team follows a matrix that dictates when we will actually respond to a scene, be it a warrant or an in-progress callout. A major section of that matrix asks if there is Probable Cause to arrest or an actual arrest or search warrant that is being served. An entry into a location may be triggered by terrain ( the inability to surround the location with armor), events (an HR), or after other steps have failed (such as gas insertion with no effect). Entries are never done just for the sake of doing an entry.

    • #8348
      Jesse Laintz
      Participant

      This will look very close to the last answer. It is necessary for a tactical leader to put their thoughts in articulable facts before for making entry during any situation, as long as time allows for such thought and articulation. This includes preplanned to a M/H barricade. Do a risk assessment. Be able to put in writing why you are doing something and back it with information that is known at that time. Do not use “might dos” and “what ifs”, they will get you in trouble. Review the three considerations provided in Graham in their risk assessment; the severity of the suspected criminal activity, did suspect pose an immediate threat to officers or others, and
      is the suspect actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Do not put the suspect in any “state-created-danger”. Put these thoughts in writing and put them in the supplemental report or the AAR so they are written down.

    • #8469
      mmShawn Wilson
      Participant

      Yes. Entry is situationally dependant. Articulable facts need to be present absent exigent circumstances. Priority of Life.

    • #8489
      Thomas Carroll
      Participant

      Yes. We use the critical thinking decision-making model (PIETO) to determine if entry is necessary. Just as important I use it to explain why we won’t conduct an entry.

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.