Tactical, SWAT, Emergency Response Operations 2013 Decision to Use - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
tactical swat emergency response operations 2013 decision
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Tactical, SWAT, Emergency Response Operations 2013 Decision to Use - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 16, 2023 353 likes •593 views

Legal & Liability Management Tactical, SWAT, Emergency Response Operations 2013 Decision to Use the Team Subjective by supervisor Risk Assessment Matrix Scoring Issues FAIRFAX, Va. -- The family of an optometrist who was

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Legal & Liability Management

Tactical, SWAT, Emergency Response Operations 2013

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Decision to Use the Team

  • Subjective by supervisor
  • Risk Assessment Matrix
  • Scoring Issues
slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • FAIRFAX, Va. -- The family of an optometrist who was

shot and killed during a police gambling investigation has filed a multi-million dollar federal lawsuit.

  • On Tuesday, the family of Dr. Salvatore Culosi filed a

lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking $12 million in damages for "improper policies, action and inactions" by Fairfax County Police, Police Chief David Rohrer and Fairfax County SWAT Officer Deval Bullock, who fired the shot that killed Culosi.

  • The 37-year-old Culosi was killed on Jan. 24, 2006
  • utside his home as a SWAT team tried to arrest him

during a gambling probe.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

FAIRFAX CONT’D

  • Police were planning to arrest Culosi for

allegedly taking thousands of dollars in sports bets from an undercover officer.

  • The report acknowledges that Culosi - an
  • ptometrist with no criminal record - was

not a high-risk arrest.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Decision to Use the Team

Bruce v Orange County FL (11th Cir. 2007)

  • Automobile customer complains about VIN
  • Administrative search carried out with

SWAT-pointing guns etc.

  • Proper paperwork shown but no backoff
  • SWAT not a reasonable execution of

administrative warrant

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The Decision to Use the Team for Warrant Entries

DYNAMIC ENTRY Equals Heightened Use of Force

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Cases

  • Holland v. La Plata, 268 F.3d 1179 (10th

2001).

  • Ealum v. La Plata, 46 Fed.Appx. 587 (10th

2002).

  • Phillips v. James, 422 F.3d 1075 (10th

2005).

  • McCraken v. Freed, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

924 (Dist PA. 2006)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

The Plaintiff’s Brass Ring

Get the Agency on the Hook:

  • Bad Policy or Custom/Practice/No Policy
  • Bad Training
  • Poor Supervision
  • Poor Discipline
  • Poor Selection
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Training Issues

  • Conditioned Response
  • Training Accidents

– After Lunch – New Weapon Introduced – One Last Scenario – Scenario Boredom

slide-10
SLIDE 10

How Much Training

  • NTOA

– 16 Hours Part time – 25% time full time

  • Plaintiff’s use of “standards”
  • Specialty Training
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Liability in Tactical Operations

Possible Exposures

slide-12
SLIDE 12

What are the liabilities

  • Having a team…
  • Selecting the team…
  • Training the team…
  • Pre-Operation Issues…
  • The Operation…
  • The Execution of the Plan…
  • The Aftermath…
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Distraction Devices

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Area of Deployment

  • The Minneapolis City Council approved a $1 million

settlement Friday after a botched drug raid in 2010 in which an officer threw a "flash-bang" grenade into a south Minneapolis apartment burning the flesh off a woman's leg.

  • Flash grenades are intended to distract and intimidate,

not to injure people, but during the raid the device rolled under the legs of Russell, who was seated on a sofa, and exploded.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Line of Sight

  • Area of Deployment
  • Are things in movement
  • Location, Location, Location
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Fire

  • Monterey County has agreed to pay

$2.6million to the family of a Greenfield man who died in a house fire after sheriff's deputies threw a "flash-bang" grenade through his window

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Tactical Considerations with Innocent 3rd Parties Presence

  • Boyd v. Benton County

– Flash Bang used notwithstanding police knowledge of several innocent parties sleeping in residence where high-risk entry was taking place – Unreasonable to throw it “blind” into room where innocent persons may be – BUT QI

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Mass Demonstration

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Remember Arrest and Use of Force Does not Change during Demonstration

  • Graham three part test
  • Proper Announcement/Warning before

Enforcement Action

  • Opportunity to comply
  • Must meet both 1st and 4th not just 4th
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Home Issues

  • Stanton v. Sims
  • US v. Bailey

A new analysis:

  • U.S. v. Jones
  • Jardines v. Florida
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Doing Damage

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Cook v. Gibbons, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37254 (E.Dist. Arkansas 2005)

  • Case involved a meth operation and warrant
  • No one was home when warrant served
  • “Rambo-Style” entry and search done
  • Allegation-Excessive Damage
  • Even with good warrant, liability may attach for

(unreasonable) excessive damage

slide-23
SLIDE 23

The Barricaded Subject