SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids

May 18, 2010

SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids

A commenter on this Show-Me Daily post about SWAT raids wondered how much worse military raids in Afghanistan might be compared to SWAT raids in this country. An Army officer writing to Radley Balko suggests that it is actually easier to obtain permission for a SWAT raid in America than a military raid in a war zone like Afghanistan, and that SWAT teams here use more aggressive tactics:

I am a US Army officer, currently serving in Afghanistan. My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan.

For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods. The general can be pretty tough to convince, too. (I’m a staff liason, and one of my jobs is to present these briefings to obtain the required permission.)

Generally, our troops, including the special ops guys, use what we call “cordon and knock”: they set up a perimeter around the target location to keep people from moving in or out,and then announce their presence and give the target an opportunity to surrender. In the majority of cases, even if the perimeter is established at night, the call out or knock on the gate doesn’t happen until after the sun comes up.

Oh, and all of the bad guys we’re going after are closely tied to killing and maiming people.

What might be amazing to American cops is that the vast majority of our targets surrender when called out.

I don’t have a clear picture of the resources available to most police departments, but even so, I don’t see any reason why they can’t use similar methods.

I can’t personally vouch for anything this officer claims about Army protocol, but if what he claims is true, it’s very disturbing.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

12 Comments »

I believe the local police department has to get special permission from a judge who must be convinced by available evidence that the person they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods, right?

Also, wouldn’t American SWAT forces have different objectives than ones in Afghanistan? Like catch the bad guy with the drugs before he has a chance to flush them down the toilet?

Comment by DaveG — May 18, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.
A judge must sign off on all warrants, but far too many serve as a rubber stamp. This shouldn’t be surprising considering that judges cannot be held personally liable for the warrants they issue. If judges could be sued whenever they issued a warrant for the wrong location or using too much force, I think we’d likely see fewer mistakes made.

You are also certainly correct that SWAT raids in America have a different objective from military raids in Afghanistan, but if the only way to achieve the former objective is by using tactics more aggressive than those used by soldiers in a war zone, it might be time to rethink the objective.

Comment by John Payne — May 19, 2010 @ 11:48 a.m.
I think this is an excellent comparison to make because it starkly illustrates the divergence between domestic law enforcement practices and what is reasonable and effective.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 19, 2010 @ 9:39 p.m.
Allowing judges to be held personally liable is a terrible idea. The department can be sued in cases of police mistakes. That is all you need here. You can’t really think that a judge should be sued in a personal capacity because the cops on the ground have made an error in determining how much force to use.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 10:26 a.m.
What if I make a professional misconduct claim? Hard to prove, certainly, but with a valid claim and sufficient evidence, why should qualified immunity provide judges with legal cover for rubberstamping search warrants?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 20, 2010 @ 11:23 a.m.
Also, suing the department really provides little incentive to get it right. Any damages will be paid out of tax dollars, not from the person responsible. Furthermore, I’m not saying sue judges when police make a decision to use too much force, but if a judge authorizes a warrant that uses too much force or on the wrong house.

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 11:45 a.m.
A while back – probably a decade or so – I was at McGurk’s and I saw my parents there with friends of theirs. One of their friends was a judge, and a short time after I joined them some cops showed up at McGurk’s with a warrant they needed her to sign. She explained that there is always at least one judge on duty 24/7 to sign off on things like this in the city of St. Louis. She was on duty that night, so she had to let the department know where she would be at all times. (If this is sounding familiar to you movie buffs, think of how the Corleone family found out where the Turk and his bodyguard, the Seargant, were going to meet Michael for their dinner meeting that night.) Anyway, I don’t recall how long she reviewed the documents before signing off on them, but what would you have had her do other than making sure everything looked in order and then signing? Should she have left the restaurant to go personally inspect the crack house or unlicensed snow cone stand they were about to raid? Should she have accompanied the cops on the raid or arrest to make certain they didn’t use too much force? Of course not. All they can do is make sure the details are there and then trust the cops to have made the right call. That is how it works in reality in a big, high-crime city like St. Louis.

I agree with John on most of the points he is making on this issue, but holding judges personally liable – when victims of mistakes are perfectly free to sue the police department or city to recover damages – is a bad idea.

In cases where you can prove a judge acted recklessly, a professional misconduct claim may indeed be a worthwhile avenue of recourse.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 12:06 p.m.
I’m not saying that only the judge should be held accountable, but they should have some skin in the game otherwise they have little incentive to be anything other than a rubber stamp on the police, and in that case why not just let the police sign their own warrants?

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.
In theory, the judge is accountable to the voters, either via direct election or retention votes, here in Missouri. They are also subject to impeachment for gross violations of duty.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 5:04 p.m.
It may be sad to say but elections are a pretty weak check on a person’s power. They are infrequent and many voters are rationally ignorant of the issues.

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 5:46 p.m.
[...] internal investigation into the SWAT raid of Jonathan Whitworth’s home (which I have also covered here, here, here, and here) has cleared all the officers involved of any wrongdoing. Given my [...]

Pingback by Columbia SWAT Officers Cleared « Rough Ol' Boy — May 21, 2010 @ 9:42 p.m.
[...] SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids Show Me Daily, Missouri Public Policy [...]

Pingback by SWAT RAIDS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES « MENTAL PINPRICKS — June 1, 2011 @ 4:12 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

I believe the local police department has to get special permission from a judge who must be convinced by available evidence that the person they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods, right?

Also, wouldn’t American SWAT forces have different objectives than ones in Afghanistan? Like catch the bad guy with the drugs before he has a chance to flush them down the toilet?

Comment by DaveG — May 18, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.

A judge must sign off on all warrants, but far too many serve as a rubber stamp. This shouldn’t be surprising considering that judges cannot be held personally liable for the warrants they issue. If judges could be sued whenever they issued a warrant for the wrong location or using too much force, I think we’d likely see fewer mistakes made.

You are also certainly correct that SWAT raids in America have a different objective from military raids in Afghanistan, but if the only way to achieve the former objective is by using tactics more aggressive than those used by soldiers in a war zone, it might be time to rethink the objective.

Comment by John Payne — May 19, 2010 @ 11:48 a.m.

I think this is an excellent comparison to make because it starkly illustrates the divergence between domestic law enforcement practices and what is reasonable and effective.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 19, 2010 @ 9:39 p.m.

Allowing judges to be held personally liable is a terrible idea. The department can be sued in cases of police mistakes. That is all you need here. You can’t really think that a judge should be sued in a personal capacity because the cops on the ground have made an error in determining how much force to use.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 10:26 a.m.

What if I make a professional misconduct claim? Hard to prove, certainly, but with a valid claim and sufficient evidence, why should qualified immunity provide judges with legal cover for rubberstamping search warrants?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 20, 2010 @ 11:23 a.m.

Also, suing the department really provides little incentive to get it right. Any damages will be paid out of tax dollars, not from the person responsible. Furthermore, I’m not saying sue judges when police make a decision to use too much force, but if a judge authorizes a warrant that uses too much force or on the wrong house.

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 11:45 a.m.

A while back – probably a decade or so – I was at McGurk’s and I saw my parents there with friends of theirs. One of their friends was a judge, and a short time after I joined them some cops showed up at McGurk’s with a warrant they needed her to sign. She explained that there is always at least one judge on duty 24/7 to sign off on things like this in the city of St. Louis. She was on duty that night, so she had to let the department know where she would be at all times. (If this is sounding familiar to you movie buffs, think of how the Corleone family found out where the Turk and his bodyguard, the Seargant, were going to meet Michael for their dinner meeting that night.) Anyway, I don’t recall how long she reviewed the documents before signing off on them, but what would you have had her do other than making sure everything looked in order and then signing? Should she have left the restaurant to go personally inspect the crack house or unlicensed snow cone stand they were about to raid? Should she have accompanied the cops on the raid or arrest to make certain they didn’t use too much force? Of course not. All they can do is make sure the details are there and then trust the cops to have made the right call. That is how it works in reality in a big, high-crime city like St. Louis.

I agree with John on most of the points he is making on this issue, but holding judges personally liable – when victims of mistakes are perfectly free to sue the police department or city to recover damages – is a bad idea.

In cases where you can prove a judge acted recklessly, a professional misconduct claim may indeed be a worthwhile avenue of recourse.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 12:06 p.m.

I’m not saying that only the judge should be held accountable, but they should have some skin in the game otherwise they have little incentive to be anything other than a rubber stamp on the police, and in that case why not just let the police sign their own warrants?

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.

In theory, the judge is accountable to the voters, either via direct election or retention votes, here in Missouri. They are also subject to impeachment for gross violations of duty.

Comment by David Stokes — May 20, 2010 @ 5:04 p.m.

It may be sad to say but elections are a pretty weak check on a person’s power. They are infrequent and many voters are rationally ignorant of the issues.

Comment by John Payne — May 20, 2010 @ 5:46 p.m.

[...] internal investigation into the SWAT raid of Jonathan Whitworth’s home (which I have also covered here, here, here, and here) has cleared all the officers involved of any wrongdoing. Given my [...]

Pingback by Columbia SWAT Officers Cleared « Rough Ol' Boy — May 21, 2010 @ 9:42 p.m.

[...] SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids Show Me Daily, Missouri Public Policy [...]

Pingback by SWAT RAIDS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES « MENTAL PINPRICKS — June 1, 2011 @ 4:12 p.m.

May 18, 2010