Have you seen any evidence of agencies’ moving away from having dedicated/organized SWAT teams? Have any agencies disbanded such teams or if there was consideration of having one, someone decided not to?

During a discussion I had with a senior member of another agency today, he said that it seemed to him that teams per se were going out of style and that the emphasis was training and equipping individual officers to respond effectively to things like active killer incidents.

I’m not, BTW, referring to the trend for several years now of training and conditioning officers to make solo responses if necessary. It’s a somewhat different philosophy that there’s no need to have dedicated teams if individual officers are given the training and equipment like helmets, rifle rated body armor, and rifles because in most incidents there won’t be time to assemble a team for response. And if there is, it can be made up of whatever such individuals are available.

Thanks for all responses.

Not where I work. We have, however, seen five agencies turn four teams into two in the last few years, though, which I think is logical. I think there is also massive inconsistency between teams in standards, training, tactics, gear, and use.

There has definitely been a push in my career to better equip the individual patrol officer. Plate carriers, shields, breaching tools, and to some extent, even rifles were relatively uncommon for patrol guys around where I work when I started (2003), but all of that stuff is relatively common now.

Yes, my agency had its own SWAT team for over 20 years and then got rid of it for financial reasons. It was one part of a countywide shared services team. The regular callouts from towns that did not have a team or contribute to ours were a drain on resources. There was also a valid concern about liability. Training costs were also high in ammunition and hours. All the towns disbanded their teams and now rely upon the State Police for callouts. They consider it a "free" service.

SWAT teams are for much more than active shooters.

They are the 911 for cops.

Most officers do not have the training/equipment/certifications needed to accomplish the objectives of a SWAT team.

Explosive breaches, certified Negotiators, armored vehicles, hundreds of hours of entry training together as a team, etc. It's just not the same as even the most gung-ho patrol officer with hard plates and a rifle.

Their commanders/supervisors also have more experience/training in the tactical situations and will have the knowledge to make better decisions even than non-SWAT command staff.


I do think that all patrol level officers should have access to a rifle, less-lethal devices like 40mm, etc., extensive training in breaching and entries...but they will never replace a well-trained SWAT unit.

The agency that I retired from 19 years ago has had a team for nearly 40 years. The department is mid-sized with about 160 sworn officers in a city of about 90,000. We were fortunate to have the resources to equip and sustain a team over the years. Three of the last four chiefs were SWAT officers which helps.

I was team commander for 7 years. If anything, the team has grown over the past 20 years with addition of firefighter/paramedics to the team. Team members are not full time SWAT-they are spread all over the department and carry their weapons and gear in their department issued vehicles so there are always at least a few on duty, which is common practice among the numerous agencies in that area. Those guys provide a lot of training and depth to the patrol force through osmosis. They train a couple days per month, and the training and teamwork benefits the entire department. Many of them are trainers themselves.

My department's team has competed in the SWAT Roundup in Orlando since the first Roundup and most of the teams that compete are part-time teams.

SWAT trained officers on the street often can handle a situation without a full callout, which is the most costly aspect of having a team due to overtime. Most agencies cannot afford a full time standing team when manpower on the street is always short. Teams in a region that train together build relationships and commonalities that allow them to provide mutual aid manpower in major incidents.

There is no such thing as cheap training for tactical events and there is no substitute for team training. You either have the capability available, or you don't.

The biggest issue with any dedicated team be it ESU, Dive teams or whatever is the resources to train the members sufficiently. Any agency can buy the gear and start up the unit. But having quality people who can provide the training needed and the budget is another matter. Many agencies don't have the facilities to properly train nor can they travel the distances needed to find them.

Here in the seacoast area of NH the agencies have a mutual aid cooperative effort that seems to work well. Smaller departments can have one or two involved in the training which is much more cost effective.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
SWAT teams are for much more than active shooters.

In fact, SWAT isn't for active shooters at all. Active shooter situations will be over long before SWAT gets the call out, arrives, suits up, makes a plan, etc.

Active shooters have to be handled by the initial arriving patrol officers. Hence the emphasis now on active shooter response tactics and training for individual patrol officers.

But that's in addition to SWAT, not in place of it. SWAT is for other different situations, like barricaded/hostage scenarios or high risk warrant service, that allow for more planning and preparation.

There's a need for both. It's not an either/or situation.


Around here, there's been no change lately. But that is most likely because there's a reasonable number of teams for the size of the area already. (Some of these dinky little towns around the country that you heard about starting their own SWAT teams back in the 2000s when Homeland Security grant money was freely flowing are totally unnecessary, and that would probably be the source of many of the teams that are now disbanding.)

However, they did consolidate the two bomb squads in the area down to just one, several years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
SWAT teams are for much more than active shooters.

In fact, SWAT isn't for active shooters at all. Active shooter situations will be over long before SWAT gets the call out, arrives, suits up, makes a plan, etc.

Active shooters have to be handled by the initial arriving patrol officers. Hence the emphasis now on active shooter response tactics and training for patrol.

But that's in addition to SWAT, not in place of it. SWAT is for other different situations, like barricaded/hostage scenarios or high risk warrant service, that allow for more planning and preparation.

There's a need for both. It's not an either/or situation.

Good point.

At my agency, there's basically three levels. Regular patrol officers that may or may not have any idea what they are doing (for example, my shift of 21 has about 18 that have less than 2 years of experience). These guys will make entry if absolutely necessary to save a life. Often times I have to tell them to do it because they aren't sure of themselves. It's not pretty. I carry the entry tools in the supervisor vehicle and am expected to be there to lead/give direction if shit is going south.

Next level is officers who are on street crimes teams and have High Risk Warrant school/certifications. They practice together monthly and serve search warrants frequently. (There are a handful of High Risk Warrant-trained officers that aren't on these teams but are on regular patrol--I think I have two). These are usually officers with more time on and have been selected for these units (this is what I used to be).

Then you have SWAT. Ours, like most others, are generally patrol officers who are part-time SWAT. They respond in the normal course of their duties and if a full scale SWAT callout is needed, they initiate it at the request of the on-scene supervisor. They will also serve the higher risk-high risk search warrants, but it's got to be pretty bad before they will take it rather than the street teams. Unfortunately, I don't have any SWAT officers on my shift, and I think there is only one in our entire division, and he is about to retire. If I have to request SWAT, it'll be 10-20+ minutes before even an on-duty SWAT officer can get to my scene.

I know this and I plan accordingly. I realize that when shit goes south for us (and it does all too often) we are on our own for the first 10-15 minutes, due to how large our division is and how short our city's staffing is. When I call for SWAT that means it's a big damn shitshow.

Albuquerque PD still has a swat team. Took care of barricaded bad guy the other day, according to local news story.

I think I'd say some of the focus has shifted recently and some stuff that was swat has become patrol. As well patrol is getting better trained on shields active shooter response and tac med. Swat still has a real purpose but it depends on how big of an area you are looking at and how many stakeholders you have with resources in what areas. As well since patrol is getting more training and is more likely to actually arrive on all scenes unless someone starts shooting next to a bearcat, I think there is some temptation from the admin types to make Swiss army cops and just have patrol take a bite out of things that would be better handled by a real team. Some stuff shouldn't be handled by patrol and I think a very strong argument could be made against patrol doing barricaded suspects, high risk warrants, hostage rescue and exec protect if that's not its own separate animal.

Sadly as in all policing, politics and budget are the biggest factors in this and most questions.

Principal reason usually revolve around, lack of resources, funding and personal.

With each shift desperate for more bodies, having a full-time team on-standby requires a lot of slots; guys on leave, injury or, away for other duty eliminates more bodies. Funding is always an issue, not just for gear but, having enough payroll for call-outs that bleed into overtime. Resources are always lacking, having a separate range from the rest of the department along with shoot-houses and scenario structures are always desired. Appropriate facilities for lockers/showers, equipment cages, maintenance areas, vehicles and vehicle maintenance not to mention a support infrastructure, all takes up a lot of resources.

We have about 100 different PDs in Allegheny County PA. Some areas are less than a sq mile. Many depts. are part of larger community groups called COGs (council of govts). These COGs are bringing officers from the participating depts together and are creating their own SWAT teams.

Many gang task forces use officers from various agencies. The idea seems to work well, especially smaller agencies without the budgets and manpower.

Yep. Our Drug Task Force draws officers from numerous agencies within a single Judicial District, so each agency doesn't have to staff their own narcotics division.

Same with most of the SWAT/ERT units in the area... Multiple agencies contribute.

I have been in the LE special operations community since about 1996. I got my start on one of those small town teams that should not have existed. It was way under funded, under staffed, and under trained. By what I know now of liability reduction, anyone who engages in that business in the political and social climate we are in today is an idiot. If my current agency gave similar support (or more likely lack there of), I'd gladly sit on the sidelines and watch the show.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Not every town needs a SWAT team. But, every town needs access to one. And to the topic of this thread, patrol officers getting more training in active shooter do not take the place of a properly trained and equipped SWAT team. Even with the better equipment and more active shooter tactics training, the majority just don't have the marksmanship skills to cut it in a SWAT role. Active shooter is a much different beast. You go to the sound of gunfire, you get as close to the shooter as you can, and unless he/she makes an overt act for you not to shoot them, you shoot them. And in most areas that have a SWAT team, you have a SWAT guy on scene pretty quick that will sort of take charge in the response. The Marshall County active shooter my agency had 8 SWAT guys there within the first 20 minutes. Please understand what I am saying, you don't wait on SWAT to go in, but it seems to work out in most cases that you get a SWAT guy there that already on patrol pretty quick. And the patrol guys naturally look to them for guidance.

I have seen some agencies in Kentucky dump their teams in recent years. Each and every time, it is due to an event. Something happened. One that comes to mind was an event that happened out east where a SWAT officer was shot in the back and paralyzed permanently. By one of his team mates. To add insult to injury, he was not wearing plates on that particular assignment due to the command staff wanting them to look less "aggressive", whatever that means. Had he have been wearing plates, he probably would have escaped serious injury. The assignment? Oh, they were conducting a car take down on a certified bad dude. The real deal. Violent Bank Robber from Florida that died shooting it out on the side of the interstate.

At least three of the officers on the scene had zero training in taking down cars. One had graduated from the basic SWAT school a month earlier.

Everybody wants to be a team guy, nobody wants to spend the money to be one. Incidents like this aren't isolated.

I don't say this to disparage the guys that get out and try to do the right thing, for the right reasons. There is just so much liability. I don't say this to claim how cool I am. As I said, if I wasn't being properly supported, I wouldn't do it.

The problem with "regional" teams in my opinion is everybody wants to be in charge. While it has been stated a few times in this thread that there are no standards that are adhered to in teams, hell, there are few standards that are adhered to agency to agency. You can have two agencies within 10 blocks of one another. One is a genuine get-out-and-be-the-police kind of agency, and the other is worried more about playing pick up basketball in the hood because it looks reeeeaaaaallllllllyyyyyyy good on the FB page. Care to guess which agency the law abiding public really prefer?

This divide in basic policing compounds the regional SWAT problem, and piles the work back on the State Police or larger metro area teams. Our state police have one full time team stationed four hours from here. It consists of 15 guys. That's it. They run about 140 operations per year. Metro area teams usually go out to rural areas at the request of mutual aid, but it robs from the already limited money their agency puts into it for OT, equipment, etc.

There are a few teams left standing since the 90's. I'm kinda glad.

Thanks, jljones, and the rest for your informative comments.

I'm no L.E.O. but was in a seminar last year and was told by one that the new emphasis with an active shooter situation is first there first in.... you don't wait for back up or a supervisor.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I'm no L.E.O. but was in a seminar last year and was told by one that the new emphasis with an active shooter situation is first there first in.... you don't wait for back up or a supervisor.

That actually has been recognized and been the common law enforcement philosophy ever since the aftermath of the Columbine High School incident 20 years ago. I literally laughed out loud when I learned that former AG Eric Holder pronounced it as a new policy in the last year or so of his time in office. So yes, most officers are taught to not wait for SWAT in an active killing situation, but it is very far from new. That is why there was such heavy criticism of the deputies in the Parkland incident. The first on scene were told to wait outside the school while officers from another jurisdiction ran past them.

There wasn’t much criticism of how Columbine was handled by the patrol officers on scene because it was recognized that waiting for SWAT was the policy at the time. By the time of the Parkland incident, though, no one had, or should have had, that excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I'm no L.E.O. but was in a seminar last year and was told by one that the new emphasis with an active shooter situation is first there first in.... you don't wait for back up or a supervisor.

Yep, the latest protocol is "Stop the killing, stop the dying".

For active shooter incidents, we in patrol go right in.

We have a regional swat unit made up from members of seven different departments.

We just used them two days ago for three barricaded suspects.