As I mentioned yesterday, response to the Fox column from law enforcement was swift, heavy, and rather uncivil. It’s also clear that few of the respondents read the paper. The only LEO blog that has so far addressed the paper (read it here) suggests SWAT teams read it only on a know-your-enemy basis. But he also recommends it “not be taken too seriously a public policy tool.”

I did get a few civil responses from law enforcement, including one very encouraging response from the head of the San Jose SWAT team, who assure me that his team has already implemented some of the suggestions I’ve recommended, and asked for more information on my research. This isn’t all that surprising, given drug war critic, militarization critic, and now-Hoover Institution scholar Joseph McNamara was police chief of San Jose for 15 years.

But most of even the more civil and thoughtful responses still clearly hadn’t read the paper, and made some unsettling assertions. The following is a typical example:

My name is Doug, I am a Police Officer in a small town in North Central Iowa (thats the region, not the town name). Some of the statements you made in your Fox News article, I found were made with seemingly little research or understanding of how the drug culture works.

1. You mention that one tiny town had more M-16’s than they had stop lights. I find it offensive that you suggest that just because it’s a small town, their police department should be limited to M-16’s or any other rifle. A small town has the same type of problems that a big city does, just not nearly as often. All the same, as an officer, I’d like to be just as equiped as a big city officer is. I will also say that tactically, the rifle is the best weapon to have in a firefight. M-16’s are not evil.

2. You suggest that the use of SWAT teams to carry out warrants of drug users is excessive force (or something to that effect). Even if the warrant is for a posession of marijuana. You also use the term “recreational pot smokers.” That may be what the rest of the world would call them, but the warrant comes from the court. Last time I saw a warrant for posession of marijuana, it did not specify whether or not they used the drug recreationally or not. Nor did it substitute the word “marijuana” for “recreational pot smoker.”

Take for example, a small town. For the most part officers in a small town know who the drug users are. They also have an idea of what the the drug user/dealer is on or selling, either from rumors in town or from previous experience with the person. Just because a warrant comes out for a posession of marijuana, doesn’t mean that’s all they use or sell. Marijuana users as a group (for the most part) are probably not considered all that violent. But
the types of people that are into other drugs as well, can be very violent.

Now look at the big city SWAT team. Some SWAT teams are full time SWAT, they do nothing but that while on duty. They don’t know who they are dealing with, nor do they know what other kinds of drugs the wanted person is using/selling. They also don’t know if the person is going to resist (with fists or firearms).

3. You suggest that the use of SWAT teams to carry out warrants against “white collar crimes” is wrong or excessive. It seems like a lot of white collar crimianls either get off the hook, or get a slap on the hand, so I dont see a problem with giving these criminals a little scare.

4. Federal grants for drug arrests and asset forfeiture laws that make drug policing more lucrative than other types of policing offered further incentives to use SWAT teams to serve drug warrants. Forfeiture laws are designed to hurt the drug dealer/manufacturer, not to be a lucrative business as you suggest. Although seized items can be auctioned off, I don’t think the public would mind some more funding for the police departments. Especially since a lot of departments seem to be fighting for more shifts to be covered and not to have shorthanded staff.

I’m sure there was something else that I saw a problem with in your article, but I won’t remember it until I’ve hit the send button. Anyway, I am not denying that there are innocent deaths and wrong door searches. I think that it’s very unfortunate when things like that happen. I am also not opposed to the study of these searches, as long as it is done by someone that understands the law enforcement side as well, and if they don’t understand it, then they should maybe try. I thought your article was extremely one sided and you made no effort to explain, or even try to get law enforcement envolvement in your study.

I added a bit of emphasis where I found appropriate. For the record, I did consult law enforcement while researching the study, as well as criminologists, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and civilian review boards.

As for the town where police M16s outnumber stoplights, the town’s police department actually purposely mislead the federal government about the town’s crime statistics to procure more high-powered weaponry from the federal government. The town had no reported murders or rapes, and just a handful of assaults and drug arrests. The town reported a “900 percent” increase in robberies in its application for the assault weapons, neglecting to mention that the actual number went from 1 to 9 in one year, then back to 1 the next. All of this is covered in the paper.

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the rest of the email.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 24th, 2006 at 7:41 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Police Militarization. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.