Dona Ana County SWAT Team Undermined by Unusual Ground Rules

Internal reports and other sources charge that Undersheriff Ken Roberts endangered lives by limiting a SWAT team's tactics January 18^th. “That undersheriff is going to get someone killed,” one said.” Several said SWAT team members were “furious.”

A dangerous armed fugitive, Sergio Ayala, wanted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, was inside a house in Vado. A judge issued a search warrant. Deputies suggested calling out the SWAT Team.

Roberts limited the team to eight deputies and limited tactics. Internal reports criticize these decisions. “We as a team failed to serve the public and place their safety above that of a wanted violent felon,” concludes one.

An “After Action Report” by the SWAT Team commander, dated after criticism surfaced, alleges deputies were uncertain Ayala was in the house; but according to supplemental reports and a sworn statement to a Judge, who “COMMANDED” them to search the place and seize Ayala if they could, they were certain.

The commander's initial “Incident Supplement” had noted that a female witness who'd confirmed Ayala was inside “changed her story” and said that “Mr. Ayala ran outside through the front door” at a time when deputies “had containment on the residence and nobody ran out of the front door.”

I'm no expert. Because local officers can't talk on the record, or might be biased, I consulted a top national expert, NM court-recognized Don Whitson. Normally, DASO follows National Tactical Officers Association guidelines. [See the NTOA website]

Whitson said that generally, sending just eight people when more are available is “outrageous and patently unsafe,” as is ignoring “life-saving tools they are trained on.” Except in very limited circumstances, twenty is standard. SWAT situations involve too many different roles, tasks, and contingencies.

Roberts let the team toss in a “throw-phone” to facilitate negotiations. Ayala didn't pick it up and ignored orders to come out. The team spent seven hours there. “The community was held in virtual lockdown.” Roberts stuck by his limitations. He reportedly gave “specific orders not to cause any property damage and restricted the team of what tools could or could not be used.” Eventually the team left, unhappy to leave Ayala at large.

Using progressive tactics saves lives – of officers, neighbors, and even suspects. If the suspect ignores throw-phones and verbal commands, robots can be sent in, locating the suspect without endangering officers. Police can explode a “flash-bang diversionary device,” creating a humongous noise and a blinding light. They can create a “tactical dilemma” by exploding the FBDD out front while breaching a door in the back. That confuses the suspect and says, “we have what we need to bring you out, preferably without injuring you.” Tear-gas can be tossed in. Windows can be broken, helping locate the suspect without unnecessary risk. Eventually, a force can enter the house and find the suspect.

Whitson said that in all his years of litigation consulting, he's “never heard a reasonable explanation” for ignoring standard steps. He added that had someone been injured under these circumstances, he'd have no hesitation saying that the commander would be fully liable.

I tried to ask Roberts why. So far, no response.

A State Police SWAT team captured Ayala in Anthony a week later. A team member said, “Just as we were making our approach he went mobile in a vehicle. There was a short pursuit, and then a very short foot pursuit, and he was taken into custody without incident.”

I asked how many men they'd taken. He answered 22. I noted that the DASO Undersheriff had authorized only eight. “It's hard to do the job with only eight people,” he replied.

In that week, Ayala allegedly committed additional crimes, including forcible imprisonment. He didn't shoot or kill anyone, so far as we know; but he could have.

                                                                -30-

        

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 5 February 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG-TV's.  I invite comments and criticism -- and contacts from others at DASO who agree or disagree with anything I've written in this column or the initial column in the series, Problems Again at Dona Ana County's Sheriff's Department.  I'm interested in hearing from everyone with knowledge and from folks with a wide variety of opinions.] 

[Sadly, Sheriff Enrique Vigil and Undersheriff Ken Roberts have declined to answer any of my questions on these matters.  Vigil has, however, penned a rebuttal to last week's column, and it appears near my column in today's Sun-News.  I urge interested citizens to read it.  I'll respond in a blog post within the next couple of days, but not in a Sun-News column. For now, I'll just note that it isn't Sheriff Vigil against me:  I agree with the Sheriff on many things, including better pay for DASO law-enforcement folks, some de-emphasis of traffic citations, and certainly getting rid of quotas; but if what I'm hearing about his cronyism and favoritism has any merit, as it appears to, we differ on that.  

Really, it's Sheriff Vigil and Undersheriff Vigil against some number of present and former DASO law-enforcement personnel.  It seems to be fairly widespread, but Vigil and Roberts would say it's a few malcontents or people who weren't performing well. Many of those complain mostly of Roberts, and believe that if they could talk to the Sheriff he'd do the right thing; "I'm hearing complaints mostly about the Undersheriff now, not the Sheriff," said one source; and there's a believe that Vigil could still save his tenure by jettisoning Roberts; but some things preceded Roberts and/or could not have been ordered by him.]

[Apparently Roberts was briefly on the SWAT Team a while back. He reportedly couldn't meet physical standards. Leader Armando Gonzales warned then removed Roberts. That's common sense. If the physical standards require someone to get over four six-foot fences in 20 seconds, Roberts could endanger his partner. If the partner gets there on time, s/he arrives alone. 

Interestingly, when Roberts became Undersheriff, Gonzales, who'd been running the training department well, was banished to patrol, for reasons unclear. Gonzales retired.]

[For those particularly interested in the SWAT standards and policies, the National Tactical Officers' Association standards and a study on them are available at https://ntoa.org/
One of the more interesting results of a study done by or for the NTOA is that agencies with SWAT teams indicate that they are eight times more likely to use less-lethal solutions than lethal force when they call out the SWAT Team.  That is, without the SWAT Team callout, police are eight times more likely to use lethal force.  Presumably a large and well-trained SWAT Team, using the kinds of progressive tactics recommended by the experts, intimidates a suspect into surrendering or has the capacity to locate then disable and/or capture the suspect without using lethal force.
Also of interest is Mr. Whitson's website.]

Use of Force

We're all shocked by the murder of Jose Chavez, one of Hatch's finest. I share the community's sadness for him and his family and anger at the killers. Let's each donate what we can to the fund to help educate his daughters.

A week earlier I attended DASO's “Use of Force” training session. Its major purpose is to educate citizens on what the cop really faces on the street, and why some shootings that sound like police brutality may be reasonable responses to situations. 

Bill McCamley (right) plays a police officer being attacked by "knife-wielding maniac" -- but Detective Larry Louick (back to camera) takes advantage of Bills concentration on the attacker to launch a surprise attack of his own, with a gun

 

We learned how long it takes an assailant with a knife to reach you if you don't shoot first; why a cop shooting someone in the back is not necessarily an unjustified shooting; and the almost insurmountable advantage a driver in a routine traffic stop has if s/he wants to shoot you.

I played a deputy making a routine traffic stop. A DASO officer played the motorist. My instructions were to ask for his license, but draw and fire if he pulled a gun. I have pretty quick reflexes, but I got killed before I could draw. Then we tried it with my gun already drawn. Not pointed at the driver, because you don't point a gun at someone before there's a reason to. But the driver knew what he was going to do and when. He shot me three times before I could point my gun at him.

 

I thought of this when I first heard about Officer Chavez. The session taught us vividly what a sitting duck a police officer is for a motorist's surprise attack. That's a fact everyone should keep in mind.

This excellent session was run by Major Brent Barlow and Detective Larry Louick.

Often folks attending believe that whatever a police officer does is inherently right. This one was different: representatives of CAFé, pastors working with CAFé, journalist Heath Haussamen, a black history professor, Rep. Bill McCamley, and me. People receptive (I hope) to the deputies' message, but with serious questions about how so many ethnic minorities get killed by cops.

I think the detectives – who were open to dialogue, not just intent on explaining everything to us – learned a little too. Everyone seemed to find the session useful.

What struck me was how desperately we need similar frank but civil dialogues, between people with strong opinions and a willingness to listen.

The civilian population needs a better understanding of the ugliness and danger of the police officer's world. For police dealing with that world, better knowledge of the communities they serve could help save lives, including their own. 

 

In one sense, the relationship between police officers and ethnic-minority or low-income populations is like a marriage, in which communication is essential. We're all stuck with each other. Neither poverty nor prejudices nor police are going to disappear any time soon. We all have different backgrounds, outlooks, and priorities. Friction, even some tragedies, may be unavoidable; but enhanced communication can only help.

Sarah Silva of CAFé called the session “a really good event” that contributed to “building relationships and trying to understand each others' perspectives.” Of the officers who ran it, she said, “even if they didn't agree, they listened.” The Las Cruces Police Chief is reportedly open to similar sessions, and possibly an implicit bias session. 

 

No dialogues or sensitivity training would have saved Officer Chavez. The men he stopped had killed before and were ready to kill him instantly to escape. Critics of the police would do well to reflect on his death.

But many killings seem to be tragic mistakes. Officers in fear of their lives, for reasons both sound and unsound, shoot young black men who pose no threat. Angry, frustrated young black men assassinate innocent police officers. Increasing mutual understanding isn't just a nice idea. It's a survival mechanism, for police and civilians – and society.

                                              -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, 21 August 2016, and is also posted on the newspaper's website and the KRWG-TV website.]

[It's in the column, but I want to make it real clear that I don't mean to suggest that the killing of Officer Chavez was related in any way to the kind of cultural misunderstandings, semi-conscious biases, and the like discussed in much of the column.   It was plain murder.  However, it was a grim and tragic illustration of the lesson the DASO officers were trying to teach regarding the dangers of even the most routine police calls.]

[Someone suggested that I mention also the politicization of this tragedy by Governor Martinez, who's now calling for re-institution of the death penalty in New Mexico.   I notice that Walt Rubel in 
his column this morning calls it  "an obvious and shameful attempt to make political hay of the tragic shooting death of Hatch Police Officer Jose Chavez," which sounds about right.  Like Walt, I oppose that effort because the courts convict too many innocent people of capital crimes, and because the burden of those wrongful convictions falls disproportionately on poor people who can't afford top-notch defense lawyers.  But her timing is impeccable!  I feel like flipping the switch on Chavez's killer myself.  I guess I'm not so Buddhist as I should be.  I feel that way; but the reasons to avoid the death penalty remain good.  It might feel satisfying to see the State kill Chavez's killer; but it would not honor him to use his death as the mechanism to revive a system that killed too many people turned out not to be guilty.]