FBINAA Associate Magazine Q2.2021

Continued from "Self-Deployment", on page 12

1. Have I been formally or informally asked to respond, am I truly needed? 2. Will my response positively impact the situation? 3. What are the potential drawbacks/negative effects of my response? 4. What are the potential legalities? 5. Would I normally be authorized to respond? Although, as discussed, best intentions on the part of the officer(s) are usually the motivation to self-deploy, desire to assist should not dominate the thought process of asking these important questions. In short, unless the answers to the above questions were completely eclipsing favoring response, officers should wait for official deployment notification rather than self- deploying to an incident. COMMAND LEADER'S RISK MANAGEMENT CHECKLIST Similarly, to the ideology of a decisional framework for of- ficers, command leaders must evaluate the current and potential risks to “unrequested resources” with self-deployment. Com- mand leaders should continually evaluate their departmental position on critical risk related policies concerning “self-deploy- ment” action(s), as noted by FEMA (2017): 1. Does the response “create additional supervisory, logistical, and safety needs? 2. Depletes the resources needed to provide continued services to their home community? 3. Complicates resource tracking and accountability? 4. Interferes with the access of formally requested resources?” 5. Significantly increases overall safety risks and legal liabilities? As indicated, either individually or collectively, these risk areas can pose significant supervisory challenges, administrative issues as well as civil liability exposures. Thus, command leader- ship must take decisive action in creating clear policies, formal procedures and require continual training of officers. All steps should be carefully administratively reviewed, considered, and implemented to reduce overall liability. CONCLUSION The honored profession of law enforcement is unlike any other profession. Officers are routinely placed in uncertain, hazardous situations and are expected to make good decisions in literally split seconds. We know that basic law enforcement training academies rightly motivate officers to think indepen- dently, make good choices based on training, laws, and often having to handle situations on their own. Thus, as they work on the frontline throughout our nation, officers are dedicated to both perform the task assigned to them and self-initiate active patrol in the interest of public safety. Customarily, agencies measure and evaluate officers based on many criteria, including self-initiated field activity. However, there is a vast difference between self-initiated activity and self-deployment. Law Enforce- ment leaders across the country, cognizant of the fine balance between these actions, must act to develop policies, supportive training, while reviewing and documenting incidents of unneces- sary self-deployment. About the Authors: Special Agent Anthony Giaimo , M.S., (Session 241) is a Past President and Vice President of the Eastern Pennsylvania FBI NA Chapter and Chief of Police and Emergency Management Coordinator (Ret. - Tredyffrin Township

Continued from "Self-Deployment", on page 13 an officer(s) demonstrates a readiness and the ability to be productive in varying law enforcement activities, criminal inter- diction, and other proactive crime preventions and community relations activities by conducting community contacts when not answering calls for service or on a reactive response.” Thus, this methodology would include activities such as traffic stops, field investigations, pedestrian, and suspicious person encounters. THE PARADOXICAL DILEMMA OF SELF-DEPLOYMENT In field of law enforcement, we build leaders throughout our ranks. Officers are trained and encouraged to be active thinkers, problem solvers, self-motivated and self-directed for most all their duty days as they patrol our towns and cities. Additionally, these first line leaders, contrary to some opinions, are extremely motivated to solve problems and essentially be a shining light in the quest save others from peril. In Washington, D. C., for example, at the “Peace Officers’ Memorial features two curving, 304-foot-long blue-gray marble walls. Carved on these walls are the names of more than 21,000 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, dating back to the first known death in 1786.” (LEOM, 2020) These frontline leaders are everyday heroes trying their best to do what is right in a very complicated world. Many command leaders struggle with what they consider to be paradoxical instances where, as aforementioned, the officer(s) are encouraged to think, and act independently yet must understand the crucial difference between self-initiated ac- tivity and self-deployment. Without well-defined agency policies and regulations, self-deployment can create significant supervi- sory leadership distractions as well as perplexing command and control issues. OFFICERS' GUDE TO SELF-DEPLOYMENT As we know from our study of the National Incident Man- agement System (NIMS), the stated position of FEMA regarding “Unrequested Resources” is quite specific. In the NIMS directive it notes that, “during incidents, responders sometimes come to an incident area without being requested. Such personnel converging on a site, commonly referred to as self-dispatching or self-deploying, may interfere with incident management and place an extra logistical and management burden on an already stressed system.” (FEMA, 2017) Command leadership must strive to provide officers with a decisional framework and or matrix to evaluate any potential actions on their part. Officers, for instance, can “self-check” their awareness and avoid being emotional hijacked to impulsively self-deploy by asking themselves just a few simple questions. without the proper authorization or request from command or dispatch. These actions may be outside normal duty assign- ments as well as legal jurisdictions. As defined, self-deployment is significantly different from request- ed responses to calls for service or proactive law enforcement, thereby posing considerable situational dangers and command challenges. OPERATIONAL SELF-INITIATED POLICING In contrast to “Self-Deployment”, “Operational Self-Initiated Policing” occurs from proactive patrolling and is a function per- formed by officers in their jurisdiction while on duty. Standards in agencies across our country may define this activity as: “when

F B I N A A . O R G | A P R I L / J U N E 2 0 2 1

continued on page 32

13