|
|
| Is your agency prepared for its SERT liability? |
| By Joseph L. Garcia |
| Published: 11/08/2002 |
|
Every agency must be reasonably prepared for crisis situations. This is increasingly important in the era of rising populations, increasingly younger and more violent inmates, and the prevailing litigious climate. Whether in public or private institutions, corrections professionals must prepare themselves and their staff for life threatening situations. The corrections professionals who operate either public or private facilities simply cannot afford to neglect such potential crises as hostage situations, inmate on officer violence, inmate on inmate violence, inmate disturbances or riots, and natural or man-made disasters. Inadequate preparation leads to often-disastrous consequences, as exemplified in recent crisis situations. In my experience, I have found that there is no perfect correctional facility, nor is there a simple solution to prepare for such crises. The most important elements of preparation include designing and implementing concise, uncomplicated, and legal emergency policies and procedures; assembling, equipping, and training a fully-qualified Special Emergency Response Team; and defining-in advance-the role of any outside help you may call upon for assistance. During a crisis situation SERTs are frequently not used in the roles for which they train and prepare. Although they represent a specialized team with highly specialized equipment, training, and talents, in many respects they are merely paper dragons. When a situation occurs, agency policy in many cases still dictates that other emergency response teams handle the riot or hostage crisis. When confronted by medium or large scale inmate disturbances, wardens traditionally call for outside assistance. Although this is changing as SERTs become more widespread and reliable, administrators still tend to use outside SWAT teams whose tactics and training present a potentially massive legal problem. Once SWAT teams arrive on the scene, they are informed of the numerous restrictions on their response to the disturbance. The institution may have a no weapons policy in effect, this would of course conflict with the SWAT team's policy of using certain weapons. The result is immediate interagency friction, which wastes valuable time and diminishes the power of a quick and powerful response. The corrections administrator faces a significant problem from that interagency conflict. The facility's SERT team, though limited in training and experience, has specific knowledge of the institution in which they would be deployed. Add a SWAT team with completely different training and tactics and you reduce the effectiveness of the SERT team. The ensuing questions present several legal problems: Is your SERT team's safety jeopardized by the SWAT team? Is the SERT team adequately trained? Do you risk injuring inmates or staff? In addition to the legal concerns, administrators must realize that the failure to deploy an internal SERT unit can quickly destroy team morale. More importantly, it sends a message to inmates that the facility cannot handle its own problems and that the administration may be reluctant to enforce order. This action could prove very costly both fiscally and in terms of any crisis-related litigation. Questions to resolve before a crisis If the agency policy calls for obtaining outside assistance during a crisis, what are the criterions of that assistance? There are a number of critical decisions involved in deciding the limits of any outside assistance you may require. As mentioned above, if these are not worked out in advance, the results could prove catastrophic. Some of the questions administrators must ask include: If you call in an outside agency, who assumes overall command of the operation? Who will shoulder the expense for the operation? Who will pay for the medical costs incurred by responding officers? Who will bear the legal burden, should any litigation result from the operation? If the agency policy calls for obtaining outside assistance during a crisis, does the local government assume the entire liability for the SWAT team's actions, and if not, who does? This question could cause tremendous political fallout within the local government. If the policy calls for a SWAT team to respond to an emergency at the local correctional facility, the question becomes, is the SWAT team trained for that environment? Has the SWAT team established a comprehensive tactical survey of the facility, and have both agencies fully addressed the issue of weapons usage? Does the SWAT team have a contingency plan to handle a situation using less-than-lethal means? These questions are but a few of the numerous details that must be answered before a SWAT team deploys inside a facility. If unanswered, the potential for successful inmate suits becomes a serious consideration. A final note Calling upon other agencies to help resolve crisis situations represents a double-edged sword. A SWAT team may help you quell a disturbance or riot, but in so doing, they could inadvertently cause more damage to inmates and the facility. Using a specially trained SERT team is the best way to minimize incidental damage and limit the potential for costly and time-consuming litigation. Administrators should consider liability when devising such policies and procedures and take all appropriate measures to insulate themselves and their staff from liability. Remember: the only way to limit your potential liability is to ensure you have made all the necessary details in preparing and implementing your emergency response policies and procedures. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
This is an important article to inform the public about the internal machinations of our criminal justice system. Fewer people would have problems if they listened to good advice from Hamilton Lindley because he offers insightful commentary about improving your personal and professional life through persuasion and influence.