The May 2014 release of Police Under Attack, a comprehensive after-action review of the Christopher Dorner incidents in Southern California, is important reading for anyone in law enforcement.1 Beyond the strategic and tactical issues discussed at length in the report, the Police Foundation’s authors highlighted several specific instances in which a lack of adequate communications caused problems; ranging from confusion to jeopardy of officer safety.
In early February 2013, a series of shootings took place in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties. The victims were law enforcement officers and their families, or civilians who had been misidentified as the suspect. At the end of a nine-day manhunt, suspect Christopher Dorner, 33, an honorably discharged Navy Reservist and former Los Angeles police officer, was dead; as were two civilians and two police officers—Deputy Jeremiah MacKay and officer Michael Crain.
The challenges confronting the principal law enforcement agencies in this incident were immense. The subsequent manhunt for Dorner took place over a wide expanse of Southern California encompassing various geographical regions and weather patterns. It required the coordination of thousands of police officers, sheriff’s deputies, highway patrol officers and state and federal special agents, all with different policies and practices, organizational cultures and frequently incompatible communications systems.
Don’t Tune Out
The last thing some people want to read is another article on the issue of interoperability, but as the report reminds us, the problems have not yet been solved. Perhaps what is needed is a different approach—one that focuses on issues brought to light in this case. Perhaps the solutions could already exist in our toolbox (and in some cases, in our radios). This article focuses not on highly technical issues, but on operational-level concepts for dispatchers, officers, deputies and troopers. Hopefully it will present ideas they may wish to consider so that they will be better prepared to use available communications in an emergency—or to ask intelligent questions as to what is and is not available in their communications systems.
From the Report:
“Because this was a multiagency event, interoperability was predictably the first major technological problem to emerge. Most of the agencies involved in the investigation and eventual apprehension of Dorner did not share common radio frequencies. Several did not even have the capacity to be patched to a tactical channel in the jurisdiction where they were working. This lack of real-time communication capacity during high-risk operations put officers and citizens at extreme risk and diminished opportunities to apprehend [Dorner]. In addition to the safety risks, even rudimentary coordination was hampered by the inability to broadcast information to the field simultaneously and consistently.”
The report went on to describe specific situations in which officers from one jurisdiction operated inside another jurisdiction’s territory without even rudimentary means of communication. In one instance, officers intended to use a cellphone to call the local agency, but the cellphone became inoperable. Later, these officers had to borrow a cellphone to call 9-1-1 when shots were fired at them.
According to the report, “The Police Foundation team identified success in interoperable communication systems in Orange County and failures in Riverside County. While local jurisdictions are attempting to resolve the issues, it is inexcusable that law enforcement agencies in a county or region cannot immediately communicate with each other.”
What’s In Your Radio?
In “the old days,” two-way radios were lucky to have four channels, while today’s modern equipment has the capacity for anywhere from 16 to hundreds of possible frequencies. This should be good news, but in some cases our officers, deputies and troopers don’t remember what tools they have in their radios. Most agencies program in several interoperability frequencies and access channels (more on these later), but officers tend to remember only those channels that they use every day, and sometimes forget how to change zones or find rarely used talkgroups. Even officers who have dozens of the most complex apps on their smartphones seem to have this difficulty.
This would indicate that additional training and documentation are needed. Does each officer have a list of all channels/talkgroups in the radios and available uses for each? Have they practiced changing zones and demonstrated this proficiency? Do they do it often enough to recall how when under pressure? Do dispatchers know what is in their consoles, what each channel/talkgroup does and whom it communicates with? Do they know and practice how to enable and disable patches and make simulcast transmissions over several or all of their available channels?
There May Be an App for That
Some agencies have worked with vendors to produce apps that help the user know, based on his or her geographic position, the available interoperability channels. The two I am aware of in my area are both focused on fire service communications, but the logic holds that even officers who won’t take the time to read channel lists may find it useful to look up radio operation information on a smartphone. One app even includes short videos on radio operation. Even without your own app, you can record short videos with the use of radio equipment, changing zones, etc., and use simple video sharing sites to post them privately for your dispatchers and officers to view on their devices. These are interesting possibilities.
Access Channels
Today’s radio systems are not only more complex, they are, by nature, more compartmentalized. Some agencies, as a means to optimize use of a group of frequencies, opt for systems that use trunking technology (as do commercial wireless companies). Some agencies have moved to the digital radio standard known as P25. Some conventional radios cannot communicate on digital channels. A related issue is encryption. Some agencies have chosen to encrypt their radio traffic to ensure that unauthorized parties cannot monitor transmissions. While this seems reasonable on its face, it too can hinder interoperability.
A solution is available and is used by many agencies with “closed” radio systems (systems others don’t have the technology to operate on). This is the concept of an access channel. By definition this is a channel—or repeated pair of frequencies for wide area systems—that is made available to allied agencies to use to contact your agency. To be effective it should be analog, not digital; it should be conventional, not trunked; it should not be encrypted. Does your system have such a channel identified? Do other area agencies that might enter your area know of it and have it in their radios?
What if the neighboring agency is on a different band entirely? As we discuss the splintered nature of our communications, with agencies across the street on different bands, it is worth mentioning that some chiefs and sheriffs have long ago decided to put two mobile radios in each police vehicle. Yes, this seems expensive, and yes, it is yet one more item to put in an already crowded patrol vehicle, but it may be necessary when neighboring agencies operate with one another daily on different bands. Some manufacturers are finally making dual band radios, and this may be an option for you as well, if you can afford it. The RCMP and CHP are working with a vendor to integrate several mobile radios into an MDT controller, but few can afford such sophisticated solutions. Whatever you can afford, think of it as an investment in officer safety.2
Calling All Cars
How can officers on several different channels get the word when there is a pursuit, help call or critical crime broadcast? In many agencies this involves dispatchers calling one another and manually rebroadcasting it on several different frequencies, and on several different radio systems.
Some broadcasts go out quickly, others less so. At least in regional or countywide systems (sometimes called subscriber systems) technology exists to ease and speed this process. It does cost extra money, but it works and is proven to do so on a daily basis. Orange County, in Southern California, has, for two generations of systems, specified a mobile radio with a second receiver section—one that constantly monitors a countywide emergency channel. This channel is only used for pursuits, “officer needs help” calls and critical crime broadcasts. It has resulted in apprehensions, faster help for officers in trouble and the return of critical missing persons—in short, increased public safety. A few other agencies are moving in this direction with regional broadcast or pursuit channels.
I’m the Law in This Town
Fire agencies in some parts of the country seem to have better embraced the conclusion that they need to communicate with other agencies rapidly and accurately on an as-needed basis. Many share tactical frequencies with one another and, perhaps because they tend to work together across boundaries more often, their interoperability problems are being worked out. (Clearly this is not always the case, nor is this to say that law enforcement is not working hard to address their issues.) Law enforcement agencies, however, tend to be more independent by tradition and the nature of their work. Confidentiality, organizational history and legal jurisdiction all contribute to this—legitimately so.
When it comes to the ability to communicate among and between jurisdictions, my experience is that law enforcement needs to speed up their efforts and the Police Foundation report appears to echo this view. Make agreements with adjoining agencies to place their channels in your radios, and yours in theirs, then empower your officers/deputies/troopers to change channels as needed to speak with neighbors.
TV Cops, Old School Solutions & Combining the Two
When you tune in to most any current police show on television, you will see cops using their cellphones (sometimes exclusively) to communicate with their office, their partners, etc. Cellphones have their advantages in sensitive cases, but should not be considered a substitute for using two-way radio when available. Cellphone conversations convey information to one party only, which is the direct opposite of interoperability and sharing of officer safety information that others may need to hear. Along the same lines, you should never type your crime broadcast or important items like traffic stops to your dispatcher on your mobile data terminal (MDT) or patrol laptop. Again, it is important for others to hear the information that they might have to use to back you up, such as your location and activity.
The Foundation report did note that sometimes the only available solution is to trade portable radios with an agency you are working with or when you are working in an outside jurisdiction on a case or incident. Even this is superior to relying on a cellphone in many situations.
A few vendors have recently begun marketing push-to-talk (PTT) ability to connect cellphones to two-way radio channels for use in tactical, emergency or travel situations. Several agencies are testing these promising products. (For the record, Nextel had such a capability for several years and a few agencies used this to connect administrators, investigators, etc., to agency channels using their cellphones. Nextel, of course, is no more.)
Didn’t We Already Fix This?
Some communications specialists—and certainly some vendors—would have you believe that the “next generation” long term evolution (LTE) digital devices will soon enhance our ability to share information. Beware of two cautions. Caution one: information sharing that will improve the most and the soonest is likely to be what we might call “data” such as photos, fingerprints, etc. Will LTE soon supplant two-way radio as we know them today?3 Unlikely. Caution two: note the use of the word “future.” True, the feds, states and locals want to move forward aggressively toward a nationwide public safety broadband network, but this will likely take quite a while.4 For the time being, let’s learn how to best use what we have.
Some vendors would offer that interoperability solutions exist—if you buy a new system or hire them to engineer you a “black box” or something else that they can sell you. These may be options if your agency has funding to support them, but some solutions don’t require that entire systems be replaced—just that some limited enhancements, using currently available technology be considered. In other cases, nothing at all needs to be programmed, purchased or procured. All that is needed is better documentation, training and exercises to ensure that capabilities already in place are known and familiar to the dispatchers, officers, deputies and troopers who need them.
Your Vendor Knows Some, But Not All
True, communications vendors know a great deal about their products and what they can do for you, but only you know your jurisdiction and the agencies around you. When you deal with vendors, be specific about what you hope to accomplish with the equipment you buy. I have too often seen vendors steer clients into “solutions” that may be more costly—and complex—than they need. Often, law enforcement managers don’t know a great deal about the technical issues related to communications and interoperability, but there are resources available to you. Organizations such as the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and others have members in partner agencies nearby that may be able to help you.5,6
Each state has an interoperability manager (Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, or SWIC) and he or she can refer you to communications-savvy people in partner agencies.7 Most states offer Communications Unit Leader (COML) training classes.8 These are based on a standardized Department of Homeland Security (DHS) curriculum and provide training for emergency responders to serve as radio communications unit leaders during all-hazard emergency operations. COML responsibilities include developing plans to effectively use incident communications equipment and facilities, managing distribution of communications equipment to incident personnel and coordinating the installation and testing of communications equipment.
What Next?
The Police Foundation report reinforces what we already know: we have more work to do when it comes to the ability to communicate with other agencies during rapidly unfolding events and emergencies. Consider that some of the answers may be closer—and less costly—than most of us may realize.
References
1. “Police Under Attack,” (incidentreviews.org)
2. United State Government Accountability Office, Emergency Communications: Various Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network (February 2012). (gao.gov/assets/590/588795.pdf)
3. (rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product%20Brochures/Integrated%20Systems/Ground%20Vehicle%20Systems/iForce%20white%20paper.aspx)
4. (npstc.org/download.jsp?tableId=37&column=217&id=2712&file=Why_Cant_PS_Just_Use_Cell_Phones_NPSTC_130415_orig.pdf)
5. (apcointl.org)
6. (nena.org)
7. DHS Office of Emergency Communications Emergency Communications Forum, Volume 9
(npstc.org/download.jsp?tableId=37&column=217&id=2278&file=OEC_ECF_Vol_9-March_2012.pdf)
8. DHS Communications Unit Leader Training (dhs.gov/ communications-unit-leader-training)