Welcome to today's decision-making exercise brought to you by the California Association of Tactical Officers and the Debrief. My name is Toby Darby, and I'm a board member and instructor for Cato. Now, today's exercise is designed to challenge your ability to analyze complex situations, make critical decisions, and discuss them together with your peers. But before we dive into the scenarios, let's talk about what a decision-making exercise is and why it is so effective for law enforcement. A decision-making exercise, or as we call it a CATO, a DME, gives you the chance to step into a realistic scenario, consider how you would handle the situation, and then discuss different points of view and approaches. What makes it so powerful is it allows you to test your thinking in a safe, controlled environment before the real-world stakes are at play. It's a learning experience where you can see how your decisions might unfold in an actual incident, challenge each other's thinking, and come to an agreement on the resolution your team would take following your local law and policy guidelines. Before beginning today's exercise, please select one person to act as the facilitator for the exercise. As the facilitator, your role is critical in guiding group discussions, ensuring thoughtful analysis, and maintaining alignment with established law, ethics, policies, and national standards. Your responsibilities include pausing the video at key moments, encouraging participation, and challenging answers where appropriate. After each section or scenario prompt, you will pause the video to allow the group time to discuss and respond to the specific questions presented. Ensure that all participants have a clear understanding of the scenario before beginning the discussion. Encourage each group to answer the specific questions thoroughly. Ensure that every participant has an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. And if needed, prompt quieter members to share their thoughts to foster a diverse perspective. Listen carefully to the group's responses and challenge answers that may cause disagreement or do not align with legal, ethical, or policy standards. Use your knowledge of law enforcement policies, best practices, and national standards to steer the group back if their answers conflict with what is being trained or applied across the country. When disagreements arise, encourage the group to explore the reasons behind each stance. Push the group to justify their decisions, asking them to consider potential consequences, risk, and the balance between tactical action and safety. If any supporting documents, reference materials, or handouts are provided, distribute them at the appropriate times. ensure participants review and incorporate this information in their decision making process remind the group that the exercise is designed to stimulate real world decision making the objective is not just to get the answer right but to understand the thought process behind each decision in the words of simon cynic understand the why in today's session you'll be divided into small groups of three to four people per table we will present you with several questions pertaining to today's incident. After each question is asked, I want you to pause the video, break into your groups, and discuss the problem. Talk through your solutions, frame how you see the issue, and consider what the dilemmas are that make it a challenge. Use this opportunity to share perspectives and think critically about the factors at play. Each breakout session will be about five to 10 minutes. Each small group should determine their answers to the questions asked. Before today's scenario, I will briefly cover a principle or concept related to tactical science, critical decision-making, or other considerations that will help you approach a problem. That said, make sure to include these concepts in your solutions and discussions. By the end, you will not only have an understanding of your own decision-making process, but also how to incorporate these concepts into real-life incidents. Finally, make sure that each time you return from your breakout sessions, you use a different person to brief back what your table discussed. If you are more tenured at your table, I would encourage you to let those at your table who have less experience talk first. You will see that not everyone sees the problem the same way and may have a different way on how they handle the problem. This happens because people in your class or your group have different levels of training, education, experience, and cognitive biases. That's what's great about these exercises, exposing different points of view and applying different tactics to these situations. Now, let's get started. Now, today's scenario focuses on decision-making related to serving a high-risk search warrant on an individual who was wanted for murder. As with all our decision-making exercises, we begin with a concept or principle commonly taught in our leadership courses. Courses like our team leader course, our team commander course, and our critical incident leadership course focus on the skills required to lead and operate effectively during high-risk law enforcement incidents. The concept for today is known as the rule of three There is a well condition in our profession where an incident commander officer deputy or an operator loses the ability to prioritize and respond effectively due to the magnitude and complexity of the incident. This condition is known as overwhelmed by events, or as we call it, OBE. At Cato, we teach decision makers to rely on tactical science to prevent this. One of the tools we use is the rule of three. Three questions that help leaders stay focused and be decisive. The first one is, what are three things I need to know right now? Know that you will never have all the information you want, but there are critical pieces of information that you must have to avoid making careless decisions. The second question you should ask yourself is, what are three things I need to be doing right now? A plan without action is useless. In law enforcement, indecisiveness often comes with the fear of risk to personnel, to the organization, or to oneself. Overthinking to the point of inaction is commonly known as paralysis by analysis. Now let's move on to the third question. Who are three people I can trust to act on my behalf to carry out my authority? In large-scale operations, delegation is essential. This is what Jocko Willink describes as decentralized command, or what many of you know as providing commander's intent and trusting your people to execute. This principle is the foundational to the incident command system. Spanner control matters. Most leaders are effective managing four to seven people with five being ideal. When incidents grow, failure to delegate is one of the fastest ways to become overwhelmed by events. But remember, you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. If things go wrong, then you are to be blamed. In leadership, it is essential to share the success, but own the defeats. With that framework in mind, let's move into today's decision-making exercise. You have been tasked with serving a high-risk search warrant on a rural property within your city or county and arresting a suspect wanted for murder. The property consists of one primary structure with multiple trailers scattered throughout the area, which were identified during a flyover of the property. This property is believed to be owned by a family friend of the suspect. Based on cell phone pings coupled with the knowledge of the family friend, you have good intelligence indicating the suspect is currently on the property. However, cell service in that area is very poor or non-existent, limiting reliable real-time communications. Access to the property is via a long dirt road extending down a remote, mountainous trail. The road is narrow, offers limited turnaround options, and provides minimal cover and concealment during approach. You also received information that other people in the community sometimes alert other residents in the area via social media or phone calls that law enforcement is in the area. I want to acknowledge that some of the agencies participating in today's exercise may not regularly operate in rural environments like this. However, many agencies, regardless of geography, encounter large properties, long driveways, or isolated residences that present similar challenges in access, containment, and communications. The principles in this exercise apply regardless of terrain. You will now be presented with three questions on the next slide. Use the information you've been given to guide your decision-making. Here are your questions. Number one, what are the three most critical things you need to know right now to support intelligence gathering and warrant planning? Number two, what are the three immediate risks or threats that must be addressed before initiating service of the warrant? And number three, knowing that occupants on or near the property may detect law enforcement, how would you serve this warrant? Would it be covertly, overtly, or by employing alternative approach? Now, this is the time to break out into your groups and answer these questions. During the break, the questions will be displayed on the screen. Facilitators, at this point, pause the video during the breakout session with the questions displayed on the screen. Welcome back. We hope you had some good discussion during that breakout session and were able to work through the questions together. As you saw, we had you apply one element of the rule of three. specifically, what are three things I need to know right now? Many of you likely discuss issues such as the location itself or who occupies it whether there were children elderly residents or animals on the property What intelligence suggests about dogs fortifications or surveillance cameras and the type of individuals believed to be associated with the location? Were they armed, had a military background, or were they involved in narcotic activities or production? This is the type of information gathered during scouting, intelligence collection, and warrant service planning long before any decision is made to initiate action. You also likely discussed approach options, whether an operation like this should be covert or overt, or whether it might be appropriate to refuse the battle altogether. In our courses, we talk about refuse battle as a legitimate decision using alternative, sometimes time and labor-intensive techniques, such as identifying opportunities to take the suspect away from the location and re-engage under more favorable conditions. These are exactly the kinds of decisions we want. Conversations that open your minds, challenge assumptions, and force you to think beyond the single solution. Now let's build on that as we move forward. We're now going to move into the second dilemma of this exercise. During your earlier discussion, some of you may have elected to take the suspect away from location rather than serve the warrant on the property. However, based on several factors, including the rural environment, limited radio and cellular communication, the risk of being detected or, as we've recently experienced, being misidentified by anti-ICE activists as ICE agents, and overtime and budget constraints, your command staff has directed the warrant to be served. Your team begins moving into position to execute the warrant. The warrant is approved for nighttime service, but the decision of whether to serve it during daylight hours or nighttime hours remains yours. You deploy a sniper observer team or a small recon element to covertly approach a property and get eyes on before the remainder of the team moves into position. As this element gets set, you begin to identify significant communications issues. As you know, radio traffic is spotty and there is no reliable cell service due to the absence of nearby cell or radio towers. Your only viable option is operating on a direct channel. Now, as your observation team is in position, they radio back that they can hear screaming coming from one of the trailers on the property, along with the sound of metal striking something repeatedly. The observation team is requesting guidance. Your quick reaction force, or QRF, is approximately three minutes out. Here are your questions for this dilemma. Number one, would you serve the warrant during daylight hours or under the cover of darkness and why? Number two, what are the three things you need to know regarding the screaming and the sound of metal striking something? And the last question, what are three actions you begin taking right now based on what you know at this moment? Now is your time to break out into your groups and answer these questions. Facilitators, pause the video while the screen's displaying the questions. Welcome back. As you can see, this set of questions introduces some challenging decision points. In our classes, we often talk about the five characteristics of a crisis. Uncertainty, risk, time constraints, human factors, and the potential for severe consequences. Every one of those are present in this scenario, along with multiple friction points, particularly when it comes to communications. One of your major discussions likely centered on timing, whether you should serve this warrant during daylight hours, when visibility is better and the playing field is more even, or under the cover of darkness, where some teams may have the advantage of night vision capability, while also recognizing that night vision, like any tool, has limitations. When it came to the screaming and the sound of metal striking something, many of you likely focus on the need for clarity. Is this someone who is mentally ill, screaming and banging on an object? Is there more than one person? Is someone actively being assaulted, requiring immediate intervention, and just as importantly, who is screaming. Those distinctions matter because they directly affect urgency, legality, and risk tolerance. You also probably discussed action. Do you initiate a rescue or intervention with the observation team already in position Or do you delay action and wait for the remainder of the team knowing that they are approximately three minutes out These are not easy decisions nor are they clear decisions. They force leaders to weigh time against risk, action against restraint, and incomplete information against the potential for catastrophic consequences. Exactly the kind of thinking we want to challenge in an exercise like this. Now let's continue to build on that. For the last and third dilemma, personnel on the ground are able to confirm two distinct voices, and it is clear that one individual is being attacked. The observation team attempts to transmit this information of the radio, but due to distance and terrain, the transmission is not received. One operator from the observation team breaks away and runs back in an effort to establish communications and get a message out. The remaining members of the observation team make the decision to intervene. As they move forward, they observe a male striking the door of a trailer with a hatchet. There is an individual inside the trailer who is screaming as the suspect attempts to force entry. Your operators challenge the suspect, at which time the suspect turns and runs with the hatchet in hand away from the team. You and the remainder of your team arrive on scene as the suspect flees into a heavily wooded area that contains a lot of dense brush. Due to the terrain, limited visibility, and multiple blind corners, your operators do not pursue. Here are the questions for the portion of this dilemma. Number one, knowing there are no radio repeaters and direct channels are unreliable due to distance and terrain, what communication plan would you put in place prior to an incident like this? Number two, with the suspect now fleeing into the woods armed with a hatchet, what are your next steps? And number three, if someone is injured and you knowing that medical access and transportation are limited, what is your medical plan? Now is the time to pause the video and discuss these questions with your groups. Like before, the questions will be displayed on the screen. Facilitators, at this time, pause the video. Welcome back. As you can see, the final dilemma presented a number of challenging issues. One of the first areas many of you likely discussed was communications. Do you have a communications plan in place? not only for incidents like this, but also for situations where radio towers go down, cell phones are compromised, operators are inside structures that block radio traffic, or when something as simple as an open microphone disrupts communications. These are predictable problems and they require deliberate planning. The second discussion point addressed prioritizing task and risk. What would you do with an armed suspect who has fled into an area which is probably better known to him and may contain other threats like booby traps, animals, or even something like poison oak. Did you discuss the victim inside the trailer? They may need medical attention and also may contain valuable information about the suspect that you are about to pursue. Those decisions force leaders to balance containment, pursuit, victim safety, intelligence gathering, and officer safety, often with incomplete information and utter time pressure. The final portion of this dilemma focused on medical planning. Does your team have trained personnel capable of addressing injuries to a victim, an officer, or even a suspect? Have you considered transportation options, hospital proximity, and ingress and egress in remote environments? One of the consistent themes that emerges in the debrief is just how essential it is for teams to have solid medical plans and to continually train in tactical emergency medicine. This incident occurred on June 14th, 2020 in Butte County in the state of California. Now is the time to watch the episode of the debrief and see what actually occurred that day. Now, we hope you enjoyed this decision-making exercise and we look forward to conducting more with you in the future. If you have an incident for your department that you believe would be beneficial for others to learn from, please contact John Becker at the debrief or myself at tdarby at catotraining.org. If you or your department are interested in future training that covers tactical science topics, including principles, concepts, and theories, visit us at catotraining.org. Thank you and remember, at Cato, we believe tactics are a science, but mastery is found in the art of how you apply those tactics. Stay safe. We'll see you next time.
