PHOENIX — When a barricade unfolds, a real-time crime center can give SWAT critical information about the threat: weapons associated with the subject, who may be inside, the layout of the property and hazards officers could encounter.
For crisis negotiators, that may only be the beginning.
They also need to understand the person on the other end of the phone. What brought that person to this moment? What relationships matter to them? How have they behaved during previous encounters with police? What could help build rapport — and what could make the situation worse?
John Woosnam, a retired Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department crisis negotiator and president of Intelligent Police Solutions, spent 17 years on LVMPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team, including as an assistant team leader.
During his session, “RTCC and Initial Response to Barricade Situations,” at the National Real Time Crime Center Association (NRTCCA) conference, Woosnam explained how RTCC analysts can provide SWAT and crisis negotiators with intelligence that goes beyond names, addresses and criminal histories.
“Negotiations have information needs that differ from a criminal investigation,” Woosnam said. “Look beyond arrest and crime reports. Look at relationships, behavior, stress and the way the subject has dealt with problems before.”
Give negotiators what they need now
Woosnam learned the importance of that distinction while serving on LVMPD’s negotiation team.
Before the department had an RTCC, its fusion center offered to support negotiators during barricades. But the center was accustomed to developing comprehensive, thoroughly vetted intelligence packages for investigators — a process that didn’t match the pace of a critical incident.
“We needed information quickly,” Woosnam said. “We didn’t necessarily need a deep dive into crime reports at the outset. We needed to know what was happening right then and what had caused the incident. We could get the rest later.”
Eventually, negotiators stopped requesting the workups because they were gathering the information themselves before the finished product arrived.
The two groups then developed a different process. Instead of waiting for a completed package, analysts would assess and vet information and push it to SWAT and negotiators as they found it. The RTCC that later evolved from the fusion center continued providing that support.
The experience illustrates an important distinction between intelligence for an investigation and intelligence for a negotiation.
“We have a person inside and want that person to come outside safely,” Woosnam said. “Right now, we need to understand the person’s mindset, feelings and circumstances.”
Some needs are immediate.
Weapons are a priority. Analysts can search prior reports for references to firearms, check firearm registrations where available, and look for concealed-carry permits or experience that could indicate familiarity with weapons.
Woosnam gave the example of an old report showing that a hunting rifle had been stolen from the subject. That doesn’t establish that the person has a rifle now, but it raises the possibility that it was replaced — information SWAT may need to consider when making decisions about protective equipment, distance and tactics.
Analysts also need to determine who may be inside and examine the property itself. Prior calls and CAD records may identify a spouse, girlfriend or other person connected with the address even if official records list that person elsewhere.
“SWAT does not like surprises,” Woosnam said.
But the intelligence requirement doesn’t end with weapons, occupants and the building.
Negotiators also want to know: Why is this happening, and why now?
Woosnam said barricades often follow a series of problems rather than a single event. Recent relationship, financial or legal problems, substance use, gambling or other stresses may help explain how the person reached the crisis point.
“Few barricades result from a single factor,” he said. “More often, a series of bad decisions or negative experiences has led to this point.”
Look beyond names and criminal histories
Relationships can be particularly valuable — but simply identifying them isn’t enough.
Woosnam used children as an example. Learning that a subject has children might appear to give a negotiator an obvious way to establish a connection. Without context, however, bringing them into the conversation could have the opposite effect.
“We may assume that asking about someone’s children will build rapport,” Woosnam said. “But for that person, the children might be a source of stress, shame or anger.”
Knowing the nature of the relationship can help prevent negotiators from inadvertently introducing a harmful topic.
“Knowing that the subject has four children and their ages isn’t enough,” he said.
The same principle applies when analysts examine previous encounters with law enforcement.
An arrest history establishes that something happened. Reports, CAD and recordings may reveal how the person actually behaved.
Woosnam encouraged RTCC analysts not to overlook body-worn camera footage. Analysts at the Wake County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina, for example, told him their RTCC can access footage from previous calls at an address. That footage can provide information about both the location and the subject.
A report may describe someone as “agitated.” Video can show whether that meant frightened, defensive, argumentative, threatening or physically aggressive.
That could even help a team decide who should make contact.
“If they’ve reacted aggressively to male officers, a female negotiator may be a better choice,” Woosnam said. “If there is a history of abuse toward women, that may point us in another direction.”
911 recordings can provide another layer of information that may disappear in a written summary.
Woosnam described a short recording played during the session in which the caller initially sounded upset and close to crying. By the end of the call, his voice was calmer.
“We listen for tone, volume, pace, background voices and other sounds,” Woosnam said. “Are children there? Is a dog barking?”
Those details can generate new questions for the RTCC. A name mentioned during negotiations may lead analysts to another person who can help explain what is happening. Something the subject says may reveal another stressor or relationship worth exploring.
“At times the team will feel stuck and ask, ‘What are we missing?’” Woosnam said. “A thorough analyst may find the detail that helps us connect with the person.”
Build the process before the barricade
That means an RTCC workup shouldn’t be treated as a single finished product.
Woosnam recommended prioritizing the intelligence as it develops. Immediate operational information — weapons, possible victims, threats, violence and the critical people involved — comes first. Information about relationships, stressors and prior incidents that could help negotiators establish rapport follows. Source documents can then be made available for deeper review.
“The first two sets can go out as concise summaries, with the source and date identified,” Woosnam said. “That gets useful information to the team quickly.”
Agencies also need to determine how that information will reach SWAT and CNT before the next callout.
CAD, shared documents, SharePoint, OneDrive, agency databases, network drives and email groups can all work. What matters is that the people who need the information can access it — and know how to do so under pressure.
RTCC, SWAT and CNT personnel should decide who receives updates, what information is most urgent, whether negotiators need summaries or source documents, and what backup exists if connectivity fails.
“The incident scene is not the place to exchange business cards for the first time,” Woosnam said.
He also encouraged RTCC analysts and negotiators to train together. Agencies can build exercises using simulated records, property listings and social media, allowing analysts to practice finding and delivering information without searching real people for training purposes.
The goal isn’t simply to give negotiators more information. It is to give them a better understanding of the person they’re trying to reach.
“As a negotiator, I didn’t want to ask a question when I didn’t know how the answer might affect the subject,” Woosnam said. “I didn’t want to say something that would provoke a negative reaction.”
For SWAT and crisis negotiation teams, that may be the most important contribution an RTCC can make during a barricade: finding the detail that changes how the team understands the situation — and perhaps how the next conversation begins.
“We can never have too much understanding,” Woosnam said.
