How Iowa law enforcement agencies justified armored vehicle requests

Marking the one-year anniversary of the militarized police crackdown on protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, Molly Redden wrote a fascinating piece for Mother Jones on how local law enforcement agencies have justified their requests for “combat style weapons, trucks, and armor.” Redden noted that in public, representatives of police organizations have cited “hostage situations, rescue missions, and heavy-duty shootouts” to justify the need for military equipment. But when requesting mine resistant ambush protected vehicles through official channels, “very few sheriffs and police chiefs cite active shooters, hostage situations, or terrorism […].” More often, they indicated plans to use the equipment for SWAT raids, drug enforcement, or serving warrants.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Redden obtained more than 450 local requests for armored vehicles submitted during the past two years. She uploaded the documents here. Ten requests came from Iowa law enforcement agencies (the Iowa State Patrol, five county sheriff’s offices, and four city police departments). Those may not represent all the Iowa requests for armored vehicles; Redden told me she requested only applications with something written in the “special considerations” section of the form. However, I would assume that most police forces seeking to obtain heavy equipment from the military would explain why they need the armored vehicle and/or how they plan to use it.

After the jump I’ve enclosed links to the Iowa documents obtained by Redden and quoted each police or sheriff’s department explanation for requesting an armored vehicle.

President Barack Obama implemented new federal rules in May to prohibit transfers of certain military equipment to local police: namely, “tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, and large-caliber weapons and ammunition.” All of the Iowa documents Redden obtained requested armored vehicles on wheels (though the Scott County Sheriff’s Office indicated it would also accept tracked vehicles).

On a related note, in June the U.S. House rejected amendments to next year’s military budget that would have “prohibited funds from being used for the Pentagon to transfer flash-bang grenades and armored vehicles to local police departments.” Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01) and David Young (IA-03) voted for the unsuccessful attempt to stop transfers of armored vehicles to police departments. Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Republican Steve King (IA-04) voted against that amendment.

“Special considerations” cited in Iowa documents uploaded from Molly Redden’s batch of law enforcement agency requests for mine resistant armored vehicles over the past two years:

Iowa State Patrol: “The Iowa State Patrol currently maintains four tactical response teams that assist local agencies statewide. We have 48 total team members and currently have no access to an armored tactical vehicle.”

Story County Sheriff’s Office: “To provide transportation/cover for officers responding to such incidents as an active shooter, a hostage taker, extrication of a downed officer under fire, SWAT operations or other volatile situations where the welfare and safety of the officers would be in jeopardy.”

City of Washington Police Department: “Request for armored vehicle for tactical unit. Our unit responded to an officer down with subject with a high powered rifle and there are NO armored vehicles in the South East part of Iowa (actually even further than that). We are willing to respond to other agencies requests for armored vehicle as well. See attached letter.”

Scott County Sheriff’s Office: “The Scott County Sheriff’s Office is a member (2 deputies currently assigned) of the Quad Cities Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Group. We also have intergovernmental agreements with the other law enforcement agencies in the area for the sharing of resources.”

Buena Vista County Sheriff’s Office: “We have no tactical team deployment vehicle at this time. We have had incidents where we were unable to approach a target safely, but did so to resolve the incidents. We are in need of some type of armored tactical vehicle to provide safety to our team members.”

Storm Lake Police Department (note: Storm Lake is the county seat of Buena Vista County): “Storm Lake has seen an increase in violent gang members coming to our community from urban areas with this we have also seen the manufacture, possession and sale of illegal drugs as well as violence increase in our community. Such a tactical vehicle would be used by the Storm Lake Police Department when serving high risk search warrants to help protect the citizens of Storm Lake as well as the police officers.”

City of Muscatine Police Department: “As a Special Response Team carries much liability within the department we are trying to minimize this and be able to serve our community to the best of our ability. Having an armored vehicle will assist us with officer safety and better serving our community.”

Mason City Police Department: “This vehicle will be used by North Central Iowa Narcotics Task Force Special Operations Group which is regional SWAT Team. The team is also a federally funded W.M.D. response team. We also be able utilize this vehicle for natural disasters and other critical response incidents.”

Des Moines County Sheriff’s Office: “Currently have a tactical unit which the armored vehicle would be utilized by.”

Clayton County Sheriff’s Office: “Nothing larger than 2 axle vehicle as parking and storage spaces in the county are at a minimum. Would prefer something that as 12V capabilities for electronics and radios.”

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

Comments