Morey Unit Hostage Situation Analysis
Introduction
The Morey hostage situation occurred in Lewis Prison Complex Arizona, whereby two inmates Coy and Ricky attempted an escape that led to a fifteen-day hostage situation. Various people were involved, including correctional officers in the kitchen and watchtower. Several inmates were also locked up when the two inmates failed to convince other inmates to join the escape plan. The unit is one of several units in the complex with a capacity of 800 inmates housing prisoners at levels 2, 3, and 4. Several agencies took over the situation intending to quell the situation as quickly as possible. There were flaws in the prison system that made it possible not only for the hostage situation to take place but also last for 15days (“The Morey unit hostage incident”, n.d., p.1). Various factors come into perspective as concerns the situation, response, and subsequent recommendations.
The function of the NIPP Framework
The NIPP identifies and assesses priorities at federal, state, and local levels that need an allocation of government resources to mitigate threat and vulnerability, ultimately reducing consequences. The structures included in the framework are physical and virtual assets, as well as systems that are vital in the running of the country. The correctional department is an essential aspect of the criminal justice system whose threat would endanger the lives of the public, correctional officers, and inmates. Security is a crucial aspect at a national, state, and local level. Breach into a prison security system, whether done remotely or physically, would escalate into a high-risk threat. Prisoner escape thus is a threat in the correctional department, which increases prison security vulnerability.
The NIPP framework sets goals, identifies assets, identifies vulnerability level, and prioritizes, implements plans, and measures subsequent effectiveness. Applying the Lewis prison situation framework would, therefore, involve setting a goal which could improve prison security. The systems and assets in this instance would include all physical structures in prison, communication systems, employees, and inmates. The consequence would be the destruction of property, loss of life, and injury.
Sampling of Private-Public Partnerships for Infrastructure Security
Private-Public partnerships are inevitable in sustaining critical infrastructure security. For correctional facility threats mitigating such situations would require the involvement of various stakeholders. Private companies in the communication and technology field would be essential in installing and maintaining these infrastructures. Infrastructure security can be cyber-based or physical. The Morey case presents a physical infrastructure scenario as the threat was through physical threats. Communication gaps were evident in the hostage situation at the prison, necessitating corrective measures. Partnership with private technology companies would be necessary for ensuring better protocols such as encryption. On the other hand, public collaboration could involve the Department of Homeland Security in availing the funds and resources needed to train correctional officers in technology use and self-defense training.
Steps of a Vulnerability Assessment
The vulnerability involves identifying areas, assets, and systems that are likely to suffer an attack, therefore, identifying areas of weakness (Islam & Ryan, 2016, p.232). The process must consequently identify structures and facilities such as prisons. Escape would be the most intended outcome of a prison attack; hence a breach would be directed at security systems. An impact analysis identifies the type and level of damage to the asset identified. In the Lewis prison scenario, the loss could be on prison property, such as fences. Staff members would also be at risk as well as inmates. There would be a high likelihood of injuries and loss of life since the use of weapons would likely occur.
Evaluation and assessment are critical in the process as weaknesses, and inadequate protection is identified. The prison hostage scenario perpetrators identified a vulnerability in the search protocol and exploited the gap by carrying contraband used to threaten correctional officers. The communication system experienced flaws as the inmates were able to take over. Assessing vulnerability involves assigning a threat likelihood margin from a low to the high rating (Islam & Ryan, 2016, p.250). Following the events that unfolded at the prison, it is evident that the threat occurrence received a low rating, which translated to the stakeholders involved not mitigating the threat on time. A fifteen-day attack perpetrated by two inmates attracting responses from various agencies means that the prison and other institutions such as the Department of Homeland security were inadequately prepared. The inadequate countermeasures are as a result of poor vulnerability assessment.
Recommendations for How the Situation Could Have Been Avoided and Mitigated
Restricted Access
The hostage situation started with the Coy and Ricky accessing the kitchen office where a civilian employee and correctional officer were on duty (“The Morey unit hostage incident”, n.d., p.1). Restricting access to the office would have prevented the situation from happening through the kitchen, making an escape plan actualization more difficult. Injury and sexual assault of the two female staff members would have been avoided.
Contraband Search Protocol
The inmates possessed shanks indicative of a flawed searching exercise, which made it easier to subdue the correctional officers. Instituting thorough impromptu search protocols would reduce the likelihood of contraband possession, decreasing injury, and damage rate. Other agencies can initiate such searches outside of the correctional facility.
Surveillance
The correctional officers at the watchtower gave Ricky access to the tower without realizing that he was not an officer. Surveillance and communication protocol comes into perspective in the scenario. Installing better monitoring and technological equipment would prevent such occurrences. The fact that Coy and Ricky accessed the kitchen office and attacked the staff without any officers detecting shows a lack of security surveillance in the facility. Proper surveillance protocol would have alerted other officers of the ongoing situation from the onset de-escalating the threat.
Communication
Cornett, a correctional officer on realizing that Officer Martin was held in the kitchen office, ran out shouting for someone to call the incident management system (“The Morey unit hostage incident”, n.d.,p.3). Such a situation is indicative of a communication flaw that lacks an emergency protocol. At the realization of an attack, the officer should have given communication that does not include verbally alerting everyone of the next step. A system should have been in place which the officer could have buzzed, or radio called without warning the inmates.
Conclusion
The Lewis prison hostage incident is a case of a threat that lacks proper vulnerability assessment. The danger may have been correctly identified, but the evaluation and assessment not adequately done. The resulting consequences included sexual assault on a female civilian employee and a correctional officer and a hostage situation. Though no lives were lost, the attack could have been avoided if the assessment had been done adequately. The prolonged standoff resulted in a waste of time and resources, which was also avoidable. With an excellent assessment framework, the situation would not have escalated to the level that it did.
References
Islam, T., & Ryan, J. (2016). Vulnerability assessment and impact analysis. Hazard mitigation
in emergency management, 227-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-420134-7.000072
The Morey unit hostage incident. Web.archive.org. Retrieved 8 June 2020, from
http://web.archive.org/web/20040725030710/http://www.governor.state.az.us/press/0403/finalreport.pdf.