***  Information, Misinformation, or Disinformation; ***
                The SAR Intelligence Quandry
                    by: Patrick J. Keane
             Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Search and rescue managers are taught many methods to gather information on
the subject of their searches; interviews, trip itineraries, similar search
records, evaluation of terrain etc., but very little time is spent teaching
search intelligence. Now before anyone gets offended, I don't mean the
intelligence of the search manager, or the searchers, or even the subject,
I'm talking about quality, evaluated and verified information regarding the
circumstances surrounding the search as well as a comprehensive subject
profile.

As we base our determinations of search urgency, probability of area etc. on
the information we have at the  time of the search, the acquisition of
information is critical, or is it? Isn't it possible that what we are really
seeking is a method to acquire, compile, verify, analyze and disseminate
information about the subject, the events surrounding the search and the
natural factors present in the search area. This goes beyond just
information and brings us to the area of "search intelligence". As an
example, I'll use a recent search in Illinois. The names and the location
have been changed as the event is still involved in litigation.

On a hot summer morning, a group of developmentally disabled students were
involved in a field trip to a local pool. At approximately 11:00 am, one of
the students was found to be missing. After a quick search of the pool area,
the County was notified. County officials requested a Search Master from
the State be assigned to assist in the County in search management. The
Search Master arrived on-scene at 11:45 am. While en route, the Search
Master dispatched a State  helicopter with search crew and activated one of
the SAR dog teams routinely used in that portion of Illinois.

A meeting was conducted at 12:00 noon to bring all SAR management personnel
up to speed with the progress of the search to date. Information available
from interviews conducted with developmental center staff indicated that
the subject was behaviorally, and not mentally disabled. He was 16 years
old, in good health, but not overly active. He was verbally aggressive and
abusive but "not stupid-a pretty smart kid". He was also characterized as a
"hider". On several instances in the past months, the subject had separated
himself from his group, and hidden from the staff for periods of several
hours before being found. The subject had no real understanding of the
consequences of these actions, and found them to be "fun".

An interview was conducted by the Search Master with the subject's care
giver in order to flesh out the subject profile. Information on routine
daily activities, attitudes and past  "disappearances" was compiled as well
as a detailed itinerary of the day's activities up until the time subject
went missing. One of the key questions was whether anyone had an argument
or disagreement with the subject which might give us insight into why he
disappeared, or where he may have "gone to ground". The interview indicated
that throughout the morning the subject was characterized as happy and
swimming in the pool. The care giver stated that there had been no
arguments of incidents to prompt the disappearance, but anyway, "he always
hides, he does it because it's a game to him".

During the next 12 hours a search base was established, the area was
segmented and searched by ground teams, dog teams, a mounted team and two
State helicopters, one with and one without FLIR (a chin mounted infrared).
Containment was established and perimeter patrols were conducted by vehicle,
ATV and horse mounted patrols. The pool was checked four times before
closing in case he had slipped back into the area. Sound sweeps were
conducted in the wooded areas, media pleas went out for local residents to
search their properties and out buildings for signs of the subject, all
with negative results. The operations were suspended at midnight by the
County following a staff meeting reviewing the day's activities. Over that
period, 157 searchers and 7 flight hours were utilized in the search.

Overnight, additional Police patrols were added for subject containment,
and special attention was directed towards the vicinity of the recreation
center, on the assumption that the subject might return when he was tired
of hiding, or when he saw activity lessening in the area. The search was
renewed at 6 am the following morning with a new POA consensus, and a
repeat of the first day's level of activity.

During both days, numerous siting reports were received by the Search
Master, none matching the description of the subject exactly. Each of these
reports was evaluated by the search staff, and each generated tremendous
pressure from developmental center staff  to abandon the search strategy,
and commit 100% of the resources to chasing each lead. The problem was
handled by allowing the developmental center administrator to form his own
"chase team" from his center staff to follow up the less well documented
reports.

At 1100 on the second day, a report was received from a developmental
center staff member that she had seen the subject on the bank of a creek
approximately 5 miles from the PLS. The subject was reported to be unable
to work his way through the brush and was lying on the bank of the stream,
partly in the water. When questioned as to whether it was the subject, the
staff member replied: "It's definitely him, and I should know, I have
worked with him every day for two years. River rescue, an ambulance and the
helicopter were immediately dispatched to the site, but were unable to
locate the subject, or any sign of his ever having been there.

As the search  staff were evaluating the situation, the pool reported a
drowning, which eventually turned out to be the subject. Follow up
investigation by law enforcement officials into the death revealed the
following information: 1) The subject could not swim!  2) 10 minutes before
he disappeared, he had an argument with his care giver - he wanted to go off
the diving board and swim in the deep end! 3) The subject's mental age was
approximately 6 years old! 4) While conducting a hasty search of the area,
the developmental center staff had received a report that a subject closely
matching the description of the subject had been seen one block away, in
the empty high school, by some workers. The center staff had never passed
this information on to the Search Master as they had immediately "searched"
the high school with two people and hadn't found the subject. (The high
school was three stories, and occupied almost a block). The high school was
locked by the time the Search Master arrived on site, and was reported as
having been thoroughly searched prior to his arrival.

Lets categorize the information the search staff were working with during
the search:

- Information - there was a 16 year old male subject missing, he was wearing
a green and  black swimming suit, he was behaviorally disabled and tended
to hide as a game, and he was  last seen at the pool at approximately 1045.

- Misinformation - the several reports of sitings which did not match the
subject, including the developmental center employee's eye witness report,
that the subject had been swimming, failure to pass on a siting report
(withholding information is also misinformation), and that the high school
had been thoroughly searched.

- Disinformation - that he was not developmentally disabled and had a mental
age equal to his chronological age, that there had been no argument leading
to the disappearance, and the failure to pass information that he had wanted
to go off of the diving board and swim in the deep end. It is now apparent
that he did, tragically, return to the pool during the stand down, scale the
fence (chain link with no barbed wire on the top), go off of the diving
board, the enter deep end and drown. I guess you can see the litigation
written all over this search.

What lesson can we learn from this search? Verify information, or weigh the
information critically?  During the search, the Search Master made the
assumption that the developmental center staff was attempting to assist in
locating the subject. In general, they were, however, some of the staff had
"reason" not to tell all.  When evaluating sources of information, we
should use a jaundiced eye - does the source have anything to gain in
passing misinformation, or could the source have a personal reason to
actively pass disinformation. With the benefit of hind sight, verification
of the information from the care giver would have been advisable, however,
who to ask?  None of the other care givers had witnessed the argument and
access to the other students for interviews was denied on the basis of the
effect the incident was already having on them.

This search was conducted on the basis of available information.
Misinformation was generally weeded out in the search management process,
except for the "swimming".
Disinformation was not identified until after the conclusion of the search,
and even then it was not uncovered until two days into the formal
investigation of the death.

What conclusions can we draw from this search?  Evaluate your sources, as
well as your information, and when both of these are combined, hopefully
you will base your search on "search intelligence" and not just information.


Patrick J. Keane

                ------------------------------