Training in Action

 

August 19, 2010​

 

The following is a personal account from Mike Cunningham, NCBRT instructor and member of the NYPD Crime Scene Unit, of his experience responding to the attempted Times Square bombing. ​

At​ the time the vehicl​e improvised explosive device (IED) was discovered in Times Square I was at home, my y​oungest son was celebrating his First Communion and some friends and family were over at the house. I received a phone call in the evening from my Commanding Officer at The NYPD Crime Scene Unit informing me of the events unfolding in NYC. Details were sketchy but the NYPD Bomb Squad had confirmed an explosive device was inside a parked vehicle and they were attempting to render the device safe. A large amount of Police and Fire Department assets were on scene. ​ was told it would be some time before I would be able to analyze the vehicle for forensic evidence but to be ready to respond. I knew my training was about to be put to the test. I was in constant phone contact with the scene for the next several hours. I was able to use the time to prepare some diagrams from aerial imagery that would be used to document the crime scene in Times Square.

Very early the next morning, after the device was rendered safe, the vehicle was towed to The NYPD Forensic Garage where I was involved in analyzing it and collecting evidence. The forensic investigation was painstaking and was carried out in conjunction with Investigators from the FBI Evidence Response Team and NYPD Crime Scene Unit. Hundreds of potentially valuable items of evidence were discovered and they would need to be processed, collected and then examined at the FBI laboratory. Items ranged from device components to DNA to scraps of paper that may provide a lead or bear a fingerprint.

As the forensic investigation progressed an intense parallel investigation was well underway by the Local, State, and Federal Intelligence community. Personnel from different agencies and units were present as we examined the vehicle so valuable information could be shared quickly among the various investigative components.

The terrorist perpetrator, Faisal Shahzad, had gone to some lengths to distance himself from the investigation by purchasing the vehicle in cash using a false name and then not registering it prior to his attempt to use it as a vehicle borne IED. He also altered the vehicle identification number (VIN) plates on both the dashboard and car door so they could not be traced through databases. Fellow Detectives working on the vehicle discovered a hidden VIN number etched into an engine component and that proved to be crucial intelligence that would ultimately lead to Shahzad. Two days after the attempted attack Shahzad was captured at Kennedy Airport before he could leave the country.

The experience was intense. The need for intelligence sharing was a constant pressing concern, a fact that made focusing on crime scene processing tasks difficult. While processing the vehicle I wore a Tyvek suit, mask, head cover and gloves and every time I discovered something significant I would need to stop and remove the protective clothing to share the info with other investigators. In the future I would recommend scheduling briefings to be held with pre-identified liaisons to share information rather than stopping the process every time a detail is discovered. Communication equipment such as push to talk radios on secure channels may also be helpful. A tremendous amount of manpower was also required.

It is clear to me from my experience that no agency can handle such incidents alone, a multi-agency response is the only way to approach such incidents. To be successful a framework for that response and training on how to operate within that framework is crucial. Training and drills should also be a joint exercise between agencies whenever possible. This would familiarize personnel with each other and identify core skill sets prior to incident response.​​