SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang.

SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang

AGENDA INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND SITUATION (ENEMY & FRIENDLY) NETWORK MISSION KEY TASKS NETWORK DESCRIPTION SCENARIO 1.1: SHORTEST PATH INTERDICTION SCENARIO 1.2: MODIFIED SHORTEST PATH INTERDICTION SCENARIO 2: MAX FLOW INTERDICTION CONCLUSIONS FURTHER STUDY SOURCES

INTRODUCTION This case study was inspired by the desire to mate Significant Action Recordings (SIGACTS), with Counter Insurgency Strategies and local Bay Area drug networks. Data was collected from one week of drug related SIGACT reports accumulated in the Bay Area Region on CrimeMapping.com. The data consisted of over 170 drug incidents in the cities of San Francisco, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Tracy, Alameda, Modesto and Stockton.

BACKGROUND Background: San Francisco has been reported to have the highest percentage of drug use in the country at 13% where the national average for a metropolitan area is 8.1%. Trends have shown an increase in the use of Cocaine and Marijuana over the last few years. San Francisco has decriminalized Marijuana and has put increased efforts on decreasing heroin, methamphetamines and cocaine.

ENEMY SITUATION Drug Cartels in Mexico have set up an elaborate smuggling Network to ship drugs through California to their destinations in the Bay Area. Drugs first start in Mexico and are transported by land or sea to the Bay area. Once in the Bay area local Traffickers move the drugs in and out of their respective metropolitan areas by land and sea through unique smuggling routes. Within a city distributers get the drug shipments from the traffickers and then distribute it to there Street Dealers who sell it to the local population.

FRIENDLY SITUATION San Francisco, in an effort to stop an reported large shipment of drugs from Mexico, has created a Bay Area Police Task Force consisting of Police from Hayward, Alameda, Berkeley, Richmond, Tracy, Stockton and Modesto. This Task Force has the ability to consolidate an undetermined number of Drug Interdiction Teams that specialize in targeting and catching drug shipments and exchanges.

MISSION The Bay Area Task Force will Disrupt or Destroy drug traffickers’ ability to put drugs in the hands of its local population.

KEY TASKS Analyze Drug Network in terms of Shortest Path interdiction and Max-Flow interdiction. Determine number of Interdiction Teams necessary to have varying optimal effects on the drug network. Create Strategies against drug traffickers based off of analysis of results.

Network Description Nodes=General Location of Drug Traffickers (Land Transporters, Sea Transporters, Air Transporters, Distributers, Street Dealers) Arcs=Unique smuggling paths between each node in accordance with Arc Rules. Initial Network (170 Nodes, 1200 Arcs) Modified Network (100 Nodes, 730 Arcs)

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Drug Network (Bay Area)

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Drug Network (San Francisco)

Scenario 1.1: Introduction Standard Shortest Path Interdiction Situation: – One large shipment has been reported to be ready to leave Mexico by land or Sea. – All Bay Area smuggling routes are available for interdiction teams. – Drug Smugglers have near perfect intelligence on location of Police Interdiction Teams – Drug Smugglers will choose the fastest route to get drugs into the hands of San Franciscan population. Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will maximize the Smugglers’ travel time and if possible completely cut off all drugs moving to the city. Goal of Experiment: – Gain understanding of optimal interdiction strategy and extrapolate into possible Drug Interdiction Doctrine. Network Considerations: – Cost in this network are Hours of Transit.

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 1 Interdiction Team (Bay Area) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 1 Interdiction Team (San Francisco) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 12 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) No Route

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 12 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) No Route

Scenario 1.1: Discussion Standard Shortest Path Interdiction Findings: – In all cases shipments from Mexico come from land. – Initial success is derived from cutting Land Transporters in near cities off from SF. – The airport is used only after and SF Land Transport nodes are cut from their Distributers. – Transit increases quickly when Sea Transit has to be used. – At 12 Interdiction Teams the Police pull all external teams and flood SF’s internal network Recommendations: – First cutoff land routes and force smugglers to use water routes if not enough teams to support attacking all internal networks. (Bridges/Highways) – Do not utilize limited resources on Street Dealers. Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: Introduction Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Situation: – One large shipment has been reported to be ready to leave Mexico by land or Sea. – ***All but one of the Bay Area smuggling routes are available for interdiction teams. One SF Land Transporter to one SF Distributer is unknown to police and interdiction teams can not get the necessary intelligence to interdict. – Drug Smugglers have near perfect intelligence on location of Police Interdiction Teams – Drug Smugglers will choose the fastest route to get drugs into the hands of San Franciscan population. Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will maximize the Smugglers’ travel time and if possible completely cut off all drugs moving to the city. Goal of Experiment: – Gain understanding of optimal interdiction strategy and extrapolate into possible Drug Interdiction Doctrine. Network Considerations: – Cost in this network are Hours of Transit.

Scenario 1.2: Results Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: Discussion Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Findings: – In all cases shipments from Mexico come from land. – Initial success is derived from cutting Land Transporters in near cities off from SF. – Airport Routes were not cut until 19 Interdiction Teams were Available. – Sea Transporters were not used until 25 and 26 Interdiction Teams were available. – Once 30 teams become available Police attack Sea Transporter to Distributer networks and then eliminate all Arcs that flow into Land Transporter Nodes Recommendations: – First cutoff land routes and force smugglers to use water routes. (Bridges/Highways) – All teams must be focused on Arcs originating outside of city. Do not turn attacks inwards until 30 teams become available. – Do not utilize limited resources on Street Dealers.

Scenario 2: Max Flow with Interdiction Situation: – 800KG Heroin is on the way from Mexico to San Francisco – Drug Smugglers attempt to find the best path to avoid interdictions and to transport as much heroin as possible Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will minimize the drugs flow. Goal of Experiments: – Effective attack: when an arc is attacked, the flow on that arc is gone – What if an attack is weak and not very effective? – Assume a weak attack can block only half flow on an arc Network Consideration: – Arcs in each different level basically have different capacities

Flows Capacity LevelStarting nodeEnding nodeCapacity (Kg) 1Mexico IntLand or IntSea 400 2 IntLand or IntSea Transport Centers100 3 Transport Center Transport Center or Distributer 70 4Distributer Distributer or Transport Center 50 5SF DistributerSeller15 6SellerDruginSF15

Effective Attack

Difference between Weak Attack and Effective Attack

Weak Attack 12 interdictions attack all SF Distributers 8 interdictions Attack SF59seaT, SF35seaT 13 interdictions Attack SF9landT 11 interdictions Attack SF9landT

Scenario 2: Discussion Modified Max Flow Interdiction Findings: – Max Flow without interdictions is 740KG – Effective Attack: need 12 interdiction teams to cut off the total flows – Weak Attack: 12 interdiction teams can reduce Max Flow to half (370KG) – Weak Attack: need 71 interdiction teams to cut the total flows off – Further attack need to be implemented outside SF Discussions: – Attack effectiveness could be more complex or nonlinear – Weak Attack case helps to approach realistic situation

CONCLUSION Weaknesses in intelligence will vastly increase the resource requirements. Land Based Drug Smuggling is likely to be used. Controlling Land Routes is essential to forcing Smugglers to use more costly means. Interdiction at the Street Dealer level is a sub- optimal use of resources.

FURTHER STUDY Create more realistic Network. Use real police intelligence to understand true Drug Network components. Change cost to probability of detection. Research true network capacities and introduce more realistic Max Flow problem. Broaden topic to use military SIGACT reports to create a network and interdiction strategies.

SOURCES http://www.crimemapping.com/map/ca/sanfr ancisco http://www.crimemapping.com/map/ca/sanfr ancisco http://www.sf-police.org Article “S.F. area is No. 1 for regular drug use” – Donna Leinwand – USA Today

SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback