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 ArcSea Transport Node and ArcAir Transport Node and Arc

Distributer Node MEXICO

Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment

Drug Network (Bay Area)

Land Transport Node and ArcSea Transport NodeStreet Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes)

Distributer Node

Drugs in SF

Drug Network (San Francisco)

Scenario 1.1: IntroductionStandard 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.



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment

Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (Bay Area)

14.4 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF

Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (San Francisco)

14.4 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment

Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area)

15.2 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF

Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco)

15.2 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


15.64 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


15.64 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


19.13 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


19.13 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


19.62 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


19.62 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


19.95 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


19.95 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


20.2 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


20.2 Hours



Modesto

Oakland

Ocean Shipment

Land Shipment


22.33 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


22.33 Hours


Distributer Node

Drugs in SF


No Route

Scenario 1.1: DiscussionStandard 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.

0

10

20

30

40

Resiliency Curve 1.1

Transit Hours

Interdiction TeamsTr

ansi

t Hou

rs

Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: IntroductionModified 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: ResultsModified Shortest Path Interdiction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Resiliency Curve 1.2

Transit Hours

Interdiction Teams

Tran

sit H

ours

Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: DiscussionModified 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 CapacityLevel Starting node Ending node Capacity (Kg)

1 Mexico IntLand orIntSea 400

2 IntLand orIntSea Transport Centers 100

3 Transport Center

Transport Center orDistributer 70

4 Distributer Distributer or Transport Center 50

5 SF Distributer Seller 15

6 Seller DruginSF 15

Effective Attack

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800Maximum Flow into SF

Interdiction Teams

Max

Flo

w

Difference between Weak Attack and Effective Attack

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800Effective AttackWeak Attack

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 680

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Interdiction Teams

Max

Flo

wWeak Attack

12 interdictionsattack all SF Distributers

8 interdictionsAttack SF59seaT, SF35seaT

13 interdictionsAttack SF9landT

11 interdictionsAttack SF9landT

Scenario 2: DiscussionModified 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/sanfrancisco

• http://www.sf-police.org

• Article “S.F. area is No. 1 for regular drug use”– Donna Leinwand– USA Today

http://www.crimemapping.com/map/ca/sanfrancisco



http://www.sf-police.org/

http://www.sf-police.org/

Documents

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