By Assistant Chief (ret.) Sean Marchand
Over the course of my law enforcement career — and especially as I moved through the ranks — I frequently heard the career goals of young officers and those hoping to join the profession. Their aspirations often fell into one of three paths: becoming a detective, a canine handler, or a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. Each of these roles demands a unique set of skills and expertise, with some overlap — but also clear distinctions in discipline and focus.
While the competencies required may differ, one element should remain constant: character. It must carry significant weight in any selection process, particularly for roles that have been glorified by Hollywood, amplified by the media, and elevated by our own organizations.
For many years, I was involved in selecting candidates for the SWAT team within my organization, a mid-sized agency in Southern California. In this agency, assignment to the SWAT team was considered a collateral duty. It wasn’t sufficiently staffed, nor was there enough SWAT-specific activity to justify full-time positions. That was the belief of decision-makers at the time — whether or not I agreed with it then or now.
As a result, SWAT team candidates came from across the organization. From patrol officers to homicide detectives, we had a diverse pool of applicants with a wide range of professional and personal experience. The minimum requirement was three years of service as a police officer — an expectation I still support. New officers need time and field exposure to develop the right context for tactical decision-making. I would argue this is even more critical for those with a military background, where the rules of engagement and use-of-force considerations differ significantly from law enforcement.
As a SWAT team leader, I believed that choosing the right person for this assignment was a responsibility that could not be overstated. Over time, our selection process evolved. We developed and refined systems to assess marksmanship and physical capability. We also implemented methods to evaluate whether a candidate could work through a basic tactical scenario — and, just as importantly, articulate the reasoning behind their actions. These were key attributes we looked for and, in many cases, could objectively measure.
Our testing process was designed to be completed in a single day. If a candidate was unable to attend, no makeup option was offered — they had to wait for the next opportunity. Each component of the test was pass/fail. If you failed any part, you did not continue. The four components we landed on were: marksmanship, physical agility testing, a tabletop tactical exercise and an interview. Successful candidates were placed on an eligibility list, which we maintained for no more than six months.
Whether you’re a leader involved in selecting SWAT team members, or an officer aspiring to serve on your agency’s team, the following are key elements to consider in developing a thoughtful and effective selection process.
Marksmanship
Marksmanship should not be a mystery to your candidate pool. Publish the testing standards early in the evaluation process, ensuring everyone interested in the position is aware of what the standard is and how they can achieve it. Be explicit about the scoring standard — what constitutes a hit or miss, how many opportunities are allowed to test a component of the course of fire before it constitutes a failure of that part of the test. Let candidates know what qualifies as a failure of the marksmanship test.
We held several range days for those interested in testing to practice shooting the course of fire prior to test day. Candidates were run through the actual course so the mystery was removed about what it was and how difficult it could be. We ensured there was sufficient range staff present to provide close instruction as needed. This range staff was comprised of current and former SWAT team members. Mistakes in this environment were not uncommon during practice sessions and were corrected immediately. We were explicit about what was required to pass and how we identified failure in this component of testing, providing context for those who attended these practice sessions. Candidates were able to ask clarifying questions outside of the testing process. It was often noted who did or did not attend these training sessions on test day, particularly when evaluating their performance on the marksmanship course.
Our marksmanship testing evolved into a two-part test. First, there was a course of fire on a static paper target that was scored. The passing score was higher than that of our regular firearms qualification, and the course of fire was different from our standard qualification. Second, there was a tactical component that involved moving and shooting through a simulated doorway at the appropriate target. We used several paper targets, which were either shoot or no-shoot.
This process informed us of a candidate’s ability to accurately place rounds on target — an important skill. This is a skill that can generally be taught, learned, and improved. If someone passed the course on the first attempt, great. If it took a second attempt, that was considered but did not necessarily disqualify them.
The process also provided further insight into the candidate’s decision-making capabilities under pressure. Shooting the wrong target was a problem but one that could be overcome on a second attempt. If that happened, the pressure felt by the candidate was substantial. Overcoming that pressure was noted. Working through adversity in a high-stress environment is commendable. When many are asked — including me — testing was more stressful than many real-world stressors.
When possible, we would have several key members of the SWAT team attend the marksmanship testing. This usually included a Team Leader and a member of the entry element. They did not comment on performance, but their presence provided additional insight and increased the self-induced mental pressure candidates experienced. We did not want to force candidates to fail, but this is a position where all eyes in the community are watching. Making the right decision and performing at the highest level under pressure is critical for this role.
Finally, there is a character component to marksmanship testing. How does the candidate deal with failure of a component — or the entire test? Do they immediately pack their bags and leave? We didn’t chase them off the range. There was potential value in observing the remainder of the testing if they planned to try again in the future. Since they were allowed to stay, but chose to leave, that was a problem — being on the SWAT team is a team sport. We support one another, especially when we are disappointed or facing failure personally. If the candidate passed, did they do so with humility? Passing this part of the process was an achievement, but not the end. Finally, how did they treat others who passed or failed? Did they congratulate their competition? Did they offer encouragement or empathy to someone who failed? At the end of the day, we all had to work together in the organization after testing, pass or fail. My organization was small enough that everyone knew everyone else.
Physical agility testing
Testing for physical capability was equally transparent. We ensured the course was known to all candidates. They were given opportunities to run the course in advance and coached through each obstacle, with instructions on how to complete them efficiently.
For many years, we used an obstacle course provided by another agency. However, the location, scheduling, and costs associated with it encouraged us to develop our own.
This was not an easy decision. It would have been easier to maintain the status quo. By this time, I had been promoted and was now the SWAT Team Commander. I consulted the leadership component of the SWAT team, and we agreed we would be better served by having control over our own obstacle course. The leadership group included the SWAT Team Commander and Executive Officer (two Lieutenants), Team Leaders (three Sergeants), and the Scout and Backup Scout (two Officers).
Consulting with the SWAT team leadership on decisions like this led to better outcomes. It created buy-in, broadened perspectives, often required conflict resolution, and most importantly, supported succession planning. It gave all ranks within leadership the opportunity to see an issue from various perspectives — an important consideration, as an officer may not see things the same way as a sergeant or lieutenant, and vice versa.
During the development of our course, we ensured each obstacle had a real-world connection to SWAT duties. Candidates had to climb walls and navigate a series of challenges under a time limit. No single obstacle was especially difficult on its own, but when combined with time constraints, they became exponentially more challenging.
We added a unique component at the end: the candidate would don a gas mask, retrieve a simunition pistol from a table and fire several rounds at a target. Misses added time to their final score. This was a pass/fail event based on time.
Developing our own course was a novel idea for our agency at the time. We worked closely with Human Resources and the City Attorney to ensure the course was properly constructed and they understood why each obstacle was included. This ensured our testing was defensible and not perceived as hazing. Every component had to serve a legitimate purpose, not just make the course harder. This step was also critical to managing risk for the department and city.
Tactical tabletop exercise
This type of exercise is common in promotional processes in our region. We created a small-scale scenario with reasonable circumstances that a police officer might realistically face. The tabletop was based on real tactical problems encountered by our officers in the field to prevent any claims that the scenario was unrealistic or irrelevant.
This was a scripted and timed event. Candidates were asked to describe their tactical responses and could use a whiteboard where we projected an overhead map of the area in question. They were expected to explain the reasoning behind their actions throughout the scenario.
I would like to say there are no wrong answers but there are. If a candidate went silent and did not adequately explain their response, that was a serious issue, as communication is critical in resolving tactical problems. Equally concerning was a candidate who rushed in without fully understanding the scenario being presented.
When rating the candidate, we allowed a great deal of grace, though I’m sure candidates may not have felt that way. We understood that this might be their first time being tested since joining the agency and that nerves could impact their performance. We also recognized that complex problems could have multiple solutions — we mainly wanted to see that candidates understood the fundamentals. We used scripted follow-up questions, which allowed savvy candidates to refine or clarify their responses.
This exercise was an excellent tool to differentiate between good and very good candidates. By this stage, we were only interacting with candidates who had passed the marksmanship and obstacle course tests. This was our chance to evaluate how well they communicated complex ideas concisely and demonstrated their understanding of tactical responses.
Sometimes, raters would pose questions that hinted at the correct or more appropriate action the candidate may have overlooked. This was another opportunity to assess character. Did the candidate freeze or shut down? Or did they take the feedback and continue addressing the problem? Very few tactical situations go 100% according to plan, yet many are still successful — often because the people involved adapt, push through setbacks, and stay focused on the mission.
A couple of quick notes on tactical exercises or interviews: if you want the position, show up dressed appropriately. We ensured candidates had enough time after the physical agility test to clean up. The best performers nearly always wore suits, spoke well and demonstrated a strong understanding of the subject matter.
Upon completing the tabletop exercise, candidates were immediately moved into the interview. They were not told whether they had passed or failed the tabletop scenario — though, to be honest, very few failed it. We viewed this phase as an investment in their professional development, giving them valuable interview experience for the future.
Interview
Believe it or not, many candidates found this to be the easiest part of the testing process. By this point, they had already endured the mental pressure of the marksmanship test, the physical demands of the obstacle course and the performance stress of the tabletop exercise. I often saw relief in their eyes — at least for those who were prepared.
The interview panel consisted of several members of the SWAT team leadership. We often included another SWAT team member on the panel to give them experience as a rater.
The interview gave us an opportunity to better understand the candidate’s character and tactical knowledge. We wanted candidates who were humble — arrogance had no place on the team. The raters were tough, but fair. While they were recommending a potential teammate, they were also considering how they would continue working with the candidate if they weren’t selected.
Selection
After completing the scripted interview questions, we informed candidates they would be notified of the selection results as soon as possible — ideally within two or three days. Initially, this delay was due to internal bureaucracy. However, we eventually streamlined the process and were often able to make selections on the same day as testing.
Existing SWAT team members were encouraged to provide input on candidates based on personal experience. If they had heard something negative, they were expected to follow up and verify the information. We wanted to make decisions based on facts, not rumors. No one on the SWAT team had the authority to veto a candidate except the SWAT Commander. In all cases, no one was excluded arbitrarily.
Many of us were students of leadership and sought out the most effective practices available. Beyond attending law enforcement leadership courses, many of us read books from the corporate world. One such book, “The Ideal Team Player” by Patrick Lencioni, outlines three essential attributes: humble, hungry and smart. It’s a great read if you have the time.
We wanted selected candidates to demonstrate these attributes — not just understand them conceptually. Performing well on test day was not enough. Their body of work had to reflect the character and commitment we were looking for. Performing well was important, but being the right person who wanted to contribute to something greater than themselves mattered more.
Once the selection was made, we called everyone who tested but was not selected. We offered words of encouragement and provided feedback about their performance. The eligibility list was valid for six months. We also made ourselves available for more in-depth conversations later if candidates wanted further guidance.
In my organization, people paid more attention to how you handled not being selected than to how you behaved when you were. We made sure those not selected understood that and encouraged them to act accordingly. If they were going to “throw their sucker in the dirt,” they were advised to do so in private.
I had a personal philosophy throughout my time on the SWAT team, regardless of my position: I would rather run short on personnel than select the wrong person. If there was a vacancy and I didn’t feel confident in the remaining candidates on the list, I wouldn’t make a selection. I’d let the list expire and re-test. This decision might be based on performance in their regular assignment — or how they reacted when told they weren’t selected.
Conclusion
Being a member of any SWAT team takes hard work — physically and mentally. This is not a role for the faint of heart. There’s a Hollywood allure to the job; just look at all the shows and movies focused on SWAT officers. That stuff looks cool.
If you’re a candidate who wants to rise to the challenge, I encourage you to do so. Just make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. Humility is a demonstration of strength. People are watching, even when you think they aren’t. Make sure that any conversation decision-makers have about your performance or character is one you’d be proud to hear.
For those making decisions about who joins a SWAT team, remember: character should be weighed just as heavily as ability. One bad selection can damage a SWAT team for years. It’s your responsibility to make every selection the right one. You owe it to the team, the organization and the community you serve.
About the author
Sean Marchand retired as the Assistant Police Chief at the Oceanside (California) Police Department after a 27-year career. While at OPD, he held assignments in Patrol, Investigations, Administration and Support Operations. He was on the Department SWAT Team as an Officer, Team Leader, Executive Officer and Commanding Officer. He has a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from San Diego State University.
| WATCH: How to become a SWAT team officer