Which U.S. agencies are documented users of LRAD systems and how are they trained to deploy them?
Executive summary
Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) are documented in use across a spectrum of U.S. agencies — from federal law enforcement to city police departments and the military — and training and deployment are governed unevenly through a mix of department policies, manufacturer guidance, and court-enforced restrictions rather than a single national standard [1][2][3]. Local policies typically require formal training, supervisory approval, and after-action reporting, while the manufacturer and military promote doctrinal and operational training tied to communications, warning, and force-mitigation missions [4][5][6].
1. Which federal and military agencies use LRADs: documented users and procurement evidence
The U.S. military widely fields LRAD systems, with public procurement announcements and vendor claims documenting orders for Army, Navy and Air Force units and statements that “every U.S. Navy surface combatant” deploys LRAD for shipboard hailing and warning [2][7][5]. Federal law‑enforcement and homeland-security agencies are also named users: investigative reporting and NGO inventories list the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) among agencies employing LRAD models [1].
2. Local and state law enforcement: documented deployments and examples
Municipal and state police departments across the country have acquired and deployed LRADs for crowd communication and dispersal orders, with documented uses by the New Jersey State Police, North Dakota state troopers, National Guard elements supporting protests, Salisbury and Princess Anne Police Departments in Maryland, and numerous city police departments including New York City agencies whose practices were later litigated [8][9][8][3]. Company and watchdog reports place LRADs in the inventory of hundreds of U.S. police agencies, though the exact total remains uncertain [3][10].
3. How agencies train to deploy LRADs: policies, courses, and manufacturer guidance
Training practices documented in departmental policy require selected operators to complete formal instruction and recurring training: Oakland’s departmental general order mandates monthly training and completion of specified courses — for example, a 40‑hour FBI Hostage Negotiation School — before officers may use LRAD in live events, and many policies couple equipment use with de‑escalation training and supervisory approval [4][6]. Manufacturer materials and defense marketing position LRAD training within mission‑specific scenarios — maritime hailing, crowd communication, PSYOPS simulations, and emergency notification — and promote integrated training for interoperability with command systems [5][10].
4. Operational limits, legal actions, and shifts in training/usage after controversy
Legal settlements and internal reviews have reshaped training and permissible modes: a 2021 settlement required the NYPD to ban the painful high‑frequency “deterrent” tone and to revise LRAD training materials, plus to instruct officers to maintain safe standoff distances when using devices, illustrating how litigation can produce binding operational constraints and retraining requirements [3]. Local policies similarly emphasize reporting, force reviews, and limits on use during rapidly evolving incidents unless authorized, reflecting attempts to prevent misuse through procedural controls [6][9].
5. Incentives, marketing, and accountability gaps that shape training and deployment
Vendor messaging frames LRADs as life‑saving communication and crowd‑management tools and documents global and domestic deployments, while federal grant rules and surplus programs influence acquisition paths — for example, FEMA grant guidance and the 1033 surplus program have been cited as routes enabling local purchases — creating incentives for agencies to obtain LRADs even as oversight varies by jurisdiction [10][11]. This commercial and funding context can bias training toward operational adoption rather than precaution, leaving accountability fragmented across municipal policies, manufacturer courses, military doctrine, and occasional court settlements [5][4].