A Milwaukee couple who say police repeatedly arrived at their home with long guns and ballistic shields after false emergency calls has received a $575,000 settlement from the city, ending a federal lawsuit that accused officers of violating their constitutional rights during dozens of swatting responses.
TMJ4 Lighthouse investigative reporter Ben Jordan said Patrick Tomlinson and Niki Robinson were targeted by swatting calls 55 times in a single year between 2022 and 2023, with callers falsely reporting violent crimes at their address in an apparent effort to trigger armed police responses.
The couple told Jordan they repeatedly warned Milwaukee police that the calls were fake, yet officers continued arriving in force, sometimes even acknowledging on body camera that the address was already known for swatting.
Officers Knew The Address Had Been Targeted Before
Jordan’s report included body-camera footage showing Milwaukee police arriving at the couple’s home with rifles, shotguns and shields after emergency calls that Tomlinson and Robinson say they never made.
In one clip, an officer can be heard telling another, “This guy keeps getting swatted.”
In another, the address is described as “a known swatting location.”
Despite that awareness, the couple said the tactical responses continued.
Tomlinson told Jordan that every visit carried a real sense of danger.
“You can’t not fear for your life to some degree when you have a shotgun racked and loaded pointed directly at your face,” he said.
That is what makes swatting so dangerous even when everyone involved eventually realizes the original report is false. Police are intentionally sent into a situation believing they may be confronting an active shooting, hostage crisis or other life-threatening emergency, while the innocent person at the address has no idea why armed officers are suddenly outside.
One Day Brought Four Police Responses
Jordan said body-camera footage showed an officer pointing a gun toward the home during what was already the fourth police response at the same address that day.
When Tomlinson questioned why officers were there again, an officer told him police had received a report of a shooting.
“This is the fourth time today,” Tomlinson responded.
The officer replied that police still had to respond and do their job.
Robinson described looking at the home’s camera feed and seeing a ballistic shield and several officers outside.
She said police were yelling while she came downstairs with her hands raised.
“They pulled me outside and they searched the entire house,” Robinson told Jordan.
At some point, the repeated encounters became more than an inconvenience.
They became a recurring situation in which the couple had to worry that one wrong movement or misunderstanding could have deadly consequences.
Couple Says They Begged MPD To Change Course
Robinson said she and Tomlinson repeatedly contacted the Milwaukee Police Department asking for a different response to future calls involving their address.
“You can say that we begged,” she told Jordan.
She said they emailed officials, spoke with officers, sergeants and lieutenants, and continued asking for the department to recognize the pattern.
According to Robinson, nothing meaningful changed until they filed a lawsuit.
“The only thing that actually changed anything was us bringing a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee,” she said.
Tomlinson added that suing was a last resort and said the couple had tried to work with the department before going to court.
That part of the story is particularly troubling because the very purpose of recognizing a swatting pattern is to stop the caller from repeatedly using police as an unwitting weapon.
Lawsuit Alleged Fourth Amendment Violations
Jordan reported that the couple’s federal lawsuit accused officers of conducting unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Attorney John Bradley said one unusual feature of the case was that claims were brought not only against the city but also against individual officers.
“The judge concluded that the individual officers violated our clients’ Fourth Amendment numerous times,” Bradley said.
The lawsuit alleged that a reasonable police department should have created some kind of policy to prevent itself from repeatedly becoming what the complaint described as a “tool of terror” against people it was supposed to protect.
Attorney Jack Idlas told Jordan the broader lesson was that constitutional protections inside the home still matter.
“The Fourth Amendment is still strong,” he said, adding that police cannot repeatedly harass people in their homes without proper justification.
City Approved $575,000 Settlement
Jordan reported that the Milwaukee Common Council approved the $575,000 settlement in May, only weeks before the federal case was scheduled to go to trial.
Court records show the payment was made last month.
The settlement resolves the lawsuit, but it does not necessarily mean the city accepted every allegation raised by Tomlinson and Robinson.
The city attorney declined Jordan’s interview request and stated in court filings that Milwaukee denied the claim that no policies had been implemented and also denied that its police force had become a “tool of terror.”
The Milwaukee police chief also declined an interview.
Instead, MPD provided Jordan with its standard operating procedure for swatting incidents.
MPD Says Swatting Reports Are Sent To Intelligence Unit
According to the policy provided to TMJ4, an officer handling a swatting case must file an incident report and send an email alerting the department’s Fusion Division.
The Fusion Division then creates a suspicious-activity report.
Jordan described the unit as MPD’s intelligence hub for identifying crime patterns and emerging threats.
That kind of process can help document repeated incidents, but Tomlinson and Robinson say documentation alone was not enough in their case because armed responses kept happening.
The late Milwaukee Alderman Jonathan Brostoff had also raised concerns about the situation.
Jordan said court records show Brostoff emailed the police chief about what was happening to the couple, writing, “This is horrible and needs to be stopped.”
Couple Wants Police To Call Before Sending Tactical Response
Tomlinson and Robinson say their goal now is not simply to talk about what happened to them, but to push for a better system when police know an address has been repeatedly targeted.
Tomlinson told Jordan that departments should learn to recognize swatting calls and approach known victims with less aggressive tactics when the circumstances allow.
He specifically called for responses that are “nonviolently, without a huge response, without the big guns pulled out.”
The couple also suggested that officers call known swatting victims before arriving with a heavily armed response.
That kind of verification would not be possible in every emergency, especially if police genuinely believe someone is in immediate danger, but it could provide one more way to check a suspicious call before treating an innocent household like an active crime scene.
Settlement Does Not End The Safety Concerns
Swatting works because it exploits the urgency built into emergency response.
Police cannot ignore reports of shootings or murders simply because the address has been targeted before, but Tomlinson and Robinson argue that repeated false calls should change how officers assess risk.
Their case shows how difficult that balance can become.
If police underreact to a real emergency, people could be hurt.
If they repeatedly overreact to a known fake pattern, the swatter still succeeds in creating fear and danger.
Tomlinson said that risk is not theoretical.
“People have died this way,” he told Jordan.
After 55 calls, repeated armed responses and a federal lawsuit, the couple received $575,000 from the city.
What they say they want now is a policy that makes it less likely another family will have to go through the same thing before police recognize the pattern and change how they respond.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
