This paper presents a theory of agency decisionmaking regarding homeland security policy over the last decade in the United States and inquires about appropriate modes of study to test its potential effectiveness. The key hypothesis is that the staple strategy of agency decisionmaking during the last decade has been 'hypervigilance'; defined here as: a state in which agency policy is rationally structured to maximize the pursuit of false positives and gravitate aggressively toward security threats. The related research question is 'How can we study hypervigilance and false positives in all matters regarding policing terror threats?' The authors argue that increased security measures tend to err toward pursuing false positives. However, they do not claim to understand the overall economic costs and benefits of recent homeland security policy decisions, in tangible financial or other realms. The authors contend that such an understanding is presently unattainable, considering the lack of raw data availability of how many terrorist attacks have been halted by increased security measures within the last decade. The authors do argue however, that the signal detection model is an appropriate starting methodology for study of such policing strategies. (Published Abstract) Tables, figure, notes, and references