 |
   |
||||
|
|
|
 |
||
|
 |
 |
 |
||
|
in Publications: Font size:    
|
|
New Edition of "Law Enforcement Intelligence" is Information Packed
David L. Carter, PhD, professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University (since 1985) and former Kansas City, Missouri, police officer (1971-1973), has released the 2009 second edition of Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies (496 pages), a mere five years after he wrote the first edition (312 pages) in 2004. (1-3)
The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services supported Carter’s writing of the first and second editions of Law Enforcement Intelligence. His points of view and opinions in the work do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Michigan State University. (4) The first edition of Law Enforcement Intelligence documented “unprecedented changes in law enforcement intelligence that occurred largely in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks,” and “described a broad array of cutting-edge issues and practices,” Carter writes. “At the time, it seemed implausible that such dramatic changes would occur again.” Yet they have. Indeed, a “staggering number of significant developments affecting law enforcement intelligence have occurred,” he states, including the following (1):
The second edition of Law Enforcement Intelligence covers these and other “changes in the philosophy, national standards, and practice of law enforcement intelligence while maintaining the core goal of being a primer on ‘all things intelligence’ for the law enforcement community,” Carter explains. The “primer” nature of Law Enforcement Intelligence and Dr. Carter’s gift for writing and teaching make his book accessible to a general audience of informed readers. Its scope is vast. Consider the 14 chapters of the book (chapter titles abbreviated):
Carter provides a very fine glossary of law enforcement intelligence terms (pp. 437-453) and a comprehensive bibliography for readers interested in more information on the many subtopic areas he covers. Highlights of Law Enforcement Intelligence, Second Edition, are presented below.
Carter closely examines the many attempts to define the term “intelligence.” He emphasizes its meaning as a “discipline, which refers to the set of rules, processes, and lexicon of the intelligence function.” (21) However, he also notes its more specific meaning, in the eyes of law enforcement practitioners, as analyzed information output from which conclusions are drawn. (21) He presents several good definitions, but my favorite (from the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts) of intelligence is an analytic process…deriving meaning from fact. It is taking information collected in the course of an investigation, or from internal or external files, and arriving at something more than was evident before. This could be leads in a case, a more accurate view of a crime problem, a forecast of future crime levels, or a hypothesis of who may have committed a crime or a strategy to prevent crime. (22) A common thread throughout all the definitions presented by Carter is that facts, information, or data become classifiable as intelligence only after analysis of the collected material has taken place. However, Carter goes further by noting that after analysis (taking apart something to its constituent parts to better understand it), a process of synergy (I would call it synthesis) occurs, which optimally results in high quality actionable intelligence for use by law enforcement decision makers. (23) “Actionable” refers to “intelligence and information with sufficient specificity and detail that explicit responses to prevent a crime or terrorist attack can be implemented.” (24) The goal of the law enforcement intelligence function is to develop and apply intelligence to eliminate or mitigate terrorism or crime threats by, for example, apprehending offenders and hardening targets, among other strategies.
The kinds of materials collected for intelligence analysis are informant information, surveillance, travel records, Closed Circuit TV videotapes, banking transactions, pen register (an electronic device that records all numbers dialed from a particular telephone line), trap and trace (an electronic device that records and traces all communication signals from a telecommunication system, such as Caller ID), wiretap (monitoring telephone and Internet conversations), “dumpster diving” (sifting through commercial or residential trash to find items that have been discarded by their owners, but which may be useful to the dumpster diver), forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints, body identification, ballistics), document evidence, and undercover. (25) Note that each of the above sources are “simply raw data that frequently have limited inherent meaning. Intelligence is when a wide array of raw information is assessed for validity and reliability, reviewed for materiality to the issues at question, and given meaning through the application of inductive or deductive logic.” (26) In sum, says Carter, “law enforcement intelligence…is the product of an analytic process that provides an integrated perspective to disparate information about crime, crime trends, crime and security threats, and conditions associated with criminality.” (26) A synonym of law enforcement intelligence is criminal intelligence. (27) Law enforcement intelligence is different from homeland security intelligence and national security intelligence, notes Carter. What are these latter two? Homeland security intelligence, explains Dr. Carter, is “the collection and analysis of information concerned with noncriminal [italics added] domestic threats to critical infrastructure, community health, and public safety for the purpose of preventing the threat or mitigating the effects of the threat.” (28) A synonym of homeland security intelligence is all-hazards intelligence. The relatively new homeland security framework developed since the events of September 11, 2001, requires law enforcement agencies to assess threats posed by all types of hazards that may pose a threat to public safety. For example, law enforcement agencies are expected to collect and analyze information concerned with critical infrastructure and community health, which, if impacted by a noncriminal domestic hazard, would require the presence of law enforcement to maintain order. Department of Homeland Security intelligence may identify community safety vulnerabilities emerging from an emergency or disaster and give this information to law enforcement agencies so that appropriate precautions can be put into place, says Carter. In other cases, what began as homeland security intelligence about, say, an infrastructure threat, can become law enforcement intelligence where an individual is identified who the police must then try to apprehend. (29) A number of emerging intelligence initiatives associated with homeland security (all-hazards) intelligence include the Fire Service Intelligence Enterprise, medical intelligence, and gang intelligence. National security intelligence is “the collection and analysis of information concerned with the relationship and homeostasis of the United States with foreign powers, organizations, and persons with regard to political and economic factors as well as the maintenance of the United States’ sovereign principles,” says Carter. What is the goal of the national security intelligence function? It is “to maintain the United States as a free, capitalist republic with its laws and constitutional foundation intact, and identify and neutralize threats or actions that undermine United States sovereign principles,” avers Carter. (29) There are two type of national security intelligence—policy and military. Policy intelligence “is concerned with threatening actions and activities of entities hostile to the U.S., while military intelligence focuses on hostile entities, weapons systems, warfare capabilities, and order of battle. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of threats from terrorist groups, both policy and military intelligence have evolved to grapple with the character of new threats. The organizations responsible for national security intelligence are collectively known as the Intelligence Community.” (29) The sixteen members of the Intelligence Community are Carter notes that Intelligence Community members do not conduct criminal investigations, like law enforcement agencies do. Important constitutional restrictions attach to criminal investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies. Thus, law enforcement agencies must be extremely careful about their use of any information collected by Intelligence Community members, because “there is a strong likelihood that the methods of collecting the national security intelligence would not meet constitutional muster in a criminal trial.” (30) No informed law enforcement agency wants to accept that liability. For further discussion on this topic, the reader is referred to Chapter 2 of Carter’s Law Enforcement Intelligence. Dr. Carter provides a list of post-9/11 law enforcement intelligence initiatives (current to summer 2009): Dr. Carter describes many of these initiatives in other parts of his book. Like many processes, the law enforcement intelligence process is a cycle of activities, steps, of phases, which comprise the Intelligence Cycle. Carter notes, however, that the cycle may be depicted as steps, but “there is a constant ebb and flow of information between phases as information is processed and shared. The Intelligence Process, therefore, is not a series of independent steps that are mechanically processed in an unbending sequential order; rather, they represent a recipe for intelligence and information sharing that will frequently change according to the availability of “ingredients” and the “nutritional needs” of the consumer.” (36) Law enforcement intelligence units apply the process to “all crimes, whether terrorism drug trafficking, gangs, or any other criminal enterprise. Indeed, the process also helps identify circumstances where there is a nexus among these different types of crimes,” explains Carter. (36) The six phases are planning and direction, collection, processing/collation, analysis, dissemination, and reevaluation. Using another metaphor, Carter notes the Intelligence Process “acts like a radar sweep across a community. The process seeks to identify potential threats, determine the status of suspicious activity, and provided indicators of criminality so that operational units can develop response.” (37) For example, “an intelligence bulletin describes an emerging threat of Eastern European organized crime operating protection rackets in a major midwestern city. A police officer working neighborhoods with large populations of Russian immigrants has noticed an increase in thefts and property damage to small businesses largely operated by immigrants. In light of the intelligence bulletin, the officer provides information to the intelligence unit that crimes reported as simple thefts and property destruction within this area of the city may, in reality, be symptoms of ‘enforcer’ activities of Eastern European organized crime protection schemes. The analyst corroborates the information with practices of the organized crime group in other cities and provides the additional information to officers in a revised bulletin. To be most effective, the Intelligence Process requires this ongoing two-way flow of information.” (38)
Carter lucidly explains the threat assessment process, which involves threat identification, assessment of the vulnerability of the target, and assessment of the outcome if the vulnerability is exploited by the identified threat. The threat assessment process seeks to make a distinction on whether an intelligence target is “making a threat” or “posing a threat.” (39) A complete description of the Intelligence Cycle is beyond the scope of this article, but is readily available in Law Enforcement Intelligence (chapter 4). The term privacy refers to “individuals’ interests in preventing the inappropriate collection, use, and release of personally identifiable information,” explains Carter. Privacy interests include privacy of personal behavior, privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly use the word privacy, but several of its provisions protect different aspects of this fundamental right. Although an explicit federal constitutional right to an individual’s privacy does not exist, privacy rights have been articulate din different contexts by the U.S. Supreme Court. Privacy protections are numerous and include protection from unnecessary or unauthorized collection of personal information (e.g., eavesdropping), public disclosure of private facts, and shame or humiliation caused by release of personal information. (40) The term civil rights is used to imply that the state has a role in ensuring that all citizens have equal protection under the law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil rights, therefore, are obligations imposed on government to promote equality. More specifically, they are the rights to personal liberty guaranteed to all United States citizens by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and by acts of Congress. Generally, the term civil rights involves positive (or affirmative) government action, while the term civil liberties involves restrictions on government. As such, civil liberties refers to fundamental individual rights derived from the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, press, or religion; due process of law; and other limitations on the power of the government to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. Civil liberties offer protection to individuals from improper government action and arbitrary governmental interference. (40) Carter continues, “Privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties have important implications for the law enforcement intelligence process, particularly in light of past abuses. Critics claim that law enforcement has not changed its intelligence practices and that post-9/11 counterterrorism initiatives have made law enforcement agencies even more intrusive. Understanding this concern and the consequent scrutiny of law enforcement intelligence activities by those concerned about civil rights abuses provides an important perspective. Carter notes how law enforcement officers must focus on fairly explicit rules to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, as follows: This topic area is huge, exceedingly complex, and resistant to succinct overview. Nevertheless, the interested reader will find that in chapter 7 of Law Enforcement Intelligence, Dr. Carter has provided an incisive pithy summary that sheds light on the often misunderstood area of law enforcement operations. David L. Carter’s Law Enforcement Intelligence, Second Edition, makes available to interested readers an enormous amount of information and, well, intelligence, about the law enforcement intelligence function today. The book is a candid rendering of a challenging topic that allows informed readers to glimpse the complex inner workings of how law enforcement agencies develop and apply intelligence to prevent or mitigate criminal acts to improve public safety. Notes:
|
Copyright
2007 - SEMP INC., All Rights Reserved.