encyclopedia of law enforcement
TRANSCRIPT
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page i
EDITORIAL BOARD
Geoffrey AlpertUniversity of South Carolina
Thomas FeltesUniversity of Applied Police Sciences, Spaichingen, Germany
Lorie A. FridellPolice Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC
James J. FyfeJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice
David T. JohnsonUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa
Peter K. ManningNortheastern University
Stephen D. MastrofskiGeorge Mason University
Rob MawbyUniversity of Plymouth, U.K.
Mark MooreHarvard University
Maurice PunchLondon School of Economics, U.K.
Wesley G. SkoganNorthwestern University
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page ii
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page iii
Copyright © 2005 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic ormechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.
For information:
Sage Publications, Inc.2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320E-mail: [email protected]
Sage Publications Ltd.1 Oliver’s Yard55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1SPUnited Kingdom
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.B-42, Panchsheel EnclavePost Box 4109New Delhi 110 017 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Encyclopedia of law enforcement / Larry E. Sullivan, general editor.p. cm.
A Sage Reference Publication.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-7619-2649-6 (cloth)
1. Law enforcement—Encyclopedias. 2. Criminal justice, Administration of—Encyclopedias.I. Sullivan, Larry E. HV7921.E53 2005363.2′0973′03—dc22
2004021803
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
04 05 06 07 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquisitions Editor: Jerry WestbyAssociate Editor: Benjamin PennerEditorial Assistant: Vonessa VonderaProduction Editor: Denise SantoyoDevelopmental Editor: Yvette PollastriniSystems Coordinator: Leticia GutierrezCopy Editor: Toni WilliamsTypesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.Indexer: Pamela VanHussCover Designer: Michelle Lee Kenny
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page iv
Contents
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,VOLUME II: FEDERAL
List of Entries, vi
Reader’s Guide, ix
List of Contributors, xv
Introduction, xix
About the Editors, xxiii
ENTRIES A-Z
533–912
Master Bibliography, 913
Appendix, A1
Index, I-1
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page v
vi
Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences
Airborne Law EnforcementAssociation
AMBER AlertAmerican Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors American Society of Criminology Amtrak Police Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty ActAppropriations and Budgeting for
Law EnforcementArt Loss RegisterASIS International (Formerly the
American Society forIndustrial Security)
Asset Forfeiture
Ballistics Recognition andIdentification Systems
Brady Handgun ViolencePrevention Act
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Explosives
Bureau of Engraving and PrintingPolice
Bureau of Immigration andCustoms Enforcement
Bureau of Industry and SecurityBureau of Land Management
Law EnforcementBureau of Reclamation, Office of
Security, Safety, andLaw Enforcement
Burns Detective Agency
Campus Safety and Security ActsChemical and Biological
TerrorismChildren’s Online Privacy
Protection ActChurch Arson Prevention ActCombined DNA Index SystemCommission on the Accreditation
of Law Enforcement Agencies Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control ActCrime Laboratory Accreditation Crime Statistics Crimes, Federal JurisdictionCriminal Investigation
Command, Department of theArmy, Department of Defense
Critical Incident ResponseGroup
Death Penalty, Federally EligibleCrimes
Defense Criminal InvestigativeService
Department of Education, Officeof the Inspector General
Department of Health and HumanServices
Department of HomelandSecurity
Department of JusticeDiplomatic Security ServiceDNA Testing Drug EnforcementDrug Enforcement AdministrationDrug Testing of Employees
Economic CrimeElectronic SurveillanceEmergency PreparednessEncryption Exclusionary Rule
Federal Air MarshalProgram
Federal Aviation AdministrationFederal Bureau of Investigation Federal Communications
Commission, EnforcementBureau
Federal Drug Seizure SystemFederal Law Enforcement
Officers AssociationFederal Law Enforcement
Training CenterFederal Maritime CommissionFederal Policing in Indian
CountryFederal Protective ServiceFederal Trade CommissionFederal Witness Protection
ProgramFinancial Crimes Enforcement
NetworkFish and Wildlife Service,
Division of LawEnforcement
Food and Drug AdministrationForensic Accounting Forest Service, Law
Enforcement and InvestigationsFreedom of Information Act Fugitive Felon Act
List of Entries
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page vi
List of Entries—�—vii
Government Printing OfficePolice
Gun Control Act
Harrison ActHate CrimesHate Crimes Statistics ActHiring Standards for Federal Law
EnforcementHispanic American Police
Command Officers AssociationHuman Trafficking
Informants, Issues SurroundingUse of
Inspectors General, Offices of Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification SystemsIntelligence and Security
Command, Department of theArmy, Department of Defense
Internal Revenue Service,Criminal InvestigationDivision
Internal Revenue Service,Inspection Service
International Association ofCampus Law EnforcementAdministrators
International Association ofChiefs of Police
International Association ofWomen Police
International TradeAdministration, Department ofCommerce
Internet Fraud ComplaintCenter
Interstate Commerce Commission
Joint Task Forces
Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration
Law Enforcement Rangers,National Park Service
Law Enforcement TelevisionNetwork
Library of Congress PoliceLindbergh Law
Mann Act Marijuana Tax ActMilitary Police, Department of
the Army, Department ofDefense
Military PolicingMilitiasMothers Against Drunk Driving Motor Vehicle Theft Act
Narcotics Control ActNational Academy, Federal
Bureau of InvestigationNational Advisory Commission
on Civil Disorder (KernerCommission)
National Association of WomenLaw Enforcement Executives
National Black Police OfficersAssociation
National Commission on LawObservance and Enforcement(Wickersham Commission)
National Crime InformationCenter
National Crime VictimizationSurvey
National DNA Index System National Domestic Preparedness
Office National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration National Incident-Based
Reporting SystemNational Institute of Justice National Institutes of Health,
Department of Health andHuman Services
National Law Enforcementand Corrections TechnologyCenter System
National Law EnforcementMemorial
National Law EnforcementTelecommunications System
National Marine FisheriesService, Department ofCommerce
National Native American LawEnforcement Association
National Organization ofBlack Law EnforcementExecutives
National Public SafetyInformation Bureau
National Rifle AssociationNational Security AgencyNational Sheriffs’ AssociationNational Transportation Safety
BoardNational White Collar Crime
CenterNational Zoological Park
(Smithsonian) ProtectiveServices
Naval Criminal InvestigativeService
Nuclear Security, Department ofEnergy
Office of National Drug ControlPolicy
Office of Protective Service,National Gallery of Art
Office of Security, CentralIntelligence Agency
Office of Surface MiningReclamation andEnforcement
Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act
Pentagon Police Pinkerton National Detective
Agency Police Executive Research ForumPolice FoundationPolice and Security Service,
Department of Veterans AffairsPosse Comitatus Act President’s Commission on Law
Enforcement and theAdministration of Justice
Privacy ActProhibition Law Enforcement Pure Food, Drink, and Drug Act
Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act
Railroad Policing
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page vii
Secret ServiceSecurities and Exchange
Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority PoliceTransportation Security
AdministrationTreasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration
Undercover OperationsUniform Crime Reporting
ProgramU.S. Air Force Office of Special
Investigations
U.S. Air Force Security ForcesU.S. Capitol PoliceU.S. Coast GuardU.S. Criminal Investigation
Command, Department of theArmy, Department of Defense
U.S. Customs ServiceU.S. Marshals ServiceU.S. Mint PoliceU.S. Park PoliceU.S. Police Canine
Association Inc.U.S. Postal Inspection ServiceU.S. Supreme Court PoliceUSA PATRIOT Act
Violence Against Women Act Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement ActVolstead Act
Wackenhut CorporationWeapons of Mass Destruction Wells FargoWhite-Collar Crime Enforcement Women in Federal Agency
Law Enforcement Women in Federal Law
Enforcement
viii—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page viii
ix
AGENCIES/ASSOCIATIONS/ORGANIZATIONS
Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences
Airborne Law EnforcementAssociation
American Society of CriminologyBurns Detective AgencyChild WelfareCommission on the Accreditation of
Law Enforcement AgenciesCrime StoppersFederal Law Enforcement Officers
AssociationFraternal OrganizationsHispanic American Police Command
Officers AssociationInternational Association of
Campus Law EnforcementAdministrators
International Association ofChiefs of Police
International Association of WomenPolice
Mothers Against Drunk Driving National Association of Women Law
Enforcement ExecutivesNational Black Police Officers
AssociationNational Native American Law
Enforcement Association National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement ExecutivesNational Rifle AssociationNational Sheriffs’ Association
Police Executive Research ForumPolice FoundationU.S. Police Canine Association, Inc.
CIVILIAN/PRIVATEINVOLVEMENT
America’s Most WantedBondsman or Bail AgentBounty HuntersBurns Detective AgencyCitizen’s ArrestCitizen Police AcademiesCrime StoppersMilitiasPinkerton National Detective AgencyPolice ExplorersPrivate PolicingVigilantesVolunteersWackenhut CorporationWells Fargo
COMMUNICATIONS
Calls for ServiceCommunications InteroperabilityComputer-Aided DispatchDispatchInteragency Cooperation . . . or NotInformation TechnologiesNational Law Enforcement
Telecommunications SystemsResponse Time
CRIME STATISTICS
Clearance RatesCrime StatisticsCrime Statistics and AnalysisHomicide Trends in the
United StatesNational Crime Victimization
SurveyNational Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS)Uniform Crime Reports
CULTURE/MEDIA
America’s Most WantedLaw Enforcement Television
NetworkLaw Enforcement MemorialsNational Law Enforcement
Memorial FundNews Media and PolicePerp WalkPolice FictionPolice MuseumsPublic Perceptions/Attitudes
Toward PoliceTelevision (Cop Shows)
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Asset Forfeiture, StateComprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act
Reader’s Guide
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page ix
x—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
Drug Enforcement in theUnited States
Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Policy and LegislationDrug Prevention EducationDrug Testing of EmployeesDrug Testing of PoliceDrug TraffickingFederal Drug Seizure SystemFood and Drug AdministrationHarrison ActMarijuana Tax ActNarcotics Control ActOffice of National Drug Control
PolicyPure Food, Drink, and Drug Act
FEDERAL AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS
Bureau of Engraving and PrintingPolice
Bureau of Immigration and CustomsEnforcement
Bureau of Industry and SecurityBureau of Land Management, Law
EnforcementBureau of Reclamation, Office of
Security, Safety, and LawEnforcement
Critical Incident Response GroupDepartment of Health and Human
Services Department of Homeland SecurityDepartment of JusticeDiplomatic Security ServiceDrug Enforcement AdministrationFederal Air Marshal ProgramFederal Aviation Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Law Enforcement Training
CenterFederal Protective ServiceFinancial Crimes Enforcement
Network Fish and Wildlife ServiceForest Service, Law Enforcement
and InvestigationsInspectors General Inspectors General, Offices of Internet Fraud Complaint CenterLaw Enforcement Assistance
Administration
Library of Congress PoliceNational Crime Information Center National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration National Institutes of Health,
Department of Health andHuman Services
National Marine Fisheries Service,Department of Commerce
National Public Safety InformationBureau
National Security AgencyNational Transportation
Safety Board National Zoological (Smithsonian)
Park Protective ServicesNuclear Security, Department of
EnergyOffice of Security, Central
Intelligence AgencyOffice of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement Pentagon PoliceSecret ServiceTennessee Valley Authority PoliceTransportation Security
AdministrationU.S. Capitol PoliceU.S. Coast GuardU.S. Customs Service U.S. Marshals ServiceU.S. Postal Inspection Service
INTERNATIONAL LAWENFROCEMENT
Community Policing, a CaribbeanCase Study
Community Policing, InternationalEUROPOLHistory of PolicingInternational CooperationInternational Criminal Justice
MechanismsINTERPOL IPAPolice and the U.N. Peace
MissionsPolice CorruptionPolice Corruption, Strategies for
CombatingPolice Structure:
Centralized/Decentralized
Police and TerrorismPolice TrainingPrivatization of PoliceSuicide by Cop: Comparative
PerspectivesUnited Nations and Criminal Justice
PolicyWomen in Policing
INVESTIGATIONTECHNIQUES
American Society of CrimeLaboratory Directors
BallisticsBallistics Recognition and
Identification SystemsCombined DNA Index SystemCoroner and Medical Examiner
SystemsCrime LaboratoriesCrime Laboratory AccreditationCrime MappingCrime Scene InvestigationDetectivesDNADNA TestingDocument ExaminersEncryptionEvidenceFingerprintsForensic AccountingForensic ArtForensic ScienceGeographic Information
System (GIS)Information TechnologiesInterrogationInvestigation TechniquesLie Detection Profiling, Criminal PersonalityProfiling, Drug CourierProfiling, GeographicTask ForcesUndercover Operations
INVESTIGATION, TYPES OF
AMBER AlertArson InvestigationArt Theft InvestigationChild Abduction Investigations
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page x
Reader’s Guide—�—xi
Child MolestationChild PornographyCold Case InvestigationsComputer CrimeCrime Scene InvestigationDomestic Violence EnforcementDrunk Driving EnforcementGangs InvestigationHomicide InvestigationIdentity Theft and Identity
CrimesMissing Persons InvestigationsOffice of Criminal InvestigationsOrganized Crime ControlSerial Murder InvestigationSex Crimes InvestigationVidocq Society
INVESTIGATIVECOMMISSIONS
Christopher Commission, TheCrown Heights ReportKnapp Commission, TheMcCone Commission, TheMollen Commission, TheNational Advisory Commission
on Civil Disorders (KernerCommission)
National Commission on LawObservance and Enforcement(Wickersham Commission)
President’s Commission on LawEnforcement and theAdministration of Justice
Rampart Investigation, The
LAW AND JUSTICE
Crimes, Federal JurisdictionDeath Penalty, Federally Eligible
CrimesIdentity Fraud Complaint CenterInternational Criminal Justice
MechanismsParole OfficersPeace OfficersProbation OfficersProsecutorsRepeat OffendersRestorative JusticeTheories of Policing
LEGISLATION/LEGAL ISSUES
Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act
Brady Handgun ViolencePrevention Act
Campus Safety and Security ActsChildren’s Online Privacy
Protection ActChurch Arson Prevention ActComprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control ActConsent DecreesFreedom of Information ActFugitive Felon ActGun ControlGun Control ActHarrison ActHate Crime StatutesHate Crimes, Law Enforcement
Response toHate Crimes Statistics ActImmigrants (Policy Toward)Mann ActMarijuana Tax ActMegan’s Law: Community
Notification of RegisteredSex Offenders
Motor Vehicle Theft ActNarcotics Control ActOmnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets ActPosse Comitatus ActPrivacy ActProhibition Law Enforcement Pure Food, Drink, and
Drug ActRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations ActSex Offender Civil CommitmentUSA PATRIOT ActViolence Against Women Act Violent Crime Control & Law
Enforcement Act (1994)Volstead Act
MILITARY
Intelligence and Security Command,Department of the Army,Department of Defense
Militarization of American PoliceMilitary Police, Department of the
Army, Department of Defense
Military PolicingNational GuardNaval Criminal Investigative
ServiceU.S. Air Force Office of Special
Investigations U.S. Air Force Security Police U.S. Criminal Investigation
Command, Department of theArmy, Department of Defense
MINORITY ISSUES
Affirmative Action in PolicingCultural Competency/Sensitivity
TrainingDepolicingGays in PolicingHate CrimesHate Crimes, Law Enforcement
Response toImmigrant Law EnforcementImmigrants (Policy Toward)International Association of
Women PoliceNational Association of Women Law
Enforcement ExecutivesNational Native American Law
Enforcement AssociationNational Organization of Black Law
Enforcement ExecutivesProfiling, RacialRace RelationsTribal PolicingWomen in Federal Agency Law
EnforcementWomen in Federal Law EnforcementWomen in Policing, State
and Local
PERSONNEL ISSUES
Affirmative Action in PolicingAssaults on the PoliceBody ArmorCultural Competency/Sensitivity
TrainingDrug Testing of EmployeesDrug Testing of PoliceEarly Warning SystemsEducation of PoliceEvaluation of Officers
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xi
xii—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
Fraternal OrganizationsHiring Standards for PoliceMoralePatrol ShiftsPatrol WorkPhysical Fitness and TrainingPolice CorpsPolice DiscretionPolice ManagementPolice Officers’ Bill of RightsPolice Residency RequirementsPolice ShootingsPolice Strikes/“Blue Flu”Police Training in the
United StatesPsychologists/Psychological
ServicesQuotas (Tickets, Arrests)Rank StructureStressUnions
POLICE CONDUCT
AccountabilityAssaults on PoliceCivil LiabilityCivil Rights Violations by PoliceCivilian Complaint Review
BoardsComplaints Against PoliceConsent DecreesCorruption/IntegrityEarly Warning SystemsEthicsEvaluation of OfficersInternal AffairsPolice BrutalityPolice Code of SilencePolice DiscretionPolice MisconductPolice ShootingsSuicide by CopUse of ForceWhistle-Blowing
POLICE PROCEDURES
ArrestsCanine (K-9) UnitsChain of CustodyConfessionsDuty Belt
Electronic SurveillanceExclusionary RuleEyewitnessesHostage NegotiationsInformantsInterrogationLie DetectionLineupsMiranda WarningsNonlethal WeaponsPlain View DoctrinePolice DiscretionPolice PursuitsProbable CauseSearch and SeizureSearch WarrantsStop and FriskSWAT TeamsUndercover OperationsUse of ForceVehicle SearchesVideo in Patrol CarsWeapons
POLICING STRATEGIES
“Broken Windows” or IncivilitiesThesis
Community PolicingCommunity RelationsCompstatCurfewsHot SpotsLoiteringPatrol Methods, Tactics, and Strategies Performance Evaluation of Police
DepartmentsPolice DiscretionProblem-Oriented PolicingQuality-of-Life EnforcementTheories of PolicingZero Tolerance
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Airport SecurityAuxiliary/Reserve/Part-Time
PoliceBurns Detective AgencyCampus PolicingEmergency Services UnitsNational Domestic Preparedness
Office
National GuardPeace OfficersPinkerton National Detective
AgencyPrivate PolicingSchool Crime/Security/ResponseSpecial Jurisdiction Law
Enforcement AgenciesWackenhut Corporation
SPECIALIZED LAWENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Amtrak PoliceCampus PolicingChaplainsChild WelfareHousing PoliceInspectors GeneralMunicipal PolicingNational GuardPeace OfficersPrivate PolicingRailroad PolicingRural PolicingSchool Crime/Security/ResponseSheriffsSpecial Jurisdiction Law
Enforcement AgenciesState PoliceTransit PoliceTribal Policing
TACTICS
ArrestsBombs and Bomb SquadsCanine (K-9) UnitsCounterterrorismCrime MappingCrime Prevention UnitsCrisis InterventionDuty BeltEmergency Services UnitsGeographic Information SystemsHostage NegotiationsJuvenile Crimes/Programs/UnitsMentally Ill, Police Response toMilitarization of American PoliceMisdemeanorsNonlethal WeaponsPolice MediationRadar
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xii
Reader’s Guide—�—xiii
Riots/Demonstrations,Response to
Special Victims UnitStop and FriskSWAT TeamsTask ForcesTraffic EnforcementTruancyUse of ForceVehicle SearchesWeapons
TERRORISM
Chemical and Biological Terrorism,Local Response to
CounterterrorismDepartment of Homeland
SecurityEmergency Services UnitsTerrorist Groups, DomesticTerrorist Groups, ForeignUSA PATRIOT Act
VICTIMS/WITNESSES
Crisis InterventionEyewitnessesFederal Witness Protection ProgramLineupsNational Crime Victimization
SurveySpecial Victim UnitsState Witness Protection ProgramsVictims, Police Response to
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xiii
xv
Amendola, Karen L.Police Foundation
Archbold, Carol A.Marquette University
Baggett, Ryan K.Eastern Kentucky University
Bartels, ElizabethJohn Jay College
Beckmann, John D.New York City Police Department
Beharry, MichelleJohn Jay College
Birch, Timothy K.Excelsior College
Bolz, Frank A., Jr.New York City Police
Department
Bracey, Dorothy H.John Jay College
Briggs, Lisa ThomasWestern Carolina University
Brooks, MarvieJohn Jay College
Bunker, Robert J.Opposing Force Program
Butler, RichardNew Jersey State Parole Board
Byrd, MasonVirginia Commonwealth
University
Camacho, AlisaJohn Jay College
Cherry, Steven D.Glen Rock (NJ) Police Department
Clear, Todd R.John Jay College
Collica, KimberlyMonroe College
Cubero, CandidoNew York City Police Department
DelCastillo, VincentJohn Jay College
D’Eustachio, PeterNew York University
Diamond, Deanna L.Sam Houston University
D’Olivo, AmyCentenary College
Domingo, Jannette O.John Jay College
Draper, Heather R.Sam Houston State University
Dunham, Janice K.John Jay College
Egan, NancyJohn Jay College
Faggiani, DonaldUniversity of Wyoming
Feeney, GeorgeJohn Jay College
Feinberg, Lotte E. John Jay College
Freilich, Joshua D.John Jay College
Garcia, VenessaKean University
Garland, Tammy S.Sam Houston State University
Gellman, RobertPrivacy and Information Policy
Consultant
Gibbons, MaryAttorney, private practice
Giblin, MatthewYork College of Pennsylvania
Gibson, CamillePrairie View A & M University
Gibson, Pamela A. Old Dominion University
Goodwin, Lorine Swainston University of Missouri
List of Contributors
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xv
xvi—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
Gormley, PaulaJohn Jay College
Grant, Heath B.John Jay College
Green, Nicole R.Oxford College
Gross, GretchenJohn Jay College
Guy, GenevieveSan Mateo, CA,
Police Department
Hassell, Kimberly D.University of Nebraska at Omaha
Hohn, David A.North Dakota State University
Johnston, RichardNational White Collar Crime Center
Killoran, Katherine B.John Jay College
King, Joseph F.John Jay College
Kiriakova, MariaJohn Jay College
Koletar, Joseph W.Ernest & Young LLP
Lacks, Brian Kessler Virginia State Police
Lacks, Robyn DiehlVirginia Commonwealth University
Li, Richard C.Sam Houston State University
Linskey, Joseph P.Centenary College
Lothridge, KevinNational Forensic Science Technical
Center
MacNamara, Brian S.John Jay College
Maitland, Angela S.Indiana University
Munch, Janet Butter Lehman College
Martin, Vertel T.East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania
Mazzone, JasonBrooklyn Law School
McCrie, Robert D.John Jay College
McKee, AdamUniversity of Arkansas at
Monticello
Mege, Jacqueline D.New York City Police Department
Moon, MichonCommonwealth Attorney’s Office, VA
Moore, RobertDelta State University
Moriarty, Laura J.Virginia Commonwealth University
Morse, Christopher John Jay College
Munch, Janet ButlerLahman College
Munch, Vincent A.Metropolitan College of New York
Musluoglu, Subutay Transit Historian
Musto, David F.Yale University
Newbold, Katherine M.XG Consultants Group Inc.
O’Donnell, Eugene J.John Jay College
Parsons-Pollard, Nicolle Y.Virginia Commonwealth University
Phillips, NickieJohn Jay College
Rebovich, Donald J.Utica College
Richter, Michelle Y.Sam Houston State University
Roff, Sandra ShoiockBaruch College
Rowan, PatrickSt. Vincents Hospital
Ruegger, Stephen E.University of Arkansasph Monticello
Santos, NadineSam Houston State University
Sawers, Deborah L.John Jay College
Scheidegger, Amie R.Charleston Southern University
Schmitz, WilliamBorough of Manhattan
Community College
Schulz, DavidFreelance Journalist
Schulz, Dorothy MosesJohn Jay College
Schwartz, AdinaJohn Jay College
Sexton, EllenJohn Jay College
Sheng, YiLehman College
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xvi
List of Contributors—�—xvii
Sherertz, FrancesSacramento County Airport System
Spunt, BarryJohn Jay College
Stoops, GaryNational White
Collar Crime Center
Sullivan, John P.Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department
Sullivan, MaraSt. John’s University
Tatum, Becky L.Grambling State University
Taylor-Greene, HelenOld Dominion University
Telesco, Grace A.East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania
Tilstone, William J.National Forensic Science
Technical Center
Twersky-Glasner, AvivaJohn Jay College
Viadero, Roger C.Ernst & Young
Waldron, John F.John Jay College
Walsh, JeffJohn Jay College
Waterhouse, JessicaTunxis Community College
Watner, DrydenSt. John’s University
Webb, Kelly ReneeEastern Kentucky University
Weissinger, GeorgeNew York Institute of Technology
Wexler, SandfordFreelance Journalist
Wheeler, SeanJohn Jay College
White, Michael D.John Jay College
Zerella, DeniseNew York City Police Department
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xvii
xix
Security is now and has always been the primaryfunction of government. All societies require someform of law enforcement capability to functioneffectively. Throughout history, governments of alltypes have relied on either public police agencies orinformal means to effect conformity to social norms,standards, and laws. Given how essential lawenforcement is to society, it is surprising how littlewe really know about how it actually functions. Thejob of law enforcement is always complex andsometimes dangerous. Police function under muchpublic scrutiny, yet the complexities of what policedo and why they do it rarely come to our attention.Readers of this encyclopedia will be introduced tothe vagaries and nuances of the field, because it iscritical to have a more informed citizenry so thatwhen issues concerning public safety come to ourattention, as they do on an almost daily basis, we canjudge the situation fairly and wisely.
We cannot strictly equate policing with lawenforcement in general, but what we do know on thesubject is primarily based on policing in large urbansettings. So far, few reference works have been pub-lished on law enforcement in the federal, state, local,rural, or private sectors. Our knowledge of interna-tional and comparative law enforcement is almostnonexistent, and policing in Western democraciescan be qualitatively different from policing in emerg-ing countries or other areas using different legal sys-tems. In many countries, law enforcement—indeed,government itself—is almost entirely lacking. In
worst-case scenarios, police are used primarily as aforce of terror to keep dictators in power. Regimesfall and rise daily, and people find themselves inlawless and violent states. In the early 21st centuryalone, we can think of such states as Afghanistan,Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti, to name only a few, that findthemselves without effective policing powers.
Although there is a plethora of studies on crimeand punishment, law enforcement as a field of seri-ous research in academic and scholarly circles isonly in its second generation. When we study thecourts and sentencing, prisons and jails, and otherareas of the criminal justice system, we frequentlyoverlook the fact that the first point of entry into thesystem is through police and law enforcement agen-cies. My work in the field of crime and punishmenthas driven this fact home with a sense of urgency.Approximately 800,000 men and women work inlaw enforcement in the United States alone, andthey are held to higher standards than the rest of us,are often criticized, and function under intensepublic scrutiny. Ironically, they are the most visibleof public servants, and yet, individually, they oftenwork in near obscurity. But their daily actions allowus to live our lives, work, play, and come and go.They are “the thin blue line”—the buffer betweenus and the forces of disorder.
Our understanding of the important issues in lawenforcement has little general literature on which todraw. Currently available reference works on polic-ing are narrowly focused and sorely out of date. Not
Introduction
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xix
xx—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
only are there few general works on U.S. lawenforcement in all its many facets, but the studentand general reader will find very little on currentinternational policing. Policing has changed dra-matically over the past century, but our generalunderstanding of it comes primarily from the newsmedia and police television shows and movies. Thepublic seems to gain much of its knowledge ofpolicing from popular television shows such as Lawand Order and the CSI: Crime Scene Investigationseries. What we see on television is simplistic andconflates within its 42-minute hour a year’s worthof police work. Those of us in the academic field ofcriminal justice research see an urgent need for pro-viding students and the general interested publicbalanced information on what law enforcementdoes, with all of its ramifications. Because democ-racy can remain strong only with an informedpublic, our goal is to provide the necessary infor-mation for an understanding of these institutionsdedicated to our safety and security. To this end, wehave gathered a distinguished roster of authors, rep-resenting many years of knowledge and practice inthe field, who draw on the latest research and meth-ods to delineate, describe, and analyze all areas oflaw enforcement.
The criminal justice field is burgeoning and isone of the fastest growing disciplines in collegesand universities throughout the United States. TheEncyclopedia of Law Enforcement provides a com-prehensive, critical, and descriptive examination ofall facets of law enforcement on the state and local,federal and national, and international stages. Thiswork is a unique reference source that providesreaders with informed discussions on the practiceand theory of policing in a historical and contem-porary framework. Each volume treats subjects thatare particular to the area of state and local, federaland national, and international policing. Many ofthe themes and issues of policing cut across disci-plinary borders, however, and a number of entriesprovide comparative information that places thesubject in context. The Encyclopedia of LawEnforcement is the first attempt to present a com-prehensive view of policing and law enforcementworldwide.
It is fitting and appropriate that we present thisinformation in an encyclopedia, traditionally and his-torically the gateway to the world of knowledge, agateway that leads to further studies for those whowant to pursue this fascinating and important field.The encyclopedia is the most comprehensive, durable,and utilitarian way in which to present a large bodyof synthesized information to the general public.Encyclopedias trace their beginnings back to NaturalisHistoria of Pliny the Elder (23–79 A.D.), in which hecollected much of the knowledge of his time innumerous volumes. They became standard and nec-essary reference tools during the Enlightenment withDenis Diderot’s Encyclopédie in 1772 and the firstedition of the monumental Encyclopedia Britannicain 1771. These seminal compendia attempted topresent an entire body of knowledge to its readers.The modern encyclopedias broke new ground inthe transmission of ideas, and over the centuries,they have been updated and improved. Some editionshave become classics in themselves, such as the11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Specialty encyclopedias are more a phenomenonof the modern age. The field of criminal justice hasmatured in the past generation, and its monographsand journals present a large body of specializedresearch from which to draw. The subspecialty oflaw enforcement, however, has not received thefocused treatment of a comprehensive referencework until now. The study of policing and lawenforcement has come a long way since the firstattempts at police professionalism at the turn of the20th century. At that time, we also saw the initialprofessional publications in policing by way of suchpartisan, anecdotal police histories as Augustine E.Costello’s Our Police Protectors (1885) on New Yorkand John J. Flinn’s History of the Chicago Police in1887. In no way can we call these works scholarly,although they did give us a glimpse into the activi-ties of the local police departments. It was onlywith the age of general crime commissions, begin-ning in the 1930s and culminating in the President’sCommission on Law Enforcement and the Adminis-tration of Justice in 1967, that we saw the develop-ment of a large body of data on police activities.And it was also in the 1960s that the first College of
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xx
Introduction—�—xxi
Police Science was founded at the City Universityof New York (1964), which became the John JayCollege of Criminal Justice in 1966, the foremostcollege of its kind in the world. Within the decade,journals devoted to the scholarly study of the policewere founded, and thus, this academic subspecialtyof criminal justice was on the road to professionalrespectability. In the past 40 years, the field of lawenforcement has grown and evolved rapidly.
Law enforcement (or lack thereof) is a complexsocial and political process that affects everyone.Explanations of its role in society are basic to ourunderstanding of the proper maintenance of socialorder. Older reference works on policing were lim-ited given the few available sources on which theydrew. But a large enough body of scholarly worknow exists that a reference work such as this encyclo-pedia can provide coverage of most U.S. law enforce-ment concepts, strategies, practices, agencies, andtypes, as well as the comparative study of world lawenforcement systems. Police and law enforcementofficers do a variety of things in a day and need todraw on a body of knowledge that includes law,sociology, criminology, social work, and other dis-ciplines. This encyclopedia attempts to answer allthe questions on what an officer or an agency, hereand abroad, does, but also attempts to explain thereasons for an officer’s proper and improperactions. In numerous articles, we also show thedevelopment of policing, its functions, the impact oftechnology and modern culture on law enforcement,and the impact that court decisions have on everyfacet of the field. Law enforcement worldwide wasprofoundly affected by the terrorist attacks onNew York and Washington on September 11, 2001,and many of the field’s methods, concepts, princi-ples, and strategies have changed because of theubiquity of terrorism. Most of the relevant articles inthis encyclopedia reflect these changes. As a refer-ence work, it will be essential reading for anyoneinterested in the field of law enforcement.
The Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement offers theprofessional, the student, and the lay user informa-tion unavailable in any other single resource. Its aimis to bring interdisciplinary treatment to the myriadtopics that touch on all facets of law enforcement.
To this end, the editors have assembled more than300 specialists in the field—academics and practi-tioners alike—to provide the most current treatmenton more than 550 topics. These entries range fromsimple descriptive essays on federal law enforce-ment agencies to the most sophisticated analysis ofcontemporary theories of policing. The broadeningof the field of law enforcement affected the processof selection of topics. Some selections were drivenby theoretical interests, whereas others were practi-cal and more specific. Our goal is to survey theentire field of law enforcement and to be as com-prehensive as possible. For ease of use, we havedivided the volumes into three areas of law enforce-ment: state and local, federal and national, andinternational. Each volume contains a master index.The longest entries cover key issues in law enforce-ment, large federal agencies, and major countries ofthe world. Many of the short entries are descriptive,especially when covering a small federal agencypolice force, or for a smaller country that provideslittle information on its law enforcement bureau-cracy or that has an insignificant law enforcementpresence. Some countries, especially those in socialand political flux, have been omitted owing to thedearth of information and/or the almost total lack ofa police force. Other entries are analytical and coverthe most up-to-date theories and philosophies oflaw enforcement. The main focus of each entry ison currency, although some historical backgroundis usually covered by the author. A glance at thetables of contents gives a good idea of the manyperspectives from which a reader can view a giventopic. For instance, a brief look at the essay onpolice accountability leads the reader to investigatethe whole panoply of law enforcement, includingpolice impact on constitutional rights, use of force,civilian oversight, theories of policing, and otherareas. Given the interrelatedness of these topics,most authors, when possible, treat their subjectsusing cross-disciplinary or comparative methods.Some authors give a practical viewpoint of lawenforcement, whereas others use empirical researchand discuss theories and concepts. In general, the ency-clopedia combines the disciplines of criminology,sociology, history, law, and political science to
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xxi
xxii—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal
elucidate the most contemporary and up-to-date viewof law enforcement as it is practiced and studied inthe world today. An encyclopedia of this kind wouldbe incomplete without such comparative and/orcross-disciplinary coverage. As it now stands, it is themost invaluable tool for all who work in or are inter-ested in the field because it brings together in onework the most recent research and practice of lawenforcement.
Some of the subjects are controversial, but wehave requested that authors cover alternative viewsevenhandedly and fairly. We did not include anybiographical entries, which can be found in themyriad biographical sources available today. But inorder to present the most comprehensive coveragepossible, important personages are included in thesubject entries. All relevant legal cases affectinglaw enforcement are cited in the text and in the bib-liographies. The discussion of legal cases is espe-cially useful for the generalist not trained in the law,and we have attempted to explain these court casesand laws succinctly and concisely. Bibliographiesto guide the reader to documentation on the subjectand further research are included after each entry.The bibliographies include relevant books, journalarticles, scholarly monographs, dissertations, legalcases, newspapers, and Web sites. (A comprehensivereading list is presented at the end of each volumeas well). The Reader’s Guide classifies the articlesinto 24 general subject headings for ease of use. Forinstance, under Terrorism, we have grouped suchsubjects from Chemical and Biological Terrorismon both the local and national levels to an essay onforeign terrorist groups. Policing Strategies will
guide the reader from the Broken Windows strategyto Zero Tolerance. Entries are organized alphabeti-cally and are extensively cross referenced. Theinternational volume, in addition to presenting allavailable information on policing in most of thecountries of the world, also includes analyticalessays on such subjects as Community Policing,Police and Terrorism, History of Policing, and Womenin Policing.
It has been a great pleasure working with SagePublications on this project. I would especially liketo thank Rolf Janke, Publisher of Sage Reference;Jerry Westby, Executive Editor; and BenjaminPenner, Associate Editor, for all of their wise coun-sel in bringing this publication to fruition. I owe adeep debt of gratitude to the administrators, faculty,students, and staff of the John Jay College ofCriminal Justice, whose support made this workpossible. I could not have worked with three bettereditors: Marie Simonetti Rosen was responsible forVolume 1, Dorothy Moses Schulz for Volume 2, andM. R. Haberfeld for Volume 3. I also want to thankthe members of our editorial board for their valu-able assistance during all stages of the project. Iowe special thanks to our project manager, NickiePhillips, for her excellent handling of the numeroustechnical details that a project of this magnitudeentails. None of this could have been done withoutthe assistance of the outstanding librarians of theLloyd Sealy Library of the John Jay College ofCriminal Justice. To them, I owe a deep and lastingdebt of gratitude.
Larry E. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief
FM & PM-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:04 PM Page xxii
About the Editors
xxiii
Larry E. Sullivan is Chief Librarian and AssociateDean at the John Jay College of Criminal Justiceand Professor of Criminal Justice in the doctoralprogram at the Graduate School and UniversityCenter of the City University of New York. Heholds an M.A. and Ph.D. in history from The JohnsHopkins University, an M.S.L.S from the CatholicUniversity in Washington, D.C., and a B.A. fromDe Paul University in Chicago. He was also aFulbright Scholar at the University of Poitiers inFrance where he studied medieval history andliterature. Prior to his appointment at John Jay in1995, he was the Chief of the Rare Book and SpecialCollections Division at the Library of Congresswhere he had responsibility for the nation’s rarebook collection. Previous appointments includeProfessor and Chief Librarian at Lehman Collegeof the City University of New York, Librarian ofthe New-York Historical Society, and Head Librarianof the Maryland Historical Society. He first becameinvolved in the criminal justice system when heworked at the Maryland Penitentiary in Baltimore inthe late 1970s. That experience prompted himto begin collecting literature written by felons and towrite the book The Prison Reform Movement:Forlorn Hope (1990 and 2002). A specially boundcopy of this book representing the Eighth Amend-ment was featured at the exhibition of artist RichardMinsky’s “The Bill of Rights” series at a number ofart galleries in 2002 and 2003. Sullivan’s privatecollection of convict literature has been on publicexhibition at the Grolier Club in New York and at
the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He basedhis book, Bandits and Bibles: Convict Literature inNineteenth Century America (2003), on these prisonwritings. He is the author, co-author, or editor ofover fifty books and articles in the fields ofAmerican and European history, penology, criminaljustice, art history, and other subjects, includingthe above books and Pioneers, Passionate Ladies,and Private Eyes: Dime Novels, Series, Books andPaperbacks (1996; with Lydia C. Schurman) andthe New-York Historical Society: A BicentennialHistory (2004). Besides many publications in jour-nals, he has written entries in numerous referencepublications over the years, including the WorldmarkEncyclopedia of the States, Collier’s Encyclopedia,Encyclopedia of New York State, Encyclopedia of thePrison, International Dictionary of Library Histories,Dictionary of Library Biography, Encyclopedia ofLibrary History, Dictionary of Literary Biography,and the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. He serves orhas served on a number of editorial boards, includ-ing the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, theHandbook of Transnational Crime and Justice, andthe journal Book History. Sullivan has deliveredpapers at meetings of the American HistoricalAssociation, the Modern Language Association, theAmerican Society of Criminology, the Academy ofCriminal Justice Sciences, the Society for theHistory of Authorship, Reading and Publishing, andthe American Library Association, among others.He has consulted on the development of criminaljustice libraries and on rare book and manuscript
About the Editors-Sullivan (Ency) Vol.1.qxd 11/16/2004 9:58 PM Page xxiii
collections. At John Jay College, in additionto directing the largest and best criminal justicelibrary in the world, he teaches graduate- anddoctoral-level courses in Advanced Criminology,Punishment and Responsibility, and the Philosophi-cal and Theoretical Bases of ContemporaryCorrections. Work in progress includes the bookCrime, Criminals, and Criminal Law in the MiddleAges.
Maria (Maki) R. Haberfeld is Associate Professorof Police Science, and Chair of the Departmentof Law, Police Science, and Criminal JusticeAdministration at the John Jay College of CriminalJustice in New York City. She was born in Polandand immigrated to Israel as a teenager. She holdstwo bachelor’s degrees, two master’s degrees, and aPh.D. in criminal justice. During her army service inthe Israel Defense Force, in which she earned the rankof sergeant, she was assigned to a special counter-terrorist unit that was created to prevent terroristattacks in Israel. Prior to coming to John Jay, sheserved in the Israel National Police, in which sheearned the rank of lieutenant. She has also workedfor the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, inthe New York Field Office, as a special consultant.
Haberfeld has taught at Yeshiva University andNew Jersey City University. Her research interestsand publications are in the areas of private and publiclaw enforcement, specifically training, policeintegrity, and comparative policing (her researchinvolves police departments in the United States,Eastern and Western Europe, and Israel). She hasalso done some research in the area of white-collarcrime, specifically organizational and individualcorruption during the Communist era in EasternEurope. For 3 years (from 1997 to 2000), she wasa member of a research team, sponsored by theNational Institute of Justice, studying police integrityin three major police departments in the United States.Between 1999 and 2002, she was also a principalinvestigator on a research project in Poland, spon-sored by the National Institute of Justice, where shestudied the Polish National Police and its transfor-mation to community-oriented policing. She hasreceived additional grants from the PSC-CUNYResearch Foundation to continue her research in
Poland, with particular focus on the balancing actbetween the public perceptions of the new policereform and rampant accusations of police corrup-tion and lack of integrity.
Haberfeld has recently published a book onpolice training, Critical Issues in Police Training(2002); presented numerous papers on training-related issues during professional gatherings andconferences; and written a number of articles onpolice training, specifically on police leadership,integrity, and stress. In addition, she has beeninvolved in active training of police officers onissues related to multiculturalism, sensitivity, andleadership, as well as provided technical assistanceto a number of police departments in rewriting pro-cedural manuals. She is a member of a numberof professional police associations, such as theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police,International Police Association, and AmericanSociety of Law Enforcement Trainers. From 2001to 2003, she was involved in developing, coordinat-ing, and teaching a special training program for theNYPD. She has developed a graduate course titled“Counter-Terrorism Policies for Law Enforcement,”which she teaches at John Jay to the ranking offi-cers of the NYPD. Her most recent involvement inEastern Europe includes redesigning the basic acad-emy curriculum of the Czech National Police, withthe emphasis on integrity-related training.
Marie Simonetti Rosen is the publisher of LawEnforcement News, a publication of John JayCollege of Criminal Justice, the City University ofNew York. As publisher of one of the nation’s lead-ing publications in policing, she has chronicled thetrends and developments that have shaped and trans-formed law enforcement in America during the lastthree decades. A well-known expert in policing, sheis often cited in the mainstream press.
In the publication’s 30-year history, it hasreported on the evolution of such developments asproblem-oriented policing, community policing, andthe influence of “Broken Windows” and Compstatin the nation’s law enforcement agencies. UnderRosen’s leadership, Law Enforcement News hasfollowed the increased use of science and technol-ogy in the criminal justice system and has reported
xxiv—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: State and Local
About the Editors-Sullivan (Ency) Vol.1.qxd 11/16/2004 9:58 PM Page xxiv
extensively on crime rates, use of force, pursuits,police integrity and oversight, standards and train-ing, and minority relations. It regularly covers bothstate and federal court decisions and legislation thataffect criminal justice policy and practice.
Law Enforcement News has influenced a genera-tion of police leadership. The newspaper’s articles arefrequently reprinted in college and professional texts.The publication’s reporting has been a factor in thedevelopment of legislation and public policy insuch areas as health and safety issues, bias-relatedcrime, higher education for police, psychologicalscreening of police recruits, and the police responseto the mentally ill. The paper has earned majornational awards for its coverage of policing on tribalreservations and the impact of the September 11, 2001,terrorist attacks on law enforcement practitioners.
Her annual analysis of policing that appears inthe publication’s Year-in-Review issue is widelycited and appears in the Appendix to Volumes 1 and2. Rosen received her B.A. from the City Universityof New York.
Dorothy Moses Schulz is Professor at John JayCollege of Criminal Justice at the City University ofNew York, where she teaches courses in criminal jus-tice, police history, police administration, and womenin policing. Schulz joined the faculty of John JayCollege in 1993 after a career in policing. She was thefirst woman captain with the Metro-North CommuterRailroad Police Department and its predecessor, theConrail Police Department. She was one of the firstwomen to hold a supervisory rank in any rail ortransit police agency, and among her assignmentswas serving as the commanding officer of New YorkCity’s Grand Central Terminal, the midtown Manhattanlandmark through which about three quarters of amillion people pass daily. Previously she had beendirector of police operations for the New York CityHuman Resources Administration. Before beginningher career in policing, she was a reporter and copyeditor for a number of municipal newspapers and afreelance editor for a variety of magazines and bookpublishers. Immediately before joining the John JayCollege faculty, she was the director of security atthe Fashion Institute of Technology at the StateUniversity of New York in New York City.
A well-known expert on historical and currentissues involving women in policing, she is the authorof From Social Worker to Crimefighter: Women inUnited States Policing (1995), which traces the morethan 100-year history of women in policing. Thebook describes how the fluctuating fortunes of femi-nism helped early policewomen but how in the 1960swomen were forced to reject their historical roleswhen they sought a wider presence in law enforce-ment. Her new book, Breaking the Brass Ceiling:Women Police Chiefs and Their Paths to the Top(2004), highlights the women—police chiefs andsheriffs—who have made it to the very top rank oflaw enforcement. Based on historical research, ques-tionnaire data, and interviews, the book describes thecareers of pioneering and present women policechiefs and sheriffs, who make up about 1% of lawenforcement chief executive officers.
A frequent speaker at police and academic meetings,Schulz received a B.A. in journalism from New YorkUniversity, an M.A. in criminal justice from John JayCollege, and a Ph.D. in American studies fromNew York University. She has addressed conferences ofthe International Association of Women Police (IAWP),the Women in Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE), theNational Center for Women & Policing (NCW&P), theSenior Women Officers of Great Britain, and the Multi-Agency Women’s Law Enforcement Conference spon-sored by the U.S. Border Patrol in El Paso, Texas, aswell as at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centerin Glynco, Georgia, and the Canadian Police College inOttawa, Ontario. In 2003 and 2004, she assisted theNew York City Police Museum on exhibits document-ing the history of women in the department.
Schulz has also retained her involvement withrail and transit policing. From 1994 to 1997 she wasthe principal investigator on the Transit CooperativeResearch Program’s Guidelines for the EffectiveUse of Uniformed Transit Police and SecurityPersonnel, the largest transit policing grant fundedin the United States, and she has overseen a numberof Federal Transit Administration triennial auditsof urban transit system police departments. She iscompleting research for a book on the history ofrailroad policing in America.
In 1998, she was a visiting scholar at the BritishPolice Staff College/National Police Training,
About the Editors—�—xxv
About the Editors-Sullivan (Ency) Vol.1.qxd 11/16/2004 9:58 PM Page xxv
Bramshill, Hampshire, England, and she has receivedresearch grants from the St. Louis Mercantile Libraryat the University of Missouri, St. Louis; the NewberryLibrary, Chicago; the Minnesota Historical Society,St. Paul; the City University of New York, UniversityCommittee on Research; the International Associa-tion of Chiefs of Police, and the National Associationof Female Law Enforcement Executives.
Schulz has delivered papers at meetings of theAmerican Society of Criminology, the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, and the AmericanHistorical Association and has published in anumber of police and historical journals. She was acoeditor of police topics for Crime and the JusticeSystem in America: An Encyclopedia and has con-tributed articles to other reference publications,including the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment,the Encyclopedia of Homelessness, the Encyclo-pedia of New York State, and the Encyclopedia ofWomen and Crime.
xxvi—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: State and Local
About the Editors-Sullivan (Ency) Vol.1.qxd 11/16/2004 9:58 PM Page xxvi
A� ACADEMY OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCIENCES
The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS)was established in 1963 as a forum for academicresearchers and those in the criminal justice profes-sions to focus on the study of crime and criminalbehavior. Consistent with its initial purpose, ACJSremains a strong influential body that shapes crim-inal justice education, research, and policy analysesby promoting professional and scholarly activitiesin the field of criminal justice.
Criminal justice education, research, and policyare the foci of the organization. ACJS supports theonly journal dedicated to criminal justice education,has developed a set of minimum standards for crim-inal justice programs, and has established an acad-emic peer review committee that conducts programreviews of criminal justice departments and pro-grams. Debates have also centered on the merits ofhaving criminal justice programs accredited.
Membership in ACJS is open to academiciansand students in criminal justice, criminology, andany other related disciplines and to practitionersin the field of criminal justice, including both thepublic and the private sectors. To meet the needsof the membership, ACJS has formed sections inwhich members can focus more narrowly on policyand educational practices in a single area of interest
within criminal justice. Sections include communitycolleges, corrections, critical criminology, informa-tion and public policy, international, juvenile justice,minorities and women, police, and security andcrime prevention. Each section has its own execu-tive board with an elected chair and other boardmembers.
An annual meeting is held during which profes-sionals, academicians, and students come togetherto develop and share knowledge about criticalissues regarding crime and criminal and social jus-tice. The annual meeting, traditionally held in thespring, is well attended, having attracted more than1,700 participants some years.
The academy publishes two journals: JusticeQuarterly and the Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation. Both are peer-reviewed and consideredto be top-tier journals in the field. Members alsoreceived a newsletter, ACJS Today, an online, Web-based publication.
The national office is located in Greenbelt,Maryland. There is an association manager, an exec-utive assistant, and a membership coordinator. Theexecutive board consists of ACJS members electedto serve as president, first vice president, secondvice president, secretary, treasurer, and regional andat-large board members. The organization is dividedinto five regions with representation from eachregion on the board and with two at-large board
533
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 533
members representing the entire membership. Theconstitution and by-laws indicate which states arein each region.
The academy recognizes outstanding contribu-tions to the field of criminal justice with severalawards given annually. These include the BruceSmith, Sr. Award, the Academy Fellow Award, theAcademy Founder Award, the Outstanding BookAward, and the Anderson Outstanding Paper Award.The Bruce Smith, Sr. Award is awarded to someonewho has made a substantial contribution to criminaljustice. It recognizes leadership in criminal justiceadministration as well as active involvement incriminal justice research. The award recipient doesnot have to be an ACJS member. The AcademyFellow Award acknowledges significant and distin-guished scholarly contributions to criminal justiceeducation. The Founder’s Award is bestowed onsomeone who has been an ACJS member for at leastfive consecutive years, who has demonstrated activeinvolvement in criminal justice education andresearch for the previous five years, and who throughservice activities has made a substantial contributionto the academy.
Publications are also honored. The OutstandingBook Award recognizes a book published in thearea of criminal justice. The Anderson OutstandingPaper Award recognizes a paper presented at theprevious annual meeting that demonstrates concep-tual and methodological rigor in the development ofthe paper, and it also recognizes a student paper thatwas presented at the ACJS annual meeting. Papersare judged on the relevancy of the research prob-lem, the quality of the theoretical orientation, therigor of the empirical documentation, and the qual-ity of the writing. The Donal MacNamara Awardfor Outstanding Journal Publication honors DonalE. MacNamara, a founding ACJS member andscholar. The award recognizes published researchthat constitutes a scholarly approach to the topic,presents a thoughtful analysis, presents insights ora novel treatment of the topic, and constitutes ameaningful addition to the literature.
The academy supports minorities and womenwith special travel awards to student members whoare women or members of an underrepresented
minority group (e.g., African Americans, AsianAmericans, Native Americans, persons of Hispanicdescent). These funding opportunities allow for amore diverse representation of academy membersat the annual meetings.
Laura J. Moriarty
For Further Reading
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. [Online]. Available:http://www.ACJS.org
Clear, T. R. (2001). Has academic criminal justice come ofage? Justice Quarterly 18, 709–726.
Felkenes, G. (1980). Accreditation: Is it necessary? Yes!Journal of Criminal Justice 8, 77–87.
Vito, G. F. (1999). Presidential address: Research and rele-vance: Role of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.Justice Quarterly 16, 1–17.
� AIRBORNE LAWENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION
The Airborne Law Enforcement Association(ALEA) is an international, professional organiza-tion of pilots, mechanics, aviation technicians, andaircraft and avionics manufacturers either directlyemployed by law enforcement agencies or providingcritical support services to those agencies. Foundedin 1968 and formally incorporated in 1970 as a non-profit educational organization in the United States,ALEA has a substantial international component inits membership. In 2003, it had approximately 3,500individual and corporate members. Membershipcategories include professional, which is limited pri-marily to law enforcement officers of a governmen-tal law enforcement agency who are involved inairborne law enforcement; technical specialist, whichincludes maintenance personnel who are not swornofficers; associate, which includes those who supportthe principles and mission of airborne law enforce-ment; and affiliate, a category reserved primarily forcorporate members who manufacture equipment orsupply services used in airborne law enforcement.
ALEA supports its activities through member-ship dues and vendor fees at its conferences. Itsactivities are controlled through its president and
534—�—Airborne Law Enforcement Association
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 534
board of directors. A paid, professional executivedirector is responsible for the organization’s staffand day-to-day operations. ALEA publishes abimonthly professional journal, AirBeat, for itsmembers. The journal is primarily helicopter-oriented, as are most of the training offerings,although members worldwide represent pilots andoperators of both helicopters and airplanes.
The primary annual event for ALEA is its nationalconference, traditionally held in the summer monthsin a different location each year. To date, all of theconferences have been held in the United States.Recent and future sites include Wichita, Kansas(2003); Charlotte, North Carolina (2004); Reno,Nevada (2005), and New Orleans, Louisiana (2006).The primary focus of the national conference is aseries of training events, both classroom instructionand practical training. State and federal agencies sup-port this conference heavily by providing instructors.Additional instructors are provided by the aviationsafety community and the military. As a part of itsongoing educational efforts, the organization spon-sors yearly regional seminars throughout the UnitedStates, generally without charge to its members.ALEA also maintains for its members a databasethat includes information from approximately 150agencies worldwide that rely on airborne services tosupport their law enforcement efforts.
In an effort to provide public education about therole of aviation in law enforcement, ALEA providesintroductory and training material for law enforce-ment agencies interested in developing these units.Specialized training is provided for law enforce-ment officers and executives who are acquiringtheir first aviation assets.
ALEA maintains its office in Tulsa, Oklahoma,and may be reached at P.O. Box 3683, Tulsa, OK74101; via telephone at (918) 599-0705 or facsimileat (918) 583-2353; or through its Web site: www.alea.org.
Frances Sherertz
For Further Reading
Airborne Law Enforcement Association. [Online]. Available:http://www.alea.org
Helicopter Association International. [Online]. Available:http://www.rotor.com
International Association of Chiefs of Police. [Online].Available: http://www.theiacp.org
National Sheriffs’ Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.sheriffs.org
� AMBER ALERT
The AMBER Alert is a voluntary partnershipbetween law enforcement agencies, media, andothers to distribute an urgent bulletin in the mostserious child abduction cases. It was created in1996 as a response to the kidnapping and murderof a nine-year-old girl, Amber Hagerman, by astranger in Arlington, Texas. The acronym standsfor America’s Missing: Broadcast EmergencyResponse. The goal of the AMBER plan is toinvolve the entire community to help assist in thesafe return of abducted children by publicizing theabduction. After law enforcement has confirmed amissing child report, an AMBER Alert is sent tomedia outlets such as radio stations, television sta-tions, cable companies, Internet bulletin boards,and electronic highway billboards. Since its incep-tion, the AMBER Alert has been an importantand successful tool in rescuing kidnapped childrenin the states that voluntarily participate in theprogram.
After the safe recovery in March 2003 of a Utahteenager, Elizabeth Smart, who had been abductedfrom her bedroom nine months earlier, Smart’sfather called for a national AMBER Alert system.Congress responded and on April 30, 2003,President George W. Bush signed the Protect Act of2003, which encourages states to establish AMBERAlert systems to quickly post information aboutchild abductions and also provides for the coordi-nation of state and local AMBER plans. The ProtectAct mandated creation of a national AMBER Alertcoordinator to be appointed by the Department ofJustice. Deborah Daniels, an assistant attorney gen-eral in the Department of Justice’s Office of JusticePrograms, was named coordinator. She is responsi-ble for working with law enforcement agencies andbroadcasters to ensure that state and local AMBER
AMBER Alert—�—535
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 535
plans are consistent and also for overseeing fundingand training issues for the entire program.
GOALS FOR THE PROGRAM
The goals of the national coordinator, along witha national advisory group, are threefold. The firstgoal is to assess current AMBER activity by deter-mining the number of local, regional, and statewideplans; to compare plan operations and AMBERAlert criteria; and to evaluate available technology.The second goal is to create a coordinated AMBERnetwork by developing criteria for issuing anAMBER Alert; establishing federal, state, and localpartnerships; and promoting technological compat-ibility among communications systems. The lastgoal is to communicate lessons learned by workingwith law enforcement and broadcasters on missingchildren issues, helping states and communitiesdevelop and enhance their AMBER plans, and rais-ing public awareness on how to protect children andprevent abductions.
In addition to creating a national AMBER Alertcoordinator, the law also provides significant newinvestigative tools. The law allows law enforcementto use existing legal tools for the full range of seri-ous sexual crimes against children. For example,law enforcement agencies can now use wiretapsfor Internet sex crimes such as luring children forthe purpose of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.Additionally, there is no statute of limitations forcrimes involving the abduction or physical or sexualabuse of a child. The law also makes it more difficultfor those accused of serious crimes against childrento obtain bail. Additionally, the law allotted $25million in fiscal year 2004 so that states can supportAMBER Alert communications systems and plansand it authorized matching grants to the 41 stateswhere the AMBER Alert exists and to other states tohelp ensure that AMBER Alerts are created.
The Protect Act also strengthens federal penaltiesfor child kidnapping and other crimes againstyouth. For example, there are increased penaltiesfor non-family member child abduction andincreased penalties for sexual exploitation of childrenand child pornography. The act mandates life
imprisonment for offenders who commit two serioussexual offenses against a child or children. It furtherreduces judicial discretion to reduce prison sen-tences of convicted offenders and it eliminates thecap of five years of supervision for sex offendersafter they are released.
The law also strengthens existing laws againstchild pornography. For example, it revised and rein-forced the prohibition on virtual child pornography,forbade obscene material that depicts children, andprovided stronger penalties than previous obscenitylaws. Finally, the Protect Act creates pilot programsto assist nonprofit organizations dealing withchildren to acquire fast and complete criminal back-ground information on volunteer workers.
Mara Sullivan
For Further Reading
CNN. (2003, April 20). Bush signs AMBER Alert into law.[Online]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/30/se.07.html
Federal Communications Commission. (2003). The AMBERplan. [Online]. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/AMBERPlan.html
Perine, K. (2003, April 12). AMBER child crimes bill clears,propelled by news and strategy. CQ Weekly, p. 879.[Online]. Available: http://web25.epnet.com/deliveryasp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+0+1n+en-us+s
U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). AMBER Alert: America’sMissing Broadcast Emergency Response. [Online].Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/amberalert/history.html
� AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMELABORATORY DIRECTORS
The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors(ASCLD) is a nonprofit professional societydevoted to the improvement of crime laboratoryoperations through sound management practices.Its purpose is to foster the common professionalinterests of its members; to promote and foster thedevelopment of laboratory management principlesand techniques; to acquire, preserve, and dissemi-nate information related to the utilization of crimelaboratories; to maintain and improve communications
536—�—American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 536
among crime laboratory directors; to promote,encourage, and maintain the highest standards ofpractice in the field of crime laboratory services;and to strive for the suitable and proper accom-plishment of the purposes and objectives of ASCLDas a professional association.
The provision of forensic science services hasbecome a focal point within many law enforcementagencies in the past two decades. Since the intro-duction of enhanced technologies in forensicscience such as DNA analysis, automated finger-print identification systems, and automated ballisticcomparison systems such as the National IntegratedBallistics Information Network, the complexity ofmanaging a forensic science service provider hasincreased. Law enforcement management mustproactively understand the interface between tech-nology and investigation.
The ASCLD process has guided the developmentof crime laboratory management. ASCLD’s currentactive committees were a direct product of the strate-gic planning process. The advocacy committee thateducates policy makers is one of the most recentexamples of ASCLD’s proactive role in leadership ofthe forensic science profession. In the early 1980s,ASCLD saw a need for a formal process by whichlaboratories could be evaluated. It formed a nonprofitorganization called the American Society of CrimeLaboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board(ASCLD/LAB), whose sole purpose was to develop aprogram to accredit crime laboratories. In 1982, theIllinois State Police laboratory system became thefirst forensic science organization to receive accredi-tation. Since then, the ASCLD/LAB has providedaccreditation to more than 250 forensic laboratories.
Accreditation is voluntary in the majority ofstates; however, a few have made crime laboratoryaccreditation mandatory. Accreditation is defined asa third party review of the operations of a forensicservice section to a set of recognized standards. Inthe case of ASCLD/LAB the standards have beendeveloped by forensic science professionals whowork in U.S. forensic science organizations. ASCLD/LAB is based in Garner, North Carolina, and isstaffed by 14 professional and support staff led byan executive director.
During the mid-1990s, several high-profile casesthat used advanced forensic technologies broughtforensic service provision into households nation-wide. ASCLD again recognized the need for an orga-nization that would address education, training, andsupport quality to all of the nation’s forensic serviceproviders. This organization is the National ForensicScience Technology Center (NFSTC). The NFSTChas from its beginning sought to assist forensicscience services to win the confidence of users andthe larger community by achieving the highest qual-ity of operations. The NFSTC is governed by a boardof directors made up of forensic service profession-als. It is located in its own self-contained and securepremises in a science and technology research anddevelopment park in Largo, Florida. Operationsare managed and implemented by a complement of23 professional and support staff, under an executivedirector. NFSTC has a pool of more than 50 experi-enced and trained consultants that it uses to sup-plement the permanent staff for technical work, asrequired. The NFSTC offers an international accred-itation program based on ISO guide 17025.
As police agencies come to depend more andmore on scientific analysis of evidence, it becomesof great importance that an unbiased service isavailable to evaluate the quality, timeliness, andoverall operation of the forensic services provided.
Kevin Lothridge
See also Ballistics Recognition and Identification Systems
For Further Reading
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. [Online].Available: http://www.ascld.org
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors LaboratoryAccreditation Board. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
National Forensic Science Technology Center. [Online].Available: http://www.nfstc.org
� AMERICAN SOCIETYOF CRIMINOLOGY
The American Society of Criminology (ASC)began in 1941 in Berkeley, California, as a meeting
American Society of Criminology—�—537
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 537
of seven police administration professors underthe original name of the National Association ofCollege Police Training Officials (NACPTO).Among the founders were August Vollmer andOrlando W. (O. W.) Wilson, two of the earliestpolice administrators who advocated training andeducation for all police personnel and who alsosupported academic research into police practices.Under their leadership, NACPTO focused princi-pally on the enhancement and standardization ofpolice training. Growing quickly from informalgatherings to formal meetings, the associationbegan to attract police trainers from California andneighboring states as well as a number of collegeprofessionals. Although the principal goals dealtwith the professionalization of policing in theUnited States, it was recognized early that theremust be a complementary emphasis on the fields ofcriminology, public administration, and other socialsciences in order to truly modernize the field.
Following a break in formal activity coincidingwith U.S. involvement in World War II, in 1946NACPTO was renamed the American Society forthe Advancement of Criminology and it adopted anew constitution. The association defined criminol-ogy as the broad study of the causes, treatment, andprevention of crime, including (but not limited to)scientific crime detection, investigation, and identi-fication; crime prevention, public safety, and security;law enforcement administration; administration ofcriminal justice; traffic administration; probation;juvenile delinquency; and penology. In November1957 the society again revised its constitution andchanged its name to the current American Societyof Criminology. Beginning in 1959, ASC estab-lished several awards to acknowledge the achieve-ments of its members, including the August VollmerAward (for contributions to applied criminologicalpolicy or practice), the Edwin Sutherland Award(for contributions to the field of criminology), theHerbert Bloch Award (for service to ASC and thelarger criminological community), the MichaelJ. Hindelang Award (for a book of significant contri-bution to criminology or criminal justice), and theSellin-Glueck Award (for contributions to criminol-ogy by a non-American scholar). Awards have also
been created to recognize student contributions(Gene Carte Award) as well as those who are begin-ning their careers in criminal justice (Ruth ShonleCavan Young Scholar Award).
Today the ASC is an international organizationcomprised of both law enforcement practitionersand academics involved in criminological researchand education. ASC reflected the changing socialcharacter of the larger criminological profession,increasingly becoming open to women and minori-ties. For example, it was not until the mid-1960sthat women began to attend the annual meetings.Indicative of their rapid emergence into the associ-ation, women made up 14% of the annual meet-ing program in 1975 compared to 37% in 1995.Reflecting the changes in member demographicsand also the changing focus of police research from“how to” to broader sociological issues, the societyhas sections devoted to women and crime, people ofcolor and crime, international criminology, criticalcriminology, and corrections and sentencing.
ASC is anchored by its annual meeting held inlate fall at a location in the United States or Canadaand is attended by members from around the world.The ASC newsletter, Criminologist (existing in dif-ferent formats and titles since its first 1963 printing),offers members a complement of issue-oriented arti-cles, society activities, book reviews, and researchand employment opportunities. Two journals arealso important ingredients to the ASC publicationsmenu. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal ispublished four times a year and offers quantitativecriminological articles from across the sociological,public administration, and psychological disci-plines. Criminology and Public Policy is also inter-disciplinary and empirically focused; however, itpublishes research with more direct applications tocriminal justice police and practice.
Heath B. Grant
For Further Reading
Adler, F. (1997). The ASC and women: One generation with-out, one generation with. Criminologist, 22, 1, 3–5.
American Society of Criminology. [Online]. Available:http://www.asc41.com
538—�—American Society of Criminology
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 538
Morris, A. (1975, August). The American Society ofCriminology: A history, 1941–1974. Criminology,pp. 123–167.
� AMTRAK POLICE
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation,better known as Amtrak, was created in 1970 whenPresident Richard M. Nixon signed the RailPassenger Service Act. Amtrak, created in responseto the bankruptcies of a number of intercity passen-ger railroads, assumed the responsibility of long-distance intercity rail services on May 1, 1971. Alongwith other personnel from the railroads who weretransferred to Amtrak were a number of police offi-cers who had been employed by the railroads thatbecame part of the new, public-funded rail network.
Since the creation of Amtrak, these officers havebeen recognized as federal police officers based onthe statutory authority provided under the UnitedStates Code 545J, Section 104.305-45. Under theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49(Transportation), Subtitle V (Rail Programs), Part C(Passenger Transportation), Chapter 243 (Amtrak),Section 24305 (General Authority), Amtrak is autho-rized to employ rail police to provide security for railpassengers and property of Amtrak. Although theyare federal officers who receive their training atthe Federal Law Enforcement Training Center inGlynco, Georgia, because most officers are assignedin passenger stations and along the rail rights of wayto enforce local and state laws, they must also com-ply with the training requirements established forpolice officers in each state in which they work.
It is not unusual for the more than 350 Amtrakofficers assigned around the country to be licensedas police officers in a number of states, providingthem with the authority to enforce not only federallaw, but also all state and local laws and providingthem with police authority to preserve the peace,detain or arrest offenders, and enforce laws pertain-ing to crimes committed against Amtrak employ-ees, passengers, and property.
The Amtrak system is vast; in 2004, Amtrak pro-vided service to 500 stations in 46 states, operatedmore than 22,000 route miles, and on an average
weekday, operated more than 250 trains a day thatcarried more than 66,000 riders. In fiscal year 2003,more than 24 million passengers were carried, arecord. Amtrak is also the nation’s largest providerof commuter rail services operated through contrac-tual service agreements with state and regionalauthorities. In such cases, Amtrak operates theservice and maintains the physical plant in exchangefor an annual payment. Under this arrangement,Amtrak serves an additional 62 million passengersa year on Caltrain (San Francisco–Gilroy, California),Coasters (San Diego, California), MARC (Baltimore,Maryland–Washington, D.C.), Metrolink (countiesaround Los Angeles, California), Shore Line East(New Haven–New London, Connecticut), andVirginia Railway Express (Fredericksburg/Manassas,Virginia–Washington, D.C.). On the busy NortheastCorridor between Boston and Washington, D.C.,in addition to Amtrak trains, some commuter railtransit systems operate on tracks owned by Amtrak,including New Jersey Transit (NJT) and the Metro-politan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) LongIsland Rail Road.
The majority of the officers of the Amtrak policeare assigned to major city transportation facilitiesthat are owned by Amtrak, where they either pro-vide the only uniformed police presence or sharepolicing jurisdiction with railroad, transit, or localpolice agencies. In some parts of the country, theyalso patrol areas that are not owned by Amtrak butare under its control through various agreementswith other railroads. In addition, they are responsi-ble for a full range of police services at Amtrak’snonpublic facilities, including office buildings, railyards, rights of way, and rail storage areas thathouse Amtrak’s rolling stock, which includes 425locomotives and more than 2,000 passengercoaches, including the Acela Express trains thatprovide high-speed service on the NortheastCorridor between Boston and Washington, D.C.
Despite its large jurisdiction, the Amtrak PoliceDepartment is set up more like many municipal orstate agencies than like federal law enforcementagencies. This is because so much of its efforts areplaced on uniform patrol of public areas, rather thanthe investigative functions assigned to many federal
Amtrak Police—�—539
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 539
agencies. The three major components of theAmtrak Police Department are the office of thechief, the headquarters operations bureau, andthe field operations bureau. The office of the chiefis responsible for the overall administration of thedepartment and includes the offices of professionalstandards, community relations, and special pro-jects. The chief, who is a sworn member of theforce, reports to the vice president of operations andpolice services, who, along with other senior offi-cers, are located at Amtrak’s National OperationsControl Center, adjacent to the Northeast Corridorin Wilmington, Delaware. The headquarters opera-tions bureau is led by a deputy chief who is respon-sible for the strategic planning and investigationsunit, the administrative services unit, and theinspectional services unit. The deputy chief of thefield operations bureau is responsible for all uni-formed patrol and nonspecialized investigationsand is located at Amtrak’s 30th Street Station inPhiladelphia.
FROM TRESPASSERS TO SABOTEURS
Amtrak police must find ways to combat whatappear to be contradictory problems. In remote por-tions of the nation, officers must work with otheragencies to protect the tracks and the trains from tres-passers and possible saboteurs. In populated urbanareas, officers must do the same but rather than fac-ing hundreds of miles of unpopulated and unincor-porated areas, they are faced with overcrowding anduse of the stations by criminals to prey on others andby homeless persons who view the stations as semi-permanent or even permanent shelter.
Trespassing may not only lead to theft of prop-erty and vandalism, but it is also a major cause ofinjuries and fatalities on the rails. According toreports from all major railroads to the FederalTransit Administration, there were almost 475 tres-passing fatalities in 2000. Although the majority ofthese deaths did not occur on Amtrak property, buton tracks used by the nation’s other railroads, con-cerns about trespassing on passenger rights of wayand the possibility for terrorist attack on passengertrains have increased substantially since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. Although it has notoccurred in the United States, other countries havebeen faced with threatened and actual terroristactivities on their passenger trains. Such incidentsare guaranteed to result in a large number of deathsand injuries and to garner worldwide publicity forthose who claim responsibility for them. TheMadrid train bombing attacks of March 11, 2004,which killed almost 200 people and injured morethan 1,800, are an example of the protential dangersfacing rail passenger transportation.
The greatest concern about such an incident inthe United States is on the Northeast Corridor, thebusiest rail corridor in the nation, which links someof the largest cities with the nation’s capital andcarried close to 12 million passengers in 2003.It is also a major freight route. With its numerousbridges and tunnels, including the tunnels under theHudson and East Rivers leading to New York City’sPennsylvania Station, the busiest railroad station inthe United States, the Northeast Corridor presents avery tempting target for a potential terrorist act. Forthis reason, Amtrak has increased its police pres-ence on the Northeast Corridor, especially in theNew York metropolitan area. It has also enteredinto arrangements with local law enforcement agen-cies that call for greater coordination and jointpatrols and surveillance activities. The MTA Policeand NJT Police assist Amtrak in the policing ofPenn Station and contribute to the security watchover the tunnel portals located in their respectivestates. In Washington, D.C., Amtrak has separateagreements with the Metropolitan Police Departmentas well as with several other federal police forcesgoverning the security of Union Station and theadjacent sprawling shop and yard complex.Concerns with possible sabotage in 2001 led thepolice to provide aerial surveillance when Amtrakintroduced its high-speed Acela trains betweenBoston and Washington, D.C., in 2001.
Elsewhere, away from the Northeast Corridor,Amtrak has been involved in task forces with fed-eral law enforcement agencies, including the BorderPatrol, the Drug Enforcement Administration, andU.S. Customs, in an effort to curtail drug traffickingoccurring on Amtrak services. The monetary value
540—�—Amtrak Police
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 540
of seizures resulting from these activities isreinvested into funding other Amtrak security mea-sures, such as the helicopter patrols in the Northeast.Funding, not only for security, has been one of themost critical challenges facing Amtrak since itsinception, and over the years it has come to dependon last-minute rescue funds derived from compro-mises in Congress. This situation has exacerbatedthe capital and operating needs of the railroad andplaces additional pressures on the Amtrak PoliceDepartment, particularly in developing long-rangeplans to respond to threats posed by terrorism andother criminal acts.
Subutay MusluogluSee also Railroad Policing
For Further Reading
Amtrak. [Online]. Available: http://www.amtrak.comBrer Amtrak. (2001, June). Trains Magazine, pp. 50–59.Caltrain. [Online]. Available: http://www.caltrain.comGraebner, J. (1997). The derailment of the Sunset Limited.
In B. M. Jenkins (Ed.), Protecting surface transportationsystems and patrons from terrorist activities—Case stud-ies of best security practices and a chronology of attacks.San Jose, CA: Norman Y. Mineta International Institutefor Surface Transportation Policy Studies. [Online].Available: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/terrorist/Protect.htm
Henney, A. (1999). Amtrak police: Protecting a nation in tran-sit. The Capitol Hill Monitor, 5, 2–3. [Online]. Available:http://www.henney.com/chm/0299/
Schafer, M. (1991). All aboard Amtrak. Greentown, PA:Railpace Company.
Special on the 25th anniversary of Amtrak. (1996, June).Trains Magazine, pp. 34–40, 42–49.
� ANTITERRORISM ANDEFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act(AEDPA) was enacted by Congress in 1996. Itsstated goals are to “deter terrorism, provide justicefor victims, provide for an effective death penalty,and other purposes.” The AEDPA attempts to accom-plish these objectives by reforming habeas corpusrelief; providing tough, new penalties for terroristactivities; and improving alien removal procedures.
In the 1990s, international terrorism becamea major concern during the administration ofPresident Bill Clinton. Events such as the bomb-ings of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma, in April 1995; the Olympic park inAtlanta, Georgia, in July 1996; and the World TradeCenter in New York City in February 1993; as wellas the crash of TWA Flight 800 in July 1996 createdapprehensions that terrorism was becoming ram-pant. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early1990s effectively dissipated the threat of commu-nism: fear of terrorism took its place.
Enacted as Public Law 104-132, the AEDPAconsists of nine major titles. Provisions of the actamend a great number of federal statutes. Title Isubstantially restricts the availability of habeas cor-pus relief. Habeas corpus is a civil remedy wherebya court orders a person detaining another personto present the body of the prisoner, or detainee,before the tribunal to determine the legality of thedetention. The purpose of the writ is not a determi-nation of guilt or innocence: it is solely to establishwhether the individual is being lawfully detained.The writ is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,Article 1, Section 9 and by all state constitutions.
Convicted prisoners, especially those under animpending sentence of death, have long used thewrit of habeas corpus as a final challenge to theirincarceration. Title I of the AEDPA addresses whatCongress perceived as an illegitimate use of the writ:delay of the final imposition of sentence, after allavailable appeals have been exhausted and no rea-sonable legal grounds for reversal exist. By amend-ing several sections of title 28 of the United StatesCode, the AEDPA created new procedural hurdlesand implemented a narrow time frame during whicha person in custody could seek habeas corpus relief.These changes were intended to limit a prisoner’sability to challenge a sentence of death. The act alsoamended sections 2261-2266 of title 28 limiting theright of appeal in habeas corpus proceedings. Ineffect, the act created a statute of limitations onseeking habeas relief and severely limited the abilityof federal courts to review a state court sentence.
The law was intended to provide greater justice forvictims by making restitution mandatory for many
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act—�—541
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 541
federal crimes, including crimes of violence, crimesinvolving terrorism, offenses against property, andinstances in which a victim has suffered physical ormonetary harm resulting from the commission of acrime. It also provided for assistance to victims of ter-rorism and created jurisdiction in the federal courtsfor lawsuits against terrorist governments or groups.
Title III was designed to limit the financing ofinternational terrorism by prohibiting fundraisingfor groups that sponsor such terrorism. It also pro-hibited financial or military assistance to terroristgovernments and countries that aid terrorism orterrorist groups. This title vests power in the U.S.secretary of state to designate certain groups asterrorist by notifying Congress and publishing anysuch designation in the Federal Register. TheFederal Register is published daily by the U.S. gov-ernment, and it contains orders and proclamationsreleased by the executive branch of the government.The designation remains in effect for two years.Only an act of Congress can revoke the secretary’sdetermination. A designated group may challengeits designation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit, but it must do so within 30 days ofpublication in the Federal Register. Additionally,title III required financial institutions to determineif funds were being used by terrorist organizations.Banks are required to report any transactions thatmay involve terrorist groups or face civil penalties.This section also provides for funding to othercountries to assist in their antiterrorism efforts.
Title IV provided for the removal of all alien(defined as persons born in another country, butresiding in the United States without havingbecome U.S. citizens) terrorists and the exclusionor removal of members of terrorist organizationsby special removal courts. Five district court judges,appointed by the chief justice of the SupremeCourt, are empowered to hear all removal cases inwhich the alien is alleged to be involved in terror-ism. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wasgiven appellate jurisdiction over all orders of depor-tation involving terrorists. This title also providesfor stiff criminal penalties if an alien who was pre-viously removed attempts to reenter the UnitedStates. For example, an excluded alien might
normally face a two-year sentence if caught tryingto enter the country, but an alien who had beenpreviously removed could be sentenced to 10 yearsof imprisonment if caught trying to reenter thecountry. Alien terrorists may also be denied asylum.This section has broad-ranging application to thecriminal justice system as virtually all illegal andresident aliens fall under its purview. Any nonciti-zen is subject to deportation or exclusion.
Subtitle D of this section changed the proceduresfor dealing with criminal aliens. It allowed accessto confidential Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS) files based on a court order and itprovided for a criminal alien identification system.It also made alien-smuggling crimes predicateoffenses for the purposes of the Racketeer Influ-enced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws. TheRICO laws allow for civil actions and criminal pros-ecutions when a pattern of two or more predicateoffenses have been committed. Predicate offensesare described in 18 U.S.C.A. 1961(1): they run thegamut from arson and kidnapping to dealing inobscene material and money laundering crimes.
The subtitles’ most far-reaching provisionsexpand the criteria for deportation to include notonly certain felonies, but also misdemeanors involv-ing crimes of moral turpitude such as simple assaults,drug possession, or lesser sex crimes. It allowsdeportation for some nonviolent offenses prior tocompletion of sentence. Judicial review of an INSdetermination to deport a criminal alien is restricted.In a similar vein to the law’s restriction of habeascorpus, the AEDPA limits the ability of an individ-ual to challenge an INS order of deportation in thefederal courts.
Title V created mandatory reporting to Congressof any theft of nuclear materials. It enhanced penal-ties for the possession or use of biological andchemical weapons. This section of the AEDPAamended title 18 of the United States Code, whichcontains the federal statutes to enlarge the govern-ment’s jurisdiction over nuclear by-products. In asimilar vein, title VI implemented certain conven-tions relating to plastic explosives.
Title VII modified the existing criminal law toimprove mechanisms to fight terrorism. It enhanced
542—�—Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 542
the penalties for conspiracies involving explosivesand terrorist crimes. It allowed for prosecution ofconspiracies to harm people overseas, and it createdmandatory penalties for anyone transporting anyexplosive materials knowing they will be used tocommit a crime of violence. Title VII also extendedU.S. criminal jurisdiction over certain terrorismoffenses committed overseas. It created federal juris-diction over bomb threats and added terrorismoffenses to the money laundering statutes.
Title VIII provided assistance to law enforcementby supplying resources and security for overseasoperations. It also implemented a wide range offunding authorizations for local and federal lawenforcement. Title IX expanded the territorial sealimits and discussed issues surrounding fees paid bythe government for the representation of indigentsin federal criminal cases.
Civil libertarians opposed the legislation andcontinue to fight many of the act’s provisions. Ofparticular concern are the use of secret evidence atdeportation hearings, the degree of power vested inthe executive branch to classify individuals or orga-nizations as terrorist, the restrictions placed on thefederal judiciary to review state court decisions andgrant habeas corpus relief, and the weakening ofjudicial oversight of wiretap surveillance.
Events since September 11, 2001, have fueled newarguments for those who seek greater governmentalpower to fight terrorism, even at the expense of civilliberties. Many of the provisions of the AEDPA havebeen strengthened by subsequent legislation, particu-larly the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
Brian S. MacNamara
For Further Reading
Benson, J. (1999). Send me your money: Controlling interna-tional terrorism by restricting fundraising in the UnitedStates. Houston Journal of International Law, 21,321–366.
Evans, J. (2002). Hijacking civil liberties: The USA PATRIOTAct of 2001. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal,33, 933–990.
Patton, W. (1996). Preventing terrorist fund raising in theUnited States. George Washington Journal of InternationalLaw and Economics, 30, 127–158.
Smith, R. (1997). America tries to come to terms with terrorism:The United States Anti-terrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act of 1996 v. British anti-terrorism law and inter-national response. Cardozo Journal of International &Comparative Law, 5, 249–290.
� APPROPRIATIONSAND BUDGETINGFOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
The U.S. government contains a vast number of lawenforcement agencies within the executive, legisla-tive, and judiciary branches. Although most peopleare familiar with the larger agencies, such as theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforce-ment Administration (DEA), and some of the neweragencies that have developed through the Depart-ment of Homeland Security (DHS), many people areunaware of the many different forms of law enforce-ment within this one level of government.
The layered nature of American government,combined with the large number of federal lawenforcement agencies, makes it virtually impossibleto determine with any degree of accuracy the totalvalue of funds spent by the federal government onits various law enforcement services. It is possible,though, to describe the costs associated with anumber of the larger, more prominent agenciesand those for whom law enforcement is a major costcenter.
Federal law enforcement agencies share withstate and local agencies that their major expendi-tures are for personnel, which is the costliest item invirtually all law enforcement budgets. Personnelcosts are generally understood to include salary,fringe benefits (health insurance and retirement),and, in some agencies, overtime. Other costs asso-ciated with maintaining an investigative or uni-formed law enforcement cost include training andequipment. Since federal agencies not only operatethroughout the United States but often assign per-sonnel outside the country, travel, housing, and avariety of costs that are unique to their mandatesadd to their budgets. Some agencies also provideservices for smaller federal law enforcement unitsand for state and local police. Examples are the
Appropriations and Budgeting for Law Enforcement—�—543
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 543
FBI’s extensive laboratory and record-keepingfacilities, and the U.S. Marshal Service’s air transportof prisoners.
The most visible of the federal law enforcementagencies are housed within the executive branch.Each of the 15 departments that make up the exec-utive branch is headed by a chief executive whoreports directly to the president of the United States.The best known law enforcement entity of thesedepartments is the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),which provides such high-profile services as thoseof its leader, the attorney general and the U.S. attor-neys, the FBI, and the DEA. Because law enforce-ment functions are so thoroughly spread throughoutall areas of the government, the appropriations ofexecutive branch agencies are used as indications ofthe wide range of functions and costs associatedwith policing at the federal level. In addition to itsother, varied law enforcement functions, each of theexecutive branch agencies has its own Office of theInspector General, each of which is funded out ofagency resources.
The budget outlay for the DOJ for fiscal year2003 was $30.2 billion. Included among the majorexpenditures were $4.2 billion for the FBI; $1.5billion for the DEA; $1.5 billion for the Office ofthe U.S. Attorney; $802 million for the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and$706 million for the Marshals Service.
A relatively new agency with law enforcementresponsibilities is the DHS, which was created inJanuary 2003 in direct response to the terrorist actsof September 11, 2001. Because it is so new, and itis comprised of a number of law enforcement agen-cies that were previously administered by otherdepartments, it is difficult to determine what per-centage of the 2003 budget of $32.2 billion wasallocated to law enforcement functions.
Agencies whose primary responsibilities areneither law enforcement nor protection of thecountry’s borders or infrastructure spend consider-ably less on their law enforcement services. In someagencies, budgetary documents make it fairly easyto discern the amounts spent on these functions; inother agencies it can be almost impossible to deter-mine law enforcement expenditures. Agencies for
which some law enforcement expenditures can bedetermined are provided as examples of the rangeof activities and funds expended for policing.Executive branch agencies that are not discussedeither have no direct law enforcement responsibili-ties or do not separate out law enforcement relatedcosts in public budget figures.
Within the Department of Agriculture, the Officeof the Inspector General serves as the law enforce-ment arm and investigates criminal activity involv-ing the department’s programs and personnel. In2003 it was budgeted to spend just under $80million to fulfill its mandated duties.
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has twoprimary law enforcement-related agencies. TheBureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advancesnational security, foreign policy, and economicinterests by enforcing export control, antiboycott,and public safety laws, while the DOC’s Office ofthe Inspector General, like all such offices, is taskedto detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and viola-tions of law and to promote economy, efficiency,and effectiveness in the operations of its parentagency and any private vendors with which theagency contracts. The BIS had a 2003 budget of $66million; the inspector general’s funding was consid-erably smaller, slightly more than $20 million.
Like the Department of Commerce, theDepartment of Education (DOE) has more than onelaw enforcement component. In addition to itsinspector general, which was budgeted at about $41million in 2003, the DOE provides law enforcementservices through its Office for Civil Rights and itsOffice of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The Officefor Civil Rights ensures equal access to educationthrough enforcement of civil rights laws, while theOffice of Safe and Drug-Free Schools providesfinancial assistance for drug and violence preven-tion activities and activities that promote the healthand well-being of students in elementary and sec-ondary schools and institutions of higher education.Funds for these two offices in 2003 included almost$85 million for the Office of Civil Rights and $666million for the Office of Safe and Drug-FreeSchools. The Department of Energy’s variousenforcement programs are administered through the
544—�—Appropriations and Budgeting for Law Enforcement
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 544
Office of Price-Anderson Enforcement. Expendituresfor the office, included under the total expendituresfor environment, safety, and health programs, were$89 million in 2003.
Two agencies whose inspectors general areheavily involved in investigations not only of inter-nal staff but also of numerous contractors who areemployed by their agencies are the Departmentof Health and Human Services (HHS) and theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). The HHS inspector general is also respon-sible for investigation of beneficiaries of thedepartment’s many services. In 2003 the office wasbudgeted at $37 million. Indicating the wide rangeof resources allocated to investigatory functions indifferent agencies, HUD’s inspector general had anestimated 2003 budget of $97.7 million.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has severallaw enforcement divisions within its eight bureaus.The largest law enforcement expenditure in theDOI is the National Park Service. Its expenditures in2004 were almost $80 million, most of it to protectnational monuments in the wake of the September11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Other DOI law enforce-ment components had far smaller budgets; 2003figures for the Bureau of Land Management were$14.3 million, $51.6 million for the Fish and WildlifeService, and $16.2 million to the Bureau of IndianAffairs for a variety of public safety and justiceresponsibilities.
The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of theInspector General was budgeted at $62 million in2003, whereas the Department of State’s inspectorgeneral received only $29 million. Additional fundsin the Department of State were allocated to theBureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforce-ment Affairs, which received $891 million to addressterrorism, drug trafficking, and international crimethat all exploit weaknesses in international lawenforcement institutions.
The Department of Veterans Affairs in 2003allocated almost $59 million to its inspector generaland $7.2 million to its Office of Operations, Security,and Preparedness (also known as the Office ofPolicy, Planning, and Preparedness), which includesthe Office of Security and Law Enforcement.
As national priorities continue to focus moredirectly on security, it can be anticipated that anumber of these agencies will increase the numbersof personnel involved in protective efforts and thatbudgets will increase accordingly.
Timothy K. Birch
For Further Reading
Department of Agriculture. [Online]. Available: http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2004/14.OIG.htm
Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.bis.doc.gov/about/index.htm
Department of Defense. [Online]. Available: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/
Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices
Department of Energy. [Online]. Available: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/content/otherdef/eh.pdf
Department of Housing and Urban Development. [Online].Available: http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/about/mission.cfm
Department of the Interior. [Online]. Available: http://www.doi.gov/budget
Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2003summary/html/2003SUMMARYBYAPPROP01-31-02FINAL.htm
Department of State. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/rpt/cbj/fy2004/21880.htm
Department of Veterans Affairs. [Online]. Available: http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/2004_Departmental_Administration.pdf
� ART LOSS REGISTER
According to Interpol, art theft is the fourth largesttransnational criminal activity after drugs, moneylaundering, and illegal arms trading. One of thetools that assists law enforcement agencies inrecovery, theft deterrence, and reduction of trafficin stolen art is the Art Loss Register (ALR). TheALR is the largest private computerized databaseof stolen and missing objects of art from aroundthe world.
Founded in 1990 by Julian Radcliffe, a formerBritish counterintelligence and private security spe-cialist, the ALR has offices in London, New York,
Art Loss Register—�—545
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 545
Cologne (Germany), and St. Petersburg (Russia).The company is financed by the insurance industry,art trade associations, and leading auction houses.The ALR’s core information comes from dataacquired from the International Foundation for ArtResearch that began to keep track of stolen art inthe mid-1970s. When the electronic registry wasopen for consultation for both the public and lawenforcement in 1991, it included about 25,000items. In 10 years, the number of items multipliedby five. The description and, if possible, images of1,000–1,200 new items are added to the ALR eachmonth. The spectrum of stolen objects covers every-thing from paintings, antiques, and jewelry to gardensculpture, classic cars, and toys.
The company employs 20 art historians who areexperts in fine art, speak many foreign languages(English, French, German, Czech, Italian, Hebrew,Hungarian, Spanish), and have experience in advisingowners, sellers, insurers, lawyers, and law enforce-ment agencies on questionable deals concerning art.As of 2001, the ALR was responsible for the recov-ery of more than $100 million in stolen art.
The fee for a search in the ALR is $20, althoughit is waived for law enforcement agencies. If thework is recovered, the register receives a contin-gency fee of 15% of the value of the work, up to$75,000, and 10% of the value in excess of $75,000.
The major objective of the ALR is to discourageart theft by making stolen art harder to sell. In 2000,a group of paintings stolen from the Museum ofFine Arts in San Francisco in the early 1980s wasleft on the doorstep of an auction house inNew York. The specialists explained the fact thatthe listing on the ALR made these paintings quicklytraceable and impossible to sell into a legitimatemarket.
Museums, private art dealers, and auction andinsurance companies check the ALR to verify thelegitimacy, or good title, for the works and objectsof art they try to acquire or sell. It has become astandard for such international art fairs as theEuropean Fine Art Fair in Maastricht (theNetherlands) or London’s Grosvenor House fair toscreen every lot for provenance against the ALR.Annually, the employees of the ALR check nearly
400,000 auction catalog lots prior to sale. As aresult, fewer stolen works are showing up in auctioncatalogs, and previously stolen artworks are morelikely to be returned.
The ALR circulates data about stolen and miss-ing items in the leading international fine art publi-cations as well as through an electronic newsletteraddressed to law enforcement agencies, the arttrade, and collectors. When a stolen item surfaceson the market, the ALR puts an advertisement inLondon’s Daily Telegraph. The ALR’s Web sitelists statistics of thefts that can be sorted by the typeof objects most stolen, types of theft locations, cat-egories of theft victims, country and value of recov-ery, and so on. Data and images of the most famousart thefts, such as the only known seascape byRembrandt that disappeared from the IsabellaStewart Gardner Museum in Boston in 1990 alongwith 11 other items, are available to everyone whovisits the registry’s site. In 2000, high-profile miss-ing items included 260 works by Marc Chagall, 205by Salvador Dali, 291 by Joan Miró, 152 by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 142 by Rembrandt von Rijn, 135by Andy Warhol, and 39 by Paul Cézanne.
In 1998, the ALR started to help Holocaust sur-vivors track down stolen World War II treasures freeof the search and contingency charge. It is esti-mated that anywhere from 75,000 to 300,000 itemslooted by Nazi agencies, Allied troops, or the SovietTrophy Brigades still remain at large. So far, theALR has identified 21 wartime losses and is work-ing with many international cultural organizationsand law enforcement agencies to assist with therecovery or other form of settlement for these items.
When the ALR produces a match for stolen ormissing artwork, the information is turned over tothe law enforcement authorities. In many cases,recovery requires international cooperation. ScotlandYard, the Swiss police, and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation were involved in the ALR’s most sig-nificant recovery—Cézanne’s painting “Bouilloireet Fruits” that was stolen in 1978 in Boston and wasfound and sold in Great Britain 20 years later foralmost $30 million.
Maria Kiriakova
546—�—Art Loss Register
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 546
For Further Reading
Art Loss Register. [Online]. Available: http://www.artloss.comCopage, E. (1999, May 16). A rogue’s gallery. The New York
Times, Section 14, p. 4.Judd, T., & Garner, C. (2000, January 8). Stringent new checks
will help art world beat trade in stolen paintings. TheIndependent (London), n.p.
Kisluk, A. (1999, December 2–3). Stolen art and the Art LossRegister. Paper presented at the Art Crime: Protecting Art,Protecting Artists and Protecting Consumers Conferenceof the Australian Institute of Criminology, Sydney,Australia. [Online]. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/artcrime/kisluk.pdf
Tauber, R. S. (2000, February 10). Holocaust survivors assets.Statement on Banking and Financial Services, Houseof Representatives (congressional testimony). FederalDocument Clearing House. [Online]. Available: http://www.fdcl.com
Watson, P. (2000, December 17). Portrait of a shady art deal.Sunday Times (London), n.p.
� ASIS INTERNATIONAL(FORMERLY THE AMERICANSOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIALSECURITY)
At one level or another, security—protection ofassets from loss—as a management function hasalways had a connection with law enforcement. Theprincipal professional group concerned with thisproblem and issue—ASIS International—has longhad substantial membership from former or currentlaw enforcement officers, though current or pastlaw enforcement employment has never been arequirement for membership.
Security services as a business activity originatedin the United States during the mid-19th century.Allen Pinkerton, a former deputy sheriff of CookCounty, Illinois, solved vexing counterfeit prob-lems as Chicago’s sole detective in 1848. Later hefounded a business that conducted investigationsof losses to railroads and the U.S. Post Office. Stilllater, the firm expanded services to provide armedand unarmed guarding, intelligence gatheringservices, and executive protection. By the begin-ning of the 20th century, hundreds of detectives andwatch, guard, and patrol firms vied for business in
the nation’s largest cities. The Pinkerton agencywas the biggest.
By the mid-20th century, security servicesinvolved simple issues: physical security to protectindustrial activity, procedures to make sure that onlyauthorized persons were admitted to restricted areas,prevention of loss from theft, and sometimes inves-tigations. Such issues were of great national concernduring times of crisis, such as during wars whendisruption of production through sabotage or lossof information through espionage were acute risks.In the years following the end of World War II, hos-tility emerged between the United States and theSoviet Union, rooted in fundamentally differentphilosophical, political, and economic outlooks.Many observers at that time thought it was inevitablethat nuclear conflict would occur between the twosuperpowers. It was critical for the industrial mightof America to protect what it was developing andmaking. An organization would help facilitate suchprotection.
In 1953, five men met in Detroit to discusshow industrial security in the nation could be mademore effective. They were Robert L. Applegate, direc-tor, industrial security programs of the AssistantSecretary of Defense for Manpower, Personnel, andReserve; Eric L. Barr, industrial security manager,Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics; EugeneA. Goedgen, manager of plant security, Jet EngineDivision, General Electric; Paul Hansen, director,Industrial Security Division, Reynolds Metals; andRussell E. White, security coordinator, GeneralElectric. Most of these men had law enforcementexperience. Hansen, the society’s first president,was a special agent for the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) and an investigator for theFederal Works Agency before entering privateindustry.
At that time numerous local and special-interestsecurity groups existed. The goal of the pioneeringfive was to bring American managers and gov-ernment officials into a society that would pro-mote enhanced industrial protective practices.Two organizations—the Industrial Security Councilof the National Industrial Conference Board andthe Security Committee of the Aircraft Industries
ASIS International (Formerly the American Society for Industrial Security)—�—547
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 547
Association—joined the fledgling organization. InJanuary 1955, the American Society for IndustrialSecurity was officially incorporated. Its certificatein part called for the “voluntary interchange ofmembers” to collect, evaluate, and share “data, infor-mation, experience, ideas, knowledge, methods, andtechniques related to the field of industrial security.”
ASIS would seek “to collect, collate, coordinate,and distribute” information that would improve theefficiency and promote uniformity of security prac-tices. The society would also establish ethical andprofessional standards for its members. At the firstannual conference in 1955, ASIS awarded in absen-tia its first honorary membership to J. Edgar Hoover,then at his peak as the FBI director. Several later FBIdirectors also would also receive such distinctions.
Starting from its initial domestic industrialfocus, the society grew in its early years. But laterthe exclusionary, narrowly framed, and informallymanaged group stagnated. By 1972, ASIS facedfinancial ruin, had no staff members, and almostdisbanded. O. Perry Norton, a long-time ASIS vol-unteer, was named staff executive director. Throughhis energy, the fortunes of ASIS began to rise.
By the 21st century, ASIS International hadevolved into a multifaceted, membership-orientedprofessional organization. At the national level,some 30 councils have been formed to addressvarying topics of concern to the membership. Thesecouncils stay abreast of the latest developments,which are then incorporated into educational pro-grams for the membership and the public at large.
To nurture self-development and higher generalstandards, ASIS founded a certification programleading to the designation of a Certified ProtectionProfessional (CPP). The program was studied foryears and introduced in 1977. A professional certi-fication board sought to identify critical informa-tion and then tested applicants on their knowledgeof the principles. The CPP Board retains structuralindependence from the rest of the organization tosafeguard the integrity of the process. To sit for theexamination, an applicant need not be a member ofASIS or have a background in law enforcement, butmust meet criteria for education, possess chargeresponsibility in the field, and offer personal
recommendations. Applicants who successfullypass the CPP examination must provide evidenceof continuing education on a triennial basis in orderto maintain certification.
Members are connected to ASIS directly through110 chapters further divided into 18 regions in theUnited States, 1 in Canada, and 10 in the rest ofthe world. From its constricting origins centeredon the Cold War, the organization has evolved tobecome a global entity. In 2002, the name wasformally changed to ASIS International to empha-size the importance of global solutions to chal-lenges facing the workplace. Individual chaptershold meetings, generally monthly, at which speak-ers offer views and information on current mattersof concern. ASIS nationally, as well as its localchapters, often sponsors conferences, workshops,and symposia on topics of interest. Additionally,an annual ASIS seminar and exhibit, held each fall,acts as a convocation for examining practices, ideas,and technology of relevance to dynamic needs.Frequently, law enforcement officials are invitedguests and participants.
Services available to members include accessto the O. P. Norton Information Resource Center, aWeb site, and various publications.
Following the terrorist attack on New York Cityand Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001,private security was assessed as a componentin homeland security. The private security sectoremploys 2.5 to 3 times the number of personnelworking in law enforcement at a local, state, andnational level. Although the responsibility of pri-vate security is to protect people and assets on pri-vate or institutional property, these observationscan aid in making the nation safer and more pro-ductive. But standards of selection, training, andsupervision at the operational level are inferior tothose found in most law enforcement organiza-tions. To meet these expanding needs, ASIS Inter-national has actively supported research, legislativechange, and executive development to provide ahigher level of service reliability for its member-ship and the wider society.
Robert D. McCrie
548—�—ASIS International (Formerly the American Society for Industrial Security)
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 548
For Further Reading
Lipson, M. (1975). On guard: The business of private security.New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times BookCompany.
McCrie, R. D. (1997). A brief history of the security industryin the United States. In M. Felson and R. V. Clarke (Eds.),Business and crime prevention (pp. 197–218). Monsey,NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Security Management. (1990). 35th anniversary specialsupplement.
� ASSET FORFEITURE
Asset forfeiture is the loss of property, withoutcompensation, due to the commission of a criminalact. Federal forfeiture occurs when federal agentstarget a property that may have been used to facili-tate criminal activity or functions as the proceeds ofcriminality. Through federal litigation, any interestallocated to the property vests in the United States.
Agencies maintaining forfeiture programs areU.S. attorneys’ offices, the Drug EnforcementAgency, the U.S. Customs Service, the FederalBureau of Investigation, the Immigration andNaturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service,the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the InternalRevenue Service (Criminal Investigation Division),the U.S. Secret Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Current federal asset forfeiture programs areintended to punish and deter criminal activity bydepriving criminals of property used through illegalactivities, take the instrumentalities of crime out ofcirculation, return property to victims, and makeproperty available as resources to strengthen lawenforcement.
Forfeiture law distinguishes between differentclasses of property. The first, contraband, includesproperty whose mere possession is a crime (e.g., ille-gal drugs, smuggled goods, counterfeit money, childpornography, and unregistered machine guns). Thesecond class, derivative contraband, includes prop-erty such as boats, automobiles, and airplanes thatfunctions to transport or facilitate the exchange ofcontraband. Direct proceeds, which is the third class,describes property, such as cash, that is received in
exchange for, or as payment for, any transactioninvolving contraband. Derivative proceeds comprisethe fourth class and include property such as finan-cial instruments, real estate, legitimate businesses,and conveyances that are purchased or otherwiseacquired with the proceeds of an illegal transaction.Although contraband and derivative contraband havebeen subjected to forfeiture in this country for nearlytwo centuries, direct and derivative proceeds werenot subjected to forfeiture until after 1970.
Federal forfeiture law recognizes both civil andcriminal forfeitures. Civil forfeiture involves a legalfiction in which the property (the offending object)is personified and the government sues the object.Litigation proceeds against the property, sincethe guilt of the property is at issue. The owner’sguilt or innocence is not necessarily considered.Conviction of the property holder is not a prerequi-site for the imposition of civil forfeiture. Civil for-feiture proceeds as an in rem action. In rem is alegal proceeding against an object in which thegovernment forfeits all right, title, and interest inthat object. Criminal forfeiture, on the other hand,is based on a determination of personal guilt. Theright of the government in the property subject toforfeiture stems from an in personam criminalaction against the offender for the purpose of oblig-ating the offender to forfeit the offender’s interestin the property to the government.
Both civil and criminal forfeiture have complexhistories that date back to before the birth of theAmerican colonies. In common law England, for-feiture included transference of the offending objectto the king. Forfeiture of property to the Crown alsoautomatically followed most felony convictions,regardless of the property’s relationship to the crimealleged. The offending objects were not destroyed,but rather their value was assessed and the pro-ceeds were given to the Crown as forfeiture. Thispractice came to be seen as a deterrent to negli-gence. This forfeiture process continued inEngland until the advent of the Industrial Revolutionwhen machinery regularly caused workers’ deaths.English law further evolved with statutory in remproceedings against property involved in illegalactivity.
Asset Forfeiture—�—549
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 549
Civil in rem forfeitures continued in the UnitedStates after the passage of the Navigation Acts of1660 in England, which were intended to stop theimportation of contraband goods. In the UnitedStates, the earliest federal civil forfeiture statutesallowed for the forfeiture of ships and cargo thatviolated customs regulations. Americans eventuallydeveloped an aversion to the forfeiture of propertyafter learning of the widespread abuses of criminalforfeiture in England. With the exception of theConfiscation Act of 1862, which authorized thepresident to forfeit the property of Confederatesympathizers, all forms of criminal forfeiture hadbeen unknown in American jurisprudence until1970. In 1970, Congress enacted two statutes thatprovided the federal government with criminal for-feiture authority. The Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organization Act provided that anyoneconvicted for racketeering involvement in an enter-prise shall forfeit all interests in that enterprise. In1978, Congress passed the Psychotropic SubstanceAct, which provided for civil forfeitures for drugoffenses.
The passage of the Comprehensive Crime ControlAct of 1984 expanded forfeiture authority and estab-lished asset forfeiture funds with the Departmentof Justice and U.S. Customs (of the TreasuryDepartment) to hold the proceeds of forfeitures andfinance program-related expenses. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act expanded civil forfeiture to includethe proceeds of money laundering activity. In 1992,Congress added more categories of offenses to coverproceeds traceable to motor vehicle theft. Also in1992, Congress created the Treasury Fund to super-sede the Customs Forfeiture Fund.
Since the expansion of federal forfeiture laws,significant procedural differences between civil andcriminal forfeiture have led to an almost exclusiveuse of civil forfeitures. Perhaps the most glaringdifference pertains to criminal forfeiture’s protec-tions of the due process rights guaranteed in allcriminal cases. Under civil forfeiture proceedings,such due process protections may not attach. Forexample, the government need not prove the propertywas connected to a particular crime or crimes
beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the standard ofproof needed to initiate a seizure and forfeiture pro-ceeding is probable cause. The burden is on theproperty claimant to prove by a preponderance ofevidence that the property was not used to facilitatea criminal offense or the result of proceeds of ille-gal activity. With the lowered evidentiary standard,the government may use hearsay, circumstantialevidence, and facts obtained after seizure to justifythe forfeiture.
In response to the controversy created over civilforfeiture, Congress overhauled the civil forfeiturelaw in an attempt to force the government to provemore convincingly that property is subject to forfei-ture and to provide greater due process protectionsfor property owners. In 2000, Congress passed theCivil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The most signif-icant change is the higher preponderance of theevidence standard imposed on the government. Thisburden no longer shifts to the property claimant. Thelaw further removes the requirement of cost bondsand requires the immediate release of seized prop-erty if the seizure would cause a substantial hard-ship. Also, for the first time, claimants have a rightto counsel in limited circumstances (i.e., they havea related criminal case and already have appointedcounsel and claimants whose primary residencesare subject to forfeiture).
Paula Gormley
See also Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act
For Further Reading
Ekstrand, L. (1996, March). Asset forfeiture: Historical per-spectives on asset forfeiture issues (GAO PublicationNo. T-GGD-96-40). [Online]. Available: http://www.gao.gov/ archive/1996/gg96040t.pdf
Guerra Thompson, S. (2001). Congressional reform of civilforfeiture: Punishing criminals yet protecting propertyowners. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14(2), 71–75.
Williams, H. E. (2002). Asset forfeiture: A law enforcementperspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Worrall, J. L. (2001). Addicted to the drug war: The role ofcivil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity in contem-porary law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice,29(3), 171–187.
550—�—Asset Forfeiture
A-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:16 PM Page 550
B� BALLISTICS RECOGNITION
AND IDENTIFICATIONSYSTEMS
Ballistics identification, more properly known asfirearms identification, is part of the forensicscience discipline of toolmark identification. Thepremise underlying toolmark identification is that atool, such as a firearm barrel, leaves a unique tool-mark on an object, such as a bullet, with which itcomes in contact. Firearms examiners deal with thetoolmarks that bullets, cartridge cases, and shotshellcomponents acquire by being fired and also thatunfired cartridge cases and shotshells acquire bybeing worked through the action of a firearm.Comparison microscopes are used to compareevidence toolmarks on ammunition componentsrecovered from crime scenes with test toolmarksthat examiners produce on other ammunition com-ponents by firing or otherwise using a particulargun. A firearm is identified as the one firearm, tothe exclusion of all others, that produced the evi-dence toolmark, if the examiner decides that theevidence and test toolmarks are sufficiently similar.Although firearms examination may aid in identify-ing the perpetrators of crimes, law enforcementofficers need to be aware that firearms are some-times misidentified as the source of evidence tool-marks that they did not produce and are sometimes
not identified as the source of evidence toolmarksthat they did produce. These risks have not beeneliminated by computerized matching systems,including the National Integrated Ballistics Informa-tion Network (NIBIN) developed by the Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(BATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI).
TYPES OF TOOLMARKS
Firearms examiners deal with the striated toolmarksthat gun barrels impart to fired bullets and with theimpression and striated marks that various parts offirearms impart to cartridge cases (for example,breechblock, ejector, extractor, and firing pin marks)and other ammunition components. Striated tool-marks are patterns of scratches or striae that resultfrom the parallel motion of ammunition compo-nents against firearm components. Impression tool-marks result from the perpendicular, pressurizedimpact of firearm components on ammunitioncomponents.
Impression and striated toolmarks have class,subclass, and individual characteristics. The dis-tinctively designed features of types of guns arereflected in class characteristics. For example, therifling impressions on bullets are class characteris-tics that reflect the number, width, and direction of
551
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 551
twist of the lands and grooves in the types of barrelsthat fired them.
Subclass characteristics, which are present in onlysome toolmarks, arise when manufacturing processescreate batches of tools, such as firearm components,with similarities in appearance, size, or surface finishthat set them apart from other tools of the same type.The toolmarks produced by tools in the batch havematching microscopic characteristics, called sub-class characteristics, that distinguish them from tool-marks produced by other tools of the type.
Firearms identification is premised on the exis-tence of individual characteristics that are unique tothe toolmarks each individual tool produces andthat correspond to random imperfections or irregu-larities on tool surfaces produced by the manu-facturing process or subsequent use, corrosion, ordamage. If the same class characteristics are foundon evidence and test toolmarks (for example, thesame rifling impressions on a test fired bullet and anevidence bullet recovered from a crime scene), a fire-arms examiner uses a comparison microscope tocompare the toolmarks’ individual characteristics(for example, microscopic striations within riflingimpressions). The object is to determine whether theindividual characteristics are so similar that one andthe same tool (for example, a particular gun barrel)must have produced both the test and the evidencetoolmark.
CONFUSING FEATURES OF TOOLMARKS
Central features of toolmarks make it difficult toachieve what is firearms identification’s goal of indi-vidualization. The goal is to identify one and onlyone gun as the source of the toolmark(s) on anammunition component found at a crime scene. First,a particular firearm may be wrongly identified as thesource if a firearms examiner confuses subclass withindividual characteristics of toolmarks. This confusionis possible because some, though not all, manufac-turing processes result in batches of tools so similarthat their toolmarks have the same subclass charac-teristics and may or may not also have individualcharacteristics. While wear and tear on tools may causethe subclass characteristics on their toolmarks to be
completely replaced by individual characteristics,subclass characteristics may also persist alongsideindividual characteristics. There are no rules for dis-tinguishing subclass from individual characteristics;examiners need to rely on their personal familiaritywith types of forming and finishing processes andtheir reflections in toolmarks.
Second, the individual characteristics of tool-marks are combinations of nonunique marks. Forexample, Biasotti’s classic 1959 study found that 15to 20% of the striae on bullets fired from different.38 Special Smith & Wesson revolvers matched.If an examiner assumes that a certain amount ofresemblance proves that test and evidence toolmarkswere produced by the same gun, he or she may bewrong because the same amount of resemblancemay be found in toolmarks produced by differentguns. Although this can lead to misidentifying a gunas the source of evidence that it did not produce,identifications may also be missed because the tool-mark on a fragmented ammunition component is toosmall to allow an examiner to identify any firearm,including the one that made it, as the toolmark’ssource.
Third, the individual characteristics of toolmarkscan change such that the toolmarks on two bulletsfired from the same gun are never exactly the same.For example, in Biasotti’s study, only 21-38% of thestriae on bullets fired from the same gun matched.Identifications can be missed if examiners fail torealize that differences between test and evidencetoolmarks are compatible with their having beenproduced by the same gun at different times. Misiden-tifications can also occur if examiners attribute dif-ferences in test and evidence toolmarks to changes inthe same gun over time, instead of realizing that themarks were made by different guns.
FIREARMS EXAMINERS’ CONCLUSIONS
The similarities between toolmarks made by differ-ent guns and the differences between toolmarksmade by the same gun indicate that a statisticalquestion must be answered to determine whether aparticular gun was the source of the toolmark on anammunition component recovered from a crime
552—�—Ballistics Recognition and Identification Systems
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 552
scene. What is the likelihood that a toolmark madeby a randomly selected gun of the same type woulddo as good a job at matching the evidence toolmarkas the test toolmark made by the particular gun?The statistical nature of the question is obscuredby firearms examiners’ practice of reaching onlyfour conclusions: (1) identifying or (2) eliminatinga particular firearm as the source of the mark(s)found on an ammunition component, (3) conclud-ing that the comparison of test and evidence tool-marks is inconclusive, or (4) concluding that theevidence toolmark is unsuitable for comparison.
For impression toolmarks, all firearms examinersrely solely on subjective judgments to determinewhether the resemblance between test and evidencetoolmarks is so great that the toolmarks must havecome from the same gun. While some firearmsexaminers also make purely subjective identity deter-minations for striated toolmarks, others employ theconsecutive matching striae (CMS) criterion thatBiasotti and Murdock proposed in 1997. Biasotti’sstudy of .38 Special Smith & Wesson revolversand follow-up statistical empirical studies of thoseand other types of guns and tools found significantdifferences between the numbers of consecutivematching striae, but not the percentages or totalnumbers of matching striae, on pairs of toolmarksknown to be made by the same and different tools.Under CMS, the threshold for identifying a particu-lar tool as the source of a three-dimensional (3D)toolmark is a match between evidence and test tool-marks of one group of six consecutive matchingstriae or two different groups of at least three con-secutive matching striae in the same relative posi-tion. The threshold for two-dimensional toolmarksis one group of eight consecutive matching striaeor two groups of at least five consecutive matchingstriae in the same relative position.
The CMS identity criterion is intended to applyto all firearms and all other types of tools and to setsuch a high threshold that misidentifications cannotresult, though the cost may be some missed identi-fications. However, since CMS requires examinersto compare numbers of striae on individual charac-teristics of toolmarks, misidentifications may resultif examiners confuse subclass characteristics on
test and evidence toolmarks with individualcharacteristics.
An unresolved scientific issue is whetherCMS can reliably lead to accurate identificationswhen different examiners sometimes find differentnumbers of striae on the same toolmark. Another iswhether the CMS threshold can be high enough toavoid misidentifications of tools with large workingsurfaces without being so high that unduly manyidentifications of tools with small working surfacesare missed. This issue arises because the number ofconsecutive matching striae on pairs of toolmarksvaries with the size of the working surface of thetools that produce them. For example, because ofthe wide lands in their barrels, fired Smith &Wesson revolvers impart more consecutive match-ing striae to the land impressions of pairs of .38bullets than Raven, Lorcin, and Stallard pistolsrespectively impart to .25 caliber, .380 ACP, and9-mm bullets.
Many firearms examiners see no need for CMSor any objective identity criteria because theybelieve their subjective determinations are accurate.The testing of firearms examiners’ proficiency hasbeen questionable, however. The American Societyof Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) bases lab-oratory accreditation on yearly external proficiencytests, but requires only one examiner in a laboratoryto be tested. Laboratories can choose between blindtests and known tests in which test takers are able todistinguish test items from items they are examin-ing as part of their regular case work.
The only ASCLD-approved provider of profi-ciency tests for firearms examiners is CollaborativeTesting Services, Inc. (CTS). In 2002, all examinerscompleting the CTS test correctly concluded thatthe same gun had fired two of the sample evidencecartridge cases and the test cartridge cases. Ofthese, 77% correctly concluded that the gun hadnot fired a third evidence cartridge case, whereas23% reported an “inconclusive.” Several test takerscommented that the questions were so basic thattrainees with one or two weeks of training couldanswer them. CTS cautions against equating its testresults with “an overview of the quality of workperformed in the profession.”
Ballistics Recognition and Identification Systems—�—553
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 553
TRADITIONAL VERSUS COMPUTERIZEDFIREARMS IDENTIFICATION
From the 1930s to the early 1990s, a major practi-cal limit on firearms identification was that a com-parison microscope could be used to compare onlytwo toolmarks at a time. Because the comparisonswere time consuming, it was feasible for examinersto compare the marks on ammunition componentsrecovered from a crime scene only with test marksmade by a gun that investigators had already linkedto the crime. Transportation and chain of custodyproblems were a major barrier to comparing gunsand ammunition components recovered by differentlaw enforcement agencies.
These limits became surmountable with thedevelopment, in the early 1990s, of computerizedcomparison systems that allowed vast numbers ofdigital images of bullets and cartridge cases to bequickly scanned into and stored in databases.Computers could rapidly screen the stored imagesand arrive at short lists of matches for bullets orcartridge cases that examiners submitted for identi-fication. Telecommunications made interagencycomparisons of guns and ammunition componentsfeasible. Although traditional firearms identifica-tion was merely a tool for verifying investigativeleads, computerization created the possibility ofusing firearms identification to discover linksbetween particular guns and crimes, including link-ing seemingly unconnected crimes to the same gun.
NIBIN
The National Integrated Ballistics InformationNetwork, formed in 1997, makes the BATF’s com-puterized comparison system, Integrated BallisticsInformation System (IBIS), available to federal, state,and local law enforcement agencies for inputting,storing, and matching digital images of bullets andcartridge cases that they recover from crime scenesor use crime guns to test fire. Agencies that parti-cipate in NIBIN are linked through the FBI’s tele-communications network, allowing interagencycomparisons of digital images of ammunitioncomponents.
IBIS rapidly generates a short list of the imagesin its database that most resemble the scannedimage of the ammunition component whose prove-nance is questioned. A firearms examiner thendecides whether there is an identification by using acomparison microscope to compare the questionedammunition component with an ammunition com-ponent on the short list. Since people remainresponsible for identity conclusions under NIBIN,misidentifications can occur if examiners underesti-mate how much similarity between toolmarks isneeded to prove that the same gun must have firedtwo ammunition components. Identifications canalso be missed if examiners overestimate the amountof similarity needed. Since NIBIN has not elimi-nated the risk of these mistakes, the issues of howfirearms examiners’ proficiency should be tested andwhether examiners should rely on CMS or subjec-tive judgments remain relevant.
Federal law limits the BATF’s IBIS database toimages of ammunition components recovered fromcrime scenes or test fired by guns recovered fromcrimes. Hence, NIBIN is of no use for identifyingthe gun that fired a bullet or cartridge case unless aparticipating agency has already connected the gunto some crime. Opposition to a national gun registryhas been a major barrier to expanding federal data-bases to include digital images of test fired car-tridge cases and bullets from newly manufacturedor imported firearms.
By May 2003, NIBIN had made 6,200 linksbetween crime investigations that previously werenot known to be connected. Questions about theaccuracy of NIBIN are raised, however, by findingsthat bullets of the same caliber test fired by differ-ent guns can rank very high on IBIS lists of candi-date matches. Although some have argued thatcomputerized comparison systems using 3D imagesof ammunition components would be more accuratethan IBIS or other systems using two-dimensionalimages, the several hours it now takes to scan a sin-gle bullet into a 3D system makes such systemsunfeasible.
Adina Schwartz
See also American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
554—�—Ballistics Recognition and Identification Systems
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 554
For Further Reading
ASCLD/Lab Accreditation Board. (2002). Proficiency reviewprogram. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
ASCLD/Lab Accreditation Board. (2003). Approved profi-ciency test providers. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
Bachrach, B. (2002). Development of a 3D-based automatedfirearms evidence comparison system. Journal ofForensic Science 47, 1253–1264.
Biasotti, A. A. (1959). A statistical study of the individualcharacteristics of fired bullets. Journal of ForensicScience 4, 34–50.
Biasotti, A. A., & Murdock, J. (2002). The scientific basis offirearms and toolmark identification. In D. L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scien-tific evidence (Vol. 3, Ch. 29, pp. 495–523). St. Paul, MN:West.
Boesman, W. C., & Krouse, W. J. (2001). National IntegratedBallistics Information Network (NIBIN) for law enforce-ment. [Online]. Available: http://www.boozman.house.gov/UploadedFiles/SECOND%20AMEND%20-%20Ballastic%20Fingerprinting.pdf
Bunch, S. G. (2000). Consecutive matching striation criteria:A general critique. Journal of Forensic Science 45,955–962.
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (2002). Test No. 02-526:Firearms examination. [Online]. Available: http://www.collaborativetesting.com/reports/2226_web.pdf
De Kinder, J., & Bonfanti, M. (1999). Automated comparisonof bullet striations based on 3D topography. ForensicScience International, 101, 85–93.
Masson, J. (1997). Confidence level variations in firearmsidentification through computerized technology. Associa-tion of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners Journal, 29,42–43.
Miller, J. (2000). Criteria for identification of toolmarks, PartII: Single land impression comparisons. Association ofFirearms and Toolmark Examiners Journal, 32, 116–131.
Moran, B. (2000). Firearm examiner expert witness testimony.Association of Firearms and Toolmark ExaminersJournal, 32, 231–251.
National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).(2003). ATF’s NIBIN Program. [Online]. Available: www.nibin.gov/nibin.pdf
� BRADY HANDGUNVIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
In 1987, the Brady Handgun Violence PreventionAct (Brady Bill) was introduced in Congress.President William J. Clinton signed the Brady Bill
into law seven years later, on November 30, 1993.The Brady Bill, named after James Brady, the WhiteHouse press secretary wounded in the 1981 attemptedassassination of President Ronald Reagan, requiredlicensed firearms importers, manufacturers, or deal-ers to wait five business days before selling a hand-gun to a person not licensed under federal law.During the five-day waiting period, the local policechief was required to conduct a background investi-gation on the prospective purchaser, includingresearch in state and local record-keeping systemsand in a national system designated by the U.S.Attorney General, to determine the purchaser’s eligi-bility to acquire the handgun.
The Brady Bill also provided for exceptions tothe five-day waiting period (known as the coolingoff period). If the prospective purchaser presented astatement that indicated a need for a handgun due toa threat to the life of the purchaser or any memberof the immediate household, the five-day waitingperiod may have been waived. Additionally, if theprospective purchaser had a permit allowing thepossession of a handgun that was not issued morethan five years earlier by a state that requires abackground check, then the five-day waiting periodcould also have been disregarded.
According to requirements under the Brady Bill,the prospective purchaser submitted an applicationto the local police chief including information suchas criminal or military records and citizenship sta-tus. The chief of police determined eligibility oncethe background investigation was completed. If thelocal police chief determined that an individual wasineligible, the prospective purchaser was provideda written statement of the reasons for such a deter-mination within 20 business days after the initialreceipt of the request. If the individual was deemedeligible, the records generated by the backgroundcheck had to be destroyed within 20 business days.
The interim provisions of the Brady Bill wereeffective on February 28, 1994, and were to con-tinue for five years, expiring on November 30,1998. The Brady Bill has been replaced by aNational Instant Check System (NICS), whichrelies on computerized federal data to immediatelycheck prospective firearms purchasers for felony
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—�—555
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 555
convictions. The NICS does not require a waitingperiod before the purchase of a firearm.
The Brady Bill provoked intense debate overthe Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. TheNational Rifle Association is one of the most out-spoken groups against the Brady Bill, arguing thatthe Second Amendment protects the rights of indi-viduals to bear arms without infringement. TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2001upheld the individual rights view, with the support ofAttorney General John Ashcroft. This decision wascontrary to those of every other federal court as wellas the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which by 2002 hadrejected the individual rights view and ruled that thepurpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure thecontinuation and effectiveness of state militias.
Data collected after the Brady Bill was signedinto law highlighted its potential success. A spokes-woman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, inan NBC news report on September 8, 1994, claimedthat in the first six months after the Brady Bill wasenacted (March 1, 1994 to August 31, 1994), therewere 40,846 background checks on prospectivegun purchasers. Of these 40,846 applicants, 11,962(approximately 30%) had criminal histories causingthem to be rejected. Additionally, 1,000 (approxi-mately 2%) were wanted on criminal charges orwere out on bail. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) reported that,nationwide, 5% of the applicants had been rejecteddue to prior criminal convictions detected by themandatory background investigation.
On February 28, 1995, the BATF released itsFirst-Year Anniversary Survey of the Brady Law.The BATF surveyed 30 law enforcement authorities,using a cross section of the nation’s law enforce-ment population, and found that from March 1994through January 1995, more than 15,500 persons(approximately 3.5%) had their applications denied(in those 30 surveyed jurisdictions). Among thosepersons barred from purchasing a handgun, 4,365were convicted felons, 945 were fugitives, 649 wereillegal drug users, 97 were under indictment, 63were under restraining orders for alleged stalking,harassment, or other domestic threats/intimidation,and 2 were juveniles. A second and larger survey by
the International Association of Chiefs of Police andHandgun Control, Inc. found that 3.4% (more than19,000 persons in the jurisdictions surveyed) werestopped from buying handguns during this sametime. Based on these data, the BATF estimates that,nationwide, the Brady Bill stopped 70,000 convictedfelons, drug offenders, fugitives, and other prohib-ited persons from purchasing handguns during thefirst year it was signed into law.
In a broadcast on April 12, 2000, PresidentClinton (on NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun con-trol with the president) maintained that the BradyBill has been effective in reducing gun crime by35% and has contributed to a 31-year low in homi-cide rates. President Clinton further announced thatthe Brady Bill has kept a half million potentiallydangerous persons (felons, fugitives, and stalkers)from purchasing handguns.
Kimberly D. Hassell
For Further Reading
Brady Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.bradycenter.orgBrady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2002, December 6).
Brady Center heralds federal Appeals Court opinion thatrepudiates new Justice Department view of gun rights.[Online]. Available: http://www.bradycampaign.org/ press/release.asp?Record=442
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, H.R. 1025, 103dCong. (1993).
Brady Law. [Online]. Available: http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Brady.html
Brady, S., & McLoughlin, M. (2002). A good fight. New York:Public Affairs of Perseus Books Group.
Henigan, D. (1989). The right to be armed: A constitutionalillusion. [Online]. Available: http://www.guncite.com/hci2nd.html
Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Permanently Reinstate BradyWaiting Period. (1999, February 24). [Online]. Available:http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/press/release.php?release=164
� BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,TOBACCO, FIREARMS,AND EXPLOSIVES
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives (BATF), located within the Department
556—�—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 556
of Justice (DOJ), has the statutory mandate toenforce federal firearms laws, investigate arsonsand explosive device incidents and thefts, and pre-vent the diversion into illegal markets of alcoholand tobacco products. The agency, which traces itshistory to 1789, when the first Congress imposed atax on imported alcohol, has undergone numerousreorganizations since that time; the last one occurredin 2003, when the former Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms, which has tax collecting,regulatory, and enforcement responsibilities, wastransferred to the DOJ under homeland securitylegislation and when certain of the BATF’s taxand trade functions were separated from the largeragency and retained within the Treasury Departmentas the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and TradeBureau (TTB).
HISTORY
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives owes its creation to a tax on importedspirits imposed by the first Congress in 1789 to paya portion of the Revolutionary War debt. The taxeshad been suggested by Secretary of the TreasuryAlexander Hamilton and its agency was assigned tocollect the revenue. Within two years, on March 3,1791, Congress added a tax on domestic alcohol,which met with considerably more opposition thanthe import tax. The result was the short-livedWhiskey Rebellion of 1794, as distillers fought the6- to 18-cents per gallon tax. Opposition grew, par-ticularly in Pennsylvania, resulting in Secretary ofWar Henry Knox requesting that the governors ofMaryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginiasend militiamen to quell the rebellion. By November1795, militiamen and federal officers had arrestedmore than 150 rebels and broken up the ring of cor-rupt grain dealers, politicians, and revenue agentswho had assisted them in evading the law. Thisgroup of criminals (who would today be similar tostock market swindlers) had defrauded the govern-ment of millions of dollars in distilled spirits taxes.The rebellion tested the Constitution and its sup-pression confirmed the supremacy of federal lawand Congress’s right to levy and collect taxes. With
that right confirmed, Treasury’s role as the collectionand enforcement arm of the federal government wasestablished. Congress also enacted federal civilservice regulations to ensure that those who wereresponsible for enforcing the laws were recognized(along with the importance of the laws themselves).
So things remained until the Prohibition era,which began in 1919 with the passage of theEighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Thenewly created Prohibition Unit, which fell underthe Treasury’s Bureau of Internal Revenue, gainedjurisdiction over the illicit manufacture, sale, andtransportation of liquor for drinking purposes.Roughly 60 million gallons of alcohol had to be dis-posed of by distillers. Prohibition enforcement fellto Treasury, although in 1930 it was transferred toJustice. Tax-related and regulatory activities, though,remained in Treasury under a newly created Bureauof Industrial Alcohol, whose most famous enforcerwas T-man Eliot Ness, who toppled Al Capone ontax-evasion charges and gained fame for himselfand his group of “untouchables,” so named becausethey could not be corrupted by organized crimefigures. In 1933, the Prohibition Era ended with thepassage of the Twenty-first Amendment, and thefollowing year, the Bureau of Prohibition, whichhad been moved to the Department of Justice in1930, transferred its responsibilities to a newly cre-ated Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) within the TreasuryDepartment’s Bureau of Internal Revenue.
In 1935 the Federal Alcohol Administration(FAA) Act was passed. This act created licensingand permit requirements and established regula-tions designed to ensure an open and fair market-place to the businessman and to the consumer. TheFederal Alcohol Administration enforced the FAAAct until it merged with the Alcohol Tax Unit, com-bining related law enforcement and regulatoryauthorities. However, crime problems of the 1930swere not yet over. Organized crime was becomingmore violent both within its ranks and against thepublic. This criminal behavior pushed Congress toenact legislation that resulted in the NationalFirearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The act was passed tocontrol certain weapons such as sawed-off shotgunsand machine guns that were being used by gangsters.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—�—557
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 557
The NFA, America’s first federal gun control law,was soon followed by the Federal Firearms Act(FFA) of 1938. Federal regulation of the firearmsindustry was the reason the FFA was enacted. Itbecame a federal crime for fugitives and felons togain firearms through interstate commerce. Respon-sibility for administering these laws was given tothe ATU in 1942 because of its experience in bothlaw enforcement and industry regulation.
By 1951, tobacco tax duties were also delegatedto the ATU. The unit’s name was again changedin 1952 to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division(ATTD) of the Internal Revenue Service. The divi-sion now enforced laws relating to alcohol, tobacco,and firearms. In 1968 Congress passed the GunControl Act. Repealing the FFA and the NFA of the1930s, it put greater focus on the problem of vio-lence and created stricter firearms laws. The ATTDnow had direct federal jurisdiction investigatingbombings with destructive devices being added tomachine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and explosivesused with criminal intent. The ATTD once againreceived a new name: Alcohol Tobacco and Fire-arms Division, or the ATFD (still under the InternalRevenue Service). In 1970 the Organized CrimeControl Act was passed, expanding certain bomb-ings and arsons now to be considered federal crimes,which were also to be handled by the ATFD.
On July 1, 1972, the ATFD was separated fromthe Internal Revenue Service and given full bureaustatus in the Treasury Department. The departmentwould then become and remain for 30 years theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Whenthe homeland security bill became law on November25, 2002, BATF was not included in the newDepartment of Homeland Security. But legislationenacted on January 24, 2003, resulted in yet anothername and role change for BATF, when it was movedfrom the Treasury Department to the Department ofJustice as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,and Explosives, with responsibility for firearms,explosives, alcohol and tobacco smuggling, andarson oversight, enforcement, and control. The datealso marked the beginning of the new Alcohol andTobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which was givenresponsibility for the regulatory and taxation aspects
of the alcohol and tobacco industries and remainedwithin the Treasury Department.
Under the Department of Justice, the BATFis mandated to perform law enforcement functionsthat relate to alcohol and tobacco smuggling anddiversion, firearms, explosives, and arson. Federallaws regarding firearms and firearms trafficking arealso the responsibility of the BATF. The BATF isresponsible for enforcing the licensing provisionsof the Gun Control Act of 1968. This law makesit a requirement for every manufacturer, importer,or dealer in firearms to obtain a Federal FirearmsLicense. Dealers must also adhere to strict record-keeping standards. Illegal firearms trafficking isdefined as the movement of firearms from the legalto the illegal marketplace through an illegal methodfor an illegal purpose. It is usually done with theintentions of gaining profit, power, or prestige or tosupply firearms to individuals with criminal intent.
RANDY WEAVER ANDTHE BRANCH DAVIDIANS
Enforcing sin laws such as alcohol and tobacco taxlaws has never been popular even though it bringsin billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. Enforcingfirearms is also unpopular among those who see itas a prelude to government confiscation of firearms.The BATF’s role in enforcing unpopular regulationshas resulted in it receiving negative media andpublic attention on a number of its more promi-nent cases, with two having particularly adverseconsequences.
The first, in 1982, involved an investigation intowhite power groups in northern Idaho that centeredon Randy Weaver, who was charged with manufac-turing and selling two sawed-off shotguns in viola-tion of federal laws. He and his wife Vicky, theirson, and three daughters isolated themselves intheir mountaintop home near Bonner’s Ferry, Idaho.When Weaver refused to surrender to federalauthorities, deputy U.S. Marshals were sent to eval-uate the feasibility of arresting Weaver in thisremote location. They encountered Weaver’s sonand a friend, Kevin Harris, in the woods near thehome. A gun battle erupted after one of the deputies
558—�—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 558
shot and killed the Weaver’s dog, which ultimatelyresulted in the death of a deputy and Weaver’s son.Harris and the rest of Weaver’s family fled into theWeavers’s cabin. The Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the MarshalsService Special Operations Group, and the BATFSpecial Response Teams were sent to arrest Weaver.On the second day of the incident an FBI HRTsniper shot and killed Vicky Weaver and woundedboth Randy Weaver and Harris. Criminal chargesbrought against the HRT sniper were later dis-missed, but the government paid the Weavers morethan $3 million to settle an unlawful death suit. Thetrial of Weaver and Harris led to criticism surround-ing the BATF’s use of an informant in the initialinvestigation. Weaver and Harris were acquitted ofall charges, except for Weaver’s failure to appear incourt on the original charge.
The Weaver incident was followed a decade laterby the 49-day standoff at the Branch Davidiancompound near Waco, Texas. On February 28, 1993,BATF agents attempted to serve a federal searchwarrant on the Branch Davidians, a religious groupled by David Koresh, after an investigation deter-mined that the Davidians had purchased dozensof weapons, parts to convert these weapons intomachineguns, hand grenade bodies, chemicals usedto manufacture explosives, and other parts to man-ufacture hand grenades. It was later revealed ina Treasury investigation that a decision made byBATF personnel had contributed to the failure ofthe warrant execution. Although there were mixedreactions to BATF’s actions, the raid initiated one ofthe largest shoot-outs in American law enforcementhistory and resulted in the deaths of four BATFagents and six persons in the Davidian complex.After the raid, the FBI assumed jurisdiction and for49 days conducted negotiations with Davidians thatresulted in the release of a number of children. OnApril 19, the FBI tried to end the standoff by usingtear gas forced into the complex by combat engi-neer vehicles. A fire started, allegedly by theDavidians, although some said the tear gas ignitedcandles inside the complex, which resulted in thedeaths of all but six of those inside, includingKoresh and a number of women and children. An
investigation into the activities of the BATF andthe FBI resulted in significant operational changeswithin both agencies. Although the BATF did notact alone in either of these incidents, it bore thebrunt of the criticism.
CURRENT ORGANIZATION
More positive public responses came to the BATF forits work in finding pieces of the van used to carry thebomb in the 1993 bombing of the World TradeCenter in New York City; its work during the inves-tigation in July 1996 of the TWA Flight 800 crash offLong Island, New York, in which 224 people werekilled; and its work later that same month in theaftermath of the pipe bomb that killed one personand wounded more than 100 at the Olympic park inAtlanta, Georgia. Most of what BATF agents doreceives considerably less publicity; including regu-lating the more than 100,000 federally licensed gundealers and the almost 10,000 licensed manufac-turers and dealers of explosives and routinely break-ing up gun trafficking rings throughout the country.
To assist in meeting its complex tax collecting,regulatory, and enforcement missions, the BATFhas divided its organization into three major programareas: firearms, explosives, and alcohol/tobacco.Special agents enforce all federal laws pertaining tothese commodities and work closely with state andlocal police to identify, apprehend, and prosecutecriminal violators. In fiscal 2003, the BATF con-ducted more than 30,000 firearms investigationsresulting in more than 6,000 convictions for firearms-related offenses. The agency has also been heavilyinvolved in investigating outlaw motorcycle gangs,which are often involved in firearms trafficking as asource of income. BATF agents in fiscal year 2003also investigated almost 400 bombing incidents andmore than 700 incidents involving recovering explo-sives or explosive devices or thefts of explosives.
At the same time, regulatory activities areassigned to inspectors, who examine firearms deal-ers’ records, check explosives and alcohol beverageproducers, and verify product integrity and inventory.They work closely with special agents on firearms
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—�—559
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 559
trafficking cases and on attempts to market alcoholand tobacco without payment of authorized tax rev-enues. Almost 15,000 firearms-related inspectionswere performed in 2003, in addition to almost 3,000explosives compliance investigations and more than5,000 explosives application investigations. Morethan 1,000 explosives safety violations were detectedand ordered corrected. The BATF’s laboratories alsoemploy a large number of chemists and other scien-tists. In 2003, the agency’s three labs worked onclose to 650 bomb-related cases.
In addition to its labs, the BATF maintains anumber of programs to benefit state and local policein recognizing and tracking law violations. One ofthese, the National Integrated Ballistic InformationNetwork, provides nationwide networking on bal-listic imaging and in 2003 assisted other lawenforcement agencies in finding more than 2,500links of crime scenes and weapons. The BATF in2001 began a gun-tracing initiative that in 2003processed almost 300,000 trace requests pertainingto guns used in crimes. In late 2003, the BATFbegan an Internet-based system called the Bomband Arson Tracking System that allows lawenforcement agencies to share bomb and arson caseand incident information. Agencies will be permit-ted to register for free service and use it as a libraryto manage and exchange information on types ofincidents, targets, dates, and locations. In additionto its two response teams, one national and the otherinternational, the BATF also trains its own and otheragencies’ explosive detection canines.
ALCOHOL AND TOBACCOTAX AND TRADE BUREAU
The TTB administers a number of alcohol andtobacco laws that were formerly handled by theBATF and oversees the federal excise tax forfirearms and ammunition. Its staff of almost 600was transferred to the bureau from the BATF. TheTTB enforces federal laws to ensure the collectionof alcohol beverage excise taxes, provides for accu-rate deposit and accounting of these taxes, preventsentry into the industry by criminals or personswhose business experience or associations pose a risk
of tax fraud, and suppresses label fraud, commercialbribery, diversion and smuggling, and other unlaw-ful operations in the alcohol beverage marketplace.The bureau regulates and oversees the practices ofdistilleries, breweries, wineries, and importers andwholesalers in the industry. To ensure that alcoholbeverage labels do not contain misleading informa-tion and that the labels adhere to regulatory man-dates, the Alcohol Labeling and Formulation Divisionexamines all beverage labels. The National Labora-tory Center (NLC) is the premier tester of newproducts coming onto the market. The NLC con-ducts tests to validate that all ingredients are withinlegal limits. This is to protect the consumer fromidentifiable health risks in accordance with theFood and Drug Administration’s recommendations.Protecting the consumer interest and providinggovernment oversight is the main goal.
The TTB also works to guarantee the collectionof tobacco excise taxes and to ensure that applicantsare qualified for permits to manufacture or importtobacco products. In order to verify an applicant’squalification information, tobacco inspections aredone to check the security of the premises and toensure tax compliance.
Genevieve Guy
See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, ProhibitionLaw Enforcement
For Further Reading
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. [Online.]Available: http://www.ttb.gov
ATF launches new Internet-based system to share bomb andarson information. (2003, November 6). FEDagent.[Online]. Available: http://www.fedagent.com
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives:History. [Online]. Available: http://www.atf.gov/about/atfhistory.htm
Carr, J. (1972). The second oldest profession: An informalhistory of moonshining in America. Engelwood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fields, G., & Kulish, N. (2002, June 10). ATF is overlookedin homeland-defense proposal. The Wall Street Journal,p. A4.
Miller, W. R. (1991). Revenuers & moonshiners: Enforcingfederal liquor laws in the mountain south, 1865-1900.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
560—�—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 560
Moore, J. (1997). Very special agents: The inside story ofAmerica’s most controversial law enforcement agency—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. New York:Pocket Books.
Slaughter, T. P. (1986). Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier epilogueto the American Revolution. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
� BUREAU OF ENGRAVINGAND PRINTING POLICE
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)was created July 11, 1862, as part of the TreasuryDepartment, although it was not until October 1,1887, that the production of all U.S. paper currencyand government securities was centralized in onefacility. Among the bureau’s responsibilities arethe design, printing, and finishing of the country’spaper currency, many postage stamps, Treasurynotes, and other securities and certificates. In addi-tion, the BEP prints military identification cardsand invitations to White House functions. Thebureau is also called on to provide advice and assis-tance to other government agencies in designingand producing documents such as securities andcertificates, which require security or anticounter-feiting characteristics.
The BEP facilities are protected on a 24-hour,7-day-a-week basis. These include the headquartersoffices and manufacturing operations in Washington,D.C., and an additional plant in Fort Worth, Texas.Typical duties of BEP officers include preventionand detection of crime through routine patrol,assigned fixed posts, and surveillance control rooms.BEP police personnel provide security at entry andexit points of the bureau’s facilities and via electronicsurveillance in other areas of the buildings with aprimary focus on preventing employee theft.
Duties include upholding the integrity of prod-ucts manufactured at BEP facilities and maintain-ing peace among personnel as well as visitors. BEPpolice officers respond to and assume control ofcrime scenes and provide assistance during fire,medical, natural disaster, or other emergencies,including terrorist activity. BEP police preparedetailed reports of emergency situations, violations,
and descriptions and locations of security andsafety violations and may place individuals under awarrant or warrantless arrest. This could requiresubduing, handcuffing, or otherwise restraining thearrested individual.
As of March 2003, BEP had 209 sworn officers,36 persons in police administrative support posi-tions, and 79 security specialists, investigators, andsecurity managers who are not counted as policeofficers but who are licensed and trained to carryfirearms. They also provide backup for the police.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)reported that between 1993 and 2002, the BEPreported 11 incidents of employee theft involvingapproximately $1.8 million. One theft involved $1.63million worth of experimental $100 bills being usedto test anticounterfeiting technology. The bills wereof high enough quality to be used in general circula-tion. However, $1.3 million worth of the bills wasrecovered.
In response to a congressional query as to whoshould provide security for the Bureau of Engravingand Printing, the GAO, in July 2003, said BEP secu-rity personnel were already familiar with theagency’s operations and would be preferable to, aswell as less costly than, bringing in a new organiza-tion, such as the Secret Service Uniformed Division.
In 2002, as an enhanced security measure, theBEP Police Operations Division became responsiblefor collecting information on all visitors to bureaufacilities. The information included name, socialsecurity number, and date of birth; government offi-cials were required to provide valid federal identifica-tion. BEP police search visitors for such contrabandas weapons, objects that could be used as weapons,fireworks, and aerosols. The checking of parcels andcoats or other objects has been eliminated.
The BEP conducts its own background investiga-tions of applicants for police positions. Officersmust be U.S. citizens at least 21 years old with col-lege degrees or police experience. College gradu-ates must have a degree in administration of justice,police or forensic science, security or correctionaladministration, or criminal justice. Alternatively,police officers, peace officers, military police per-sonnel, and security officers must have had the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police—�—561
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 561
power to detain and arrest for at least one year priorto joining the BEP force. There are approximately2,600 BEP employees and the police belong to oneof 15 unions representing bureau personnel.
Instruction includes two weeks of training priorto 10 weeks of basic at the federal police trainingfacility in Glynco, Georgia. This is followed byeight weeks of field training at the BEP facility andthereafter two weeks of in-service training annually.There is an automatic promotion to corporal within30 months of joining. Benefits include a year-endbonus, night differential and Sunday premium pay,and a $1,200 annual transportation subsidy. Equip-ment and uniforms, including regular dry cleaning,are paid for by the government.
David P. Schulz
For Further Reading
Bureau of Printing and Engraving. [Online]. Available:http://www.bep.treas.gov
The United States government manual 2002-2003. (2003).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Report to theSubcommittee on Domestic and International MonetaryPolicy, Trade and Technology, Committee on FinancialServices, House of Representatives (GAO-03-696).Washington, DC: Author.
� BUREAU OF IMMIGRATIONAND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centerand the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, led lawenforcement agencies at every level of governmentto reevaluate their strategies with regard to preventingfuture terrorism and to consider their preparednessin the event of other attacks. Perhaps no other agencywas more sensitive to the events of September 11than the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS). All of the hijackers were aliens as well astechnically in violation of immigration laws. Inresponse to the attacks, President George W. Bushand Congress created the Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) on March 1, 2003. Special agentsof the INS and Customs Service were transferred to
DHS under the Border and Transportation SecurityDirectorate. Within that directorate the Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wasdesigned to be the primary agency to enforce theimmigration laws inside the United States. Althoughthere are five major directorates within DHS—Border and Transportation Security, EmergencyPreparedness and Response, Science and Techno-logy, Information Analysis and InfrastructureProtection, and Management—ICE retains a stronglegacy from INS investigators and their enforce-ment of the immigration laws.
The growth of the United States is based onimmigration. Between 1820 and 2002, 68,217,481persons legally entered the county as immigrants.The law defines immigrants as those persons withlawful permanent resident status who are permittedto live and work in the United States as long as theyestablish residence. Immigrants may also leave theUnited States and return in full status as long as theydo not abandon their residence here. Immigrants arealso eligible to apply for citizenship (naturalization)if they have good moral character and have residedcontinuously in the United States for at least fiveyears after their lawful admission as immigrants.The five-year waiting period is reduced if they aremarried to citizens or have served in the U.S. mili-tary. In 2002, at total of 1,063,732 persons enteredthe county as immigrants.
There are other categories of persons in theUnited States who are neither citizens nor lawfulimmigrants. Nonimmigrants are temporary visitorswho make a lawful admission through a designatedport of entry in the United States. Examples ofnonimmigrants include aliens who are visitors forpleasure or business, temporary workers, students,exchange visitors, foreign government representa-tives, and diplomats. By far, most of the nonimmi-grants enter as visitors for pleasure (tourists) orbusiness. There were 27.9 million documented non-immigrant entries to the United States in 2002.
The are also millions of people who have enteredthe country illegally and who remain for variouslengths of time. In 2000, INS estimated that therewere about 7 million illegal aliens living in theUnited States and further estimated that about 69%
562—�—Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 562
of these unauthorized persons were from Mexico.However, illegal aliens are from every country inthe world. Illegal aliens are those persons who arein the country in violation of the immigration laws.Many of these illegal aliens simply crossed thesouthwest border without inspection and weresmuggled into the United States. Some of these ille-gal aliens were lawfully admitted as nonimmigrantsand stayed longer than they were allowed; otherswere admitted as legal permanent residents butwere convicted of certain crimes that make themdeportable, usually to the country from which theyarrived, but in some cases to a third county. A mainconcern of ICE is that some of these illegal aliensmay very well be terrorists. It is difficult to estimatehidden populations, but estimates in 2003 rangedanywhere from 8 million to as many as 11 millionillegal aliens living inside the United States. Suchhigh numbers of law violators pose a dilemma forenforcement of the immigration laws.
Not only the flow of people, but also the flowof goods between countries is an integral part ofglobal economic systems. The mandate of the U.S.Customs Service has historically been to controlthe business of importing and exporting goods. Asit became apparent that narcotics and contrabandwere also part of this process, control of these ille-gal goods also became the mandate of the CustomsService. The Customs Service was charged withmonitoring the flow of goods, while the INS hadthe responsibility of monitoring the flow of people.Whether it is people or products, both INS andCustoms make a perfect match for dealing with theproblems now confronting the DHS. Thus, it madesense to combine the knowledge and talents of bothagencies.
HISTORY OF INS
A brief history of immigration enforcement andlegislation is required to understand the place ofICE in the overall organizational structure of DHS.In 1819, the first federal immigration laws had to dowith record keeping and rules regarding steerage onsailing vessels. Later immigration laws passed in1882 had to do with the federal role in immigration
and created an alien head tax. INS began in theDepartment of the Treasury and in 1906 was movedto the Department of Commerce and Labor. OnJune 14, 1940, INS moved again, this time to theDepartment of Justice under a commissioner ofimmigration and naturalization. Throughout thisperiod, INS had sole jurisdiction to administerand enforce the immigration laws. This missionincluded a dual mandate of service and enforcementthat was often considered contradictory. Serviceincluded adjudicating applications for permanentresidence and citizenship, while enforcementincluded patrolling the borders to prevent the illegalentry of aliens and, later, the creation of the investi-gations program that focused on the location andapprehension of illegal aliens inside the UnitedStates. The service function of the INS demandedthe attention of many adjudications personnel. Themillions of applications for adjustment of status, orchange of status, petitions for immediate relativesof legal permanent residents and citizens as wellas the traditional naturalization process placed atremendous strain on INS. Backlogs of applicationsoften frustrated the agency and required tremen-dous resources to complete this enormous task. TheBureau of Immigration and Citizenship Serviceswill remain in the DHS but be separate from theenforcement apparatus and will perform the servicefunction of the legacy INS.
A notable example of the INS Investigations pro-gram included the events following the November4, 1979, hostage takeover of the U.S. embassy inIran. INS investigators had the responsibility oflocating and processing the scores of Iraniannationals in the U.S. to determine whether theywere a threat to the country. Another example of therole played by the legacy INS Investigations pro-gram was the Mariel Boatlift on April 15, 1980,when Fidel Castro released more than 125,000Cubans who attempted to gain refuge in the UnitedStates. INS agents were detailed to Florida to inves-tigate the smugglers of these aliens, as well as toparticipate in adjudication task forces.
When the motor vessel Golden Venture ran agroundin New York waters in 1993 with 290 illegal aliensfrom the People’s Republic of China on board, it
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement—�—563
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 563
was the Investigations Program that subsequentlyarrested the smuggler and crewmembers and suc-cessfully prosecuted them for their crimes. Anotherexample of the work of the Investigations Programinvolved Elian Gonzalez, a young Cuban boy whosemother drowned in November 1999 while they wereattempting to enter the United States from a refugeeboat sinking off the coast of Florida. This casegained international attention when the boy’s fathercame to the United States demanding the return ofhis son. The Supreme Court turned down a finalappeal by the boy’s family in the United States andhe was allowed to return to Cuba with his father.INS investigators were responsible for facilitatingthis volatile situation and had to lawfully removethe boy from a family who did not want him toleave with his father. Such examples highlight thetraditions of the INS Investigations Program, whoseinvestigators have worked throughout the countryto enforce the immigration laws. Their combinedexperiences and training, especially in locating andapprehending illegal aliens, and their ability todetect some of the sophisticated fraudulent immi-gration schemes should contribute to the effectiveenforcement mandates now in DHS. Under DHS,ICE agents will continue to enforce the immigrationlaws inside the United States.
ROOTS OF CURRENTIMMIGRATION POLICIES
The foundation of current immigration law enforce-ment lies in the McCarran-Walter Act, better knownas the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of1952. The INA utilized a quota system with prefer-ences for Eastern Hemisphere immigrants. It focusedon excluding and removing subversives and com-munists. The Immigration Act of 1965 repealed thequota system and all countries were given equalaccess to immigrant visas. The Immigration Reformand Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 included amnestyfor those aliens who had established residence in thecountry since 1982. It also included employer sanc-tions in an attempt to remove the lure of jobs for ille-gal aliens. Studies showed that approximately 2.7million aliens acquired legal permanent residence
as a result of IRCA. The Immigration Act of 1990attempted to remove aliens who were criminals andhad aggravated felony convictions. This provisionwas enhanced with the Illegal Immigration Reformand Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) thatincluded retroactivity to aggravated felons alreadyin the United States before the passage of the law.IIRIRA also added Border Patrol and SpecialAgents to the INS.
With regard to interior enforcement of the immi-gration laws, one of the main priorities of ICEinvolves locating and removing criminal aliens. Asa result of recent legislation, ICE agents can expe-dite the removal of criminal aliens found to bedeportable that previously were delayed in myriadappeals and proceedings. In 2003, the DHS, includ-ing ICE and Bureau of Customs and BorderProtection (CBP), apprehended a total of 1,046,366illegal aliens. Of these, 8.2% were criminal alienslocated in penal institutions throughout the country.
As of mid-2003 there were 37,830 employees inICE and 24,290 employees working in the CBP.President Bush signed the 2004 fiscal year appro-priations bill for DHS totaling $29.4 billion. Thesefunds with go toward achieving ICE’s four majorinitiatives, each of which concentrates on a differentaspect of immigration illegalites.
The Cornerstone initiative is based on the realiza-tion by law enforcement that the best way to fightorganized crime is to concentrate on the finances ofthe criminals. If assets can be seized and profits takenaway from criminals it is possible to put these indi-viduals out of business. Cornerstone is a financialinvestigations program that seeks to identify andcorrect weaknesses in the global financial system. Inaddition to locating and prosecuting individuals whoattempt to illegally manipulate the financial systemsof the world, Cornerstone is geared to sharing theinformation it acquires in the investigation of thesecrimes with leaders in the financial world. The aimis to strengthen the security measures within thosesystems. Within a new program called the SystematicHomeland Approach to Reducing Exploitation(SHARE), Secret Service and ICE agents jointlymanage regular meetings with financial industryleaders who are most susceptible to criminal schemes
564—�—Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 564
utilized among money launderers and others involvedin financial crimes. Cornerstone and SHARE aredesigned to bolster the security measures of financialinstitutions and eliminate the weaknesses uncoveredduring the investigations. An example of the effortsof Cornerstone is reflected in ICE’s El Dorado TaskForce, which, since 1992, has arrested 1,753 individ-uals and seized nearly $560 million in criminal assets.
In recent years, human smuggling has become amajor problem globally that has profound implica-tions for criminal enterprises and for global healthissues when individuals are trafficked particularlyfor sexual exploitation. Even without the added con-cerns of sexual exploitation, the traffic in humansadds health and welfare concerns for those who aresmuggled into the country and those who may comein contact with them in workplaces or in publicaccommodations. The scope of the problem is pro-found. Along the southwest border of the UnitedStates, the U.S. Border Patrol has consistentlyapprehended more than 1 million illegal aliens annu-ally. Most of these aliens, who are smuggled into thecountry, attempt to enter without inspection. In theface of this continuing problem, ICE Storm wasdeveloped to assist agents of ICE in prioritizing theinvestigation and apprehension of smugglers, moneylaunderers, kidnappers and hostage takers, and nar-cotics and weapons violators that operate along theborder and profit from these ventures. For example,in 2002, the agents of INS apprehended more than1 million illegal aliens attempting to enter the UnitedStates without inspection. It is estimated that themajority of these attempted entries were made withthe help of a smuggler or some other illegal entrymethod. The criminal organizations that supporthuman smuggling are also involved in narcotics andother contraband smuggling. In addition, there hasbeen an increase in violent crime directly related tothis criminal activity. ICE Storm also attempts toreduce the amount of violence associated with thehuman smuggling problem and is a direct responseto the increased violence found in the corridorsfrequented by the human smugglers.
Working with the U.S. military, agents fromICE were sent to Iraq to investigate Americans ortheir companies that supported the Hussein regime.
After Iraq fell, the ICE agents, under a programentitled Iraqi Heritage, augmented their missionby seeking to locate and return Iraqi artifacts andnational treasures. During the hostilities in Iraqmany national treasures were stolen and ICE agentsbegan a global investigation in cooperation with thenational museums of Iraq to return these treasuresto the Iraqi people. Operation Iraqi Heritage is aglobal attempt to restore looted national treasuresto the Iraqi people and is coordinated by the ICECyber Crimes Center in Virginia.
The final initiative, Operation Predator, began inJuly 2003 and has resulted in more than 1,700 arrestsnationwide of sexual predators, pedophiles, Internetpredators, human traffickers, and child sex tourists.It was created to prevent these crimes and protectvictims from these predators. ICE has entered intoa memorandum of understanding with the NationalCenter for Missing and Exploited Children and hasbegun sharing information in the hope that this willlead to more rapid location of missing children aswell as the identification of predatory criminalsinvolved in these crimes. Included in the strategy isthe combination of the AMBER Alert with the CodeAdam Alert Program that enables a more efficient andnational response by law enforcement when a childis reported missing. ICE is also involved in publicaffairs and education that will alert the community tothe vulnerabilities leading to child abduction andexploitation, thereby making it more difficult for thepredators to succeed in their dastardly acts.
Millions of people have been smuggled into theUnited States and most aliens who enter withoutinspection do so with the assistance of smugglers,commonly referred to as coyotes, along the Mexico-U.S. border. Too many children become the victimsof child exploitation and sexual deviance. OperationPredator is an attempt to stop the global exploita-tion of these vulnerable populations by targeting thepredators involved in such activities. ICE agentshave the added power to swiftly remove criminalaliens involved in these types of offenses from theUnited States, thereby removing the source of manyof the threats to the exploited populations.
In addition to these initiatives, ICE is involved inan interior enforcement strategy that focuses on the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement—�—565
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 565
detention and removal of criminal aliens, thedismantling and diminishing of alien smuggling oper-ations, addressing community complaints aboutillegal immigration, minimizing immigration bene-fit and document fraud, and curtailing employers’access to undocumented workers. In addition tothis, efforts are being made to enhance border secu-rity by creating better documents as well as includ-ing in a national database criminal aliens who havebeen ordered deported and have absconded.
The thrust of interior enforcement appears to bethe same as it was within the INS just before ICEwas established. Coupled with the initiatives previ-ously described, ICE provides an integral part of thenecessary national security plan needed to protectagainst terrorist threats in addition to dealing withthe illegal alien problem. These initiatives prioritizethose conditions that pose an immediate threat tonational security in an effort to prevent other terror-ist attacks from happening.
George Weissinger
For Further Reading
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/index.htm
Homeland security: Challenges to implementing the immigra-tion interior enforcement strategy. Stana, R. M. (2003).Statement of the Director Homeland Security and Justice(GAO-03-66T). Washington, DC: U.S. General AccountingOffice. [Online]. Available: http://www.gao.gov
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2003). Yearbook ofimmigration statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.
Weissinger, G. (2003). The illegal alien problem: Enforcingthe immigration laws. [Online]. Available: http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html
Weissinger, G. (2004). Law enforcement & the INS: A partici-pant observation study of control agents (2nd ed.).Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
� BUREAU OF INDUSTRYAND SECURITY
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau ofIndustry and Security (BIS) is responsible for regu-lating the export of sensitive goods and technology
for reasons of national security, foreign policy,and compliance with nonproliferation agreements.Formerly known as the Bureau of Export Admini-stration, BIS has an Office of Export Enforcement(OEE), sometimes referred to as the export police,to help prevent proliferation of weapons of massdestruction and conventional arms, to combat inter-national terrorism, and to implement U.S. economicsanctions and embargoes.
The activities of the export police, though, coveran even wider range of goods and activities. Theyare responsible for enforcing controls that, forinstance, include items that might seem obvious,such as nuclear materials, space propulsion sys-tems, certain chemicals, and microorganisms andtoxins, as well as items that may not seem so obvi-ous, such as polygraphs, specialized sensors andlasers, and some types of police equipment. Manyitems are covered by dual-use controls. These regu-late technology that might have legitimate commer-cial or research applications, but that could also beused for military or illicit purposes. Also, sendinggifts via first class mail or faxing blueprints ordesigns may be considered exports for enforcementcontrol purposes. Restrictions vary from country tocountry; the most restricted destinations are Cuba,Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Inaddition, certain individuals and a number of orga-nizations are prohibited from receiving U.S. exportsregardless of their locations.
In enforcing provisions of the Arms ExportControl Act, the Fastener Quality Act, the TradingWith the Enemy Act, Export AdministrationRegulations, and similar laws, Export Enforce-ment’s mission includes identifying and apprehend-ing violators as well as pursuing criminal andadministrative sanctions against them. The officealso acts to combat restrictive trade practices suchas boycotts, reviews visa applications of foreignnationals to prevent illegal technology transfers, andcooperates in enforcement activities on an interna-tional basis. Export Enforcement special agentswork with the Department of Justice on criminalcases, which could result in fines or incarceration, orboth, and with the Commerce Department’s Officeof General Counsel to impose civil penalties for
566—�—Bureau of Industry and Security
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 566
violations, which can include fines and denial ofexport privileges. Export Enforcement also conductsjoint investigations with the Bureau of Immigrationand Customs Enforcement to stop the export ofcontrolled technology to rogue nations.
Many investigations are triggered by leads andtips provided by individuals in the private sector.These are so numerous, in fact, that the agency hasa form on its Web site for reporting violations,ensuring whistle-blowers that they will not be con-tacted by return e-mail. Assisting investigators isthe Intelligence and Field Support Division, basedat Export Enforcement’s Washington headquarters.These agents review information relating to poten-tial export control violations and generate leads forfield investigations. There are 11 field and satelliteoffices for Export Enforcement: Boston; Dallas andHouston, Texas; Des Plaines, Illinois; El Segundo,Irvine, and San Jose, California; Fort Lauderdale,Florida; Herndon, Virginia, and Jamaica and StatenIsland, New York. Export Enforcement’s activi-ties extend overseas, with attachés in place inBeijing and Shanghai, China, and the United ArabEmirates. Plans for 2004 included adding attachésin India, Russia, and Hong Kong. Through theattaché program, special agents are posted abroadto conduct end-use checks to uncover illegal exporttransactions.
Two other BIS units involved in Export Enforce-ment’s efforts are the Office of EnforcementAnalysis, which reviews export license data forenforcement concerns, and the Office of AntiboycottCompliance, which investigates violations of theantiboycott provisions of the Export AdministrationRegulations.
Much of BIS’s authority derives from the ExportAdministration Act of 1979, which expired in 2001,but was effectively extended by President GeorgeW. Bush’s invocation of the International EmergencyEconomic Powers Act. Included in this are antiboy-cott laws, which prohibit U.S. companies fromfurthering or supporting the boycott of Israel spon-sored by the Arab League and certain Muslimcountries.
There are approximately 100 sworn special agentsin OEE who have the authority to carry firearms,
execute search warrants, and make arrests. Thecommand structure includes a director, two assistantdirectors, a supervisory special agent, eight specialagents-in-charge and a resident agent-in-charge. Inaddition to training at the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center in Glynco, Georgia, agents undergoan extensive two-week course that focuses on inves-tigative techniques and case prosecution for exportcontrol cases. Additionally, there is special countert-errorism training for the special agents.
Among cases that were concluded during 2003,total criminal penalties amounted to $2.2 millionand administrative fines totaled $4.1 million.Actions brought during the year included casesinvolving the illegal diversion of night visiondevices, the illegal export of laboratory equipmentto Pakistan, and the illegal export of pipe-cuttingmachines through a third country to Iran.
Not all export controls involve state-of-the-arttechnology or sophisticated equipment. For instance,the Department of Commerce requires a license toexport specially designed implements of tortureand thumbscrews. The controls can be affected bydevelopments overseas, such as when, in 1989, fol-lowing the military assault on demonstrators by thePeople’s Republic of China in Tiananmen Square,the United States suspended licenses for goods des-tined for mainland China that had previously beenallowed. Other common items that have beendenied export to specific destinations have includedoptical sighting devices, stun guns, shock batons,fingerprint analyzers, lie detection software, anddirect imaging equipment.
A major aim of Export Enforcement is to enableAmerican exporters to take advantage of legalexport opportunities while ensuring that all illegalexports will be detected and either prevented orinvestigated and sanctioned. Export Enforcementalso makes available an Export ManagementSystem, which creates mechanisms for an exportcompany that provides checks and safeguards tohelp ensure that the right questions are beingasked at various points in the export process topreclude the exporter from making shipments thatare contrary to U.S. export controls. During the2003 fiscal year, 12,444 requests for export
Bureau of Industry and Security—�—567
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 567
licenses were processed, with approximately 84%being approved.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
Juster, K. I. (2003, October 20). Keynote address at the Update2003 Export Controls and Policy Conference, Washington,DC. [Online]. Available: http://www.bxa. doc.gov/News/2003.Update2003Keynote.htm
The United States government manual 2002-2003. (2002).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
� BUREAU OF LANDMANAGEMENT LAWENFORCEMENT
Part of the Department of the Interior, the Bureauof Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 264million acres of public lands located primarily in 12Western states, including Alaska, as well as manage-ment of 700 million acres of subsurface mineralestates throughout the country. Use of public landsincludes recreation, livestock grazing, and energyand mineral development, and the bureau’s missionincludes conserving and protecting natural, historical,cultural, and other resources on public lands.Recreational uses include the activities of outdoorsenthusiasts as well as organized events that includeweddings, public gatherings such as the Burning ManFestival in Nevada, and competitive events like dog-sled and off-highway vehicle races. The bureau’s lawenforcement personnel are very active in policingoff-highway vehicle use in Southern California,including, but not limited to, the Imperial San Dunes,El Mirage, and Dumont Dunes recreation areas.
In 2002 there were 53.4 million recreational vis-its to public lands for a total of 67.8 million visitordays. The BLM maintains 3,355 buildings, 662administrative sites, 811 bridges, 806 qualifyingdams, and 79,247 miles of roads.
There are 235 sworn officers, including rangerswho patrol areas as large as 1.8 million acres, and spe-cial agents, who handle investigations. Each state has astaff state ranger who reports to the respective specialagent in charge (SAC) for that state. The SACs report
to the director of law enforcement and security,formerly the chief of law enforcement, who is locatedin Washington, D.C. There is a deputy chief oflaw enforcement who oversees the Office of LawEnforcement and Security located in Boise, Idaho.That office is staffed to include the chief ranger, spe-cial agents, and support staff, who work for the deputychief. Ranger duties include such routine matters asassisting visitors with disabled vehicles, patrollingcamping areas used by 3 million visitors a year, andkeeping off-highway vehicles in designated areas.
Fish and wildlife on public lands are protectedby enforcement of the Endangered Species Act andmigratory bird hunting regulations on public lands.In Alaska, BLM enforces subsistence hunting andfishing regulations. Feral, or wild, horses and bur-ros are protected from abuse by visitors, as well asunauthorized capture or sale. Rangers conduct com-pliance checks when animals are assigned as partof the bureau’s wild horse and burro adoption pro-gram. Cultural resources preservation includes pro-tection against vandalism and theft of more than150,000 prehistoric and historic sites, includingancient cliff and cave dwellings, burial sites, his-toric trails, cabins and other buildings such as struc-tures used as Pony Express stations, forts, mines,petroglyphs or rock carvings, and natural phenom-ena such as preserved dinosaur tracks. Mineralresources, including oil, gas, and coal, fall underthe supervision of BLM, as does hazardous wastedumping, which can include such items as electricalballasts containing polyvinylchlorides (PCBs);paint sludge, waste, and solvents; drums of used oiland other flammable liquids; and chemicals used inthe illegal manufacture of drugs. Rangers also assistcounty sheriffs—who have primary jurisdiction—with search and rescue operations on public lands.
Entry-level positions require a combination ofeducation and experience, depending upon the levelat which the position is filled. Most jobs are filled byindividuals with bachelor’s degrees from either a nat-ural resources program or an administration of jus-tice or law enforcement program and who have someprior experience. Once accepted, there is specializedtraining at the Federal Law Enforcement TrainingCenter in Glynco, Georgia. The majority of the
568—�—Bureau of Land Management Law Enforcement
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 568
supervisory or staff law enforcement ranger positionsare filled from within BLM, while the majority ofspecial agent positions are filled from within BLM orby transfers from other law enforcement agencies.
The Bureau of Land Management and its lawenforcement authority were reorganized and redefinedby the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of1976. Use of public lands has escalated dramaticallysince 1976 to the point where now two thirds of BLM-managed lands in the lower 48 states are within anhour’s drive of major metropolitan areas. As use hasincreased, so has crime. Between 1993 and 2002motor vehicle theft rose by 20%, assault by 30%, andvandalism by 70%. Incidents of marijuana cultivation,drug laboratories, and drug trafficking increased by50%. In 2002, the BLM received reports of 17,654violations, and enforcement action was taken on12,712, or 72%, of them. BLM officers responded to1,944 hazardous materials and illegal dumping inci-dents; investigated a total of 759 drug cases, including36 incidents related to illegal drug laboratories;removed 47,305 marijuana plants from public landsand seized over 2,106 pounds of processed marijuana.BLM officers also investigated 616 incidents of theft,834 acts of vandalism, and 650 fire offenses. One ofthe thefts involved 500 pounds of forest products,another resulted in a $50,000 civil judgment against aPennsylvania man who had stolen a dinosaur. A jointinvestigation with Oregon State Police resulted in acivil penalty of $2.5 million being reaffirmed for thedestruction and looting of artifacts from ElephantMountain Cave in Nevada.
BLM special agents investigate and may seekprosecution of unlicensed guides and outfitters pro-viding services for visitors to public lands. (Thebureau issues more than 32,000 special recreationuse permits annually.) On occasion, BLM lawenforcement agents become involved in land dis-putes, such as the one in Pine Valley, Nevada,involving Shoshones who were disputing federalownership of lands covering two thirds of the stateof Nevada and grazing livestock on public lands.On September 20, 2002, 40 agents confiscated 232head of cattle owned by Shoshones and four monthslater, February 6, 2003, returned with state inspec-tors and hired cowboys to round up 800 horses.
Though restructured into its present form in1976, the BLM traces its roots to the postcolonialperiod. Following the War of Independence, theoriginal 13 colonies ceded various lands to thefederal government. In the late 1780s, laws wereadopted providing for the survey and settlement ofthese territories. As additional lands were acquired,primarily from France and Spain, Congress in 1812established the General Land Office as part ofthe Treasury Department. Westward expansion andadditional land acquisitions brought the Home-steading Laws and, following the Civil War, theMining Act of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of1877. During this era, there was a marked shift infederal land management policy, with some landsbeing withdrawn from settlement and preserved asnational parks, forests, and wildlife refuges as wellas for their other natural resource value. In 1946,the General Land Office and the U.S. GrazingService, which had been created in 1934, weremerged to create the Bureau of Land Managementwithin the Department of the Interior. It tookanother 30 years for the welter of more than 2,000laws and regulations dealing with the use, preser-vation, and protection of public ands and theirresources to be unified in the Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
Bureau of Land Management. [Online]. Available: http://www.blm.gov
Bureau of Land Management. (2000). Bureau of LandManagement Strategic Plan FY 2000-2005. Washington,DC: Author.
LeDuff, C. (2003, February 7). U.S. agents seize horses of 2defiant Indian sisters. New York Times, p. A16:1–4.
� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,OFFICE OF SECURITY, SAFETY,AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Bureau of Reclamation gained new responsibil-ities in the post-September 11, 2001, concerns overterrorism. The century-old agency—which had long
Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Security, Safety, and Law Enforcement—�—569
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 569
been concerned with constructing dams, irrigationcanals, reservoirs, and hydroelectric plants—wascharged with bolstering protection of these sites.Prior to September 11, 2001, the bureau lackedauthority to enforce federal laws at its sites and facil-ities, except at Hoover Dam in Nevada. Its entirepolice force consisted of 13 uniformed officers.
The bureau, sometimes abbreviated BOR andusually referred to as Reclamation, was created withpassage of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902,when Congress addressed demands from settlers inwestern states and territories for assistance in thetransportation and storage of water. Originally knowsas the Reclamation Service, it was part of the U.S.Geological Survey and was charged with reviewingpotential water development projects in each westernstate with federal lands. (Texas, which had no federallands, was later included in the provisions of theReclamation Act by an act of Congress in 1906.) Theservice was separated from the Geological Survey in1907 and made an independent bureau within theDepartment of the Interior, and its name was changedto Bureau of Reclamation in 1923 as its mission wasabout to change. By 1928, Congress authorized theHoover Dam Project in Boulder Canyon, and for thefirst time, large appropriations were made availablefrom the general funds of the government.
The period from the Great Depression years tothe 35 years following World War II saw the peak ofReclamation dam building, reservoir-creating activ-ity, and hydroelectric power plant development.Among the projects in 17 western states were 457dams, 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store245 million acre-feet of water, and 58 hydroelectricpower facilities. By 1977, the initial mission of theagency to build irrigation and water storage facili-ties was deemed completed and its electric powermarketing functions were transferred to the Depart-ment of Energy on August 4 of that year, althoughdam-building activities continued into the early 1990s.The decision to phase out construction of new damsmay have been hastened by the failure of TetonDam in 1976, the first and only failure of a majorReclamation dam, which, among other things, alsoled to the development of a modern and enhanceddam safety program.
Today, the bureau claims as its mission “to man-age, develop and protect water and related resourcesin an environmentally and economically soundmanner in the interest of the American people.”As the largest wholesale supplier of water in thecountry, Reclamation annually provides 10 trilliongallons of water to more than 31 million peoplewhile irrigating 10 million acres of land that pro-duce 60% of the nation’s vegetables and 25% of itsfruit and nuts. Reclamation is the second-largestproducer of hydroelectric power in the nation andits fifth largest electric utility, with its plants gener-ating more than 42 billion kilowatt-hours of energya year. In addition, Reclamation oversees and man-ages in partnership 308 recreation sites that attract90 million visits a year.
Law enforcement had traditionally been a lowpriority at Reclamation, with offenses such as van-dalism, illegal dumping, and drug-related activitiesgenerally being reported to cooperating state, local,and tribal officials, though the bureau was involvedwith the water dispute during the summer of 2001at the Klamath Project on the border of Oregon andCalifornia when water was cut off to farmers inorder to protect endangered species. Security, how-ever, has long been a concern of the bureau andfrom its earliest days, armed guards—includingoperators at Reclamation facilities on occasion—have been used to protect dams, water works, andgenerating plants. This was especially true duringWorld War I, when women were pressed intoservice as armed guards at some locations, andagain during World War II, when the Departmentof the Army provided armed security personnelat some of the more vulnerable sites.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 ter-rorist attacks, law enforcement officers from otherInterior Department police forces, as well as fromother agencies, assisted in providing law enforce-ment and security at Reclamation facilities. Thispractice was officially recognized with Public Law107-69 (November 12, 2001), which granted theBureau of Reclamation the authority to provide lawenforcement at its facilities by contract with theDepartment of the Interior and other federal, state,local, and tribal organizations. Though the personnel
570—�—Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Security, Safety, and Law Enforcement
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 570
are provided by outside agencies, Reclamationdeveloped job requirements and standards of con-duct that may differ from those of the officers’employing agencies. The number of sworn officersat Hoover Dam has been increased to about 30.
In September 2002, a new Office of Security,Safety and Law Enforcement was established withinthe Bureau of Reclamation, headed by DirectorLarry L. Todd and headquartered in Denver. Todd,a long-time federal employee with experience inwater resources, land management, and reservoirdesign and construction was Reclamation’s directorof operations when he accepted the new post. Inkeeping with the Bureau of Reclamation’s tradi-tional emphasis on protection rather than policing,the directors of security and law enforcement areequals who each report directly to the director of theOfficer of Security, Safety and Law Enforcement.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
Brinkley, J. (2002, November 4). Interior department strugglesto upgrade its police forces. New York Times, p. 1.
Soraghan, M. (2001, October 5). House panel OKs police helpfor nation’s dams. Denver Post, n.p.
Wilkinson, C. F. (1992). Crossing the next meridian: Land,water, and the future of the West. Washington, DC: IslandPress.
� BURNS DETECTIVE AGENCY
Following a path similar to Allan Pinkerton,William J. Burns and William Sheridan formed theBurns and Sheridan Detective Agency in 1909 aftersecuring a contract with the American BankersAssociation to provide protection to its 11,000 memberbanks. Sheridan left the company within a year, andthe company changed its name to William Burns’National Detective Agency, generally shortened toBurns Detective Agency.
Although by the time Burns decided to provideprivate security to a number of major industries,federal policing had developed considerably fromthe 1850s, when Pinkerton began his firm, Burnsalso capitalized on his experiences as a public
police officer to establish his firm. Burns, who wasborn in Baltimore, Maryland, and whose father hadbeen the elected police commissioner of Columbus,Ohio, began his own career in law enforcement in1889, when he joined the fledgling Secret Service,where he remained for 14 years until transferring tothe Department of the Interior. At the time, most ofthe work of the Secret Service was investigatingcounterfeiting.
Reflecting a more fluid movement betweenpublic and private policing that existed at the time,he turned his company over to his sons, Raymondand W. Sherman, when he was named head of theBureau of Investigation (BOI) in 1921, where heremained until 1925. Burns was the personal selec-tion of Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty, whomhe had known for more than 30 years. Althoughboth he and his firm had a reputation for solvingcases, albeit by resorting to techniques that mayhave skirted the law, he was confirmed for the posi-tion, replacing William J. Flynn, who had also madehis reputation as chief special agent for theBaltimore & Ohio Railroad and had worked for theU.S. Rail Administration when the railroads—andtheir police—were nationalized during World WarI. Daugherty became involved in a number of scan-dals that also engulfed Burns and resulted in claimsthat he had misused his office. Burns returned to hisdetective agency and was replaced at the BOI byJ. Edgar Hoover, who would become responsiblefor transforming the BOI into the modern FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935.
Burns was flamboyant and his firm was success-ful due in large measure to his having solved a casein 1911 that involved the bombing of the LosAngeles Times Building on October 1, 1910, whichoccurred during midday and resulted in a number ofdeaths and more than 300 injuries. When a bombwent off in New York City’s Wall Street financialdistrict on September 16, 1920, Burns was also hiredto investigate the case. Although the Los Angelescase resulted in criminal prosecutions, the New Yorkcase was never solved and no one was ever prose-cuted for it. It is difficult today to imagine such casesbeing handled by a private security firm rather thanby some combination of local police departments, the
Burns Detective Agency—�—571
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 571
FBI, and possibly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Explosives due to its expertise inarson and explosive devices.
By the time Burns returned to his agency, the shiftto federal policing had begun. He was the last of theprominent private detectives, who were replaced bypublic servants employed in a variety of federal lawenforcement agencies. Burns’s sons and his widowcontrolled the company until 1958, after which anumber of grandsons and grandsons-in-law ran ituntil it was taken over by Securitas AB, a Stockholmcompany that is one of the world’s largest securitybusinesses.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pinkerton NationalDetective Agency, Railroad Policing, Secret Service
For Further Reading
Caesar, G. (1968). Incredible detective: The biography ofWilliam J. Burns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hunt, W. R. (1990). Front-page detective: William J. Burnsand the detective profession 1880-1930. Bowling Green,OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.
McCullough, D. W. (Ed.). (1986). Great detectives. New York:Panetheon.
Williams, D. (1981). The Bureau of Investigation and itscritics, 1919-1921. Journal of American History 68,560–579.
572—�—Burns Detective Agency
B-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:42 PM Page 572
C� CAMPUS SAFETY
AND SECURITY ACTS
Prior to 1990, many college and university adminis-trators did not report information about incidents ofcrime and violence that occurred on their campusessince there was no enforced mandate to report suchoccurrences. This changed in 1990, when Congressenacted the Crime Awareness and Campus SecurityAct (Pub. L. No. 101-542, 104 Stat. 2385) as anamendment to the Student Consumer InformationAct of 1976.
This legislation was promulgated after years oflobbying by the Clery family (whose daughter hadbeen murdered on a college campus in Pennsylvaniain 1986), campus law enforcement officials, andothers who had been affected by, or who were con-cerned about, the rise in crime on the campuses ofhigher education institutions. The act was amendedin 1992 to require that schools give victims specificbasic rights (The Sexual Assault Victim’s Bill ofRights) and again in 1998 (The Jeanne CleryDisclosure of Campus Security Policy and CampusCrime Statistics Act), which mandated reportingobligations regarding sexual assault. The act forcedhigher education officials to design and implementmore effective security and anticrime policies,strategies, and practices and to monitor as well asreport on campus crime patterns and trends.
The Student Consumer Information Act is asection of Title IV (student financial aid) of theHigher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the CrimeAwareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, 1992,and 1998 applies to all postsecondary institutionsthat receive student financial assistance under TitleIV or who participate in federal student aid programs,including Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, and WorkStudy funds.
The Right to Know and Campus Security Actrequires that participating institutions disclose theirsecurity policies, crime prevention and sexual-assault awareness and response programs, andcrime statistics to the U.S. Department of Educationupon request and to the public (including currentstudents, employees, and, if requested, applicantsfor enrollment or employment). The act also pro-vides that institutional reports include crime inci-dents for off-campus offenses, such as whenrecognized student organizations are not housed onan institution’s grounds or are housed in off-campusfacilities. However, this act does not mandate thereporting of minor offenses such as petty larcenycrimes. Furthermore, such factors as the misreport-ing and underreporting of crimes and plea bargain-ing may skew reporting agencies’ data.
Additionally, there are serious flaws in how collegesand universities classify and investigate crime. Theseissues are compounded by the lack of uniformity in
573
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 573
how institutions educate and train their studentsand staff about what constitutes a crime and crimereporting procedures. As such, accurately measur-ing the amount of crime and determining the typesof crime on college and university campuses isproblematic.
Few public or private institutions are exempt fromthe requirements of the Campus Security Act. TheCampus Security Act is a protective policy law thatmandates that institutions receiving Title IV studentaid funds must collect, report, and disseminate, to thecampus community, policy information (includingenforcement policies and crime prevention programs)about campus crime in a comprehensive yearly report.The statistics on campus crime must also be providedfor the three calendar years prior to the year in whichthe report is disclosed. Participating colleges anduniversities must provide statistics in certain crimecategories—murder, forcible and nonforcible sexoffenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, andmotor vehicle theft. Also, statistics for certain arrestsare mandated, including liquor law violations, drugabuse violations, and weapons possession offenses.However, not every occurrence of one of thesecrimes needs to be reported. The regulations specifythat “while the notice should be timely in order toput students and employees on notice and preventsimilar crimes from occurring, it need only be givenif campus authorities consider the particular crime torepresent a threat to students and employees.” Thislaw also regulates certain aspects of campus disci-plinary hearings and rules of procedure for the adju-dication of sex offense allegations.
The act further requires that colleges and universi-ties provide timely warning notices to the campuscommunity of the specified reported crimes and thosewhich represent a threat to students or employees ofthe institution. Failure to comply with the law and itsregulations could result in tort liability suits, federalcivil rights suits, and a loss of student aid funds.
THE RELATIONSHIP OFTHE CAMPUS SECURITY ACT TO FERPA
The Campus Security Act also amended the FamilyEducational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to
allow, but not require, institutions to notify the victimsof crimes of violence of the outcome of disciplinaryhearings. This is a specific amendment that only pro-vides that institutions are not prohibited from disclos-ing the outcome. It is unlike the provision in theSexual Assault Victim’s Bill of Rights, which doesnot amend FERPA, but requires the disclosure ofdisciplinary outcomes to victims of sexual offenses.
The 2002 Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Actclarified the language in FERPA, allowing sexoffense records to be made public. It requires thedisclosure of information about sex offendersenrolled, working, or volunteering at higher educa-tion institutions. Specifically, it requires each stateto provide information regarding registered sexoffenders to the local law enforcement agency thathas jurisdiction where an institution of higher edu-cation is located. The state or local law enforcementagencies must then share the information with theappropriate college or university. Campus officialsmust then disseminate the information to the cam-pus community through internal media.
The act further requires that any person who isrequired to register with the state as a sex offender mustnotify the state if he or she is a student at or employedby a college or university. The sex offender must alsoalert the state if his or her enrollment or employmentstatus at the higher education institution changes.
The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act amendeda section of the Violent Crime Control and LawEnforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-322).It also expanded the Clery Act of 1998, originallyknown as the Campus Security Act, requiring sexoffender information to be included in the man-dated yearly campus crime statistics report. Statesthat fail to comply with the notification require-ments of this registered sex offender law risk losinga portion of their federal funding. States had untilSeptember 30, 2003, to comply with the act beforebeing subject to the loss of federal funds.
OTHER FEDERAL LAWS
In addition to the Campus Security Act, Subtitle C(Section 403.02) of the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-322)
574—�—Campus Safety and Security Acts
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 574
created a federal civil rights cause of action foranyone who is a victim of a gender-motivated act ofviolence. Under this law, the act of violence need notresult in criminal charges, prosecution, or convictionand because it is a civil suit, it offers compensatoryas well as punitive damages as a remedy. In 1992,Congress passed the Ramstad Amendment, whichrequired higher education institutions to adopt poli-cies to prevent sex offenses and procedures to dealwith sex offenses once they have occurred.
A higher education institution’s response to crimeand its prevention is now required by legislation.Many court decisions have upheld the premise thatcolleges and universities are accountable for dissem-inating crime information, posting special crimealerts, offering crime prevention programming, anddeveloping policies and support services to addressspecific crime risks (especially sexual assault).
The courts have held that “colleges have duties towarn, to protect, to keep promises of security,” andin some cases “to screen employees and studentsfor crime risks.” If colleges fail to act, they maybe held liable for injuries that may result (Millerv. State of New York, Peterson v. San FranciscoCommunity College District).
Some courts have likened the college or univer-sity to a landlord and held it to the same duty thatany landlord owes a tenant: to keep the premises ina reasonably safe condition, which includes a dutyto maintain minimal security measures against fore-seeable dangers (Miller v. State of New York, Nerov. Kansas State University).
Other courts have addressed violations in terms ofcontract law (Ross v. Pennsylvania State University).This interpretation is based on the principle that thecollege and its students have entered into a contract(whether explicit or implicit, written or oral) in thatif the students have paid tuition and fees and meetthe established academic and social criteria, thecollege will confer a degree or provide housing orother services.
Although the courts have held that, in somecases, the terms and conditions of the contract maybe changed by the institution without breaching thecontract, university officials must be aware thatwhat is published in college catalogs, brochures,
and handbooks may be the subject of litigation(Duarte v. State of California). Therefore, everyword used in university publications is importantand promises of extraordinary programs andservices to entice students are risky. Other courtshave held both the university and administratorspersonally liable for damages resulting from negli-gence (Mullins v. Pine Manor College).
Traditionally, campus administrators and thoseresponsible for executing college and university secu-rity programs were essentially immune, or legallyprotected from, lawsuits. However, current legislationand an abundance of case law makes it clear thathigher education administrators will not be automati-cally exonerated from allegations and charges ofrecklessness and negligence made pursuant to theiracts or omissions with regard to campus safety andsecurity. Higher education administrators are beingheld responsible and accountable for the impact oftheir decisions upon the campus community. They arenow bound by law to design, implement, monitor, andevaluate proactive, remedial, and preventive campussafety and security programs.
Vertel T. Martin
See also International Association of Campus LawEnforcement Administrators
For Further Reading
Duarte v. State of California, 151 Cal. Rptr. 727 (88 Cal. App.3d 473, 1979).
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.1232g; 34 CFR 99.
Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y. 2d 493, 478 N.Y.S. 2d829, 467 N.E. 493 (1984).
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449 N.E. 2d 331 (1983).Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d 768 (1993).Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 685
P.2d 1193 (1984).Ross v. Pennsylvania State University, 445 F. Supp 147 (1978).
� CHEMICAL ANDBIOLOGICAL TERRORISM
Chemical and biological weapons are rarely usedby terrorists, yet they have captured the public
Chemical and Biological Terrorism—�—575
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 575
imagination. These weapons have the potential tokill many thousands of people, but are far moredifficult to acquire, control, and use effectively thanconventional weapons. Chemical and biologicalweapons, though often classed together, have verydifferent characteristics and require quite differentresponses. A chemical attack on civilians can beconsidered in many ways similar to a hazardousmaterials incident, while a biological weaponsattack would be more like a disease epidemic. Both,of course, would have the added complication ofrequiring a criminal investigation and could spreadconsiderable fear through the community.
The first responders on the scene of a chemicalweapons attack would be local responders. Despitethe multiple federal response teams trained to dealwith the aftermath of a terrorist attack, the brunt ofresponse will be borne by local units. Law enforce-ment officers, often the first responders to arrive, havebeen nicknamed blue canaries; as canaries were usedin mines to indicate the presence of bad air, collaps-ing police officers may indicate the presence of nox-ious chemicals. But officers, even without protectiveequipment, arriving at the scene of a chemicalweapons release would not necessarily be physicallyaffected. Depending on environmental conditions andthe nature of the agent, the chemicals may have dissi-pated or inactivated fairly quickly. If trained appropri-ately, 911 operators may be able to warn respondersof the presence of chemical hazards. Hazardous mate-rials units (Hazmat) or the fire service, which rou-tinely assess chemical hazards, would command thescene. Law enforcement responsibilities wouldinclude establishing perimeter control, maintainingan exclusion zone or multiple zones into which onlyappropriately protected responders would be allowedto enter, and generally securing the area. Other dutieswould include evidence collection from the crimescene, crowd control, and recording contact informa-tion from victims and witnesses. Following a largeevent, maintaining security at hospitals may be nec-essary. Police officers might be required to organizean orderly neighborhood evacuation or, alternatively,persuade people to remain indoors.
For large-scale events, the National Guard wouldbe asked to assist law enforcement. The National
Guard is normally under the authority of the state,but in extreme circumstances might be federalized,that is, put under federal command.
Successful response to and investigation of abioterrorism attack would necessitate close coopera-tion between the law enforcement and public healthcommunities. Medical professionals would be thefirst to see indications of a biological terrorist attack,but may not recognize the initial cases as non-natural disease occurrences. Unusual symptoms orlab findings, disease clusters, or increases in cases offlu-like diseases outside the normal influenza seasonwould be cause for concern. However, a disease newto the United States would not necessarily have beenintroduced by a bioterrorist— HIV, West Nile virus,SARS, and the Hanta virus arrived without the aid ofterrorists.
In 1996, a criminal investigation was initiatedafter public health authorities notified the policethat an outbreak of gastroenteritis among medicalcenter staff was caused by an unusual bacterium, astrain of Shigella dysenteriae rare in the UnitedStates but stocked by a laboratory at the center. Astaff member had grown the bug at work and usedit to contaminate her colleagues’ breakfasts. InOregon, an extensive epidemiological investigationwas carried out by public health officials of twomass outbreaks of salmonellosis affecting morethan 700 people in 1984. A year later, a member ofa local cult confessed to having deliberately pouredSalmonella cultures into salad bars in local restau-rants. Members of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneeshcommune had grown and disseminated the bacteriain a bizarre attempt to influence the outcome oflocal elections. Two people were convicted of violat-ing the federal Antitampering Act. In both of thesecases, the public health community was the first tobecome aware of a health problem necessitating acriminal investigation.
Law enforcement and public health investigationsdiffer. Law enforcement investigations attempt togather evidence that will withstand legal scrutinyin court. Public health investigators seek sufficientinformation to identify the cause of a disease out-break, with the aim of halting it and preventingfuture outbreaks. Evidence collected in the course
576—�—Chemical and Biological Terrorism
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 576
of a legitimate public health investigation may beused in a criminal investigation, but only if a properchain of custody has been maintained.
Public health officials are granted certainenforcement powers under a body of law knownas police powers. If goods are a danger to publichealth, officials may destroy them with minimaldue process and no compensation to the owner.Quarantine or other limitations of liberty may beimposed on individuals who threaten public health.They may take enforcement actions without priorcourt hearings and may search and seize withoutprobable-cause warrants.
State governments have the primary legal author-ity and responsibility for public health. Many publichealth laws were written in response to historic epi-demics and are considered by health law experts tobe outdated and in need of reform. It is unknownhow effectively they could be used to counter alarge-scale bioterrorist attack. During the earlyyears of the AIDS epidemic, out of concern forindividual rights, some states passed legislationrestricting public health police powers. If a massivebioterrorism attack ever took place, quarantine,forcible treatment or vaccination, and other actionsseverely infringing on individual rights mightbe mandated, but would doubtless be appealed inthe courts. Regardless of the legality of the publichealth authorities’ orders, they would be ineffectivewithout adequate enforcement. During the firstTOPOFF exercise (a weapons of mass destructionresponse exercise involving top federal and localofficials, held in 2000), law enforcement andNational Guard representatives indicated that theywould be unable to force people to stay within theirhomes. Law enforcement authorities have voicedconcern about the level of force that might berequired to enforce unpopular restrictions, includ-ing perimeter maintenance and quarantine, andhave expressed doubts about whether officerswould be willing to use unusual levels of force insuch a situation.
Conflicts of opinion may develop between lawenforcement and public health authorities regardingchoosing between potentially protecting the popu-lation and collecting evidence to support criminal
investigations. Careful joint planning of bioterrorismresponses before an event takes place can identifyand resolve potential conflicts.
The overwhelming majority of suspected bio-chemical weapons events are hoaxes. The challengefor local responders is to develop a standardresponse routine appropriate for dealing with ahoax without overreacting and capable of con-fronting a genuine attack appropriately and safely.
Ellen Sexton
For Further Reading
Bolz, F., Dudonis, K., & Schulz, D. (2002). The counterter-rorism handbook: Tactics, procedures and techniques.Boca Raton. FL: CRC Press.
Burke, R. (2000). Counter-terrorism for emergency respon-ders. New York: Lewis.
McBride, D. (Ed.). (2003). Bioterrorism: The history of acrisis in American society. New York: Routledge.
Richards, E. (2002). Collaboration between public health andlaw enforcement: The constitutional challenge. EmergingInfectious Diseases, 8, 1157–1159.
� CHILDREN’S ONLINEPRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
In July 1998, the Children’s Online PrivacyProtection Act of 1998 (COPPA) was introducedby Senators Richard H. Bryan (R-NV) and JohnMcCain (R-AZ). The act was proposed in responseto a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report thatfound that Web sites targeted at children were col-lecting personal information without any safe-guards. The FTC was concerned that collectionof personal information from children withoutparental consent would be an unfair and deceptivetrade practice.
COPPA was passed within months of its intro-duction and took effect on April 21, 2000. COPPArequires that commercial Web site operators whohave knowledge that they are dealing with a childaged 12 or under, or who aim their content atchildren, obtain verifiable parental consent beforecollecting any personal information from a child. Achild’s personal information may include his or her
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act—�—577
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 577
full name, home address, e-mail address, telephonenumber, and Social Security number. The act alsocovers information such as hobbies or interestswhen such information is tied to individually iden-tifiable information.
The FTC considers several factors in order todetermine whether a Web site is directed towardchildren. These factors include subject matter,visual or audio content, age of models on the site,language, advertisements, and whether the site usesanimated characters or other child-oriented fea-tures. The FTC determines who qualifies as a Website operator by considering who owns and controlsthe information, who pays for the collection andmaintenance of the information, what the preexist-ing contractual relationships are in connection withthe information, and what role the Web site plays incollecting or maintaining the information.
According to COPPA, the operator must makereasonable efforts to ensure that, before personalinformation is collected from a child, a parent of thechild receives notice of the operator’s informationpractices and consents to those practices. Operatorsmay use e-mail to get parental consent for all inter-nal uses of personal information. However, shouldoperators want to disclose a child’s personal infor-mation to third parties or make it publicly available,they must use a more reliable method of consent,such as obtaining a signed form from the parent viapostal mail or facsimile, accepting and verifying acredit card number in connection with a transaction,taking calls from parents, or obtaining e-mail accom-panied by a digital signature.
Additionally, COPPA requires that these Websites place their information collection, use, anddisclosure policies prominently on their Web site,both on their homepage and at each area where per-sonal information is collected. The notice must beclearly written and must state the kinds of informa-tion being collected, the methods of collection, howthe information is used, by whom the information iscollected, and whether the information is disclosedto third parties. The law also states that parents beallowed to review and delete information abouttheir children collected by the Web site. COPPAalso forbids Web sites from conditioning a child’s
participation in online games, contests, or any otheractivity upon the disclosure of more informationthan is reasonably necessary to participate.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES
There are several exceptions to COPPA’s regula-tions. For instance, Web sites that collect informa-tion that is not personally identifiable, such asdemographic information, do not have to seekparental consent. Additionally, Web sites that donot archive collected information fall outside ofCOPPA’s legislation. Finally, when a site respondsto a request for multiple contacts, as in the case ofonline subscriptions, the site operators can collectthe necessary information, but must provide parentswith both notice it has done so and the option toremove their children from the mailing list.
The regulations also include several exemptionsthat allow operators to collect a child’s e-mailaddress without obtaining the parent’s consent inadvance. For instance, prior parental consent is notneeded when an operator collects an e-mail addressto respond to a one-time request from a child andthen deletes it. Also, an operator can collect thechild’s name or online contact information to pro-tect the safety of a child who is participating on thesite or to protect the security of the site.
Violators of COPPA could be liable for civilpenalties of up to $11,000 per violation, dependingon the number of children involved, amount andtype of personal information collected, how the per-sonal information was used, and whether the infor-mation was shared with third parties. The FTCannounced its first civil penalties in April 2001when three Web site operators were cited for viola-tions of COPPA. The FTC charged MonarchServices, Inc. and Girls Life, Inc., operators ofwww.girlslife.com; BigMailbox.com, Inc. and NolanQuan, operators of www.bigmailbox.com; andLooksmart Ltd., operator of www.inside theweb.com, with illegally collecting personally identify-ing information from children under 13 years of agewithout parental consent, which is a direct violationof COPPA. Each Web site failed to post privacy poli-cies that complied with COPPA and none obtained
578—�—Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 578
the required consent from parents prior to thecollection of their children’s personally identifiableinformation.
To settle the charges, the companies together paida total of $100,000 in civil penalties; specificallyGirlslife was assessed $30,000 and BigMailbox andLooksmart were each assessed civil penalties of$35,000. The settlements should deter future vio-lations of COPPA, and they require that the opera-tors delete all personally identifying informationcollected from children online at any time sinceCOPPA’s effective date. Operators are required toalso post a privacy policy that complies with thelaw and post a link to the KidzPrivacy Web site ofthe FTC. In addition, BigMailbox is prohibited frommaking deceptive claims in its privacy policy.
Dryden Watner
For Further Reading
Aftab, P., & Savitt, N. L. The Children’s Online PrivacyProtection Act of 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.aftab.com/the_children_s_online_privacy_protection_act_coppa_.html
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. [Online]. Available:http://www.pbi.org/Goodies/privacy/pri_coppa.htm
COPPA: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.[Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/oitp/privacy.html
FTC fines COPPA violators $100,000. [Online]. Available:http://www.keytlaw.com/FTC/Actions/ftc010419.htm
Keyt, R. (2002). How to comply with the Children’s OnlinePrivacy Protection Act of 1998. [Online]. Available:http://www.keytlaw.com/netlaw/coppa.html
Overview: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.[Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/oitp/overview.html
� CHURCH ARSONPREVENTION ACT
In early 1996, federal officials detected a patternof increasing arson attacks on churches, particularlyon African American churches in the southern por-tion of the country. In May of that year, a hearingbefore the Committee on the Judiciary of the Houseof Representatives brought together members of thelegislature, law enforcement, and victim congrega-tions. After reviewing testimony and supporting
evidence, President William J. Clinton called for theformation of the National Church Arson Task Force(NCATF). In July, just six weeks after the com-mittee hearing, a bill to give the NCATF greaterpowers passed quickly and unanimously throughCongress and was signed into law by PresidentClinton as the Church Arson Prevention Actof 1996.
Previously, federal officials referred to eitherthe Anti-Arson Act of 1982 to prosecute anyonewho set fire to property used in interstate commerce(18 U.S.C. 844(i)) or civil rights legislation to pros-ecute anyone who conspired to deny a person’s civilrights or who desecrated religious property (18U.S.C. 241 and 247). The new law amended section247 of Title 18 and granted federal prosecutorsgreater power. It allowed them to file charges inracially motivated arsons without having to demon-strate that resulting damage totaled $10,000 ormore or that the incident involved interstate com-merce. In addition, it enabled prosecutors to seeksentences of up to 20 years imprisonment for arsonor 40 years if the arson resulted in bodily injury toany person, including public safety officials (Pub.L. No. 104-155).
The legislation called for a three-prongedapproach to combating the problem. The first wasto help communities rebuild or repair damagedchurches. To aid in rebuilding efforts, the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development wasgiven the administration of a $10 million FederalLoan Guarantee Fund and assigned to work withgroups such as the Congress of National BlackChurches, the National Council of Churches, andHabitat for Humanity. Second, the law sought toeffect prevention of church burnings. To do so, theDepartment of Justice awarded $3 million ingrants to counties that had been affected by thearsons in an effort to intensify enforcement andsurveillance. In addition, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) awarded about$1.5 million for training for arson prevention andestablished a clearinghouse for arson preventionresources.
Third, the law was meant to facilitate the identi-fication, arrest, and prosecution of church arsonists.
Church Arson Prevention Act—�—579
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 579
The NCATF was created to make the arsons apriority of federal law enforcement and was giventhe charge of working with local authorities ininvestigating arsons, bombings, or attempted bomb-ings at houses of worship. It was made up of prose-cutors from the Civil Rights Division of the JusticeDepartment and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, concil-iators from the Community Relations Service,agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI), and other state andfederal officials.
Upon its inception, the NCATF developed a pro-tocol to ensure that all lines of inquiry were pursuedand to ensure effective coordination among taskforce members. Agents from the BATF broughttheir knowledge of arson and bombing investiga-tions, and the FBI brought its experience in civilrights investigations. Cross-training was conductedbetween the two agencies and among other membersof the task force. It also developed a database totrack and analyze cases and ongoing investigations,established a toll-free tip line, and—with the assis-tance of FEMA—distributed copies of a churchthreat assessment guide to congregations. It beganits operations by opening up 429 investigations intoarsons that had occurred between January 1, 1995and May 27, 1997.
According to the fourth and to date, last, annualreport from the NCATF, by August 2000, 945 caseshad been investigated in total. Of those, 310involved African American churches and 213 ofthose were in the southern United States. From thetotal 945, there were 431 arrests made in connectionwith 342 incidents, representing a 36.2% arrest rate.Since the task force began its investigations, itsarrest rate represented more than double the 16%arrest rate for arson crimes in general. Of the 431arrests, state and federal prosecutors successfullyconvicted 305 individuals in connection with 224incidents. Of the 79 defendants who were convictedon federal charges, 46 were motivated by bias,resulting in 37 hate crime convictions and nineguilty pleas to other charges. In July 2000, Scott JayBallinger, a self-avowed worshiper of Lucifer,confessed to setting 26 fires in eight states, making
his the largest number of fires linked to a singleindividual in the task force’s history.
Although officials continue to investigate thepossibility, evidence does not point to the existenceof any kind of nationwide conspiracy. There weresome cases, however, in which the offenders weremembers or former members of hate groups.Analysis of all investigations led to a determinationthat although blatant racism and religious hatredwere among the motivations for the arsons, otherreasons—including financial profit, burglary, per-sonal revenge, and common vandalism—were alsoprevalent. Although officials point out that there hasbeen a decline in the number of church arsons, anestimate in late 2002 still put the number of inci-dents at approximately 10 a month.
Nancy Egan
For Further Reading
Broadway, B. (2002, November 9). Arson at churches an ongo-ing problem. Washington Post, p. B9.
Church Arson Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 104-155 (1996).National Church Arson Task Force. (1997, June). First year
report for the president. [Online]. Available: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/gen_pub/arsonrpt.htm
National Church Arson Task Force. (2000, September). Fourthyear report for the president [Online]. Available: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/gen_pub/report2000/index.htm
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary. (1996).Church fires in the southeast. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
� COMBINED DNAINDEX SYSTEM
Imagine a law enforcement tool that can takebiological information from a crime scene, enter itinto a computer, and obtain information sufficientto tentatively identify a suspect for investigation.Similar to automated fingerprinting systems,genetic profiles can be obtained from a crime scene,people (to include victims or offenders), or itemsbelonging to missing persons. The Combined DNAIndex System (CODIS) is a computerized, hierar-chical system that allows the entry and storage ofgenetic profiles for law enforcement purposes.
580—�—Combined DNA Index System
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 580
The system was initially developed by theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1990 andoperated on a limited basis. The DNA IdentificationAct of 1994 provided the FBI with the authorizationto expand the project on a national level and it wasfour years later, in October 1998, the National DNAIndex System (NDIS) officially went online.
The CODIS database has a three-level structure(see Figure 1) that includes the local law enforce-ment community (Local DNA Index System, LDIS),the state level (State DNA Index System, SDIS), andthe national level (NDIS). The FBI maintains thedatabase but the local level is instrumental in theprocess, with the majority of DNA profiles gener-ated at the lower levels. The flow of informationmoves from the LDIS level upward to SDIS levelwhere state agencies and laboratories may retrieveand further exchange information within the state.From this point the profiles become accessibleto agencies across the nation, via NDIS. This struc-ture allows for differences in local and state law butfacilitates national access and utilization.
WHAT IS ENTERED INTO THE SYSTEM?
It is well known today that genetic informationcan identify individuals and that a database systemcan hold this information, but most people cannotexplain how the system works. There are actuallymultiple types of specific genetic information,obtained from different sources and by variousmethods, that are incorporated into the system. Theentire DNA makeup of an individual contains
a vast amount of material and is referred to asgenomic DNA. Scientists have narrowed down thistremendous amount of information to several spe-cific, short segments that are highly variable andcan be used to individualize a sample to a particu-lar individual. These short segments are known asmicrosatellites or short tandem repeats (STRs) andare taken from nuclear DNA (nuDNA). NuclearDNA comes from the nucleus. What makes STRsso helpful is that original DNA typing requiredrelatively large, pure (uncontaminated) samplesto provide information. Obvious problems, from aninvestigatory stance, are that samples are rarelylarge or pure. STRs are very small, short segmentsof information that can be chemically copiedquickly (polymerase chain reaction) to create alarger sample for testing. The FBI system hasisolated 13 STRs on the nuDNA that can be usedtogether (multiplexed) to calculate the probabilitythat a sample came from no one but a particularindividual. This is not a sample-to-sample directmatch system, but is based on frequencies ofknown populations. Thus the chance of 1 in 67billion that a sample came from someone otherthan the offender is a pretty good estimate that thesample and offender are one and the same.
What happens when samples have been highlydegraded as in skeletons, teeth, or hair obtainedfrom old body dump sites? There is only onenucleus in a cell and these can be destroyed quiteeasily, making nuDNA profiles impossible. Newtechnology has established mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) as an optional profiling system. Everycell contains hundreds of mitochondria, which sup-ply the cell with power and contain a short inde-pendent segment of DNA. This material is not asindividualistic as the nuclear type but can be used toindicate if remains are associated with a particularfamily (it is passed down through the mother).
HOW CODIS WORKS
The genetic information is downloaded into thesystem and organized based on the origin of thesample. There are currently five categories:(1) Convicted Offender Index, (2) Forensic Index,
Combined DNA Index System—�—581
NATIONAL DATA
STATE DATASTATE DATASTATE DATA
LOCAL DATA LOCAL DATA LOCAL DATALDIS
SD
ISN
DIS
Figure 1 The CODIS Database Chain
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 581
(3) Unidentified Human Remains, (4) Relatives ofMissing Persons, and (5) Population File.
The Convicted Offender Index contains all DNAprofiles obtained from convicted persons in accor-dance with state or federal laws. Depending on thestate, cases that qualify to be included in the data-base may range from misdemeanors to sex crimesand homicide. The Forensic Index is comprised ofDNA samples obtained from crime scenes duringinvestigations. These samples may include blood,hair, saliva, or fingernail clippings. In some instances,even skin removed from earphones or other evidenceleft at the scene of a crime has been used for identi-fication. The Unidentified Human Remains Index isbased on samples recovered from remains found butnot yet identified. The Relatives of Missing PersonsIndex is comprised of DNA samples voluntarily sup-plied by family members of missing persons thatmay be later cross-referenced with unidentifiedremains or forensic samples. Last, the PopulationFile is based on sampling from groups in society inorder to establish statistical frequencies of thegenetic profiles. Recently, mtDNA population infor-mation from the Scientific Working Group on DNAAnalysis Methods for all major racial groups wasalso included in the population data.
Once the information is in the system, severalpossible outcomes to searches may occur, the mostcommon being conviction of the suspected offender.In this situation a forensic scene sample correspondsto that of the individual who is charged with a crimeand is convicted at trial or who pleads guilty to thecrime charged or to a related offense. There are alsoforensic matches that occur when scene informationfrom one investigation corresponds to DNA samplesfrom another. The most controversial though are thecold hits in which the crime scene information ismatched to an offender’s older profile already in thesystem. These offender matches may be used asprobable cause to obtain John Doe warrants orderingnew blood samples from the suspect.
THE FUTURE OF CODIS
By 1995, all 50 states had enacted legislation estab-lishing DNA databases. Depending on state statute,
convicted offenders are required to submit a biologicalsample, typically blood, for profile typing and entry.The FBI estimated in late 2002 that CODIS hadaided in more than 6,400 investigations and gener-ated more than 6,000 matches. The majority ofthese cases were concentrated in Florida, Illinois,New York, and Virginia. The reasons for this seemto be that these states established their databasesand had forensic facilities to handle them earlierthan other states. In addition, these states seem tohave officers submitting tremendous amounts ofmaterial for analysis due to police education andawareness in forensics; thus, more offenders are onfile and there are more samples that correspond tothose in the databases. Regardless of location, by2003, there were more than 1,224,034 offenderprofiles available for comparison in the databaseand 44,140 forensic case samples.
On an even larger scale, efforts are underway tocoordinate multiple country identification. Sincemany labs worldwide are changing to the STR sys-tem from previous methods and adopting the same13 markers as the FBI, it may be possible to directlycompare profiles provided by Britain, Canada,and a number of European countries. This furtherexpands the potential power of identifying offend-ers who travel and continue to commit crimes.
As knowledge of CODIS grows as a tool in lawenforcement, it expands the ability of investigatorsto apprehend offenders. An unfortunate by-productis an ever increasing backlog of samples awaitingentry to the system. States that continue to widenthe DNA requirements to include nonviolent offend-ers as well as retesting of older samples have createda tremendous workload. It was estimated in 1999that over 180,000 rape kit samples alone remainedunprocessed. In addition, many laboratories areinundated with scene samples, thus limiting theprocessing to only those involved in more seriouscrimes and likely sample sources. It is apparent thatif CODIS is to function as intended there is an over-whelming need to create efficient methods of enter-ing backlog cases and incorporating new informationas it is submitted.
Michelle Y. Richter
582—�—Combined DNA Index System
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 582
For Further Reading
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). CODIS: Mission state-ment and background. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/program.htm
Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., & Mable, K. (Eds.). (1996).Molecular systematics. Sutherland, MA: Sinauer.
Loftus, P. (1999, July). The FBI’s Combined DNA IndexSystem helps corrections and law enforcement profes-sionals monitor inmates and solve crimes. CorrectionsToday, pp. 68–71.
Massachusetts Department of State Police. (2002, February).CODIS unit. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.ma.usmsp/ unitpage/crimelab/codis.htm
Miller, K. W. P., Brown, B. L., & Budowle, B. (2003). TheCombined DNA Index System. International CongressSeries, 1239, 617–620.
Seo, Y., Uchiyama, T., Matsuda, H., Shimizu, K., Takami, Y.,Nakayama, T., & Takahama, K. (2002). MitochondrialDNA and STR typing of matter adhering to an earphone.Journal of Forensic Science, 47, 605–608.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.(2002). NIJ special report: Using DNA to solve coldcases. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
� COMMISSION ON THEACCREDITATION OF LAWENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
The accreditation of American law enforcementagencies began in 1979 with the establishmentof the Commission on the Accreditation of LawEnforcement Agencies (CALEA). CALEA was cre-ated to act as an independent accreditation programunder the authority of four major law enforcementassociations: the International Association ofChiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’Association,the Police Executive Research Forum, and theNational Organization of Black Law EnforcementExecutives. The commission was created to developa body of law enforcement standards defined bypolice professionals and to establish an accredita-tion process by which law enforcement agenciescould demonstrate that they met criteria for excel-lence in police management and police servicedelivery.
CALEA is a nonprofit corporation that is notconnected to any local, state, or federal governmentagency. It is composed of 21 members: 11 law
enforcement personnel and 10 representatives fromother public and private agencies. The commissionselects individuals who have a breadth of knowl-edge and experience in law enforcement. Thesequalifications are necessary in order for CALEAmembers to conduct thorough on-site evaluationsand assessments during the accreditation process.
The standards for accreditation were outlined inthe first edition of Standards for Law EnforcementAgencies in 1983. The first edition of Standardscontained a description of more than 900 accred-itation standards. Since 1983, a Standards ReviewCommittee composed of 35 law enforcement leadersfrom across the United States has refined the originalstandards down to 439 standards. The fourth editionof Standards containing the revised list of 439 accred-itation standards was officially adopted in January1999. The standards prescribed by CALEA aredesigned to improve the delivery of police services tocommunities (including the prevention and control ofcrime), to increase citizen confidence in the goals andobjectives of local law enforcement agencies, and toincrease cooperation and collaboration between lawenforcement agencies in the criminal justice system.
The CALEA Web site outlines the accreditationprocess in five phases. First, police agencies mustcomplete an accreditation application. Next, policeagencies must complete a self-assessment of depart-ment policies, which will result in a series of proofof compliance forms. The third step of accreditationrequires an on-site assessment by CALEA membersto observe police agencies and to allow the CALEAteam to check all proof of compliance forms. Thefourth step requires that police personnel attenda commission review in which the commissiondetermines accreditation status. The final phase ofaccreditation requires accredited police agencies tocontinue compliance with accreditation standardsthrough reaccredidation. Accreditation lasts for aperiod of three years. Thereafter, police agenciesare required to submit annual reports to CALEAthat demonstrate that they remain in compliancewith all CALEA standards. Reaccreditation occursat the end of the three years, pending another suc-cessful on-site assessment and hearing before thecommission.
Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies—�—583
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 583
Law enforcement agencies participate in theCALEA accreditation process on a voluntary basis.The first law enforcement agency in the United Statesto receive accreditation from CALEA was the MountDora, Florida, Police Department in May 1984. TheArlington County, Virginia, Police Department;Elkhart County, Indiana, Sheriff’s Office; BaltimoreCounty, Maryland, Police Department; and NorthProvidence, Rhode Island, Police Department wereaccredited in November 1984. As of 2000, CALEAreported that it had accredited more than 530 lawenforcement agencies in the United States.
CALEA proposes that accreditation can provideseveral benefits to law enforcement agencies. Someof those benefits include easier attainment of policeliability insurance coverage, stronger defense againstlawsuits and complaints filed by citizens, an overallincrease in police accountability, and more supportfrom government agencies and citizens. However,there has been limited research conducted toexplore whether accreditation in fact provides, thepreviously mentioned benefits to accredited lawenforcement agencies compared to nonaccreditedlaw enforcement agencies.
Carol A. Archbold
See also International Association of Chiefs of Police,National Organization of Black Law EnforcementExecutives, National Sheriffs’ Association, PoliceExecutive Research Forum
For Further Reading
CALEA. [Online]. Available: http://www.calea.orgCordner, G. W., & Williams. G. L. (1995, August). The
CALEA standards: What is the fit with community ori-ented policing? National Institute of Justice Journal,pp. 39–49.
Levine, M. J. (2002). Accreditation: Celebrating 20 years ofexcellence. [Online]. Available: http://www.calea.org
Oettmeier, T. N. (1993). Can accreditation survive the ’90s?In J. W. Bizzack (Ed.), New perspectives in policing.Lexington, KY: Autumn House.
Sykes, G. W. (1994). Accreditation and community policing:Passing fads or basic reforms? Journal of ContemporaryCriminal Justice, 10, 1–16.
Williams, G. L. (1989). Making the grade: The benefits oflaw enforcement accreditation. Washington, DC: PoliceExecutive Research Forum.
COMPREHENSIVE DRUGABUSE PREVENTIONAND CONTROL ACT
Prior to the passing of the Comprehensive DrugAbuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970(CDAPCA), a plethora of legislation relating tocontrol and diversion of drugs was in place.Congress had enacted more than 50 laws to dealwith the escalating problem of drug use and drugtrafficking. These laws were sometimes confusingand often duplicative. The CDAPCA (Pub. L. No.91-513) was proposed to collect and consolidate thelaws into a single piece of legislation. Since its pas-sage it has remained the foundation of the federalgovernment’s enforcement of drug laws.
At the time the CDAPCA was proposed, theU.S. government reported that drug use was a grow-ing problem, approaching epidemic proportions.Between 1960 and 1968, there was a 322% increasein drug arrests. Furthermore, the government wasconcerned about the increasing number of minorsusing drugs. Of the drug arrests in 1968, 43,200 ofthose arrested were under the age of 18, and 6,243were under the age of 15. Government officials alsonoted that, in 1965, almost 50% of the 9 billionamphetamines and barbiturates produced legiti-mately in the United States had been diverted intoillegal channels.
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Preventionand Control Act of 1970 sought to combine both thepunitive and the rehabilitative approaches to theproblem of drug abuse. The act has three titles. TitleI covers rehabilitation, Title II deals with controland enforcement, and Title III has to do with importsand exports.
Title I provided authority for the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare (HEW, which in 1980became the Department of Health and HumanServices) to increase its efforts in the rehabilitation,treatment, and prevention of drug abuse throughcommunity mental health centers and through publichealth service hospitals and facilities. This section ofthe act allotted $40 million for fiscal year 1971, $50million for fiscal year 1972, and $80 million for
584—�—Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act
�
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 584
fiscal year 1973, to be used in the construction andstaffing of narcotic treatment facilities and for specialprojects in the field of narcotic addiction.
Title I also authorized annual appropriations of$20 million each year for 1971-1973 for grants bythe HEW secretary to public or nonprofit privateagencies for the treatment and rehabilitation ofdrug dependent people. The secretary also autho-rized grants for drug abuse education directed at thegeneral public, children in school, and high-riskgroups. Title I also granted the secretary the author-ity to protect the privacy of drug research subjectsby nondisclosure of identifying data, therebyenabling the researcher to guarantee research sub-jects complete anonymity, with immunity fromprosecution.
Title II is often referred to as the ControlledSubstances Act. The Controlled Substances Actestablished a hierarchy of prescription and prohib-ited drugs and placed every drug in one of fivecontrol schedules. The drugs are grouped by theirpotential for abuse, ability to produce dependence,and accepted medical utility. Schedule I lists drugsthat have no traditional recognized medical use,such as heroin, LSD, and marijuana. Schedule IIlists the drugs with medical uses that have the great-est potential for abuse and dependence, includingmorphine and cocaine. The remaining schedulesuse a sliding scale that balances each drug’s abusepotential with its legitimate medical uses. ScheduleI and II drugs are subjected to a variety of controlslike separate records, manufacturing quotas, distri-bution restrictions, security requirements, reports tothe Drug Enforcement Administration, and criminalpenalties for trafficking.
Title II also stated that all people in the distribu-tion chain, including manufacturers, wholesalers,and retailers, were required to be registered and tokeep records of all transfers of controlled drugs.Additionally, this section of the CDAPCA revisedthe structure of criminal penalties involving con-trolled drugs by providing a consistent method oftreatment of all people accused of drug violations.Prior to this act, mandatory minimum sentences fordrug defendants were in place. Title II eliminated allmandatory minimum sentences, with the exception of
minimum sentencing for involvement in continuingcriminal enterprises. Proponents of the CDAPCAfelt that severe previously existing penalties, includ-ing minimum mandatory sentences, had led to pros-ecutors’ reluctance to prosecute some violationsin which the penalties and the seriousness of theoffense did not match up. Additionally, severe penal-ties tended to make convictions somewhat more dif-ficult to obtain. Title II gave maximum flexibility tojudges, permitting them to tailor imprisonment andfines to the circumstances involved in each individualcase.
Title II made possession of controlled drugs amisdemeanor, excluding cases in which the posses-sion was for the purpose of distribution to others. Inthe case of a first offense of simple possession, thecourt could place the defendant on probation for upto a year. If at the end of the probation period thedefendant had not violated the conditions of proba-tion, the proceedings could be dismissed without acourt adjudication of guilt. Furthermore, if the first-time defendant was below the age of 21, a courtorder could be issued expunging the defendant’srecord. According to Title II, manufacture or distri-bution of illicit drugs is punishable by up to 15years in prison in the case of Schedule I or II nar-cotic drugs, and by up to five years in the case ofnonnarcotic Schedule I or II drugs or any other con-trolled drugs in Schedule III. First-time offense ille-gal manufacture or sales of Schedule IV drugs ispunishable by three years in prison, while ScheduleV drugs carry a one-year sentence. Second offensesand situations in which a person over 18 sells drugsto a person below 21 both doubled the penalty forfirst offenses.
Finally, cases in which a person engaged in acontinuing criminal enterprise involving a series ofviolations undertaken in accordance with five ormore people and from which substantial income isderived were punishable by a mandatory minimumsentence of not less than 10 years and up to lifeimprisonment, a fine of up to $100,000, and forfei-ture to the United States of all profits derived fromthe enterprise.
Title III is commonly known as the Controlled Sub-stances Import and Export Act. Prior to passage of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act—�—585
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 585
CDAPCA, separate importation and exportation lawswere in effect for narcotics/marijuana and depressants/stimulants. Through the provisions of Title III, theimportation and exportation of all controlled sub-stances, including marijuana, narcotics, depres-sants, and stimulants, were covered under a singlestatute. Title III made it illegal to import into theUnited States any Schedule I or II or any narcoticdrug contained in Schedule III, IV, or V without theconsent of the attorney general.
In 1983, the Comprehensive Criminal ForfeitureAct amended the CDAPCA to establish generalcriminal forfeiture provisions for felony violations.Title II of the Comprehensive Criminal ForfeitureAct created a presumption of forfeitability in casesin which the defendant acquired the property withina reasonable period after commission of the viola-tion and the defendant’s legal sources of incomewere substantially insufficient to account for theacquisition. This amendment also allows a court toissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of propertysubject to forfeiture. Title III of the ComprehensiveCriminal Forfeiture Act permits the Drug Enforce-ment Administration to set aside 25% of the amountsrealized from forfeitures under the CDAPCA forthe payment of information or assistance leading toforfeiture.
Dryden Watner
For Further Reading
Bill summary and status for the 98th Congress. [Online].Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d098:4:./temp/~bd2WKh:/bss/d098query.html
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Control Act. [Online].Available: http://chemweb.calpoly.edu/chem/bailey/377/F02Revision/Regulation.doc
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of1970. (1970). Congressional and Administrative News, 3,4566–4639.
Drugs. [Online]. Available: http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-20/ch13.pdf
Gen. Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library.Drugs. [Online]. Available: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-20/Ch.13.htm
Jaffe, J. H. (1995). Controlled Substances Act of 1970. InEncyclopedia of drugs and alcohol (Vol. 1, pp. 319–320).New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
CRIME LABORATORYACCREDITATION
The introduction of fingerprinting to solve crimes,which began at the end of the 19th century, high-lighted the reluctance of the police to accept tech-nology and testimony surrounding it as evidence incriminal prosecutions. Yet by the end of the 20thcentury forensic investigations had come to play alarger and larger role in determining both the guiltand the innocence of the accused and even, in somecases, of those previously convicted. The increasingreliance on technology and laboratory evidence hasled to concerns by both prosecutors and defendersabout the results produced by forensic science labs.If criminal justice professionals and those whoserve on juries lack confidence in the professionaloperation of these labs, the efforts of scientists andtheir managers will be meaningless. These concernshave resulted in the accreditation of crime labs toensure that they are following accepted scientificpractices.
Accreditation is a process by which any supplyof goods or services by a provider is deemed tobe in compliance with standards that are deemedsuitable to meet the needs of the user and to meetgenerally accepted standards of accuracy and relia-bility. In many fields, as in forensics, this has cometo mean that the services are reviewed by a third, orneutral, party or organization that is recognized tohave expertise in the relevant field. Thus, accredita-tion relies on the provider receiving recognition byan outside, independent source that the service pro-vided is unbiased and meets the highest profes-sional standards for that field or profession. In thecase of laboratory accreditation, the service is theconduct and reporting of tests on materials.
Laboratory accreditation has become the pri-mary means of determining the competence oflaboratories to perform specific types of testing,measurement, and calibration. It has enabled usersto accept as accurate the tests provided by a laband has allowed lab personnel to determine whethertheir work correctly meets appropriate standards.Laboratory accreditation provides formal recognition
586—�—Crime Laboratory Accreditation
�
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 586
to competent laboratories and withholds it fromthose that do not meet professional standards. Meet-ing these aims requires a formal assessment andrecognition by an impartial competent authority thata laboratory is capable of meeting and maintainingdefined standards of performance, competence, andprofessionalism.
There are three main programs in the UnitedStates that address accreditation requirements forcrime laboratories. These are the National QualityAssurance Standard for Forensic DNA Testing(QAS), the American Society of Crime LaboratoryDirectors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) accreditation program, and the ISO 17025accreditation program provided by a unit within theNational Forensic Science Technology Center(FQS-I).
The QAS program is based on the quality assur-ance standards developed by the DNA AdvisoryBoard. The Introduction to the DNA AdvisoryBoard standards states that the board expected thatthe community would be able to show compliancethrough accreditation. The standards were adoptedby the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), whichdischarged its responsibility for ensuring compli-ance by establishing a training program for auditorsin conjunction with a consensus compliancechecklist. The ASCLD/LAB and FQS-I programsincorporate the QAS checklist into their ownaccreditation programs when they are assessinga testing laboratory that includes a DNA section.Some laboratories, such as private contract providers,have sought direct accreditation solely of compliancewith the QAS program, and the National ForensicScience Technology Center (NFSTC) providesthat service. All three program providers useonly auditors who have successfully completed theFBI training. The program requires an annualaudit of compliance and external participation inthe audit every two years. NFSTC also provides thatservice to state and local crime laboratories. Thecompetent authority requirement is satisfied throughthe use of trained auditors and the consensuschecklist.
In 1981 the ASCLD established a LaboratoryAccreditation Board as a separate corporation, which
created the ASCLD/LAB accreditation program.One year later, the laboratories of the IllinoisState Police were the first to be accredited byASCLD/LAB. In 1990, the South AustralianForensic Science Centre became the first non-U.S.facility to be accredited by the program. Since then,the program has grown considerably; by early 2004,there were more than 250 accredited laboratories.
ASCLD/LAB used a checklist of criteria gradedas desirable, important, or essential. Laboratorieswere required to meet 100% of all applicable essen-tial criteria, 75% of important and 50% of desirableto be accredited. The program had a five-year cycleand included demanding proficiency test require-ments that addressed demonstration of quality on anannual basis. ASCLD/LAB has been recognized asa competent authority for accreditation through itsyears of experience in providing accreditation to thecrime laboratory community and through its opera-tional structure, which depended heavily on experi-enced crime laboratory directors.
NFSTC is another spin-off from ASCLD and wasincorporated in 1995. NFSTC’s mission is quality ofservice delivery in forensic science, and the companyresponded to requests from forensic science laborato-ries that were not public crime laboratories to providethem with accreditation. From the outset, NFSTCchose to pursue the internationally recognized ISO17025 accreditation program for testing laboratories,together with guidance documents having specificrelevance to forensic testing, such as the InternationalCooperation for Laboratory Accreditation Guide 7for Equine Drug Testing and Guide 19 for ForensicScience Testing. NFSTC also sought to address thecompetent authority issue through external evaluationof compliance with ISO Guide 58 for the operationof accrediting bodies. The agency selected for thiswas the National Cooperation for LaboratoryAccreditation (NACLA). One of the requirements ofGuide 58 and NACLA is that the accreditation pro-grams are operated independent of any other services.For this reason, NFSTC provided its accreditationprograms through its FQS-I business unit.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’sNational Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC),located in Denver, Colorado, was the first laboratory
Crime Laboratory Accreditation—�—587
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 587
to take up the NFSTC program. In so doing itbecame the first U.S. forensic testing laboratory tobecome ISO accredited and has completed its thirdtwo-year accreditation cycle.
Generally, the advantages ascribed to accreditationinclude recognition of testing competence, bench-marking of performance, and international recogni-tion. Recognition of competence comes from theaccreditation certificate and the permission to usethe accreditation status in reports. Benchmarking ofperformance comes from the independent technicalevaluation that is part of the accreditation process.International recognition is generally not of impor-tance to a crime laboratory but is the main reason forthe bulk of accreditation programs. For example, amanufacturer or agricultural product seller may haveto demonstrate compliance with standards for fas-tener reliability or for organic residues in meat orgrains. The seller, especially an export marketer, willonly accept results from laboratory tests conducted inthe seller’s country if the testing laboratory is accred-ited to an acceptable standard. This usually meansaccredited to ISO 17025 by an accrediting body thathas been evaluated by a body such as NACLA andfound to meet accepted standards of operation.
However, the same factors in an accreditationprogram to meet international mutual recognition oftest results make for a better domestic crime labo-ratory, too. Returning to the NEIC, the head of itsasbestos testing section commented that the broaderbenefits of accreditation were seen in the first casepresented at trial following granting of accredita-tion. The record control requirements of ISO 17025are demanding, but a consequence was that allthe information in that (very complex) case wasordered and at hand during the hearing. It made lifemuch easier for the analyst and made a most favor-able impression on the court.
Accreditation is a powerful tool for the crime lab-oratory to implement systems that assist its goal offault-free testing. Accreditation brings advantages ofcontinuing benchmarking of practices and of exter-nal validation of the quality of work conducted.
William J. Tilstone
See also American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
For Further Reading
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. [Online].Available: http://www.ascld.org
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors LaboratoryAccreditation Board. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
Beavan, C. (2001). The origins of crime detection and themurder case that launched forensic science. New York:Hyperion.
Genge, N. E. (2002). The forensic casebook: The science ofcrime scene investigation. New York: Ballantine.
Kelly, J. (1998). Tainting evidence: Inside the scandals at theFBI crime lab. New York: Free Press.
Lee, H. (2003). Blood evidence: How DNA is revolutionizingthe way we solve crimes. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
National Forensic Science Technology Center. [Online].Available: http://www.nfstc.org
Saferstein, R. E. (2003) Criminalistics: An introduction toforensic science (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
� CRIME STATISTICS
Accurate measures of crime are valuable for manyreasons; they aid in the formulation of criminal jus-tice policy, in the assessment and operations ofcriminal justice agencies, in the creation of preventionand intervention programs, and in the developmentof criminological theory. Two long-established fed-eral data collection programs, the Uniform CrimeReports (UCR) begun in 1929 and the NationalCrime Victimization Survey (NCVS; formerly theNational Crime Survey) begun in 1973, have been,and continue to be, used to measure levels of crimein the United States. Each program is characterizedby strengths and weaknesses. A third, emergingdata collection program, the National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS), when fully oper-ational, will draw upon and merge many of theelements from both the NCVS and the UCR into asingle data collection program.
The UCR is a summary reporting program over-seen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).UCR data are voluntarily submitted by local and statelaw enforcement agencies directly to the FBI or, insome cases, indirectly through state reporting agen-cies. Each agency produces frequencies for serious
588—�—Crime Statistics
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 588
index crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravatedassault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft,and arson) and less serious crimes occurring withinits jurisdiction. Because UCR data ultimately comefrom individual law enforcement agencies, crimesincluded are only those known by or reported to thepolice.
The UCR has several key strengths. First, itprovides a general view of crime nationwide andfor other aggregates (e.g., city, county). Second, theUCR crime statistics for homicide and motor vehi-cle theft are generally accurate due to the fact thatboth of these crimes tend to be reported to thepolice at high rates. Third, the UCR produces com-prehensive frequency and incident statistics forhomicides as part of the Supplementary HomicideReports. Nevertheless, despite these strengths, theUCR has the primary limitation of only countingcrimes known by or reported to the police. Thisconstitutes a significant weakness considering thata substantial portion (in excess of 50% in 2001) ofall crime goes unreported. This underreporting andthe resulting underestimate of crime contributed tothe creation of an additional measure of crime.
To complement the UCR, the Bureau of JusticeStatistics conducts an annual nationwide survey, theNCVS, to estimate rates of victimization across thecountry. The primary purpose of the NCVS is to pro-vide detailed incident-level victimization data froma nationally representative sample of households,regardless of whether the victimization was reportedto law enforcement authorities. The focus of theNCVS on both reported and unreported crime over-came one of the primary weaknesses of UCR data.
The survey is administered to individuals age 12and older in approximately 45,000 sample house-holds. Crime labels are attached to incidents basedon responses to a series of questions representingdefinitions of particular crimes. NCVS crime cate-gories largely overlap with UCR Index crimes withone exception. The UCR is the only source of homi-cide data in the United States. In addition to thetype and frequency of particular victimizations, theNCVS also provides comprehensive informationabout the incident itself, including characteristicsrelated to the perpetrator(s), weapon use, reporting
behaviors, protective measures, and other specificevent information.
While this data collection is successful indescribing trends in national victimization rates, inproviding characteristics of criminal victimization,and in documenting the so-called dark figure ofcrime, it has limited value to state and local policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Since theNCVS is based on a national sample of respon-dents, individual communities or states representonly a small portion of the overall sample, therebyprohibiting the extraction of reliable local (smallarea) crime statistics. Even though, in recent years,the Bureau of Justice Statistics has encouragedstates and localities to conduct their own victimiza-tion surveys to overcome this problem, the NCVScontinues to be most useful in painting a national(or other large aggregate) picture of crime.
NIBRS combines several of the strongest fea-tures of the UCR and the NCVS. NIBRS data, likeUCR data, are compiled from reports of crimesknown to the police that are submitted to the FBI bystate, regional, and local law enforcement agencies.Data can be explored and examined at multiple geo-graphic levels including within-city, city, county,state, and national. More important, NIBRS is asource of incident-level official statistics. Like theNCVS, NIBRS data move beyond simple summarystatistics, instead gathering comprehensive incident-based data including offender characteristics,weapon(s) used, and other incident details.
NIBRS advances crime measurement in severalways. Data are collected for all crimes covered by theNCVS and the UCR as well as for a much broaderrange of crimes. More specifically, NIBRS includes46 primary Group A crimes organized into 22 cate-gories and 11 secondary Group B crimes. Second,NIBRS collects crime information for all offensesthat occur within a particular incident. This is a con-siderable advance for a program that relies on officialdata. The UCR follows a hierarchy rule resulting inonly the most serious crime in any event being includ-ing in the summary statistics. Overall, NIBRS willincrease the volume of data collected by law enforce-ment agencies and the type of information availableto researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.
Crime Statistics—�—589
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 589
NIBRS is intended to replace the UCR programin the future, although currently the program is stillrelatively early in the implementation stage so UCRdata collection continues. Approximately half of allstates have some sort of incident-based reporting inplace. NIBRS is not intended to replace the NCVS,however. Though both gather incident-level infor-mation, the NCVS still includes estimates of crimeregardless of whether it was reported to the police.Thus, both will complement each other in the futurewhile serving distinctly different purposes.
Matthew J. Giblin
See also National Crime Victimization Survey, NationalIncident-Based Reporting System, Uniform CrimeReporting Program
For Further Reading
Maltz, M. D. (1977). Crime statistics: A historical perspective.Crime and Delinquency, 23, 32–40.
Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics.
Rantala, R. R., & Edwards, T. J. (2000). Effects of NIBRS oncrime statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1995). The nation’s two crimemeasures. Washington, DC: Author.
� CRIMES, FEDERALJURISDICTION
Both the state and the federal governments have theauthority to define conduct as criminal as well as toprosecute and punish such conduct. The authorityof the federal government to establish federalcrimes is found in the U.S. Constitution, whichidentified, or enumerated, certain powers to bewithin the province of the federal government,while reserving all other powers to the state gov-ernments. This fundamental principle underlyingthe division of authority between federal govern-ment and the states is reflected in the traditional dis-tinctions between their separate spheres of criminaljurisdiction. Although states exercise a general crim-inal jurisdiction based on the common law system,
the federal government, and the federal judiciary inparticular, is limited to acting upon authority of theU.S. Constitution and acts of Congress in further-ance of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal crimes are prosecuted in the federal courtsystem. The U.S. Constitution established a U.S.Supreme Court; all other federal courts were cre-ated by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Thatlegislation created the three-tiered court structurethat still endures, notwithstanding subsequent leg-islative action that expanded and modified the fed-eral court system. The U.S. district courts are thetrial courts of the federal system. The U.S. courtsof appeal, or circuit courts, fulfill the intermediateappellate function. The U.S. Supreme Court is thehighest court in the federal system.
The U.S. Constitution identifies only a very fewspecific crimes that Congress has the power todefine and punish, namely counterfeiting the cur-rency and securities of the United States, piracy andfelonies committed on the high seas, and crimesviolating the laws of nations. The constitutionalbasis for Congress to enact additional criminal lawsis found in its power to make all laws necessary andproper for carrying out the powers of the federalgovernment as enumerated in the Constitution.Apart from those few crimes identified in theConstitution, an act of Congress is required todefine a federal crime. The power of Congress todefine federal crimes is limited. Unless an act hasthe appropriate relationship to the powers ofCongress or to some matter within jurisdiction ofthe United States, Congress cannot define that act tobe a federal crime. Although many types of crimi-nal acts are properly federal crimes, the U.S.Supreme Court has recognized that congressionalpower to federalize crime is not unlimited. In the1995 case United States v. Lopez, the SupremeCourt held certain portions of the Gun-Free SchoolZones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A)) to beunconstitutional. That law, passed by Congress, madeit a federal crime to possess a firearm in or within1,000 feet of a school. The Supreme Court found thislaw to be beyond congressional power under theCommerce Clause because the acts that were prohib-ited were not generally the type of economic activity
590—�—Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 590
that might substantially affect interstate commerce,nor was there any requirement that a tie to interstatecommerce be proven on a case-by-case basis. WhileLopez recognized that there were limitations to thebroad reach of federal criminal law, the federalcourts have generally upheld similar challenges toother federal criminal statutes, for example, theAnti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (18 U.S.C.A. 2119),federalizing carjacking. In most cases, the courtshave found that there is a proper basis for the crimeto be federal.
Several of the various powers of the federal gov-ernment enumerated in the Constitution have justi-fied congressional action defining particular crimesas being federal. Congress has defined federalcrimes to be those that are necessary and properto carry out the Commerce Clause of the U.S.Constitution (e.g., narcotics and firearms crimes),the establishment of the Post Office (mail fraud),the regulation of naturalization (immigration crimes),and the power to establish taxes (tax offenses). Manyfederal regulatory statutes, permissible as necessaryand proper under the Commerce Clause, includecriminal provisions and penalties for their violation.In addition, Congress has exercised its power, underthe Constitution, to define as federal crimes thoseoffenses that occur on federal property, such asthe District of Columbia, military installations, andnational parks. Within the special maritime andterritorial jurisdiction of the federal government,the Assimilative Crimes Act incorporates statecriminal laws to allow federal prosecution of crim-inal conduct defined by the law of the appropriatestate penal code.
There is no unified federal criminal code; rather,the definitions of federal crimes are found through-out the United States Code. There are presentlymore than 4,000 federal crimes. The general crimi-nal portion of the code is found in Title 18, thecontrolled substance offenses are in Title 21, andimmigration offenses are in Title 8. Those crimes thatpenalize regulatory violations are generally foundwith the related regulatory provisions, for example,securities law violations, which are found in Title 15.Federal crimes include felonies, misdemeanors,infractions, and petty offenses.
When Congress has a constitutional basis fordeclaring a particular act to be a federal crime itmay do so without regard for whether any or allstates have criminalized, or even legitimized, thatsame conduct. There is no requirement of consis-tency between the criminal law of the states and thefederal law, although there are numerous instancesin which the same conduct constitutes both a fed-eral and a state crime. Particularly in regard tonarcotics offenses, the same conduct can fit the def-inition of a federal crime, as well as a state crime.A defendant can be prosecuted in either state orfederal court for such conduct, even though thepenalties may be quite different between the twojurisdictions. Because the protection against doublejeopardy does not include the involvement of morethan one jurisdiction, such as the state and the fed-eral government, a defendant can be prosecuted inboth state and federal court for the same act, whenthat act meets the definition of an offense in eachjurisdiction. Conversely, certain conduct that is notcriminal under state law can give rise to federalcriminal liability. For example, the federal criminallaw recognizes no exception from criminal liabilityfor medical marijuana usage and federal convic-tions have been obtained in such cases even thoughcertain states have legitimized such usage.
Although many of today’s federal crimes areanalogous to state crimes, each federal crime has aparticular element that establishes the federal inter-est and thus is the basis of federal jurisdiction.When the victim of the crime has a particular char-acteristic that involves the federal government, thenfederal criminal jurisdiction can be established.Bank robbery (a federal crime defined in 18 U.S.C.2113) requires that the bank from which money orproperty is taken be “any member bank of theFederal Reserve System, and any bank, bankingassociation, trust company, savings bank, or otherbanking institution organized or operating under thelaws of the United States, including a branch oragency of a foreign bank . . . and any institution thedeposits of which are insured by the FederalDeposit Insurance Corporation.” This federal crimealso applies to robberies of credit unions “insuredby the National Credit Union Administration
Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction—�—591
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 591
Board” and savings and loan associations similarlyfederally insured. The robbery of these financialinstitutions would certainly qualify as a state crime,covered by a general robbery definition. The addi-tional element that gives rise to federal jurisdictionallows the case to be prosecuted in federal court, butdoes not necessarily require that it be handled there.The local and federal prosecuting agencies areempowered to decide whether the robbery will behandled in state or federal court.
Many federal crimes find their basis for federaljurisdiction in the federal character of the victim ofthe offense. Assault on a federal officer is prohib-ited by 18 U.S.C. 111. Making a false statement toa federal officer regarding a matter within the juris-diction of a department or agency of the federalgovernment is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thisfalse statement offense does not require that theperson who makes the false statement be underoath, but rather covers any statement that is mater-ial, that is, that has a natural tendency to influenceor is capable of influencing the exercise of a gov-ernmental function. Any threats made against anincumbent president of the United States, a formerpresident, successors to the presidency, theirfamilies, other persons or candidates for the presi-dency, or other persons protected by the U.S. SecretService or who are internationally protected personsare violations of 18 U.S.C. 871 et seq. When forgedor counterfeit writing is used with the intent todefraud the United States, the provisions of 18U.S.C. 495 are violated, as is 18 U.S.C. 1003 whena false demand is made against the nation. Theseprovisions are often used to prosecute cases involv-ing the misuse of checks to fraudulently obtainfunds from the federal government. Commonexamples include cashing someone else’s SocialSecurity check or tax refund from the InternalRevenue Service.
Crimes that have a particular interstate ornational component are particularly suited to beinghandled within the federal criminal system. Thebasis of federal jurisdiction over these types ofcrimes has historically been found in the CommerceClause of the U.S. Constitution. The SupremeCourt’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause
recognizes three broad areas that come within thepower given to Congress by this provision ofthe U.S. Constitution. Those three areas are (1) theregulation of the channels of interstate commerce,(2) the regulation and protection of the instrumen-talities of interstate commerce, or persons or thingsin interstate commerce, even if the threat comesonly from intrastate activities, and (3) the regulationof activities that have a substantial relation to inter-state commerce, that is, that substantially affectinterstate commerce. Taken together, and viewedwith an expansive approach, these three areas affordCongress a broad authorization to federalize crimi-nal conduct.
Federal statutes have criminalized disparateactivity on this basis, such as the interstate trans-portation of women for prostitution or criminalsexual activity (the Mann Act), the interstate trans-portation of stolen motor vehicles (the Dyer Act),and the interstate transportation of kidnappingvictims (the Lindbergh Law). The Prohibition erawas predicated upon the federal government’s crim-inalization of the manufacture, transportation, andsale of alcoholic beverages in the Volstead Act. Theactivities of organized crime across state lines madethe federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organiza-tions Act legislation an appropriate use of federaljurisdiction. That statute (18 U.S.C. 1962) focuseson the use of proceeds derived from a “pattern ofracketeering activity” to acquire or maintain anyinterest in or to control any enterprise that isengaged in or that affects interstate or foreign com-merce. Included within the definition of a patternof racketeering activity is a list of acts that wouldbe chargeable as state or federal crimes. Thus, thisstatute defines a broad swath of state and federalcriminal activity that, with the requisite connectionto commerce, can be prosecuted as a federal crime.
Another significant topical area of federal crimi-nal law arises from the constitutionally based powerof the Congress to regulate the post office. Withinthis power is included the authority to criminalizethe use of the mails for a variety of criminal pur-poses. The federal mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C.1341 et seq.) includes schemes to both defraud andobtain money or property by means of false or
592—�—Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 592
fraudulent pretenses involving the use of the U.S.mails. The use of the mails is an essential elementof the crime, but it might well be a minor aspect ofthe fraud. The mailing need not even be carried outby the defendant; so long as the use of the mail isforeseeable, the mailing by anyone involved in thescheme is sufficient to satisfy this element of fed-eral jurisdiction. The use of the mails for the trans-mission of obscenity is likewise prohibited by 18U.S.C. 1461, which has allowed the federal prose-cution of the transmission of pornography. It isnotable that the use of the mail that allows federaljurisdiction need not be an interstate use of the mail,for all mail usage is within the federal purview byvirtue of the constitutional grant of power over thepost office to Congress. The federal criminal lawalso predicates crimes in which the telephone orother communications devices are used for fraud,transmission of obscenity, and so on. However, it isan essential element of those crimes that the useof these devices must be interstate or international,as the jurisdictional predicate for these offensesis found in the commerce power, not the control ofthe post office.
Clearly within the purview of federal law arethe civil rights laws that prohibit anyone acting onbehalf of a government—local, state, or federal—from violating any person’s rights, privileges, orimmunities that are secured or protected by theConstitution or laws of the United States. The laws,which impose civil liability on law enforcementpersonnel for actions that deprive persons of theirconstitutional rights, have as a corollary a federalcriminal provision (18 U.S.C. 242), which providesfor fines and imprisonment as a penalty for a crim-inal violation of a person’s civil rights. The ele-ments of this crime include not only the deprivationof rights by a person acting under color of law, butalso that the deprivation was done willfully. Somelaw enforcement personnel have been convictedof this crime and have been sentenced to prison,notably in the cases involving Rodney King in LosAngeles in 1993 and Abner Louima in New YorkCity in 1999. Without proof of criminal intent, onlycivil liability, that is, monetary damages, can beestablished for a violation of civil rights.
The decision of Congress, beginning in 1970, towage the War on Drugs through the federal criminallaw resulted in a vast expansion of that law, which,in its substance, largely duplicates the narcoticslaws of the states. In passing a comprehensive fed-eral drug law, Congress found that there was noway to differentiate interstate trafficking in con-trolled substances from intrastate trafficking andthat federal control of intrastate trafficking wasessential to the effective control of interstate traf-ficking, thus bringing all controlled substancesoffenses, no matter how localized, under the federalCommerce Clause umbrella. These federal nar-cotics laws, found in Title 21 of the United StatesCode, prohibit manufacturing, distributing, andpossessing controlled or counterfeit substances.The various controlled substances that are includedwithin these federal criminal provisions are foundin 21 U.S.C. 812, which sets up five separate sched-ules of controlled substances, differentiated by typeof substance. These schedules are established by theU.S. Department of Justice. The law establishes asliding structure of penalties, dependent upon thenature and quantity of the substance involved.Within these criminal provisions are found manda-tory minimum sentencing provisions, which estab-lish minimum sentences for these offenses, with thelength of the minimum dependent upon the type andquantity of controlled substance. A lengthier sen-tence is required if the offender has a prior felonydrug conviction. These mandatory minimum provi-sions establish very different consequences foroffenses involving powder as distinct from cocainebase, heroin, PCP, LSD, and so on and supercede theoperation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to theextent that a sentence shorter than the mandatoryminimum might be applicable. Mandatory minimumsentencing for controlled substance offenses hasbeen much criticized as having a disproportionatelysevere impact on low-level offenders as well as hav-ing a disparate impact on minority defendants. Thesentences imposed in federal court are often moresevere than those imposed for the same offenses inmany state courts; thus, the decision by the prosecu-tors as to where the charges should be brought canhave serious consequences for a defendant.
Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction—�—593
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 593
The scope and range of federal criminal law isbroadened by the inclusion (in Title 18, 371), ofconspiracy, applying generally when “two or morepersons conspire either to commit any offenseagainst the U.S., or to defraud the U.S., or anyagency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,and one or more of such persons do any act to effectthe object of the conspiracy.” While this general con-spiracy provision encompasses an agreement tocommit any federal offense and carries a maximumpenalty of five years for any conspiracy to commit afelony, other provisions identify more specific con-spiracy offenses, such as 18 U.S.C. 241, applicableto conspiracies to violate civil rights; 18 U.S.C. 956,which prohibits a conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim,or injure persons or damage property in a foreigncountry; and 21 U.S.C. 846, which is a part of thecontrolled substances law and prohibits a conspiracyto violate any portion of that law. The narcotics con-spiracy provision carries with it the potentiallylengthy penalty for the underlying violation of thedrug law that was the object of the conspiracy.
Until the passage of the Sentencing Reform Actof 1984, federal judges had discretion to impose anysentence within a statutory maximum on a defen-dant convicted of a federal crime. With the intentionof limiting this discretion and bringing national uni-formity to federal sentencing, the U.S. SentencingCommission was established to promulgate sentenc-ing guidelines. These guidelines now largely deter-mine the sentence imposed for the conviction of afederal crime. They use numerous factual elementsof the different federal crimes and also take intoaccount the criminal history of the defendant toestablish a grid of sentencing ranges. Since onlylimited departure from these ranges is authorized,federal judges are now largely constrained to sen-tence defendants within the guidelines. The sentenceimposed is, in many respects, determined by thecharging decisions of the prosecutor, which havea determinative impact on the range of permissiblesentences. Relief from sentencing guideline may beavailable at the request of the prosecution for thosedefendants who provide “substantial assistance” tolaw enforcement, usually by acting as informants toincriminate others in the same or different federal
law violations. Federal sentencing also includes theimposition of the death penalty for crimes involvingcertain homicides, as well as aggravated drugcrimes, treason, and espionage.
The Department of Justice, headed by the attorneygeneral, is responsible for the prosecution of federalcrimes and the operation of federal correctional facil-ities. Each judicial district has a U.S. Attorney’sOffice, which includes among its functions the prose-cution of federal crimes. Several law enforcement agen-cies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,the U.S. Marshals Service, the Drug EnforcementAdministration, and the Bureau of Prisons, whichoperates federal correctional facilities, are part of theDepartment of Justice. Other specialized law enforce-ment agencies operate separately. The U.S. PostalInspection Service, which investigates crimes involv-ing the use of the mail, the postal system, and itsemployees, reports to the postmaster general of theUnited States. Certain law enforcement agencies,such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service,the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Secret Service,which provide protective services and investigatecounterfeiting and certain financial and high technol-ogy crimes, have been integrated into the Departmentof Homeland Security.
Federal criminal law has expanded far beyondthe few crimes identified in the Constitution, pri-marily through the broad interpretation of congres-sional power to pass all necessary and proper lawsto carry out its functions. That expansion has onlybeen enhanced in recent years, with federal legisla-tion defining new crimes related to international ter-rorism (18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq.) in the wake of theSeptember 11, 2001, attacks. With Congress firmlycommitted to the increased involvement of the fed-eral government in all aspects of national and inter-national security, the role of federal law, federal lawenforcement, and the federal courts will continue todominate the criminal law arena.
Mary Gibbons
See also Death Penalty, Federally Eligible Crimes;Lindbergh Law; Mann Act; Motor Vehicle Theft Act;Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;Prohibition Law Enforcement; Volstead Act
594—�—Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 594
For Further Reading
LaFave, W. R. (2003). Substantive criminal law (2nd ed.).Eagan, MN: West.
LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., & King, N. J. 1 CriminalProcedure, §1.2(b) A Federal System That Is “OneAmong Many” (2nd ed. Supp. 2003).
Strazzela, J. A. (1998). The federalization of criminal law.Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, 8 and Article IIIWright, C., & Miller, A. (2003). Federal practice and proce-
dure: Federal rules of criminal procedure. St. Paul, MN:West.
� CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONCOMMAND, DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OFDEFENSE
The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command(USACIDC) houses all major U.S. Army investiga-tive operations. The Criminal Investigation Command(CID) is the major component of the USACIDC andis its primary criminal investigative organization.The creation of USACIDC and CID can be tracedback to the mid-1800s with the creation of theContinental Army and the creation of the Office ofthe Provost Marshal in 1776, followed two yearslater by the organization of the Provost Corp. Thiswas followed by passage of the Enrollment Act inMarch 1863, the first draft law, which forcedSecretary of War Edwin Stanton to create a policeforce to enforce the unpopular law and to arrestthose who attempted to desert.
During the Civil War the newly created ArmyPolice Force only investigated criminal acts basedon the Enrollment Act. All other criminal acts, suchas theft or murder, were investigated by variousprivate detective agencies, including the PinkertonDetective Agency. The army soon commissionedAlan Pinkerton, owner and operator of the PinkertonDetective Agency, a major. He utilized his militaryand law enforcement background to create the army’sfirst criminal division. This newly created inves-tigative branch not only investigated draft issues butalso all criminal acts within the army, includingpayroll theft and violent crimes.
The Criminal Division of the army remainedunchanged until 1917. When the United Statesentered into World War I, the demand for Americansoldiers to fight in France increased dramatically,causing a need for a larger military police force. InOctober 1917 the Military Police Corps was estab-lished. The Military Police Corps functioned wellas a law enforcement body during that time; how-ever, an increase in the crime rate also established aneed for an investigative component of the police corps.In November 1918, General John Pershing, provostmarshal general of the American ExpeditionaryForces, organized the first official Criminal Investig-ation Division of the Military Police Corps. TheCID’s original purpose was to detect and preventcrimes within the territory occupied by the AmericanExpeditionary Forces. It was intended to bringorder to the investigations conducted within thearmy, which had previously been inconsistent duein part to the discretionary powers of the provostmarshals, who had wide latitude in the managementof their units.
Originally the division chief reported directlyto the provost marshal general and directed theCID. However, operational control of the CriminalInvestigation Division remained with the variousprovost marshals. This allowed for no centralizedcontrol of investigative efforts within the CID; norwas there any centralized training or equipment.CID was relatively successful; however, the lack ofcentralization and training prevented the agencyfrom accomplishing its full mission. Despite theseorganizational improvements, the unit was rela-tively inactive in the years between World War I andWorld War II.
As the army expanded, though, military installa-tions faced new criminal challenges, and in 1964, asa result of Project Security Shield, the Departmentof Defense realized the need for increased trainingwithin CID as well as a more centralized focus forthe army’s criminal intelligence. It was not until1969, however, that most centralizing activitiestook place. The agency was placed directly underthe supervision of the provost marshal, who wascharged with supervising and guiding all investigativeelements of the CID. In March 1971 the secretary
Criminal Investigation Command, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—�—595
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 595
of defense directed the secretary of the army toofficially centralize a CID command that hadauthority and control over all army CID assets.
On September 17, 1971, the U.S. Army CriminalInvestigation Command was established as a majorarmy command. It was from this command that thecurrent Criminal Investigation Command was devel-oped. The modern Criminal Investigation Commandis responsible for conducting all criminal investiga-tions in which the U.S. Army may have an interest.The mission of the command is the same for both theinstallation and the battlefield environment, namely,to support the army through deployment, in peace andconflict, with highly trained soldier and governmentservice special agents and support personnel whofocus on the investigation of serious crimes; conduct-ing sensitive and serious investigations; collecting,analyzing, and disseminating criminal intelligence;conducting protective service operations; providingforensic laboratory support and logistical security;and maintaining U.S. Army criminal records.
Headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, CID isdirected by a major general. CID operates throughoutthe United States and abroad and employs morethan 2,000 people, 514 civilian and 1,056 active duty,49 National Guard, and 408 Army Reserve, in sixmajor divisions: Procurement and Fraud, ProtectiveServices, Field Investigative, Computer Crime Investi-gative, Criminal Records, and the Criminal Investi-gative Laboratory. Additional responsibilities includelogistical security for the transportation of equipmentto the battlefield, criminal intelligence, and criminalinvestigations of war crimes. Specialized training ofpersonnel has led to advances in investigations ofprocurement fraud and computer crimes.
Throughout its history the Criminal InvestigationDivision of the U.S. Army has gone through signif-icant changes in its organizational structure andits abilities to detect and prevent crime. However,throughout these changes, the common purpose andprinciple of CID has remanded steady. It is in thestability of its motto, “Do what has to be done,” thatthe CID detectives of the past can be linked with theagents of the future.
Robyn Diehl Lacks and Brian Kessler Lacks
See also Military Police, Department of the Army, Departmentof Defense; Military Policing; Pinkerton NationalDetective Agency
For Further Reading
Nelson, H., Jacobs, B. & Bluhm, R. K. (2001). The army.New York: Levin and Associates.
United States Army. [Online]. Available: http://www.army.milUnited States Army Criminal Investigation Command.
[Online]. Available: http://www.cid.army.mil Wright, R. K. (Ed.). (1992). Military police. Washington, DC:
U.S. Army Center of Military History.
� CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONDIVISION, ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
The primary function of the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is to implement and enforce pollu-tion control laws enacted by Congress. A staff ofapproximately 150 special field agents assigned tothe EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID)is responsible for pursuing violators of these laws.CID is essentially the law enforcement and inves-tigative branch of the EPA.
Although environmental crimes are definedbroadly, they have in common that they endangerhuman, animal, or plant life through misuse of theoverall environment, whether through industrialwaste, pollution, or other harmful acts that threaten theland, air, or water supply. About half of all EPA inves-tigations involve violations of toxic waste transporta-tion laws and illegal dumping of hazardous materials.
In addition to criminal prosecutions, the EPA alsorelies on administrative and civil sanctions to curtailviolations of federal environmental laws. But sinceEPA CID’s creation in 1982, the EPA has movedfrom administrative or civil adjudication to a greaterreliance on criminal prosecutions. For example,during the 1970s, approximately 130 cases werereferred to the U.S. Department of Justice for crim-inal prosecutions for the entire decade, but by the1990s more than that number were referred in oneyear alone, with 256 cases in 1995. The amountspecifically referred annually from EPA CID hasremained close to that number since.
596—�—Criminal Investigation Division, Environmental Protection Agency
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 596
Because of the increasing number of criminalprosecutions, the enforcement authority of EPAagents has steadily expanded. In 1988, Congressgranted full law enforcement authority and the rightto bear arms to EPA agents. When it passed the1990 Pollution Prosecution Act, Congress alsoauthorized expansion of the special agent force toits current size. Agents may be assigned to one of15 area offices or 29 resident offices throughout thecountry. CID special agents, who are empowered toenforce all federal laws in addition to environmen-tal violations, receive their basic training at theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center inGlynco, Georgia. They then receive advanced train-ing in environmental law and supporting regula-tions. They are also taught protocols for samplingand analyzing hazardous waste and the handlingof hazardous materials. Training includes legallydefensible and environmental safe methods of gath-ering evidence at scenes of environmental crimes,where missteps may result in danger to the agentsthemselves and to surrounding areas.
Agents are also trained in financial investigation,because many environmental crimes involve notonly large corporations but segments of organizedcrime, groups who are often able to hide theircrimes through subsidiary companies or throughcreative bookkeeping. Due of the complexity ofmany of their investigations, EPA CID agents oftenwork in partnership with other federal agencies andstate and local levels of law enforcement and regu-latory agencies.
In the past special agents were recruited primar-ily from other federal law enforcement agencies,but this is no longer as prevalent. Requirements aresimilar to those for special agents in other federallaw enforcement agencies; specifically, a candidatemust be a U.S. citizen, must have at least a four-year college degree, must be in excellent health, andmust pass background, medical, and physical exam-inations. A background in environmental science isnot required.
The small number of agents and the large amountof hazardous waste and other toxic materials thatare transported or illegally disposed of results inspecial agents often relying on inside information,
or tips, on illegal behavior provided from corporateemployees. It has been estimated that there are atleast 264 million metric tons of hazardous wastegenerated annually, and it is difficult to estimatewhat portion of that is improperly disposed of;therefore the risk of plant, animal, or human conta-mination is a constant. Often agents become awarethat illegal dumping has occurred because ofdamage done to people or to the environment.Investigations are complicated because environ-mental crimes, as opposed to street level crimes, arerarely discovered immediately after they occur.As concerns about the environment continue toexpand, so will the duties and responsibilities of theEPA’s CID agents.
Lisa Thomas Briggs
For Further Reading
Drielak, S. (1998). Environmental crime: Evidence gatheringand investigative techniques. Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas.
Environmental Protection Agency. [Online]. Available:http://www.epa.gov
Mintz, J. (1995). Enforcement at the EPA: High stakes andhard choices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ross, D. (1996). A review of EPA criminal, civil and adminis-trative enforcement data. In S. Edwards, T. Edwards, &C. Fields (Eds.), Environmental crime and criminality:Theoretical and practical issues (pp. 55–76). New York:Garland.
Situ, Y., & D. Emmons. (2000). Environmental crime: Thecriminal justice system’s role in protecting the environ-ment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Environmentalcriminal enforcement: A law enforcement officer’s guide.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Meeting theenvironmental challenge: EPA’s review of progress andnew directions in environmental protection. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
� CRITICAL INCIDENTRESPONSE GROUP
The formation of the Critical Incident ResponseGroup (CIRG) in 1994 occurred in the wake of theperceived and actual failures by the Federal Bureau
Critical Incident Response Group—�—597
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 597
of Investigation (FBI) in its handling of a numberof high-profile armed confrontations, including theshooting at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the siege ofthe Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. The conceptbehind the CIRG is to bring together, under a uni-fied command structure, the various componentswithin the FBI that respond to time-sensitive lawenforcement duties within the bureau’s area ofjurisdiction.
Although both the Ruby Ridge and the BranchDavidian incidents began as investigations of theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF—since 2003 renamed the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), the outcomesinfluenced changes in federal response to casesrequiring multiagency, tactical response. In 1992 anFBI sniper shot and killed Vicky Weaver, the wifeof Randy Weaver, who was wanted in conjunctionwith an investigation into white supremacist groupsin Northern Idaho. Weaver and a family friend,Kevin Harris, were also wounded, and the govern-ment later paid Weaver more than $3 million in awrongful death suit. On February 28, 1993, raids onthe Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas,resulted in the deaths of 86 residents, including alarge number of children; the deaths of four BATFagents; and the wounding of an additional 16agents. Public and media responses were highlycritical of the actions of special agents at the scenes.
To prevent similar incidents, the Critical IncidentResponse Group works to combine a tactical lawenforcement response with behavioral and inves-tigative resources to enable a more nimble responseto a variety of complex law enforcement situations.These include incidents that are time sensitive andhighly technical, including hostage situations, bar-ricaded subjects, and other incidents that may relyon faulty intelligence reports, may involve largenumbers of people, or are likely to evolve quicklybeyond the initial set of facts.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks onthe United States, the FBI has refocused its attentionon the issues of terrorism and the need for a proac-tive approach to counter this threat. Given the natureof its responsibilities and capabilities, the CIRGreflects this shift in focus, with tasks that also includeresponses to such varied crimes as acts of child
abduction, hostage taking, and high-risk repetitiveviolent crimes. The CIRG is currently divided intothree primary branches, each of which is furthersubdivided for enhanced specialization. The threebranches, all housed at the FBI National Academyin Quantico, Virginia, are the Operations SupportBranch, the Tactical Support Branch, and theNational Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.
THE OPERATIONALAND TACTICAL BRANCHES
The Operational Support Branch is divided into theCrisis Negotiation, Crisis Management, and RapidDeployment/Logistics units. The Crisis NegotiationUnit (CNU) responds to and manages both domesticand international kidnapping incidents involvingU.S. citizens. Agents assigned to this unit also pro-vide technical assistance and support to FBI fieldnegotiators and domestic law enforcement negotia-tors. CNU members also have trained more than 300crisis negotiators in the 56 FBI field offices and con-duct research on new strategies to bring critical inci-dents to a successful resolution. The CNU maintainstwo database systems closely aligned with its work:the Law Enforcement Negotiation Support Systemand the Hostage Barricade Database System.
The Crisis Management Unit is the FBI’s liaisonwith other federal agencies and with international,state, and local agencies. Its mission is to opera-tionally support FBI field units during majorinvestigations and critical incidents. The RapidDeployment Logistics Unit coordinates deploymentrequirements and provides logistical support forCIRG specialists.
The Tactical Support Branch consists of theOperations Training Unit and the Hostage RescueTeam (HRT). The HRT is considered by many to bethe premier national tactical response team. It hasthe capability to deploy within four hours of activa-tion to effect the rescue of individuals held againsttheir will in either criminal or terrorist hostage situ-ations. At the end of 2003, the HRT was comprisedof slightly fewer than 100 special agents. Membershave been deployed on more than 200 assignmentswith such varied missions as hostage rescue, barri-caded subjects, high-risk arrest and warrant service
598—�—Critical Incident Response Group
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 598
raids, dignitary protection, tactical surveys, manhuntand rural operations, maritime operations, and divesearches. The HRT has also been deployed in crimeprevention operations, including presidential inau-gurations, political conventions, the Olympic games,and other high-profile sporting events. Membershave extensive training and specialization in con-ducting operations involving weapons of massdestruction. The Operations Training Unit supportsthe training component and the operational man-agement requirements of the HRT.
NATIONAL CENTER FORTHE ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT CRIME
The final component of CIRG is probably the bestknown to members of the public. The NationalCenter for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC)was formed in the early 1980s as the product ofa planning grant awarded by the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention and the NationalInstitute of Justice. It is currently comprised of threeprograms, the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), theChild Abduction Serial Murder Investigation ResourceCenter (CASMIRC), and the Violent CriminalApprehension Program (VICAP). Each program isdesigned to assist law enforcement agencies through-out the world in the investigation of various types ofunusual or repetitive violent crimes. The missionof the NCAVC is performed through a combinationof research, investigative, and operational supportand by providing training to officers working in alltypes of law enforcement agencies in the UnitedStates and elsewhere.
The objective of the BAU is to afford operationaland investigative support to police officers by pro-viding behavioral-based case experience to time-sen-sitive criminal investigations. By performing areview of the criminal activity from both an inves-tigative and a behavioral perspective, agents of theBAU conduct a criminal investigative analysis. Thisprocess encompasses an analysis of the criminal actitself, offender behavior, and the interplay betweenthe offender and the victim. Among the servicesthat the unit members can provide are suggestinginvestigative strategies, conducting crime analysis,developing profiles of unknown offenders, making
threat assessment analysis, providing critical incidentanalysis, developing interview strategies, assisting inmajor case management, offering search warrantassistance, devising prosecutorial and trial strategies,and providing expert testimony.
CASMIRC was formed by legislative mandateof Congress under the 1998 Protection ofChildren from Sexual Predators Act. The goal ofCASMIRC is to assist federal, state, and locallaw enforcement agencies in incidents of childabductions, mysterious disappearances of children,child homicide, and serial murder anywhere inthe United States. CASMIRC also maintains acentralized database of case information submit-ted by state and local agencies concerning childabductions, children who disappear under myste-rious circumstances, child homicides, and serialmurder.
The final component of CIRG is VICAP. Begunat the FBI Academy in 1985, the primary missionof VICAP is to identify unsolved murder casesexhibiting similar characteristics and to provideinformation that can facilitate multiagency investiga-tions and successful apprehension and prosecutionof serial offenders. VICAP is undoubtedly the bestknown of the CIRG units since it has been widelywritten about and its activities have been docu-mented and fictionalized in a number of motion pic-tures and television shows, including the film Silenceof the Lambs and the television show Profiler. It hasalso produced the culmination of 10 years of researchpublished in 1992 as the Crime ClassificationManual that established a standardized system forthe investigation and classification of violent crimes.Recently, VICAP has undergone significant redesignsand upgrades to create a user-friendly system acces-sible to a much greater number of local policeagencies. The system can now also support the stor-age of scanned photographs, maps, or other graphics.VICAP members are also exploring the possibilityof developing an investigative analysis tool for sexualassaults and of providing access to a nationwidedatabase. Through the VICAP system, there havebeen documented clearances of 40-year-old homi-cide investigations and the identification of a homi-cide victim found 3,000 miles from his last knownlocation.
Critical Incident Response Group—�—599
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 599
As the FBI adapts to its mission shift in the after-math of the terrorist attacks, the CIRG is upgradingits capabilities in assessing threats to potential tar-gets and in response to specific threats, in creatingbehavioral profiles of potential terrorist and theirorganizations, and in enhancing its response topotential or actual threats anywhere in the country.
John F. Waldron
For Further Reading
Douglas, J. E., Burgess A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K.(1992). Crime classification manual. New York:Lexington Books.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for theAnalysis of Violent Crime. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Operations Support Branch.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/osb.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tactical Support Branch.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/tact.htm
Harris, T. (1988). The silence of the lambs. New York: St.Martin’s Press.
Ressler, R. K. (1992). Whoever fights monsters. New York:St. Martin’s Press.
Witzig, E. W. (2003) The new ViCAP: More user-friendly andused by more agencies. The FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, 72, 1–6.
600—�—Critical Incident Response Group
C-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 9:43 PM Page 600
D� DEATH PENALTY,
FEDERALLY ELIGIBLE CRIMES
The federal government, as well as the individualstate governments, can impose the death penalty. Itcan impose a death sentence in federal courts or inmilitary court under the Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice. American Indian courts try capital cases ifthe crime is committed on tribal land. If a capitalcrime is subject to both state and federal jurisdic-tion, the federal court takes precedence, althoughthis does not deny the state’s right to prosecute. Thepresident of the United States is the only source ofclemency for federal capital crimes.
OFFENSES
In the modern era, murder is the preeminent capitalcrime. All capital punishment jurisdictions take theoffense of murder and surround it with a variety ofspecial circumstances that make it a death-eligibleoffense. Murder can be capital or noncapital. Thesurrounding special circumstances create the possi-bility for execution.
Categories of federally eligible capital crimes aremurder or crimes resulting in death, treason, espi-onage, and trafficking in large quantities of drugs.Crimes that might entail the federal death penaltyare set out in the United States Code (see Table D-1).
Aggravating circumstances, one of more of whichmust be present to trigger a death penalty, and miti-gating circumstances, which would allow a jury toforego the death penalty, are in the United StatesCode at Section 3592. Aggravating circumstancesinclude age of the victim, death during another crime,pecuniary gain, heinous, cruel or depraved behavior,previous conviction, or premeditation. Mitigating fac-tors are introduced at the penalty phase; they do notprevent a guilty verdict but make the death penaltyless likely. Mitigating factors include mental illness,age of felon, duress, background of abuse, or victimconsent. Courts allow nonstatutory aggravating andmitigating circumstances as well.
A FEDERAL OFFENSEBECOMES A CAPITAL OFFENSE
The decision to seek the death penalty for a death-penalty-eligible crime is the U.S. attorney general’s,usually on recommendation from federal prosecu-tors. Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed thissequence; he recommended death in at least 28cases in which prosecutors did not. AttorneyGeneral Janet Reno, who served from 1993 to 2001during the administration of President William J.Clinton, also changed procedures in 1995 to createa Main Justice committee to review all capital-eligible cases, not only the ones brought forward by
601
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 601
602—�—Death Penalty, Federally Eligible Crimes
8 U.S.C. 1342—Murder related to thesmuggling of aliens.
8 U.S.C. 32-34—Destruction of aircraft,motor vehicles, or related facilitiesresulting in death.
8 U.S.C. 36—Murder committed duringa drug-related drive-by shooting.
8 U.S.C. 37—Murder committed at anairport serving international civilaviation.
8 U.S.C. 115(b)(3) [by cross-referenceto 18 U.S.C. 1111] —Retaliatorymurder of a member of the immediatefamily of law enforcement officials.
8 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247—Civilrights offenses resulting in death.
8 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to18 U.S.C. 1111]—Murder of a memberof Congress, an important executiveofficial, or a Supreme Court justice.
8 U.S.C. 794—Espionage.
8 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i)—Deathresulting from offenses involvingtransportation of explosives,destruction of government property,or destruction of property related toforeign or interstate commerce.
8 U.S.C. 924(i)—Murder committed bythe use of a firearm during a crime ofviolence or a drug-trafficking crime.
8 U.S.C. 930—Murder committedin a federal government facility.
8 U.S.C. 1091—Genocide.
8 U.S.C. 1111—First-degree murder.
18 U.S.C. 1114—Murder of a federaljudge or law enforcement official.
8 U.S.C. 1116—Murder of a foreignofficial.
8 U.S.C. 1118—Murder by a federalprisoner.
8 U.S.C. 1119—Murder of a U.S.national in a foreign country.
8 U.S.C. 1120—Murder by an escapedfederal prisoner already sentenced tolife imprisonment.
8 U.S.C. 1121—Murder of a state orlocal law enforcement official orother person aiding in a federalinvestigation; murder of a statecorrectional officer.
8 U.S.C. 1201—Murder during akidnapping.
8 U.S.C. 1203—Murder during ahostage taking.
8 U.S.C. 1503—Murder of a courtofficer or juror.
8 U.S.C. 1512—Murder with the intentof preventing testimony by a witness,victim, or informant.
8 U.S.C. 1513—Retaliatory murder of awitness, victim, or informant.
8 U.S.C. 1716—Mailing of injuriousarticles with intent to kill or resultingin death.
18 U.S.C. 1751 [by cross-reference to18 U.S.C. 1111]—Assassination orkidnapping resulting in the deathof the president or vice president.
18 U.S.C. 1958—Murder for hire.
18 U.S.C. 1959—Murder involved in aracketeering offense.
8 U.S.C. 1992—Willful wrecking of atrain resulting in death.
8 U.S.C. 2113—Bank-robbery-relatedmurder or kidnapping.
8 U.S.C. 2119—Murder related to acarjacking.
8 U.S.C. 2245—Murder related torape or child molestation.
8 U.S.C. 2251—Murder related tosexual exploitation of children.
8 U.S.C. 2280—Murder committedduring an offense against maritimenavigation.
8 U.S.C. 2281—Murder committedduring an offense against amaritime fixed platform.
8 U.S.C. 2332—Terrorist murder ofa U.S. national in another country.
8 U.S.C. 2332a—Murder by the useof a weapon of mass destruction.
8 U.S.C. 2340—Murder involvingtorture.
8 U.S.C. 2381—Treason.
8 U.S.C. 848(e)—Murder related to acontinuing criminal enterprise orrelated murder of a federal, state,or local law enforcement officer.
49 U.S.C. 1472-1473—Death resultingfrom aircraft hijacking.
Table 1 Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty, 2001
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Capital punishment 2001. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 602
prosecutors. She also revised the United StatesAttorneys’ Manual to address a regional lack ofuniformity in procedure and prosecution.
The number of federal executions is small incomparison to the states. For the period 1930-2000, itwas less than 1% of the total: 33 federal executionscompared to 4,509 state executions. From 1963 untilthe execution of Oklahoma City bomber TimothyMcVeigh in 2001, there were no federal executions.The states executed 864 people from 1963 to 2000,but only 46 of those during the 1963-1977 period pre-ceding the Supreme Court decision in 1976 in Greggv. Georgia, which reinvigorated capital punishment.
As in the states, federal capital convictions andexecutions appear to be biased against nonwhites.A Justice Department study commissioned byPresident Clinton concluded that minority defen-dants are overrepresented at every stage of the fed-eral process, and the death penalty is less oftenapplied when the victim is a minority and moreoften applied when the victim is white. JusticeWilliam Brennan, dissenting in McCleskey v. Kemp(1987), characterized the effort to eliminate racialarbitrariness in death penalty sentencing as “plainlydoomed to failure” (p. 320).
HISTORY
Federal capital offenses have changed over time. Incolonial America, people could have been executedfor any felony, including adultery, blasphemy, per-jury, sodomy, and witchcraft. The Constitution makesno reference to capital punishment. The First Congressenacted death penalty legislation for 12 federaloffenses and required a mandatory death penalty.The first execution under federal law was of ThomasBird in June 1790, who was hanged for murder.When the Fifth Amendment was adopted in 1791, itacknowledged capital punishment through a limit:“No person shall be held to answer for a capitalcrime . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or prop-erty, without due process of law.”
Over the years, the number of possible capitalcrimes and use of the mandatory penalty declined.Federal capital prosecutions—those of the assassi-nators of presidents, for instance, or of Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg for espionage involving the passingof atomic secrets to the Soviet Union in the1940s—have tended to be high profile crimes inwhich the nation took an interest. Likewise,Congress has made capital those crimes that strikea public chord—kidnapping, for instance, such aswhen pending legislation pertaining to kidnappingwas quickly passed after the kidnapping in 1932 offamed aviator Charles A. Lindbergh’s baby fromthe family home in New Jersey. When the SupremeCourt, in Coker v. Georgia, disallowed rape as acapital crime in 1977, there appeared to be a legalconsensus that the federal death penalty withoutdeath of a victim would be unconstitutional. Withthe advent of world terrorism at the end of the 20thcentury though, that proposition seems less sure inthe 21st century.
DEATH PENALTY CASESIN THE SUPREME COURT
Two Supreme Court cases inaugurated the moderndeath penalty era. In Furman v. Georgia, the Courtfound in 1972 that the Georgia death penalty wasunconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’sprohibition of cruel and unusual punishmentbecause of its “arbitrary and capricious administra-tion of capital punishment.” Georgia left to a jury’s“untrammeled discretion” whether or not to applythe death penalty. Furman’s majority did not findcapital punishment inherently unconstitutional, butthis was widely taken as its meaning, especiallysince the decision coincided with the height ofabolitionist public opinion.
In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court in 1976reinstated capital punishment. The Court found thedeath penalty not to be cruel and unusual punish-ment if the legislation were written with “necessaryprocedural safeguards.” In Gregg’s aftermath,federal and 38 state statutes were rewritten toprovide juries with guidelines in imposing thedeath penalty. Most, including federal prosecutions,now have a bifurcated process: a trial to establishguilt or innocence, followed by a sentencing hear-ing, with the same jury or another jury hearingevidence for and against the death penalty and
Death Penalty, Federally Eligible Crimes—�—603
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 603
constrained by mitigating and aggravating factors.Under federal law, if a penalty jury is unable todecide unanimously for death, the penalty becomeslife imprisonment. This was the outcome in the 2003espionage case against former Air Force officerBrian P. Regan in which the attorney general hadrequested execution.
Recent developments include Atkins v. Virginia,where the Court in 2002 declared it unconstitutionalto execute the mentally retarded, and Ring v.Arizona, in which the Court ruled in 2003 that it wasunconstitutional to have a judge rather than a jurydecide if aggravating factors make a case capital.
FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY LAWS
The federal death penalty statute was reinstatedpost-Gregg in 1988 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act.It authorized the death penalty for drug-relatedkillings. In 1989, in the midst of President GeorgeH. W. Bush’s War on Drugs, Congress passed theDrug Kingpin Death Penalty Act, providing thedeath penalty for “continuing criminal enterprises”involving narcotics and for drug violations involv-ing large amounts of drugs. There have been suc-cessful prosecutions but by late 2003 the deathpenalty had not been applied under this statute.Unlike espionage or treason, there is no commonlaw tradition of execution for nonhomicide crimesand its constitutionality is in doubt.
In 1994, Congress passed a $30 billion omnibuscrime bill, Title VI of which is the Federal DeathPenalty Act. It federalized at least 40 crimes notpreviously eligible for federal death penalty consid-eration. Among these are murder for hire, sexualabuse crimes resulting in death, car jacking result-ing in death, fatal drive-by shootings, and theterrorism provision under which Timothy McVeighwas prosecuted for the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,bombing.
In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act (AEDPA) federalized another fouroffenses. The major death penalty purpose of thislaw, however, was to decrease time on death row.Average time on death row had expanded from 51months in 1977 to 133 months in 1997. The AEDPA
provided expedited review and limited the scope ofreview for federal habeas corpus petitions in statedeath penalty cases.
Janice K. Dunham
See also Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act;Crimes, Federal Jurisdiction; Violent Crime Controland Law Enforcement Act
For Further Reading
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Banner, S. (2002). The death penalty: An American history.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).Death Penalty Information Center. [Online]. Available:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.orgDieter, R. C. (1995). On the front line: Law enforcement views
on the death penalty. Washington, DC: Death PenaltyInformation Center.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1977).McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).Palmer, L. J., Jr. (2001). Encyclopedia of capital punishment in
the United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2003). U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). The federal death penalty
system: A statistical survey (1988-2000). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.(2002). Capital punishment. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. [Online]. Available:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
� DEFENSE CRIMINALINVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
Established in 1981, the Defense CriminalInvestigative Service (DCIS) is the investigativearm of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)Inspector General. The original Inspector GeneralAct of 1978 did not call for an Inspector General forthe DoD, but later amendments did. Headquarteredin Arlington, Virginia, DCIS is a civilian lawenforcement agency that employs about 400 crimi-nal investigators and support staff and has offices inmore than 40 cities throughout the United Statesand Europe. DCIS special agents have the authorityto make arrests, execute search warrants, and serve
604—�—Defense Criminal Investigative Service
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 604
subpoenas. Additionally, they conduct interviewsand appear as witnesses before grand juries, atcriminal and civil trials, and at administrative pro-ceedings. Individuals hired as investigative agentsare trained through the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center, in Glynco, Georgia, and undergo a15-week Basic Agent Training Course in the fol-lowing training programs: Criminal InvestigatorTraining Program, Inspector General InvestigationsTraining, and the DCIS Special Agent BasicTraining Program.
The DCIS conducts all personnel investigationsfor all components of the DoD. It investigates crim-inal, civil, and administrative violations impactingthe DoD. These investigations primarily involvecontract and procurement fraud, antitrust violations,bribery, corruption, large-scale thefts of governmentproperty, health care fraud, and intrusions into DoDcomputer systems. At present, DCIS prioritiesinclude terrorism, product substitution, cyber crimesand computer intrusion, and technology transfers.
The DCIS is one of four DoD criminal investiga-tive organizations (DCIOs) and is empowered toconduct its investigations under both the UnitedStates Code and the Military Code of Justice.The other three DCIOs, the Naval Security andInvestigate Command, the Army Criminal Inves-tigative Command, and the Air Force Office ofSpecial Investigation, are similarly empowered. Thisdual jurisdiction was challenged in 1987 as a viola-tion of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385)which generally prohibits the military from func-tioning in a civilian law enforcement capacity butwas upheld when the federal court for the Districtof Columbia circuit found that the DoD inspectorgeneral could issue subpoenas in a price-fixing caseand could demand that the company under investi-gation deliver the requested documents to militaryofficers on a military installation (United States vAero Mayflower Transit Co. Inc.).
INVESTIGATIVE CONCERNS
DCIS has a broad investigative mandate. Agentsare involved with such national security issues asterrorism prevention, technology protection, and
computer network defense and with economiccrime investigations into product substitution andpublic corruption. Specialized computer forensicspecial agents have specialized training in develop-ing computer-based evidence.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terroristattacks DCIS expanded its traditional duties toinclude providing investigative support to theFederal Bureau of Investigation as part of the con-tinuing task force investigations (Joint Terrorismand Antiterrorism Task Forces) into the attacks.During the period immediately following September11, 2001 agents in all regions of the country partic-ipated in interviews and arrests; served subpoenas;conducted record checks, searches, and surveil-lance; assisted in essential security operations; andprovided computer forensics support. DCIS alsoresponded to requests for antiterrorism-related activi-ties at DoD agencies and contractor facilities.Similarly, the DCIS continues to provide agents andsupport in the area of computer network defenseand plays an active role in the DoD Joint Task Forcefor Computer Network Operations and the NationalInformation Protection Center at the Departmentof Justice.
Investigation and prevention of the illegal trans-fer of strategic technologies, weapons systems,components, and programs to proscribed nationsand terrorist organizations posing a threat tonational security continue to be a significant focusfor DCIS. This also includes the illegal diversion ormovement of all forms of high technology, infor-mation, and capabilities involving weapons of massdestruction.
Forms of computer crimes investigated by theDCIS include child pornography, Web page hack-ings, stalking, and insider abuse. DCIS providescriminal investigative resources to suspected com-puter crimes and computer intrusions; disseminatescriminal intelligence to assist in protecting theDefense Information Infrastructure (DII); acts as aliaison with DoD and other government agencies;provides assistance in assessing, reporting, andcorrecting vulnerabilities in the DII; and providescomputer forensics support in the seizing andanalysis of digital evidence.
Defense Criminal Investigative Service—�—605
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 605
ECONOMIC CRIMES
One of the highest investigative and prosecutionpriorities for DCIS continues to be in respect to coun-terfeit material and other forms of unauthorized prod-uct substitution within the consumer marketplace. Anarea of increased emphasis is readiness enhancementthrough the detection and investigation of defective orsubstituted products that involve either safety of flightissues or have a critical application in this area.
The DCIS also investigates allegations of fraud andabuse in DoD environmental programs, includingenvironmental terrorism and contract fraud in relationto the delivery, removal, transport, and disposal ofhazardous material and waste from DoD installations.
Public corruption is the betrayal of public trustby elected or appointed U.S. government officialswho demand, solicit, seek, accept, receive, or agreeto receive anything of value in return for preferredtreatment. A major concern for DCIS is health carefraud. Significant resources are contributed to theinvestigation of all allegations of fraud committed byhealth care providers throughout the DoD MilitaryHealth Services System (which provides health careto active duty and retired military personnel andtheir family members).
Included in DCIS’s financial crime focus aredefective pricing, cost or labor mischarging, progresspayment fraud, fast pay fraud, government purchasecard, antitrust, and economic espionage. These typesof investigations may be handled individually or inconjunction with other law enforcement agencies. In1985 DCIS joined with the FBI and the InternalRevenue Service in “Operation Defcon,” an investi-gation into defense contracts and subcontracts kick-backs in Los Angeles. More recently, in early 2004,it opened an investigation into possible fraud con-nected with allegations that DBR, a subsidiary of theU.S. company Halliburton, and its Kuwaiti subcon-tractor may have overcharged the U.S. governmentfor trucking fuel from Kuwait into Iraq.
TECHNICAL OPERATIONS
The rise of computer use in virtually every levelof business has led to an increase in the abilityto detect electronic evidence of criminal activity.
Increasingly, business details, activities, and recordsare created and saved on computers. The DCISemploys special agents, known as computer forensicspecial agents, who are specially trained to seize,protect, and analyze computer evidence.
DCIS focuses much of its investigative resourcesin the areas of procurement and acquisition—specifically, allegations involving complex fraud bylarge DoD contractors and suspected criminal viola-tions affecting DoD resources and programs. Theseinvestigations primarily involve contract and pro-curement fraud, bribery, corruption, kickbacks,antitrust violations, and large-scale thefts of govern-ment property. In addition, the DCIS conducts spe-cial operations in the form of undercover operations,sensitive cases and security, and criminal intelli-gence. In recent years DCIS activities have includedthe investigation into allegations against companiessuspected of exporting military technology on theU.S. Munitions List without obtaining the appropri-ate licenses from the U.S. Department of State, aswell as a 100 billion dinar counterfeit ring in Iraq.
Deborah L. Sawers
See also Economic Crime; Federal Bureau of Investigation;Inspectors General, Offices of; Posse Comitatus Act
For Further Reading
Defense Criminal Investigative Service. [Online]. Available:http://www.dodig.osd.mil/INV/DCIS/
Department of Defense. (2003). The DoD role in homelandsecurity: Defense study and report sent to Congress, July2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Department of Defense Instruction 5505.2, Criminal Investiga-tions of Fraud Offenses, 02/06/2003. [Online]. Available:www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/55052.htm
H.R. 104-131. National Defense Authorization Act for fiscalyear 1996. Report of the Committee on National Security,House of Representatives on H.R. 1530. June 1, 1995.[Online]. Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgiin/epquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(hr131)
Ivanovic, D., & Hedges, M. (2004, Feb. 24). Halliburton facescriminal investigation; Pentagon probing alleged over-charges for Iraq fuel. Houston Chronicle, p. A1.
Inspector General United States Department of Defense.(2004). Semiannual report to the Congress October 1,2003-March 31, 2004. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office. [Online]. Available: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/sar/April04SAR.pdf.
606—�—Defense Criminal Investigative Service
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 606
McChesney, K. (1988, March). Operation Defcon: A multiagency approach to defense fraud investigations, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, pp. 16–19.
Nypaver, S. (1989, March). Department of Defense InspectorGeneral subpoena. Army Lawyer, pp. 17–21.
Seventh survey of white-collar crime. (1992) AmericanCriminal Law Review, 29, pp. 169–770.
Special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service:Authority to execute warrants and make arrests, 10 UnitedStates Code 1585a (2004).
United States v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. Inc. 831 F2d 1142(D.C. Cir. 1987).
� DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION, OFFICEOF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
In the 1960s and 1970s federal spending increasedwith the awarding of federal grants and contracts.As a result, fraud, waste, and abuse of federal fundsbecame a considerable problem in the federal gov-ernment, and the executive and legislative branchesof the government became alarmed when it was dis-closed how much money was lost. The InspectorGeneral Act was enacted in October 1978 in aneffort to address the problem, by establishing anOffice of Inspector General (OIG) in most federaldepartments and agencies. The act combined auditand investigative functions within one office toprovide leadership that would promote economy,efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration ofprograms and operations and to prevent and detectfraud and abuse in programs and operations.
The act, for the first time, gave the Offices ofInspectors General independence and authority intheir agencies and established a tie between theinspector general and Congress. In the Departmentof Education the OIG is primarily involved withinvestigating how federal education programs aremanaged and how federal funds are used. The OIGalso investigates activities of Education Departmentemployees and recipients of department moneywhen any mismanagement is suspected. On the stateand local levels, the OIG reviews the expenditure offederal education funds. In addition, the OIG auditsawards made to profit and nonprofit organizations.
STUDENT AID FRAUD
Since its inception, the OIG has investigated andexposed numerous cases of fraud, waste, and abusein the Department of Education. Investigations overthe years have resulted in indictments, arrests, con-victions, and jail and prison sentences. The issuesunder investigation have varied and have includedanything from student aid fraud to misuse of fundsallocated for migrant workers. The Office of theInspector General maintains a fraud hotline forcitizens to report unlawful activities, maintainingthe confidentiality of the informant.
A major area of investigation for the OIG isstudent loan waste, fraud and abuse. In 2003, OIGstaff estimated that $336 million in Pell grants, themajor grant program to U.S. students, was improp-erly disbursed because applicants understated theirincome in fiscal year 2001. The department hasrequested changes in the Internal Revenue Code topermit matching tax information on income withinformation provided on student loan applications.The OIG also audits agencies used by the govern-ment to guarantee the loans and investigates finan-cial aid consulting businesses, more than 400 ofwhich were prosecuted between 2001 and 2003 forcertifying false federal income tax returns thatpermitted ineligible students to qualify for financialaid. Other cases have involved false citizenshipinformation submitted on behalf of non-U.S. citizenstudents and waste and abuse in the Federal FamilyEducation Loan program that disburses fundsdirectly to students who are enrolled in non-U.S.schools.
The semiannual reports of the OIG provide acomprehensive picture of the activities and issuesdealt with by the OIG throughout its history. Manyof the topics in these reports have been reported bythe media and in newspapers, educational journals,and newsletters. Each of the semiannual reports isarranged differently, but all the reports emphasizethe activities and accomplishments of the OIG. Inaddition to providing an in-depth review of theactions taken over the six-month period, detailedstatistical tables are supplied. Since the Office ofInspector General has the responsibility for all levels
Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General—�—607
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 607
of education, the impact of audits and investigationsis significant for ensuring access to quality educa-tion for all citizens of the United States.
One of the newest goals set forth in a semiannualreport is to support the president’s mandate to expandthe electronic government. The latest initiative takenin this area is completing an audit of the department’sCritical Infrastructure Protection program, which pro-tects its cyber-assets. The OIG also conducted investi-gations of crimes involving computer networks in thedepartment, including Web site defacement and unau-thorized access by other countries. Cyber-security isof particular concern and this area is certain to receiveconsiderable attention in the future by the OIG.
The OIG faces many challenges in its efforts toprovide the best service possible to the Americanpublic. Its investigations are aimed not only atuncovering criminal activities, but also at maintain-ing fiscal integrity while continuing to improveprogram delivery and program effectiveness.
Sandra Shoiock Roff
See also Inspectors General, Offices of
For Further Reading
Carter, T. A. (2003, March 12). Education Department man-agement. Congressional testimony of the DeputyInspector General, Department of Education, before theSubcommittee on Select Education of the HouseCommittee on Education and the Workforce. Availablefrom EBSCOhost, MasterFile, Premier database, acces-sion number: 32Y2917093013.
Department of Education. [Online]. Office of InspectorGeneral. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html?src=mr
Higgins, J. P. Jr. (2003, July 9). Waste, fraud, and abuse infederal mandatory programs. Congressional testimonyof the Inspector General, Department of Education,before the House Budget Committee. Available fromEBSCOhost, MasterFile, Premier database, accessionnumber: 32Y3844306980.
Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, Stat.1101 (October 12, 1978).
Kaiser, F. M. (1992, Summer). Full law enforcement authorityfor offices of inspector general: Causes, concerns, andcautions. Police Studies, 15, 87–89.
Light, P. C. (1993). Monitoring government: Inspectors gen-eral and the search for accountability. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
Newcomer, K., & Grob, G. (2004, September). Federal Officesof the Inspector General: Thriving on chaos? AmericanReview of Public Administration, 34(3), 235–251.
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education.(2002, October 1–March 31, 2003). Semiannual report toCongress: no.46. Jessup, MD: Education PublicationsCenter.
Segal, L. (2004). Battling corruption in America’s publicschools. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Thomas, J. B., Jr. (1982). Addressing fraud, waste and abuse:The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of InspectorGeneral. American Education 18(9), 24–27.
� DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES
The Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) was established in 1980 to protect the healthof all Americans and provide health-related servicesto the public. By 2003, HHS was the largest grant-making agency in the federal government, repre-senting the nation’s largest health insuranceprogram (Medicare) and overseeing more than 300federally funded health- and service-related pro-grams. HHS’s budget for 2003 was reported to be$502 billion, the majority of which ($413 billion)was devoted to the Centers for Medicare andMedicaid Services (CMS). This division of HHSis responsible for administering Medicare andMedicaid programs, which provide health insur-ance for elderly and disabled persons (Medicare)and works with state agencies to provide medicalservices and health insurance for low-income citi-zens of all ages (Medicaid). Part of administeringthese programs includes investigating fraudulentpractices associated with Medicare and Medicaid.In 2002, the government was awarded $1.6 billionin judgments and settlements against violators.
The Medicare and Medicaid programs were cre-ated in 1965 to offer comprehensive health careto millions of elderly and low-income Americans.Both programs were originally administered underthe Social Security Administration. In 1977, theHealth Care Financing Administration (HCFA) wascreated to manage Medicare and Medicaid sepa-rately from Social Security. At the time, these pro-grams fell within the purview of the Department of
608—�—Department of Health and Human Services
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 608
Health, Education and Welfare. In 1979, a separateDepartment of Education was created, leaving thenation’s health and welfare issues the responsibilityof the newly established HHS. In 2001, the long-standing HCFA was replaced by the CMS, whichnow administers Medicare and Medicaid programs.
According to the CMS, Medicare and Medicaidprograms provide health care to about one in everyfour Americans. More than 41 million elderly anddisabled Americans have health insurance throughMedicare and more than 900 million claims areprocessed annually under Medicare alone. Medicaid,which is a joint program between the federal govern-ment and independent states, provides medicalcoverage for more than 44 million low-incomeAmericans. The Medicaid program includes nearly19 million low-income children and nursing homecoverage for low-income elderly citizens.
Given the staggering size of these programs, it isnot difficult to foresee the potential for abuse andfraud on the part of health care providers and recip-ients. Monitoring and enforcing health care fraudis the responsibility of the Department of Justice(DOJ) and HHS. The DOJ’s Fraud Division utilizesFederal Bureau of Investigation agents to investi-gate fraudulent activities associated with Medicareand Medicaid. Cases of fraud are then prosecutedby the U.S. attorney general’s office. Within HHSand the CMS is the Office of Inspector General(OIG). OIG agents are authorized to conduct crim-inal investigations and assess administrative penal-ties to those found guilty of Medicare and Medicaidfraud. In doing so, the OIG is able to excludeproviders from participating in Medicare andMedicaid programs. For many health care providersthe inability to treat recipients of these programsis financial suicide.
DEFINING AND PREVENTING FRAUD
Medicare and Medicaid fraud occurs when agenciesknowingly make false statements or misrepresen-tations about entitlements or payments under eitherhealth care program. False statements can be madeby physicians, hospitals, laboratories, billing services,private insurance companies, medical equipment
providers, or any employee of the aforementionedagencies. There are innumerable ways to attempt todefraud the government’s Medicare and Medicaidprograms. For example, some agencies bill thegovernment for ghost or phantom patients. Thisincludes current patients who were not seen on thedate reported, patients who have died, or patientswhose Medicare or Medicaid number has beenobtained under false pretenses. Double-billingoccurs when the government is charged twice for aprocedure that occurred only once. Some agenciesattempt to bill the government for expenses that arenot related to medical services. Additionally, order-ing and performing tests and procedures that are notmedically necessary to receive additional paymentsare included as fraudulent practices. Up-coding,kickbacks, and unbundling are three additionalfraudulent acts that bilk the Medicare and Medicaidprograms. Up-coding occurs when a medicalprocedure is performed and Medicare or Medicaidis charged for a similar but more expensive proce-dure. Kickbacks are obtained as the result of receiv-ing additional compensation for making referrals,prescribing specific drugs, or using a company’sequipment or services. Medicare and Medicaid arethen charged for the services, equipment, or pre-scription. Unbundling is another fraudulent act thatresults in overpaying agencies. Often, the whole isworth less than the sum of its parts. By unbundlingmedical equipment, for example, the agency pur-chases needed medical items as a whole but billsthe government for the individual parts. One suchexample involved a $12 medical kit that could beunbundled so that Medicare was charged $250 forthe respective parts. The financial gains of fraudu-lent practices are staggering. Any and all productsand services billable to Medicare and Medicaidcan and have been exploited to commit medicalfraud.
Numerous federal statutes have been employedto fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The MedicaidFalse Claims Statutes, the Medicaid Anti-KickbackStatutes, the Self Referral/Stark I and II Amend-ments, and the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act (HIPAA) are a few of thestatutes written specifically to combat Medicare
Department of Health and Human Services—�—609
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 609
and Medicaid fraud. Other statutes, not written toaddress Medicare and Medicaid fraud specifically,such as the False Claims Act, the False StatementAct, and mail and wire fraud acts have also beenused to prosecute agencies that attempt to defraudthe government.
The Medicaid False Claims Statute criminalizesthe making of false statements or representations inconnection with any application for claim of bene-fits or payment or disposal of assets under a federalhealth care program. An offense under this statutehas four elements the government must prove: astatement of material fact to receive payment from afederal health care program was made, the statementwas false, the statement was made willfully andknowingly, and the defendant knew the statementwas false. Penalties under the Medicaid False ClaimsStatute include a fine up to $25,000 and imprison-ment up to five years or both. Administrative sanc-tions can also be imposed to prevent the defendantfrom participating in federal medical reimbursementprograms for up to one year.
The Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute makes it afelony to knowingly and willfully pay or receiveany remuneration directly or indirectly, overtly orcovertly, in cash or in kind, in exchange for prescrib-ing, purchasing, or recommending any service, treat-ment, or item for which payment will be made byMedicare, Medicaid, or any other federally fundedhealth care program. Included activities are kick-backs, rebates, bribes, and transfers of anything valu-able. The elements of the offense include solicitingor receiving compensation in return for referrals forservices that will be paid for by either Medicare orMedicaid. The criminal penalties are the same asthose under the Medicaid False Claim Statute but inaddition allow for civil monetary penalties.
The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, knownas Stark I, was enacted to control the increasedmedical costs resulting from physicians’ self-referrals. It prohibited physicians from referringMedicare patients to clinical laboratories in whichthe physician had a financial interest, absent a safeharbor provision. The ineffectiveness of this statuteled to the enactment of the Omnibus ReconciliationAct of 1993, known as Stark II. This statute
expanded the scope of the first Stark act. To convicta defendant under the Stark statutes, the governmentmust prove that a claim was submitted for servicesthat resulted from a physician referring a patient toa designated health care service provider to whicha financial relationship between the health careservice provider and physician exists. Because thisis a civil statute, there is no intent requirement.There are four penalties that can be imposed underthe Stark laws. First, claims that violate the laws willresult in nonpayment. Second, if money has alreadybeen collected from the federal insurance program,it must be refunded. Third, civil monetary penaltiesup to $15,000 per violation and exclusion fromfederal reimbursement programs may be imposed.Fourth, a person who does not meet reporting require-ments may be fined up to $10,000 per day.
Touted as a protector of patient privacy and med-ical record security, HIPAA is primarily concernedwith increasing the penalties for Medicare andMedicaid fraud. Enacted on August 21, 1996, sec-tions of the act were still being phased-in in 2004.By April 14, 2003, medical service providers wererequired to meet the health information privacyrule. The new security and privacy standards withinHIPAA create a paper trail for federal investigatorsto follow if fraud is suspected. HIPAA extended thescope of health care fraud prevention by creating astable source of funding to combat health care fraudand gave the federal government the power to regu-late private health insurance providers. Three pro-grams supported through HIPAA are the Health CareFraud and Abuse Control Program, the MedicareIntegrity Program, and the Beneficiary IncentiveProgram.
The Health Care Fraud and Abuse ControlProgram coordinates federal, state, and local effortsto prevent medical fraud. Under this program inves-tigations, audits, inspections, and evaluations ofhealth care providers are conducted and a nationaldatabase of providers who have been sanctioned forhealth care fraud is maintained. The second program,the Medicare Integrity Program, gives HHS the abil-ity to enter into contracts with private agencies toinvestigate Medicare fraud. This program is alsoresponsible for educating the public, beneficiaries,
610—�—Department of Health and Human Services
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 610
and providers about Medicare fraud. Finally, theBeneficiary Incentive Program encourages benefi-ciaries of Medicare to report information leading tothe prosecution of defrauders of the Medicare pro-gram. As an incentive, those who assist the govern-ment in recovering monetary losses over $100 mayreceive a portion of the savings or recovery.
Applying HIPAA allows the federal governmentto prosecute anyone who knowingly and willfullydefrauds the government by obtaining benefits bymaking false representations or statements; embez-zles, converts, or steals funds, property, or assets ofa government health care program; or hinders theinvestigation of such activities. Violating HIPAA canresult in five years imprisonment and fines varying inamount depending on the severity of the violation.Also, if the violation results in a serious bodilyinjury, the maximum prison sentence is 20 years. Aviolation resulting in death has a maximum sentenceof life imprisonment. It also allows the federal gov-ernment to freeze the assets of anyone who commitsone of the offenses defined in the act. Finally, HIPAAallows asset forfeiture of either real or personal prop-erty if the asset has been obtained directly or indi-rectly during the commission of health care fraud.
The False Claims Act has been favored amongfederal prosecutors seeking convictions for Medicareand Medicaid fraud. Under this act, the federal gov-ernment must prove three elements. First, the defen-dant presented a claim to the government to receivereimbursement for medical goods or services; second,the claim was fraudulent or false; and third, the defen-dant knew the claim was false and intended to submitit. The penalties include imprisonment for up to fiveyears and a fine in accordance with the U.S.Sentencing Guidelines. The False Statements Act wasenacted to serve as a companion to the False ClaimsAct and criminalizes false statements made to thegovernment, either directly or through a third party.It may be used with, or instead of, other antifraudstatutes. The elements of the offense that must beproven to obtain a conviction are the same as those forthe False Claims Act, except federal prosecutors mustalso prove materiality under the False Statements Act.Also like the False Claims Acts, penalties includefines and imprisonment up to five years.
Federal mail and wire fraud laws are also usedto convict defrauders of Medicare and Medicaid ifagencies use the mail or interstate wire communi-cation as part of their fraud scheme. Prosecutorsmust prove the defendant intended to participate ina fraud scheme and used mail or wire to perpetratethe scheme. The difference between the mail andwire fraud statutes is that mail fraud does notrequire interstate use of mails, but wire fraud mustcross state lines using wire, radio, or televisioncommunications during the fraud scheme. Thepenalties for violating either mail or wire fraudstatutes include a fine up to $1,000 and a prisonsentence up to five years.
Health care fraud was estimated in 2003 toaccount for up to 10% of total annual health careexpenditures and was estimated to cost taxpayersnearly $100 billion per year. Agencies within HHSand DOJ work together to prevent, detect, and pros-ecute Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The govern-ment has enacted laws and established programsin an attempt to diminish health care fraud. TheBeneficiary Incentive Program, for example, encour-ages program participants to report suspiciousbehavior. The CMS even offers suggestions to Medi-care and Medicaid recipients on how to identifypotential fraud by their health care provider andencourages citizens to report suspected fraud.
Amie R. Scheidegger
For Further Reading
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. [Online].Available: http://www.cms.hhs.gov
Cone, J., Levinson, M., & Finlayson, S. (2003). Health carefraud. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 713–770.
Department of Health and Human Services. [Online].Available: http://www.hhs.gov
Schreiber, B., Prasow, A., & Martin, R. (2002). Health carefraud. American Criminal Law Review, 39, 707–761.
� DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY
In the days immediately following the terroristattacks against the United States on September 11,
Department of Homeland Security—�—611
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 611
2001, the nation was witness to a quick successionof official acts taken by the federal governmentto help prevent further such catastrophes. These actsincluded a presidential proclamation of a state ofnational emergency, the presidential authorizationof the Use of Military Force bill, and the speedyestablishment of 94 antiterrorism task forcesthroughout the country, one for each U.S. attorneyoffice. Probably the most striking and far-reachingaction taken by the administration of PresidentGeorge W. Bush in the wake of the events ofSeptember 11, 2001, was the presidential announce-ment to Congress of the creation of the Office ofHomeland Security, with ex-governor of PennsylvaniaTom Ridge as its director. President Bush’s announce-ment became the first official step in the developmentof what was to become the Department of HomelandSecurity, representing both the most sweeping effortto thwart acts of terrorism and one of the most dra-matic examples of government restructuring at thefederal level in U.S. history.
On the evening of June 6, 2002, President Bushannounced, in a nationally televised speech, thathe would ask Congress to approve a cabinet-levelDepartment of Homeland Security entrusted with theprimary responsibility of protecting the United Statesfrom attacks from terrorist groups. The plan was thatsuch a department would inherit a work force andfunding from existing federal agencies that the pro-posed new department would absorb. The depart-ments to be absorbed included the Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS), the Secret Service,Border Patrol, Customs Service, and the Coast Guard.And, as reflected through the results of publicsurveys, the idea won wide public support; 72% ofrespondents to a Gallup poll expressed full approval.
On November 25, 2002, President Bush signedinto law congressional legislation authorizing theofficial creation of the Department of HomelandSecurity and appointed Tom Ridge, then the WhiteHouse’s domestic security coordinator, as the depart-ment’s first secretary. The secretary of the Navy,Gordon R. England, was appointed to the numbertwo post at the department. As envisioned by theBush administration at that time, the primary objec-tives of the Department of Homeland Security were
publicly stated as (1) the prevention of terroristattacks, (2) the reduction of vulnerabilities to ter-rorism, (3) the minimization of damages of terroristattacks that may occur as a result of terrorism, and(4) the assistance in recovery from attacks that mayoccur as a result of terrorism.
On March 1, 2003, the final step of merging 22federal departments, offices, and agencies and nearly170,000 employees into the super-department knownas the Department of Homeland Security was taken.The government entities moved to the main divisionsof the Department of Homeland Security included theJustice Department’s Immigration and NaturalizationServices and the Office of Domestic Preparedness,the Secret Service and Customs Service from theDepartment of the Treasury, and the Transportationand Security Administration and the Coast Guardfrom the Transportation Department. The inaugura-tion of the new department was met with a combina-tion of high expectations and some pessimism. Thepessimism centered on three major areas: the abilityto successfully manage such a mammoth organiza-tion; the potential for rivalries with existing nationalintelligence-gathering agencies, such as the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI); and the department’sability to accomplish its goals with the amountbudgeted for its first year of function—$33 billion.Regardless of differing opinions on the department’sfuture prospects, few could argue that the birth of theDepartment of Homeland Security represented themost ambitious consolidation of federal agenciessince the joining of the War and Navy Departments tocreate the Defense Department during the Trumanadministration in 1947.
To pursue its primary objectives, the departmentwas organized into four divisions: (1) EmergencyPreparedness and Response, (2) InformationAnalysis and Infrastructure Protection, (3) Borderand Transportation Security, and (4) Science andTechnology.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSAND RESPONSE
The thrust of the department’s division on EmergencyPreparedness and Response is to activate effective
612—�—Department of Homeland Security
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 612
first responses to terrorist disasters. Although theUnited States has possessed the resources, in termsof both funding and workforce power to achievethis objective, much of the responsibilities havebeen diffused among many diverse public andprivate agencies servicing the general populace.The primary role of the department’s EmergencyPreparedness and Response Division is to providean overarching entity that would facilitate the con-solidation of the efforts of first responders, such aspolice, firefighters, and emergency medical person-nel, to terrorist disasters at the state and local gov-ernment levels. Building on the work of the FederalEmergency Management Agency, the division’smission is to transform decentralized first responderactivities to action that is both well synchronizedand proactive. This effort is described by the depart-ment as a “comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazardsemergency management program of preparedness,mitigation, response and recovery.”
As originally designed, the division not onlyassumes authority over federal programs for firstresponders, but is also responsible for the develop-ment and administration of a comprehensive train-ing program to enhance the skills and coordinationof all first responders. This undertaking includestraining curriculum design, the setting of standardsof substantive excellence, and the development ofa system of performance evaluation for all local,state, and federal training programs.
Additional areas of responsibility for the divi-sion are incident management and interoperablecommunications. A key objective of the division isthe creation of a comprehensive national incidentmanagement system designed to effectively res-pond to terrorist incidents as well as natural dis-asters. The aim is to streamline existing federalincident management procedures and to eradicateany distinctions between crisis management andconsequence management. The division alsoaddresses the need for unimpeded communicationamong all relevant government agencies acrossthe country in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.Mindful of this need, the division is responsible forenabling a seamless communication system amongall responder agencies.
INFORMATION ANALYSIS ANDINFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
The mission of the department’s InformationAnalysis and Infrastructure Protection division issolidly rooted in the conviction that the disruptionof terrorist activities is closely associated withtimely and thorough analysis and disseminationof information about terrorist groups. This divisionis responsible for systematically coordinating allinformation and intelligence on potential terroristthreats within the United States. The division isdesigned to achieve this objective by collectingand synthesizing information generated by existingintelligence-gathering agencies, including the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA), National SecurityAgency, and FBI, to furnish early warnings of poten-tial attacks as a means of preempting these attacks.Special attention is paid by the division to revisedFBI guidelines governing the collection of infor-mation and the conducting of investigations.Foreseeing that the guidelines would empower theFBI with broadened investigative authority at ear-lier stages of the investigation process, the divisionis dedicated to coordinating the analysis of expandedinformation, generated as a result of the revisedguidelines, with data collected by other intelligence-gathering agencies. An added responsibility for thedivision is to coordinate and consolidate lines ofcommunication with state and local public safetyagencies to effectively convey intelligence onpotential terrorist actions.
Being responsible for infrastructure protection,this division leads the coordinating efforts for apartnership of federal, state, and local governmentagencies and the public sector to protect the U.S.energy, information, transportation, defense, andtelecommunications systems from the effects ofterrorist attacks. This division builds on the work ofthe Department of Energy’s National InfrastructureSimulation and Analysis Center to model methodsfor identifying and alleviating vulnerabilities thatcould lead to significant damage to the country’scritical infrastructure if successfully attacked byterrorists. Due to the potential for the widespreaddisruption of essential services cutting across many
Department of Homeland Security—�—613
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 613
branches of critical infrastructure, a priority of thedivision is protection of the nation’s cyber infra-structure from terrorist attack.
BORDER ANDTRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Through the division of Border and TransportationSecurity, the Department of Homeland Securitystrives to secure the nation’s extensive national bor-ders with Canada to the north and Mexico to thesouth, as well as U.S. maritime borders of shorelineand navigable waters. A special concentration ofdivision activities is devoted to effective screeningat the nation’s 350 official points of entry to ensurethat these ports do not serve as points of entry forterrorists. A major initiative of this division is toconvert the past general conception of linear bor-ders into what the department terms smart borders,that is, the creation of a layered managementsystem—building on the work of agencies such asINS, U.S. Coast Guard, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, and the Transportation SecurityAgency—to enhance the visibility of individuals,vehicles, and goods exiting and entering the UnitedStates. The goal of the division is to enhance thecoordination and quality of transportation whilenot burdening or otherwise delaying the efficientprocessing and review of legitimate traffic acrossU.S. borders. The division addresses the protectionof government buildings in the United States byincorporating the functions of the Federal ProtectiveService (General Services Administration).
Methods employed to achieve the division’s endsare varied. One of these methods are the require-ments for visitors to present travel documentationthat may include biometric identifiers and collabo-ration with other nations and international organi-zations to enhance the quality and issuance of traveldocuments in an attempt to limit the illegal use ofsuch documents by terrorist organizations. Strategiesalso include interfacing with other countries toimprove the effectiveness of those countries’ bordercontrols to help mirror new advances attained forU.S. border controls. As part of the department’scomprehensive border and transportation security
control program, this division is also responsible fordeveloping and deploying nonintrusive inspectiontechnologies to upgrade the effective and efficientscreening of goods at the borders.
Four special objectives of the Border andTransportation Security division are (1) to improveimmigration services, (2) to improve the security ofinternational shipping containers, (3) to implementthe Aviation and Transportation and Security Act of2001, and (4) to recapitalize the U.S. Coast Guard.As part of the improvement of immigrationservices, the division works with colleges and uni-versities to track and monitor international studentsand exchange visitors and also facilitates the sepa-ration of the INS’s enforcement and service withinthe Department of Homeland Security. Improvedsecurity of international shipping containers issought by the division by establishing security cri-teria to identify high-risk containers and by usingnew technology to prescreen containers before theyarrive at U.S. ports (U.S. inspectors are positionedat high-volume foreign seaports for prescreening).Through the Aviation and Transportation SecurityAct of 2001, signed into law by President George W.Bush on November 19, 2001, this division was madehead of a program of strengthening partnershipsamong federal, state, and local governments and theprivate sector to protect critical transportation assets.These include protection of rail and highwaybridges, pipelines, Federal Aviation Administrationfacilities, and the securing of the national airspace.The division has also been charged with the respon-sibility of ensuring that the nation’s aging U.S.Coast Guard fleet is upgraded so that it is able tofulfill its functions of maritime safety, maritimemobility, and protection of natural resources.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Department of Homeland Security’s publishedmission statement underscores the core element ofprogress in science and technology. In many ways,the department views this as the key to a successfulnational program against the threat of terrorism.Much of the potential in this area is envisionedas being centralized in improved technology in
614—�—Department of Homeland Security
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 614
capabilities of early detection of terrorist attacksand counteractions against chemical, biological,radiological, and nuclear weapons. An integral pieceof this effort is the establishment of a research anddevelopment center for mitigation of the risks pre-sented by the ongoing technological advancementsof modern terrorists. The center draws upon newtechnological innovations emanating from the pri-vate sector to gain and sustain a competitive tech-nological edge over terrorist groups. A large part ofthis is the improvement of accuracy, consistency,and efficiency in biometric systems and the explo-ration of biomolecular techniques and noise sup-pression methods for voice authentication.
As identified by the National Strategy forHomeland Security, there are 11 major initiativesfor the science and technology division: (1) devel-opment of chemical, biological, radiological, andnuclear countermeasures; (2) development of sys-tems for detecting hostile intent; (3) applicationof biometric technology to identification devices;(4) improvement of technical capabilities of firstresponders; (5) coordination of research and devel-opment of the homeland security apparatus; (6)establishment of a national laboratory for homelandsecurity; (7) solicitation of independent and privateanalysis for science and technology research;(8) establishment of a mechanism for rapidly pro-ducing prototypes; (9) development of demonstra-tions and pilot deployments; (10) setting of standardsfor homeland security technology; and (11) estab-lishment of a system for utility-based research. Thenational laboratory is actually a proposed network oflaboratories that is modeled on past work of theNational Nuclear Security Administration laborato-ries operational throughout the Cold War. In effectthe network is intended to act as a testing ground forcountermeasure techniques directed at chemical andbiological threats and to identify those techniquesof most practical use. As part of this effort, the divi-sion of Science and Technology is responsible forconducting demonstrations and pilot deploymentsof methods that may be unique to regional needsthroughout the United States. Technologies devel-oped through laboratory research and testing that arejudged to be effective become the basis of rapid
protoyping to the field and are sustained throughpartnering with the private sector for support.
CRITICISM AND RESPONSE
Although the Department of Homeland Securityhas been the recipient of much praise since itsinception, it has also received criticism. In June2002, a top Republican senator, Richard C. Shelby(AL), who was vice chairman of the Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence, accused the departmentof not being designed to effectively address acuteintelligence problems. At the same time, DemocraticSenator Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) claimed that theplans for the department’s development had notsatisfactorily accounted for ensuring the sharingof information between the FBI and the CIA. Thenational color-coded security alert system createdby the department in an attempt to prepare lawenforcement agencies and the public for the possi-bility of terrorist attacks was derided as being sim-plistic, confusing, and unreliable due to occasionaldependence on erroneous information. During thewinter of 2002, the upgrading of the alert systemled to a surge of consumer purchases of duct tapeand plastic sheeting in the New York and Washington,D.C., metropolitan areas to ward off the possibleseepage of noxious gas used in terrorist attacks. Theunusual public reaction forced representatives ofthe department to issue announcements discourag-ing the rush to seal windows and doors and to admitto fumbled efforts to effectively educate the publicon practical methods for protection against gas andbiological attacks.
The department’s organizational makeup andmethods became critical targets of two separatereports. In Assessing the Department of HomelandSecurity, the Brookings Institution criticized thedepartment for merging too many diverse functionsunder one roof, not paying enough attention to theeffective management of the department, and failingto prioritize its strategic priorities. The report’sauthors also accused the department of oversimplify-ing the terrorist threat by confining its focus to pro-tection against chemical, biological, and radiologicalattacks and overlooking more conventional attacks
Department of Homeland Security—�—615
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 615
similar to those used in the September 11, 2001,attacks. Meeting the Challenges of Establishing aNew Department of Homeland Security, publishedby the Center for Strategic and International Studies,called for the initiation of tighter links between thedepartment and other homeland security entities,the crafting of closer connections to the privatesector for the establishment of public-private part-nerships, and a facilitation of an increased publicawareness about personal safety and security throughan ongoing national public education campaign.
The Department of Homeland Security hasdemonstrated a willingness to adjust to perceivedshortcomings and has altered its original directions insome cases. The most notable example is in the areaof public education. On February 19, 2003, SecretaryTom Ridge announced that the Department ofHomeland Security would embark upon a $1.2million public relations effort to furnish informationto the public on how to go about putting togetheremergency kits and communication plans in responseto a chemical, biological, or radiological attack. Thecampaign was orchestrated using television and radioadvertisements and brochures to get the message out.The campaign also includes the development of agovernment Web site, www.ready.gov, and a toll-freetelephone line, 800 BE READY, to provide furtherdetailed advice to the public. The Web site includeslinks to the Federal Emergency Management Agency,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,and the American Red Cross. Secretary Ridge’sannounced program managed to garner wide praisefrom lawmakers who had previously criticized himfor neglecting organized public awareness and under-scored what was hoped to be the department’s newdirection in promoting strategic change responseaccording to public needs.
Donald J. Rebovich
For Further Reading
Clemetson, L. (2003, February 20). Reshaping message onterror, Ridge urges calm with caution. The New YorkTimes, p. A1.
Gillette, P. (2003, January). Department of HomelandSecurity: Pros, cons and opportunities. National SecurityWatch, pp. 1–8.
Hamre, J. (2002). Meeting the challenges of establishing a newDepartment of Homeland Security. Washington, DC:Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Litan, R. E., O’Hand, M. E., Orszag, P. R., & Steinberg, J. B.(2002, July). Assessing the Department of HomelandSecurity. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Office of Homeland Security. (2002). National strategy forhomeland security. Washington, DC: Author.
Shenon, P. (2002, November 20). Establishing new agency isexpected to take years and could divert it from mission.The New York Times, p. A14.
Shenon, P. (2003, March 3). Ridge discovers size of homelandsecurity task. The New York Times, p. A1.
Stevenson, R. W. (2002, November 26). Signing HomelandSecurity Bill, Bush appoints Ridge as secretary. The NewYork Times, p. A1.
� DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The Department of Justice (DOJ), an agency ofthe judiciary branch of the federal government, isheaded by the U.S. attorney general (AG), whoreports directly to the president of the United Statesand is a cabinet-level officer. The mission of theDOJ has expanded considerably since its creation,and now includes,
To enforce the law and defend the interests of theUnited States according to the law; to ensure publicsafety against the threats foreign and domestic; toprovide federal leadership in preventing and control-ling crime; to seek just punishment for those guiltyof unlawful behavior; administer and enforce thenation’s immigration laws fairly and effectively; andto ensure fair and impartial administration of justicefor all Americans.
DOJ is similar to a major law firm with divisionsof attorneys with identified areas of expertise. Theattorney general is counsel and adviser to the presi-dent and other federal agency executives.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The attorney general’s position was established bythe Judiciary Act of 1789, although DOJ itself wasnot created until 1870, after many years of discus-sions and pleadings with presidents and politicians
616—�—Department of Justice
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 616
regarding the scope and responsibilities of theattorney general. George Washington initiated thepractice of inviting the attorney general to cabinetmeetings. From the beginning, the ideals of justiceand freedom translated to the necessity of laws fairlyadministered governing citizen to citizen and citizento government relations. The department’s motto,Qui Prodomina Justitia Sequitur, has British originswith an American application that, in essence, statesthat the attorney general prosecutes on behalf of jus-tice. The attorney general serves as the lawyer forthe federal government and prosecutes governmentinterests before the Supreme Court.
The department was created through an actof Congress in 1870 that was introduced byCongressman Thomas A. Jenckes (R-RI), who con-vinced fellow legislators of the necessity to exerciseall legal authority and administrate all legal issuesaffecting the country under one legal department.Under the act, the attorney general was given super-visory powers over district attorneys, U.S. mar-shals, administrative staff, and all officers of thefederal courts, duties that had previously beenassigned to the secretary of the Interior.
DOJ, more than any other executive department,has reflected the changing political landscape ofAmerican society. After the Civil War many citizenshad claims against the government regarding dam-aged or confiscated property or companies as aresult of wartime contracts. The country was moreand more involved in commercial activities and theneed for legal counsel became evident. As special-ized lawsuits and cases were brought against thegovernment, the development of specialized divi-sions evolved. Congress enacted the first criminalstatute in 1790 and a unified criminal code followedin 1883. Citizens were concerned that such a cen-tralized authority would undo the freedoms theyfought to win when they left England. However,when the nation entered an isolationist period,many citizens blamed high rates of immigration tothe United States for higher rates of crime and vio-lence, a concern that propelled the department’srole. Both the assassination of President James A.Garfield in summer 1881 and the Haymarket Riotsfive years later seemed to confirm citizens’ fears
that American life was at risk. Congress was slowto act and Attorney General Benjamin Brewstertook responsibility for addressing these circum-stances and the Criminal Division proceeded toprosecute acts against federal criminal statute.
Current DOJ responsibilities involve cooperationin both domestic and transnational crime problems.Multiagency and governmental task forces addresscrime problems such as health care and computerfrauds, drugs, violent crime, and crimes against childrento name only a few. Organized crime and espionagewere developing as critical issues in the 1980s andincidents of domestic political and environmental ter-rorism were called the gathering storm. An increase inlawsuits against the federal government in the area ofconstitutional and civil rights presented challenges toboth the criminal and the civil divisions. For example,in the 1980s a claim was brought against DOJ (ParoleCommission and Bureau of Prisons) when a paroledprisoner went on a killing spree. The Civil Division isresponsible for handling this type of process againstany federal government entity.
Due to the scope of the department, several lawenforcement agencies developed under its purview,including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).Additionally, two other major law enforcement agen-cies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives (BATF, which was formerly the Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms within theDepartment of Treasury) and the Immigration andNatural Service were transferred to DOJ under theHomeland Security Act of 2002. The conceptof concurrent jurisdictions and responsibilities hasaffected the changes regarding authorized missionsand responsibilities. An example of this is the 1983executive order giving concurrent jurisdiction fordrug violations to the FBI with the DEA. Mergingthese agencies had been discussed and studied sincethe late 1970s, but they remained autonomous.
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF DOJ
The officer in charge of DOJ is the AG, a presiden-tial appointee who is a member of the cabinet andis the most senior law enforcement officer in the
Department of Justice—�—617
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 617
country. The AG must be confirmed by the Senateand candidates undergo significant scrutiny priorto appointment. The main functions of the AG areto represent the nation in legal matters, to superviseand direct the administration of the department, tofurnish advice and opinions to the president andother federal executives, to make recommendationsto the president regarding judicial appointments,to represent and supervise representation before theSupreme Court, and to implement and supervisestatutes and executive orders. The AG is supportedby a deputy attorney general. Additionally, an asso-ciate attorney general and the solicitor generalcomprise the executive command hierarchy.
Deputy Attorney General
The deputy AG reports directly to the AG and isthe second in command of the department. The posi-tion is a presidential appointment and is generallyheld by an expert in criminal law. The main func-tions of this position are to provide overall directionof all organizational units within the departmentand to handle matters related to employment, sepa-ration, and general administration of all personnelemployed within the department. The deputy AGoversees liaison with the White House andExecutive Office of the President, coordinates theresponse to civil disturbances and terrorism, and hasgeneral supervision of the U.S. Parole Commission.
Associate Attorney General
The associate AG is the third ranking executive atthe department and a principle member of the AG’sexecutive management team. An expertise in civillaw is usually required, since the incumbent directsthe activities of the department’s Civil Division.This office oversees the United States Trustees,Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Office ofJustice programs, Tribal Justice, Dispute Resolution,and Community Relations programs to name a few.
United States Solicitor General
The solicitor general is the only officer of theUnited States required by statute to be trained in the
law. This position is one of two governmentemployees (the other is the vice president) withformal offices in two branches of the government.The solicitor general represents the interests of thegovernment before the Supreme Court and is some-times termed the Tenth Justice of the SupremeCourt, albeit without a vote. The solicitor generalalso directs any government intervention defendingthe constitutionality of acts of Congress.
United States Attorneys
There are 93 U.S. attorneys (USAs) locatedthroughout the country with a federal mandate cov-ering the prosecution of crimes articulated in morethan 900 criminal and civil statutes. The USAs arealso presidential appointments and considered piv-otal political positions of great visibility, since thedecisions to charge and prosecute are key andimpact matters arising in their geographical juris-dictions. These high-profile investigations garnerpolitical currency for those interested in continuedpublic service. Rudolph Giuliani, a former USA forthe Southern District of New York, led high-levelprosecutions of major organized crime leaders andcomplex drug organizations in the 1980s. He waslater elected mayor of New York City. Other USAsoften advance to federal judgeships or are hired tolead general counsels’ offices in major law firmsor corporations. Teams of assistant U.S. attorneysdominate federal litigation and develop prosecutiveexpertise in various areas of federal investigationsworking closely with federal investigators andmultiagency task force personnel.
Office of Professional Responsibility
This office serves as the internal watchdog forthe department and investigates allegations of mis-conduct by DOJ personnel. It is authorized to actin all aspects of the identification, preliminaryinquiries, report of findings, and recommendationsto the AG and deputy AG regarding reported mis-conduct. This office also reports on trends of mis-conduct developing in the department. In 2002 therewere notable whistleblowers related to FBI opera-tions, as there were cases of espionage committed
618—�—Department of Justice
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 618
by sworn federal law enforcement agents. TheOffice of Professional Responsibility also serves asliaison to the National Organization of Bar Counsel(NOBC). NOBC is a nonprofit organization of legalprofessionals whose members enforce ethics rulesregulating the conduct of lawyers in the UnitedStates, Canada, and Australia.
Major Divisions of the Department
Criminal, civil, civil rights, and antitrust are themost widely recognized divisions addressing casesinvolving terrorism, hate crimes, and major business,securities, and health care frauds. Attorneys withinthese divisions supervise and direct investigativepriorities and the particular strategies involvingmajor initiatives within their respective divisions.
The department spearheads the activities of morethan 60 law enforcement agencies under its aegistogether with community and research programsand institutes. These components number morethan 62. Together with the FBI, DEA, and BATFEsome of these are Community Oriented PolicingServices, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigrationand Naturalization Services until March 1, 2003,National Institute of Corrections, National Instituteof Justice, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. MarshalsService, U.S. Parole Commission, National DrugIntelligence Center, National Criminal JusticeReference Center, and Office of Tribal Police.Programs addressing victims’ needs and providingassistance and financial support are also responsi-bilities of the department.
The Office of Legal Policy is the department’sthink tank regarding developing procedural andlegislative issues. The pardon attorney reviewsrequests for executive clemency, conducts investi-gations, and makes recommendations to the presi-dent for action, though the president is not obligatedto consult with the department officials prior togranting pardons or clemency orders. This officecame to some public notice in December 2001,during the final days of the administration ofPresident William J. Clinton when he extendedclemency to Marc Rich (a high profile, wealthywhite collar crime fugitive) without consulting thedepartment.
TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
The department has changed dramatically withinthe past 10 years. The Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services, created in 1994 to rein-force partnerships among local police departmentsand community policing programs, was the recipi-ent of two major grant awards. One was $899,500designated to fund 311 nonemergency telephonesystems for police departments. The AG alsoawarded more than $21 million for the employmentof 176 additional police officers nationwide inAmerica’s schools and an additional $78 millionwas awarded to hire more police for local agenciesaround the nation. This office provides the publicand the criminal justice community with assistanceby answering inquiries regarding grants, funding,and legislative initiatives relative to its statedmission.
The Civil Rights Division, established in 1957,has directed its resources in the last several years insupport of equal rights and the discrimination of anycitizen based on race, religion, gender, or sexual ori-entation. The rise in hate or bias crimes over the pastdecade has warranted aggressive and high-profileprosecutions. In 2001 more than 11,000 bias-moti-vated incidents were reported to the DOJ, both sin-gle and multiple bias circumstances. In support offederal law enforcement activities regarding hatecrimes, DOJ was mandated by the Hate CrimesStatistics Act of 1990 to be the repository for thecollection and trend analysis of these incidentsthroughout the country. That legislation precededthe 1998 Hate Crimes Prosecution Act thatexpanded federal jurisdiction to facilitate more hatecrime prosecutions. Two major department prosecu-tions have become benchmarks in the field of biascrimes enforcement, including the 2001 raciallymotivated dragging murder of James Byrd, Jr. inTexas and the capture of long-time fugitive, EricRudolph, for bias-motivated bombings at the AtlantaSummer Olympics, gay bars, and abortion clinicsthroughout the south. The Civil Rights Division hasalso provided close liaison with citizens and com-munities related to voting issues. It recommendedobserver and examiner activities authorized by theVoting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.
Department of Justice—�—619
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 619
REFLECTING SOCIETY’S CONCERNS
The work of the DOJ over the years has reflectedsociety’s priorities. In the1960s, under the leader-ship of AG Robert F. Kennedy, the DOJ was respon-sible for enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts of1960, 1964, and 1968. Organized crime’s influenceand actual existence were also part of Kennedy’sadministration.
In the 1980s, the department pursued the drug warand forged unprecedented cooperation with overseaslaw enforcement and judicial authorities, sharingintelligence and pursuing the mutual prosecutionof subjects. An example is the movement of the fullauthority and structure of the Sicilian judicial systemto Philadelphia against mafia figures due to the dan-ger of assassinations of magistrates and police offi-cials in that country. The partnership with Italian andSicilian officials made numerous investigations andinternational work groups possible. The ideology ofcooperation is testament to the task forces of the1970s by the Drug Enforcement Administration withlocal and state law enforcement. Organized CrimeDrug Enforcement Task Forces were created acrossthe United States in 1983 when concurrent jurisdic-tion of drug crimes was mandated. In 1995, theseefforts led to establishing the International TrainingAcademy in Budapest, Hungary, in conjunction withboth the State and Treasury departments. Theacademy mirrored the mission and operation of theFBI’s National Academy, which was founded in1935 and has trained numerous senior American andinternational law enforcement leaders.
Gangs, guns, and school violence marked the1990s, with many social scientists and policeleaders concerned with the number of kids killingkids. In 1993 the nation experienced terrorism per-petrated on its soil in the bombing of the WorldTrade Center. This case was addressed as a criminalmatter and was successfully investigated and prose-cuted, proving the value of interagency cooperationand international law enforcement relations. The1993 World Trade Center incident foreshadowedthe events of September 11, 2001, and the depart-ment’s sudden organizational shift to terrorismprevention and prosecution.
The terrorist events of September 11, 2001,changed the direction of the many components andoperations of DOJ. Evidence of this shift is clearlyreflected in the department’s annual reports. In itsfiscal year 1994 report, the department detailed pri-orities connected with violent crime, drugs, gangs,gun laws, and more police on the beat through com-munity policing. However, the fiscal year 2002report makes it clear that new leadership and a redi-rection of mission and resources to terrorism inter-ests dominates. To that end, DOJ agencies beganto shift their personnel, priorities, and mission. TheFBI moved quickly away from violent crime anddrug cases to counter terrorism both domestic andabroad. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft directeddepartment personnel to formulate more effectivecommunication and cooperation with other agenciesinvolved in national security.
The autonomy once symbolizing bureaucraticentities is challenged by this unprecedented coordi-nation and is yet to be tested.
Katherine M. Newbold
For Further Reading
1994 Annual Report of the Attorney General of the UnitedStates. (1994). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice.
Dunn, L. (1989). The Department of Justice. Broomall, PA:Chelsea House.
FY 2002 performance report/FY2003 revised final performanceplan/FY 2004 performance plan. (2002). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/
� DIPLOMATICSECURITY SERVICE
The Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) is a littleknown law enforcement agency within the U.S.Department of State. Its primary mission is to pro-tect U.S. personnel, property, and information atembassies and missions around the world. In theUnited States, the DSS safeguards the secretary ofstate, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,
620—�—Diplomatic Security Service
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 620
and foreign dignitaries below the head-of-statelevel. The agency also responds to terrorist attacksagainst Americans overseas, investigates passportand visa fraud, and issues security clearances toDepartment of State employees.
The origins of the DSS date back to the periodshortly before World War I. At that time, Germanand Austrian spies were engaged in espionageactivities in the United States. The foreign agentswere using forged or stolen identity papers.President Woodrow Wilson authorized the secretaryof state to form a security agency within theDepartment of State.
In 1916, the Bureau of Secret Intelligence wasformally established under Secretary of StateRobert Lansing. The bureau was headed by a chiefspecial agent, who reported directly to the Secretaryof State and was responsible for investigating pos-sible espionage activity that was being conductedby foreign agents in the United States.
Two years later, in 1918, Congress enacted a lawthat required passports for American citizens travel-ing abroad and visas for people entering the UnitedStates. Since the Department of State was theagency that issued passports and visas, the bureauwas charged with investigating passport and visafraud. The bureau was also responsible for protect-ing visiting dignitaries to the United States.
Following World War II, the bureau created anew Office of Security that was known simply asSY. The new security arm, which was a precursor tothe DSS, assigned security personnel to Departmentof State facilities in the United States and to mis-sions, consulates, and embassies abroad. Then in1948, the Marine Security Guard Program was cre-ated to guard consulates and embassies overseas.The DSS’s SY was charged with protecting thedomestic security of Department of State facilitiesand personnel.
By the late 1960s, international terrorism through-out the Middle East, Europe, South America and Asiawas becoming more commonplace. SY responded tothis increasing terrorist activity by hiring more than100 new agents and deploying sophisticated securitydetails that included heavily armored vehicles, secureradio equipment, and special weaponry.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there weremore than 100 terrorist attacks against Americancitizens and facilities abroad, including the burningof U.S. embassies and the killing of some 300Americans. In 1984, Secretary of State GeorgeSchultz formed a commission to review securityarrangements for Department of State personnel andfacilities abroad. Retired Admiral Bobby Inmanheaded this commission that would ultimately trans-form the Department of State’s security agency. InNovember 1985, the Bureau of Diplomatic Securityand the DSS were officially established.
The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act, which was signed by PresidentRonald Reagan on August 27, 1986, incorporatedmany of the recommendations that were set forthby the Inman commission. The new securityservice, the DSS, was structured as a law enforce-ment agency that was similar to other federal lawenforcement, security, and intelligence agencies.
In 2003, the DSS consisted of approximately1,200 special agents who were stationed at everyU.S. embassy and consulate throughout the world.One of its primary missions was also to protect thesecretary of state in the United States and for allvisits abroad. When traveling outside the UnitedStates, the secretary is protected by a highly skilled,tactical unit that is called the Mobile SecurityDivision or MSD. The MSD, also known amongDSS personnel as “The Ninjas,” is a versatile secu-rity force that is able to move on a moment’s noticefrom its headquarters in Virginia. They have flowndirectly into embassy bombings, hostage situations,and to scenes of terrorist attacks throughout theworld.
The DSS is a highly secretive agency that standsclear of the media spotlight. In fact, many othergovernment agencies, such as the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), sometimes get credit for thedaring work that is accomplished by the DSS. Forexample, it was the DSS, not the FBI, who in 1995actually found and apprehended Ramzi AhmedYousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World TradeCenter bombing.
Sanford Wexler
Diplomatic Security Service—�—621
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 621
For Further Reading
Diplomatic Security Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.ds.state.gov
Katz, S. M. (2002). The DSS and the manhunt for the Al-Qaeda terrorists. New York: Forge Books.
� DNA TESTING
Analysis of physical evidence left at the scene ofa crime often plays a critical role in identifyingthe individuals who were involved in the crime. Inmany sexual assaults, this evidence is semen left bythe perpetrator; in violent crimes it might be bloodor bits of tissue from the victim or the assailant.Since 1985, an extensive effort has been made todevelop laboratory procedures for DNA typing as atool for linking such evidence to known individuals.
DNA, the genetic material of humans and all othercellular organisms, consists of four small molecules,the nucleotide bases adenosine, guanosine, cytidine,and thymidine, assembled into a linear polymer. Thehuman genome contains approximately two billionbases of DNA divided into 23 segments, called chro-mosomes. The order of the bases in a complete humangenome has recently been determined. A person hastwo copies of this genome, one inherited from his orher father, the other from his or her mother.
The genome encodes the structures of all theproteins needed for human function, and most ofthe genome sequence is identical in all people.Variations in human DNA sequence do occur, bothwithin genes—the regions of DNA that encodeproteins—and in the large regions between genes.These variations are called polymorphisms. In par-ticular, at tens of thousands of sites distributed overall 23 chromosomes, variations known as short tan-dem repeat polymorphisms, or STRs, are found.At each such site, a short DNA sequence, that is,cytosine-adenosine-guanosine (CAG), is exactlyrepeated several times. Examination of the site indifferent individual human genomes reveals that,while a CAG sequence is always present, the numberof copies of the sequence varies: in one genome,there might be four copies, CAGCAGCAGCAG,while in another there might be two, CAGCAG.
To identify the particular versions of this repeatfound in a person’s two copies of the genome, thepolymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique isapplied to a small sample of the person’s DNA tomake many copies of each repeat, and the sizes ofthese copies (hence the number of CAG repeats ineach) are determined by gel electrophoresis.
Early in the course of the Human GenomeProject, thousands of STRs were identified, theirlocations in the human genome were determined,variant forms at each site were identified, and PCRtests for these polymorphisms were developed andapplied to human genetic research and clinicalgenetic testing. Researchers interested in identify-ing the source of human tissues, notably blood andsemen, in forensic specimens, realized that theseclinical tests for DNA polymorphisms were apromising alternative to techniques like ABO bloodtyping then used for this purpose. The number ofSTRs in the human genome is large, each one ismuch more likely to vary from person to personthan a typical blood protein, and DNA itself ischemically stable—while blood proteins can bereliably tested, for the most part, only in freshspecimens, DNA can remain testable for years.
Although the polymorphisms and testing strate-gies are the same in forensic and clinical DNA typ-ing, four features of a forensic specimen complicateits typing. While considerable genetic informationabout the subject is typically known at the outset ina clinical test, allowing for internal checks on theplausibility of a test result, the subject is typicallyunknown in a forensic test. While a clinical speci-men is abundant and collected under controlledconditions in a sterile environment, a forensic spec-imen is limited in quantity and generated underconditions that lead to chemical and microbial con-tamination and possible degradation. While a clini-cal specimen is known to be from a single person,the number of contributors to a forensic specimenis often unknown. While, if a clinical test fails,another test specimen can often be obtained, foren-sic specimens are unique and cannot be reproduced.
A fifth problem unique to forensic DNA typingconcerns the interpretation of the test results, illus-trated by a hypothetical example. A broken window
622—�—DNA Testing
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 622
at the scene of a crime has blood on it. A suspectis arrested. The blood from the broken window issubjected to STR DNA typing. Separately, a bloodsample from the suspect is typed. Each test yields atyping pattern, consisting of one or two variants foreach STR polymorphism tested. If the two patternsare different, the suspect is excluded as the sourceof the blood on the window: all the cells in his bodycontain exact copies of the same two genomes, so ifthe blood on the window is his, it must have thesame typing pattern as the known blood collectedfrom him later. If the two patterns are identical,however, before concluding that the blood on thewindow came from the suspect, one needs to deter-mine how likely it is that another person, by chance,could have the same set of STR markers. The basiclaws of genetics suggest that if many STRs aretested, and these STRs are located on differentchromosomes, the chance of such a coincidence issmall. Both conditions are met by current forensicSTR tests. However, many courts have held thata qualitative result—“small”—is inadequate, andrequire a numerical estimate of the chance of acoincidental match. Such a numerical estimate isdetermined for a typing pattern by determining thefrequency of each individual STR variant in a data-base of typing patterns obtained by typing largenumbers of unrelated individuals from varioushuman populations and multiplying these individ-ual frequencies together.
Extensive research projects to develop tests thatcould perform reliably on forensic specimens, andto develop valid statistical standards for interpretingtest results, were carried out in the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, in several stateand local crime laboratories, and in several com-mercial laboratories. These commercial laborato-ries were ones that did such testing for a fee or thatprovided the chemical reagents and equipment usedin the tests. Most of this research was done duringthe late 1980s and the mid-1990s. Considerablecontroversy over the results of early research effortsled to the publication of two expert reports underthe auspices of the National Academy of Sciences,one in 1992 and the other in 1996, and to the estab-lishment of an expert advisory group, under the
auspices of the FBI, to promulgate standards forforensic DNA typing. These standards are nowwidely observed. As part of this standardization,many of the results of this research have beenpublished in scientific literature.
DNA typing of STR polymorphisms is nowwidely used by law enforcement agencies and legalauthorities to identify possible sources of forensicsamples of human body fluids, and solid tissues aswell. It has a well-established role in criminal inves-tigations and prosecutions and has been effectivelyused to identify human remains from mass disasters.But problems surround its application to samplesthat contain DNA from two or more individuals andto badly degraded samples. Other forms of DNA typ-ing, mitochondrial DNA typing for analysis of verybadly degraded specimens and Y-STR typing identi-fying DNA from the male contributor to a mixedsample, are under development and may come tobe useful if generally reliable techniques for typingand, more important, valid strategies for interpretingtyping results can be developed.
Peter D’Eustachio
For Further Reading
Butler, J. M. (2001). Forensic DNA typing. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Butler, J. M., & Reeder, D. J. (2003). Short tandem repeatInternet database. National Institute of Standards andTechnology. [Online]. Available: http://www.csti.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/
Evett, I., & Weir, B. S. (1998). Interpreting DNA evidence:Statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sunderland,MA: Sinauer Associates.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2003). Humangenome resources. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/
National Human Genome Research Institute. [Online].Available: http://www.genome.gov/
National Research Council, Committee on DNA Technologyin Forensic Science. (1992). DNA technology in forensicscience. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, Committee on DNA ForensicScience: An Update. (1996). The evaluation of forensicDNA evidence. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. (2003).Bylaws of the Scientific Working Group on DNA analysis
DNA Testing—�—623
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 623
methods. Forensic Science Communications, 5. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/swgdambylaws.htm
Willuweit, S., & Roewer, L. (2003). Y-STR haplotype referencedatabase. Institute of Legal Medicine, HumboldtUniversität, Berlin. [Online]. Available: http://www.ystr.org/europe/
� DRUG ENFORCEMENT
In February 2002, President George W. Bushunveiled a new campaign to target the drug problemwithin the United States. The strategy emphasizedsupply reduction through aggressive drug enforce-ment and interdiction programs while simultane-ously emphasizing demand reduction througheffective drug education, prevention, and treatmentprograms. Under this plan, the federal governmentallocated almost $2 billion to the Drug Enforce-ment Administration (DEA) to maintain the War onDrugs. This trend in drug enforcement is not inno-vative, but is simply a continuation of past policies.
Since the establishment of federal agenciesdesigned to combat the use, manufacture, and saleof illegal drugs, the federal government has increas-ingly appropriated funding to combat the illicit drugtrade. In addition, the ever-changing policies haveevolved to encompass a number of agencies work-ing simultaneously to eliminate the flow of illicitdrugs throughout the country.
HISTORY OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Government attempts to regulate the use of drugsare not a new phenomenon. Legal efforts to censurethe use of drugs date back over 3,000 years tothe ancient civilizations of Babylon and Egypt.However, in comparison, the use of law and lawenforcement agencies to control the use of drugswithin the United States is relatively recent. In1875, the first drug law in the nation was passed inSan Francisco to target opium use. Over the next 30years, almost every state passed similar laws to con-trol the use of opiates. This trend of narcotic crimi-nalization laid the foundation for the passing of theHarrison Narcotics Act in 1914. The Harrison Act
drew its power from the government’s ability tocollect taxes; therefore, the government could nowrequire those who distributed these drugs to registerwith the government. Not only did this landmarklaw enable the government to tax and regulate thesale and manufacture of narcotics, opiates, andcocaine, but the legislation also forbade any addic-tion maintenance of these new federally regulateddrugs. The enforcement of this act led to thousandsof physicians, pharmacists, and users being arrested.
The success of the Harrison Act was not repeatedduring Prohibition. In 1919, the EighteenthAmendment, which outlawed the manufacture andsale of alcohol, was passed. Within nine months ofits passing, the Volstead Act was enacted to enablethe government to enforce the amendment. Publicsupport was not behind the law; thus in 1933, ratifi-cation of the Twenty-first Amendment brought anend to Prohibition.
Even though governmental attempts to controldrug production had suffered a devastating blowwith the repeal of Prohibition, the federal govern-ment was able to extend its drug control effortswith the establishment of the Federal Bureau ofNarcotics (FBN). The FBN was created to enforcethe Harrison Act. In addition, the agency was estab-lished in part to curb the rising popularity of mari-juana. Under the direction of Harry Anslinger, theFBN expanded its power using scare tactics to clas-sify marijuana as a dangerous drug. Although themain targets of the Harrison Act were opiates andcocaine, the FBN included a provision within theUniform Narcotic Drug Act to allow marijuana tobe incorporated into the Harrison Act. In 1937, theMarijuana Tax Act was passed, which, in essence,extended the power of the Harrison Act to tax andregulate marijuana.
Drug enforcement efforts to eliminate illicitdrugs from American society seemed to be a suc-cess during the World War II era; however, duringthe late 1940s and early 1950s, allegations of heroinabuse led to the government furthering its anti-drugenforcement policies. With the passing of the BoggsAct (1951) and the Narcotics Control Act (1956),the penalties for marijuana and narcotics violationsdramatically increased. The Boggs Act established
624—�—Drug Enforcement
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 624
mandatory minimum sentences for drug violationswhile the Narcotics Control Act lengthened mini-mum sentences and allowed the courts to imposethe death penalty on anyone over the age of 18 whosold heroin to a minor.
While drug enforcement agencies were busytargeting narcotics and marijuana, new drugs ofabuse, amphetamines and hallucinogenics, began tobecome popular throughout the country. Becausemany of these drugs were legal, Congress passedthe Drug Abuse and Control Amendments of 1965,which placed the manufacture and distribution ofamphetamines, barbiturates, and LSD under thecontrol of the federal government. These amend-ments made it a criminal act to illegally manufacturethese drugs. Moreover, the amendments requireddistributors to maintain records of all transactions.Responsibility for the enforcement of the act wasgiven to the newly established Bureau of Alcoholand Drug Abuse Control, a branch of the Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
With the passage of the Comprehensive DrugAbuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, com-monly known as the Controlled Substances Act(CSA), the majority of antidrug laws were com-bined to set a standard for ranking the dangerous-ness of all drugs. Hence, this law established thelegal basis for what would become the govern-ment’s drug control initiative, eliminating the needfor law enforcement agencies to rely on tax mea-sures to target the drug trade. In addition, the CSAinstituted (a) provisions for reducing the availabil-ity of drugs, (b) procedures for controlling asubstance, (c) criteria for determining controlrequirements, and (d) obligations incurred byinternational treaty arrangements.
Consequently, the 1980s brought a return tothe punitive nature of drug enforcement. With theemergence of crack cocaine, drug enforcementagencies realized the illicit drug trade was far fromeradicated. Thus, in an attempt to regain control, thefederal government passed the Anti-Drug AbuseAct of 1986 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.The former reinstated mandatory minimum sen-tences for those in possession of specified amountsof drugs while the latter established the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Thispunitive trend of enforcement continued throughoutthe 1990s and remains in effect today.
FEDERAL AGENCIESAND DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Since a national police force does not exist withinthe United States, 32 separate federal agenciesshare law enforcement responsibilities. These fed-eral agencies must also work with state and localagencies to control the illicit drug trade. Drugenforcement efforts on the larger scale are typicallyheaded by federal agencies. Since numerous federalagencies must work together, these efforts are coor-dinated by the ONDCP, which also controls theamount of money that each agency involved in drugenforcement receives.
Initially, federal agencies were primarily respon-sible for drug enforcement; however, that responsi-bility has increasingly trickled down to state andlocal agencies. Due to a lack of staff at the federallevel, state and local agencies respond to what isconsidered to be day-to-day enforcement efforts.However, these efforts are not conducted withoutfederal assistance; the majority of state and localagencies receive federal aid to assist in drug controlattempts. Some estimates in 2003 noted that withinthe United States there are more undercover policeofficers working in narcotics than in any other areaof police enforcement.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
The DEA’s history predates the establishmentof the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1930), with thegovernment housing of alcohol and drug enforce-ment responsibilities under both the InternalRevenue Service and the Treasury Department.With the establishment of the FBN, the governmentsolidified its attempt to regulate the drug industrywithin the United States. In 1968, the FBN wasmerged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse and Controlto create the Bureau of Narcotics and DangerousDrugs (BNDD). With this merging of agencies, theDepartment of Justice was given the authority to
Drug Enforcement—�—625
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 625
enforce federal drug laws. In an attempt to assiststate and local drug enforcement agencies, the Officefor Drug Abuse and Law Enforcement (ODALE)was established in 1972. During that same year, theOffice of National Narcotic Intelligence (ONNI) wasestablished to gather and propagate any informationthat might assist state and local law enforcementagencies. President Richard M. Nixon combined theBNDD, ODALE, and ONNI to create the DrugEnforcement Administration in 1973.
The DEA was established for the sole purposeof combating the illicit drug trade. Not only is theagency responsible for drug investigations, but it isalso in charge of coordinating federal, state, local,and foreign government attempts to eliminate thedrug trade within the United States and internation-ally. In addition, the DEA collects and distributesrelevant information to domestic and foreign lawenforcement agencies. By 2003, approximately8,500 special agents and support personnel werestationed throughout the United States and in 58other countries.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Like the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) is housed in the Department of Justice. In2002, the FBI employed 11,000 special agents and16,000 professional support personnel. Because it isthe primary law enforcement agency of the federalgovernment, the FBI does not solely investigatedrug-related issues. Historically, the FBI did nothave jurisdiction over drug enforcement; however,in 1982, during the administration of PresidentRonald W. Reagan, the FBI was granted concurrentjurisdiction with the DEA. Although the FBI isresponsible for supervising drug-law enforcementand enforcing the Controlled Substances Act of1970 in conjunction with the DEA, the agency’sprimary focus in the drug war concerns the investi-gation of organized crime groups’ involvement inthe drug trade.
U.S. Customs
In 1789, the U.S. Customs Service was createdto collect taxes on imported goods. Today, the
Customs Service is responsible for processingall individuals, baggage, cargo, and modes of trans-portation that enter and leave the United States.Currently, its primary responsibility lies in theinterdiction of border smuggling through officialports of entry on land; this power extends up to 12miles into U.S. coastal waters.
Other Assisting Federal Agencies
The DEA, FBI, and Customs Service are pre-dominantly responsible for drug enforcementresponsibilities; however, a number of other federalagencies assist in drug-related enforcement. Alongwith the Customs Service, both the U.S. CoastGuard and the U.S. Border Patrol assist in druginterdiction. The Coast Guard’s primary responsi-bility in the War on Drugs is to interdict maritimevessels at sea. This federal agency’s principal areaof concentration is the Caribbean, south Florida,and the Gulf of Mexico. By using these designatedchoke points, officials are able to identify and inter-dict shipments of illegal drugs on route to theUnited States. However, this task is difficult due tothe vast amount of ocean that each coast guardvessel must patrol, the number of vessels travelingthrough the choke points, and the Coast Guard’slimited equipment and personnel resources. TheU.S. Border Patrol targets those who are transport-ing drugs into the United States using the sameroutes used to smuggle aliens into the country,primarily along the Mexican border. The MarshalsService manages properties seized in drug asset for-feiture cases and administers the Witness ProtectionProgram. The Internal Revenue Service examinesall bank transactions and purchases to ascertain anyexcesses that are unfeasible based on income levelsreported on tax forms. In some instances, surplusincome can be linked to drug-related enterprises.Indirectly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire-arms, and Explosives takes part in the drug war bytargeting those engaged in firearms and explosivesviolations; these individuals are commonly engagedin drug trafficking as well. The use of technologyhas enabled agencies such as the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) to assist in drug control
626—�—Drug Enforcement
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 626
efforts. All pilots of private airplanes departingfrom a foreign country are required to file a flightplan with the FAA at least 24 hours prior to take-off and landing in an airport that has a customsagent present. Failure to file a flight plan resultsin an investigation of the aircraft upon entry into theUnited States.
In addition to these domestic-based agencies, themilitary has also become involved in combatingthe illicit drug trade. The revision of the PosseComitatus Act in 1981 gave the Department ofDefense the ability to use military equipment togather information to assist law enforcement agen-cies in arresting drug traffickers. Because numerousagencies are involved in drug control, the ONDCPcoordinates these efforts.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
Throughout the 20th century, governmental attitudestoward drug use shifted from a policy of acceptanceand tolerance to one of intolerance and criminalsanction. Even though the nation has sporadically, attimes, shifted to a pseudo-treatment-based positiontoward drug enforcement, society has implementedincreasingly punitive policies toward the sale, man-ufacture, and use of illegal drugs. Currently, stateand federal policies addressing the drug problemfavor a punitive or prohibition model. Simply, thegovernment prohibits the production, distribution,sale, and use of any drug deemed illegal under stateand federal law. Through legislation and enforce-ment, the government has attempted to eliminatethe illicit drug trade using two strategies: demandreduction and supply reduction.
Demand reduction approaches the drug war bytargeting users through punitive policies such asmandatory minimum sentencing and zero tolerance.Under these policies, those found distributing orin possession of illegal substances, no matter theamount, are held accountable by the criminal jus-tice system. In addition to this castigatory stancetoward the population, demand reduction policieshold that if the public is educated about the risks ofdrug use, both physical and legal, potential userswill choose to abstain from using substances
deemed illegal. By implementing educationalprograms such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education(DARE), the government believes that participantswill become resistant to peer pressure, thereforeensuring that they will be able to withstand thetemptation of experimenting with drugs. Ironically,educational programs such as DARE often demo-nize drugs to an extreme degree. This “reefer mad-ness” approach, a term originating from the 1936antimarijuana film of the same name, misinformsstudents about drugs and their abuse. Because thesepresentations take such an extremist position, ratherthan being educational, these programs have lostcredibility among those they are attempting to staveoff from drug use. A more controversial techniquein demand reduction is the drug testing of employ-ees and students. Although there are few criminalramifications for those being tested, the fear of los-ing a job or being suspended from a school activitymay be enough to deter an individual from using anillegal substance.
The federal government has also enacted policiesto reduce the supply of drugs. The most prevalentmethod of supply reduction used within the UnitedStates is to prosecute those involved in the productionand distribution of illicit drugs. In addition to target-ing those individually involved in the sale, manufac-ture, and distribution of illegal drugs, agencies alsoincorporate drug enforcement techniques such asinterdiction of drug shipments, crop eradication, andreduction in aid to source countries. Theoretically, byreducing the supply of drugs, the cost will raise astro-nomically, causing consumers to abandon their use ofthe drug. These attempts have failed to significantlyreduce drug consumption and in many instances evenfail to affect the prices of drugs.
Under the punitive model, criminal penaltieshave become the primary means of controlling thedrug trade through arrest and imprisonment. As aresult of get-tough policies that target both thedemand and the supply side of the drug trade, suchas mandatory minimum sentencing, zero tolerance,and three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws, an unprece-dented number of individuals are currently beinghoused in correctional institutions. Not surprisingly,the prison population has risen from approximately
Drug Enforcement—�—627
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 627
200,000 in 1971 to approximately 2 million individualsincarcerated in both state and federal prisons in2002. Nearly half a million of those incarcerated arein prison for drug-law violations.
THE FUTURE OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Over the past three decades, drug enforcementpolicies have become increasingly punitive. Eachyear, the federal government appropriates moremoney to combat the illicit drug trade. However, nomatter how much money and staffing is put into theWar on Drugs, illegal drugs remain present insociety. Attempts to diminish the use of illegal drugshave led to overcrowded prisons and the increasedpotency of drugs without any significant evidencethat drug use has declined. This failure to eliminatethe drug trade and drug abuse has led to a rise inboth domestic and international drug policy reformmovements. The majority of opposition to drug pro-hibition surrounds the use of marijuana. Althoughmarijuana remains illegal under federal law, somestates have begun to pass legislation permittingthe use of medical marijuana. In addition, policyreform regarding marijuana has intensified inCanada and a number of Western Europeancountries. In the future, federal drug enforcementofficials may have to make some modificationsin their approach to certain drugs (i.e., marijuana);however, this does not mean that attempts to controlthe drug trade will decrease. Most likely drugenforcement policies will continue to adhere to thepunitive model.
Tammy S. Garland
See also Harrison Act, Marijuana Tax Act, Volstead Act
For Further Reading
Abadinsky, H. (2001). Drugs: An introduction (4th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja
Drug Enforcement Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea
Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available:http://www.fbi.gov
Goode, E. (1999). Drugs in American society (5th ed.).Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Levine, H. G. (2002). Global drug prohibition: Its uses andcrises. International Journal of Drug Policy 14, 145–153.
Levinthal, C. F. (1999). Drugs, behavior, and modern society(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Lyman, M. D., & Potter, G. W. (2003). Drugs in society:Causes, concepts and control (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH:Anderson.
Musto, D. F. (Ed.). (2002). Drugs in America: A documentedhistory. New York: New York University Press.
U.S. Coast Guard. [Online]. Available: http://www.uscg.mil/USCG.shtm
U.S. Customs Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/
U.S. Department of State. (2002, March). President’s FY 2003budget proposal for the Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA). [Online]. Available: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/2002/9235.htm
Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs:A policy guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
� DRUG ENFORCEMENTADMINISTRATION
Federal narcotic law enforcement began in 1915,within a year of passage of the Harrison NarcoticsTax Act, section 10 of which authorized the com-missioner of internal revenue, with the approval ofthe secretary of the treasury, to appoint as manyagents and messengers in the field and in theBureau of Internal Revenue as may be necessary toenforce provisions of this act.
In subsequent years, additional federal laws werepassed to reflect societal and political responsesto the problems of drug use and drug trafficking.The federal enforcement agency responsible forenforcing federal narcotics laws changed, trans-ferred, merged, and shared concurrent jurisdictionwith other federal agencies. Over the years, thesechanges resulted in the creation of the DrugEnforcement Administration (DEA), which hasgrown to become one of the largest of the federallaw enforcement agencies.
The handful of original internal revenue agentsand messengers had grown by 2004 to comprise theDEA, with almost 5,000 special agents, more than1,000 diversion investigators, 730 intelligence
628—�—Drug Enforcement Administration
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 628
analysts, and a large number of support personnelwith a wide variety of forensic, clerical, and admin-istrative responsibilities.
EARLY ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
The Department of Treasury maintained primaryresponsibility for drug enforcement, forming theFederal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) under the lead-ership of Harry B. Anslinger. Although Anslingerserved as director of the FBN almost as long asJ. Edgar Hoover did at the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), neither he nor his agency everbecame as well known. Part of the reason for thiswas that the FBN had a much narrower mandatethan the FBI and throughout its history sharedjurisdiction with a number of other agencies alsoinvolved in federal narcotics enforcement efforts.Among those who held major responsibility forsuch enforcement was the U.S. Customs Service,which was heavily involved in drug smugglinginterdiction and formed a drug enforcement unitwithin its Investigative Bureau.
By the 1960s responsibility was further spreadwith creation of the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control(BDAC) within the Department of Health, Educationand Welfare. The BDAC was an attempt to controlthe growing misuse and diversion of prescriptiondrugs, pharmacy thefts, and the illicit manufactureof drugs such as LSD, MDA, amphetamines, andmethamphetamines. A number of indictments ofBDAC and FBN agents for corrupt activities andmisuse of office led President Lyndon B. Johnson, in1968 to win congressional approval to merge the twoagencies into the Bureau of Narcotics and DangerousDrugs (BNDD) under the Department of Justice.According to the plan, the attorney general wouldhave full authority and responsibility for enforcingthe federal laws relating to narcotics and dangerousdrugs, but would not oversee the U.S. CustomsService’s continued investigation of drug smugglingcases at the nation’s borders.
By the 1970s, BNDD had established officesin 14 foreign countries, including Turkey, Vietnam,and Mexico. But lines of authority continued tooverlap and to confuse enforcement efforts. In
January 1972, President Richard M. Nixon issuedExecutive Order 11641 creating the Office of DrugAbuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) within theDepartment of Justice. ODALE was proposed as aninnovative approach to attacking drug distributionat the local level by concentrating federal resourcesto bear on street-level heroin pushers. AlthoughODALE was a means of setting up an independentgroup of enforcement officers under the direct con-trol of the president, it also was viewed by the pres-ident’s adversaries as a potential political vehiclefor supporting a strong anticrime platform. Anumber of provisions of ODALE reinforced thisview, including that the director served as both aspecial assistant attorney general and a special con-sultant to the president; that the office was designedto showcase a number of new crime-fighting tools,including use of no-knock warrants, RacketeerInfluenced and Corrupt Organization, and specialinvestigative grand juries; and that it had a sunsetprovision of 18 months, which would take itthrough the next election. Overzealous actions bysome of the agents provided political ammunition forthe opponents of the 1970 Controlled SubstancesAct and resulted in negative publicity for theBNDD based on its agents’ involvement in ODALEtask forces. By this time, task forces had becomeregular narcotics enforcement tools. In 1970, theNew York Regional Office of BNDD had estab-lished the first joint narcotics task force in NewYork City, comprised of its agents, New York CityPolice Department officers, and New York StatePolice troopers.
A major change in the workforce of the BNDDoccurred in 1971 when it became one of the firstfederal agencies to recruit women for the positionof special agent. In November 1973, the firstwomen to graduate from the DEA’s special agenttraining class (BA-1) were sworn in as DEA specialagents. In 2003, President George W. Bushappointed former assistant attorney general KarenTandy as DEA administrator and Special AgentMichele Leonhart received congressional approvalas deputy administrator of the DEA. Leonhart is thefirst woman to work her way up through the ranksfrom special agent to the number two position in the
Drug Enforcement Administration—�—629
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 629
DEA and the DEA is the first federal law enforcementagency to have its two highest leadership positionsheld by women.
CREATION OF THE DEA
Early in 1973, House and Senate committees beganhearing testimony on President Nixon’s plan tocreate a single agency that would consolidate andcoordinate the government’s drug enforcementstrategy. Among the benefits proposed were thata single agency would put an end to interagencyrivalries that had undermined federal drug lawenforcement and that the creation of a super-agencyfor drug enforcement would provide the momentumneeded to coordinate all federal efforts relatedto drug enforcement outside the Department ofJustice, especially gathering of intelligence oninternational drug smuggling.
The plan was implemented on July 1, 1973, withcreation of the DEA’s Office of Intelligence. At thesame time, the National Narcotics IntelligenceSystem became the first law enforcement agency touse an all electric, centralized computer databasefor its records. In 1974, the DEA proposed theestablishment of a regional intelligence center tocollect and disseminate information related to drug,illegal alien, and weapons smuggling on the south-west border. This resulted in creation of the El PasoIntelligence Center (EPIC) to provide tactical intel-ligence support to federal, state, and local agencies.EPIC has since grown into a national drug intelli-gence center focused on global drug smugglingintelligence.
Despite the creation of the DEA, drug enforce-ment policies did not remain consistent. A WhiteHouse report issued in 1975 reported that not alldrugs were equally dangerous and recommendedthat enforcement policies be directed toward highlyaddictive drugs, which were defined at that time asheroin and amphetamines. Setting in motion poli-cies that would remain in effect for decades, thereport found that cocaine use was not physicallyaddictive and did not usually involve serious socialconsequences, defined specifically as crime, hospi-tal emergency admissions, or deaths. Marijuana
was defined as a minor problem. As a result of thesefindings, the DEA and the U.S. Customs shiftedtheir enforcement focus to heroin distribution orga-nizations, a policy that ultimately allowed the Caliand Medellin cartels to develop their distributionnetworks for marijuana and cocaine along the EastCoast.
By the late 1970s, drug trends began to change;cocaine and marijuana had become the drugs ofchoice for many users and distributors. Colombiantraffickers began using mother ships, which weremoored off the U.S. coast with bulk cargoes of mar-ijuana or cocaine in their holds. These mother shipswould rendezvous at prearranged locations with go-fast and fishing boats and off-load smaller loads tobe brought to ports, marinas, and fishing stationsalong both coasts. By the end of the decade, SouthFlorida had become the center of the illegal drugtrade. Drugs were estimated to be the state’s biggestindustry, worth more than $10 billion per year.Then-DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger wasreported to have said that there was so much moneyin the drug trade that traffickers weighed the moneyrather than count it.
At the same time, drug use was becoming morecommon. In 1979, a national survey estimated thatalmost 20% of Americans had tried cocaine at leastonce. Cocaine use continued to peak until the early1980s, when about 22 million people admitted tohaving used cocaine, and an estimated 10,000 to15,000 tons of it were consumed in the UnitedStates. This increased use did not attract lawenforcement attention though, particularly afterPresident Jimmy Carter’s drug advisor, Dr. PeterBourne, labeled cocaine as not physically addictiveand acutely pleasurable, defining it as the mostbenign of illicit drugs and one that was becomingincreasingly popular among drug users at allsocioeconomic levels.
Amid the changing nature of drug use, the DEAbecame part of yet another reorganization of federaldrug control efforts. In January 1982, AttorneyGeneral William French Smith ordered a reorgani-zation of law enforcement agencies within theDepartment of Justice, requiring the DEA to reportdirectly to the FBI director. Only six months earlier,
630—�—Drug Enforcement Administration
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 630
an FBI assistant director had been appointed asacting administrator of the DEA, a hint of AttorneyGeneral Smith’s attempts to provide greater central-ization of drug control and to possibly place theDEA under FBI control. Although this did notoccur, the reorganization did allow the FBI to gainconcurrent jurisdiction with the DEA over federaldrug laws. A high-ranking Justice Department com-mittee had considered merging the two agencies,but due to strong congressional opposition, it wasdecided that this reorganization was the least dis-ruptive way to formalize a closer relationshipbetween the DEA and the FBI.
Under President Ronald Reagan, the NationalNarcotics Border Interdiction System (NNBIS) wasformed in March 1983 to monitor and coordinate theinvestigation of smuggling activity originating out-side U.S. borders. Vice President George H. W. Bushwas appointed Director of NNBIS. After the electionof 1988, the Office of National Drug Control Policy(ONDCP) was established by the Anti-Drug AbuseControl Act of 1988 and took over the functions ofNNBIS and was given the authority to developa national drug control strategy. The act establishedONDCP for five years; however, several executiveorders have extended ONDCP’s mission to includeassessing agency budgets and resources related to theNational Drug Control Strategy issued annually bythe director of ONDCP, the so-called drug czar.
Based on highway interdictions begun in theearly 1980s in New Jersey and New Mexico, theDEA in 1984 became more involved with state andlocal police through the creation of OperationPipeline. In the early 1980s, state troopers in thetwo states had noticed sharp increases in thenumbers of motor vehicle violations that resulted indrug seizures and arrests and each state indepen-dently established highway interdiction programs.The success of these two programs led to OperationPipeline, a DEA-funded training and highway inter-diction program that developed into a nationwideprogram to train state and local traffic officers in thepolicy of interdiction laws and to sharpen theirperceptiveness of highway couriers. The trainingfocused on training state and local police on lawsgoverning highway stops and drug prosecution, on
drug trafficking trends, and on the key characteris-tics that were shared by drug traffickers. Critics ofthe program have pointed to the charges of racialprofiling that resulted from traffic stops conductedby troopers in southern New Jersey along the I-95drug corridor, as an abuse of police power causedby an agency of the federal government.
COCAINE AND CRACKCOCAINE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
In 1987, the benign view of cocaine was no longerpart of the DEA’s drug strategy. The DEA andthe State Department’s Bureau of InternationalNarcotics developed an unprecedented enforcementoperation in support of President George H. W.Bush’s Andean Strategy, which was directed atattacking the cocaine growth and distribution prob-lem at the source. Teams of DEA agents andspecialized investigative assistants were assigned toOperation Snowcap. Trained at the U.S. ArmyRanger School and the Jungle Warfare School inPanama, these teams were expected to operate withthe police of the host countries to disrupt the grow-ing, processing, and transportation systems sup-porting the cocaine industries of Bolivia, Peru, andEcuador. Operation Snowcap was terminated in1994 after the crash of a DEA aircraft claimed thelives of five DEA agents in Peru.
Cocaine and crack cocaine remained the primarytargets of DEA’s enforcement activities in the1990s. In the northeastern cities of the UnitedStates, the Cali cartel had established a network ofcells to handle every facet of the trade from ship-ment to storage and communications, includinglaundering and returning the profits to Colombia.Meanwhile, the Medellin cartel began a campaignof terror and bribery in Colombia to pressure thelegislature and judiciary to prohibit the governmentfrom extraditing native-born citizens. The firstattempt to force this legislation can be traced toNovember 1985, when 30 members of an M-19terrorist cell seized the Palace of Justice and heldmembers of the Colombian Supreme Court hostage.The alliance between the cartel and the terroristscontinues through the present.
Drug Enforcement Administration—�—631
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 631
Pablo Escobar led the wave of narco-terrorism toforce the Colombian congress to pass legislation toprohibit the extradition of himself and his fellowExtradictables.
The violence was unprecedented. Scores ofpolice and government officials were assassinatedand random bombings aimed at government build-ings and agencies led the Colombian congress topass the desired prohibition of extradition of nativeColombians in July 1991.
To counter the threat of Colombian narco-terrorists,the DEA devised the kingpin strategy. The plan wasto dismantle the cartel by attacking the supplyof precursor chemicals, finances, transportation, com-munications, and leadership structure in the UnitedStates. Simultaneously, the Colombian NationalPolice, assisted by the DEA and U.S. Military Intelli-gence, targeted the cartels’fugitive leaders in Colombia.
As the major leaders of the Medellin and Calicartels were neutralized, either by death or incarcera-tion, the kingpin strategy was deemed by DEAofficials to have been successful. A permanentoffshoot of this initiative was the establishment ofthe Special Operations Division (SOD) at DEA head-quarters. SOD was created specifically to target thecommand and control capabilities of major drug traf-ficking organizations around the world, using intelli-gence collection capabilities of several multiagencysources. Domestically, SOD assists field divisions todevelop national conspiracy cases derived from mul-tijurisdictional wiretap investigations. Based on theseand other efforts, including interdiction and workingwith international police forces, current DEA leadersbelieve that as the agency enters the 21st century, thedismantling of the Medellin and Cali cartels has led tomore decentralized and compartmentalized traffick-ing patterns, with groups now specializing in oneaspect of the cocaine industry. It is unclear whetherthis will make enforcement more effective or willresult in the agency being required to expend addi-tional efforts merely to recognize and counter somany smaller, less centralized criminal groups.
The DEA has also been faced with changes in thedrug culture itself. In the late 1990s, Ecstasy, alsoknown as MDMA (3,4 methylene-dioxymetham-phetamine), burst upon the pop-culture scene in the
United States and Europe. MDMA had been knownto the DEA since the 1960s as a noncontrolled ana-log of methamphetamine, combining the stimulanteffect of speed with the feel-good effect of peyotein an easy to take (and traffic) pill. Other club drugsthat became popular in the youth culture were GHB(gamma hydroxybutyric acid) and Ketamine andRohypnol, which were tasteless and odorless andbecame popularly known as date rape drugsbecause they could be slipped into a victim’s drinkand cause disorientation and unconsciousness. In2000, GHB and GHL joined Ecstasy as ScheduleI drugs when Congress passed legislation amend-ing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). By 2003,the DEA had placed several other rave scene drugsthat are chemically and pharmacologically relatedto MDMA on Schedule I, based on the emergencyscheduling provision of the CSA.
The DEA has also become involved in drug-related forms of terrorism. Narco-terrorism hasbeen defined by the agency as a subset of terrorismin which terrorist groups participate directly or indi-rectly in the cultivation, manufacture, transporta-tion, or distribution of controlled substances andshare the monies derived from these activities.According to the Department of State, one third ofinternational terrorist organizations are linked toillicit drug activities in some manner. For example,both the DEA and the State Department believe thatboth of Colombia’s major insurgent groups, theRevolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)and the National Liberation Army (ELN), as wellas the right-wing Colombian United Self-DefenseForces (AUC), are linked to drug trafficking andthat in Afghanistan, the former Taliban built itsfinancial base from heroin trafficking. The DEA’sintelligence indicated that Osama bin Laden wasinvolved in the financing and facilitation of herointrafficking activities.
In order to support the coordination, control, andcontainment of the production and processing ofopium in post-Taliban Afghanistan, as well as pro-vide “eyes on the ground” intelligence collectionexpertise and sharing, the DEA in 2003 reopened itsoffice in Kabul and was planning to either expandor open offices in former Soviet republics and other
632—�—Drug Enforcement Administration
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 632
countries bordering Afghanistan. Although thedrugs of choice have changed over the years that theDEA and its predecessor agencies have been in exis-tence, the issues surrounding enforcement of druglaws have remained consistent. The DEA is facedwith enforcing laws that are sometimes unpopularbut that are steeped in violence and internationalpolitics due to the numbers of countries in whichsupply is grown or processed to meet the demandsof those who seek drugs despite their illegality.
George Feeney
See also Federal Bureau of Investigation
For Further Reading
Anslinger, H. B., & Tompkins, W. F. (1953). The traffic innarcotics. New York: Funk and Wagnall.
Baum, D. (1996). Smoke and mirrors: The War on Drugs andthe politics of failure. New York: Little, Brown.
Bowden, M. (2002). Killing Pablo, The hunt for the world’sgreatest outlaw. New York: Penguin Putnam Press.
Hamid, A. (1998). Drugs in America. Gaithersburg, MD:Aspen.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). Drug EnforcementAdministration: A tradition of excellence, 1973–2003.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
� DRUG TESTINGOF EMPLOYEES
Drug use became a serious concern in the work-place during the 1980s. Companies involved in theoil, chemical, and nuclear industry as well as traveland transportation sectors, became areas of concernespecially when accidents occurred causing deathsand immense financial ramifications.
Drug testing has evolved and is now used for avariety of reasons. The main uses for drug testinginclude screening potential employees during theinterview process, creating safety precautions forworkers and the surrounding public, and monitor-ing drug use in the prison population. Today allfederal employees, transportation employees, pris-oners, and athletes competing on the national,Olympic, or professional level are subject to drugtesting under current federal laws. In addition to
these federal guidelines, each state has adoptedits own guidelines involving drug testing in theworkplace. Many private sector companies are alsoadopting drug testing into their bylaws in order toachieve a drug-free workplace. However, eachcompany has its own policies that are not alwaysidentical to the federal guidelines.
Military personnel were the first employees to betested for drugs in the United States. More specifi-cally, military officials were concerned with howthe use of illegal drugs affected combat readinessand performance. In 1971, the U.S. Congressadvised the secretary of defense to devise methodsfor identifying and treating drug-abusing militarypersonnel.
The problem of drugs in the workplace surfacedafter a study performed by the National Trans-portation Safety Board, which examined theinvolvement of drugs, including alcohol, in trainaccidents. As a result of this study, the FederalRailway Administration and the National Instituteon Drug Abuse (NIDA) started to create drug regu-lations for the Department of Transportation (DOT).Consequentially, other public sectors—includingthe oil, chemical, transportation, and nuclear indus-tries—became concerned about drugs in the work-place and followed suit in developing their owndrug-testing programs. The laboratory proceduresdeveloped for each industry varied and were notconsistent in drug-testing protocols. This causedcontroversy and resulted in lawsuits by employeesupset about violations of their privacy and constitu-tional rights.
In 1986, the executive branch of the federalgovernment took special interests in drug testing.President Ronald W. Reagan issued ExecutiveOrder No. 12564, which enforced each federalexecutive agency leader to develop drug-testingprograms for employees in sensitive positions. Themain goal of the order was to maintain a drug-freefederal workplace. During that same year, NIDAmet at a conference and concluded that random drugscreening was appropriate under a well-defined pro-gram and was legally defensible in certain situa-tions. In addition, a definition was formulated atthis conference that described specific situations
Drug Testing of Employees—�—633
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 633
when drug testing was appropriate for employees.NIDA concluded that all individuals must beinformed that they are subjected to drug testing, theconfidentiality of the test results must be secure, andall positive test results on the initial screen must beconfirmed with an alternate laboratory procedure.
Two years later in 1988, NIDA, under theDepartment of Health and Human Services(DHHS), released mandatory technical and labora-tory procedural guidelines for all federal drug-testing programs. Several rules were established tomaintain consistent drug testing from laboratory tolaboratory. These guidelines determined that urinewould be the biological sample of choice for thescreening of drug use. The guidelines also main-tained that all drug-testing meet specific criteria inorder to maintain laboratory accreditation. Proceduresfor specimen collection, procedures for transmittingsamples to testing laboratories, assay protocols,evaluation of test results, quality control measures,record keeping, and reporting requirements wereestablished. These specified procedures still needto be followed today for the DHHS to accredit adrug-testing laboratory. The DHHS guidelines wereestablished to guarantee the accuracy and integrityof the test results and, most important, the privacy ofthe employees tested. Consequently, from theseguidelines a new organization, the National LaboratoryCertification Program, was created in 1988 by theDHHS/NIDA to maintain the guidelines set forthearlier in that year.
In 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionpublished a final rule (54 F.R. 24468) in the FederalRegister. This program became effective on January3, 1990. Most of the previously stated guidelinesestablished by the DHHS were included in this pub-lication along with a clause that allowed on-site test-ing under specified circumstances. The DOT alsopublished an interim rule in 1988 and another in1989 that were effective on January 2, 1990. Thesepolicies required that the following six transportationsectors follow procedural guidelines: vehicle, avia-tion, railroad, mass transit, pipeline, and maritime.
The Urban Mass Transit Administration drugprocedural program was delayed because the federal
appellate court overturned the rule and stated thatthe agency did not have the statutory power to issuethe procedures required in drug testing. This setbackwas eliminated by the Omnibus TransportationEmployee Testing Act of 1991, passed by Congress.This act required that the DOT form drug-testingregulations to also include both intrastate opera-tions and the testing of ethanol.
In 1990, under the General Military Law (10U.S.C. 1090), the secretary of defense and thesecretary of transportation were required to writedrug-testing regulations and laboratory protocolsand to provide facilities to identify and assist drug-dependent military personnel. In addition, potentialmilitary recruits were required to undergo drugscreening as a part of the application process. Alsoduring 1990, the drug-free workplace policy wasinstalled in the military and concluded that drug-dependent military recruits would not be hired anddrug-dependent military personnel currently serv-ing would undergo disciplinary actions or a dis-charge if they did not become drug free.
The final DOT guidelines became effective onJanuary 1, 1995, and January 1, 1996, and pertainedto employers having more than 50 employees andto small companies, respectively. These guidelinesrequired more than 7.4 million transportationemployees to follow the drug-testing guidelines setforth by the DHHS. The current federal workplaceguidelines and state guidelines can be locatedonline from the Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Administration and U.S. Department ofLabor Web sites, respectively.
Heather R. Draper and Richard C. Li
For Further Reading
Gilliom, J. (1994). Surveillance, privacy, and the law:Employee drug testing and the politics of social control.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Levine, B. (1999). Forensic drug testing. In A. J. Jenkins(Ed.), Principles of forensic toxicology (pp. 31–45).Washington, DC: American Association for ClinicalChemistry.
Newton, D. E. (1999). Drug testing: An issue for school,sports, and work. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.
634—�—Drug Testing of Employees
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 634
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.(2001, September). Mandatory guidelines for federalworkplace drug testing programs. Draft guidelines forfederal workplace drug testing program. [Online].Available: http://workplace.samhsa.gov/ResourceCenter/DT/FA/GuidelinesDraft4.htm
Tulacz, G., & O’ Toole, M. P. (1989). What you need to knowabout workplace drug testing. Old Tappen, NJ: Prentice Hall.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). State and territory laws.Working partners substance abuse information database.[Online]. Available: http://said.dol.gov/StateLaws.asp
Drug Testing of Employees—�—635
D-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 635
E� ECONOMIC CRIME
The phrase economic crime refers to a dizzyingrange of offenses. The concept is complicated by thefact that most crimes have as their primary motivefinancial gain. Despite this, not all crimes are definedas economic crimes. Thus, armed robbery, extortion,and burglary are meant to achieve economic gain andthey rely on either active or passive elements offorce to achieve their objective, but they are notdefined as economic crimes. What the term eco-nomic crime does encompass, though, dependingupon its usage, is corporate crimes, white-collarcrimes, occupational crimes, governmental programfrauds, and street crimes of an economic nature.Economic crimes are the opposite of good govern-ment or government transparency. Economic crimescan be committed by a wide range of individuals orgroups, including a sovereign entity such as a nationstate, a legal entity such as a corporation, a group ofpeople, or a lone individual. Offenses can range fromthe loss of a few dollars to losses collectively totalinghundreds of billions of dollars. In its broadest mean-ing, economic crimes would encompass losses ordamages to the public trust, even if no direct profithad been realized by the guilty parties.
One way to understand the range of offenses thatcan be considered economic crimes is to start withthe largest entities accused of these acts. Sovereign
nations are accused of committing economic crimeswhen they allow rampant exploitation of theirnational resources, displacement of their indige-nous peoples, or severe harm to the environment.Such acts may apply to international resources aswell, as in cases where some nations are accusedof overfishing or exploiting endangered speciesor regions. Others have acted to nationalize bothdomestic and foreign assets following a change inpolitical leadership, while still others have gov-erned in a manner that benefited only a few andharmed many. The systematic looting of foreign aidand development monies is a frequent accusationalso leveled at these types of regimes. Within thepast decade, the actions of German industrial cor-porations that relied on slave labor during the Naziregime of World War II have been accused ofcommitting economic crimes. The actions of othernations in holding and even profiting from the cul-tural treasures of other countries and cultures havebeen termed economic crimes, even though the cap-ture or seizure of the items in question may haveoccurred centuries earlier.
Corporations operating in one or more countrieshave also been accused of economic crimes. Theacts that have formed the basis of these accusationshave been varied and far-reaching. They include theuse of sweatshop or child labor, operating in anenvironment or country with loose environmental
637
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 637
regulations, shipping and selling inferior goods,paying bribes to foreign officials, exploiting naturalresources, lowering worker safety standards, andpaying markedly lower wage rates. As with theactions of nation-states, however, it is sometimesdifficult to assess the appropriateness of applyingthe label economic crimes to a given set of facts oractions. Often one party, in or out of power, willaccuse the opposition of economic crimes, when inreality their track record is little or no better. Similarexchanges of allegations occur among multina-tional corporations. One person’s economic crimeis another’s economic development. Even personsof intelligence and goodwill can differ, sometimesvehemently, over the wisdom of a given course ofeconomic activity. Time also plays a factor. Actionsthat were considered routine business activity a fewdecades ago may now be illegal, at least in more vig-ilant countries. Examples would include payment ofbribes to foreign officials, manipulation or tradingregulations and quotas, or hiding true ownership ofeconomic entities.
One can think of economic crime in terms oftwo groups: the first are individuals who resemble agang, and the second are industries. The first is thetraditional perspective of a criminal gang. The typeof economic schemes in which individuals or gangsmay participate is limited only by their imagina-tions and the nature of the industry in which theyare committing their crimes. Schemes might includemoney laundering; stock and bond manipulationin so-called boiler rooms where vulnerable popu-lations are urged to purchase worthless stocks;so-called pump-and-dump schemes in which thevalues of stocks are inflated and then rapidlydeflated; telemarketing schemes; pyramid schemesin which people are asked to invest money with thepromise that it will increase only to have theirinvestment become the profits for the criminals; so-called snake oil schemes that involve sale of spuri-ous medical products; counterfeiting of currency,financial instruments, or rebate coupons; identitytheft schemes that encourage innocent victims toprovide data that can be used to raid their bank orcredit card accounts; or deceptive advertisements foremployment opportunities, small business creation,
or vacation time-share deals, all of which encouragethe victim to provide personal information or remita deposit for services that will never be provided.Other schemes include dating services, fortune-telling, weight loss, or credit consolidation; Nigerian“419” money-laundering scams; home-repair frauds;rigged, phony, or deceptive contests; provision ofsupposedly legitimate educational or vocational cre-dentials; swindling customers, in the case of a smallbusiness; unrealistic offers of medical, life, or burialinsurance; foreign sweepstakes schemes; phonycharitable solicitations; and many more.
Some of the groups that engage in these frauds arequite structured and long term in nature, while othersare ad hoc conglomerations of grifters and scamartists. Either variety may be quite difficult for author-ities to deal with, as they move frequently, increas-ingly travel internationally to avoid prosecution, andare quite good at covering their activities even whenremaining close to their bases of operations. Also,laws and prosecutors in many jurisdictions do nottreat these offenses as seriously as they do violentcrimes, and the relatively few sentences handed downtend to be fairly light. Investigation of these crimesis also complicated by the overlapping jurisdictionsof the different federal law enforcement agenciesempowered to deal with these myriad schemes.
Another way to conceptualize economic crimescommitted by groups is to think in terms of indus-tries. Throughout U.S. history, there appear to havebeen cycles of activity generally centered on busi-ness groupings that would be considered economiccrimes. In the 19th century, these activities revolvedprincipally around railroads, oil, steel, stocks, land,and banking, leading to the term robber barons todescribe those accused of benefiting from theseactivities. In the early decades of the 20th century,there was rampant stock speculation and manipula-tion leading to the stock market crash of 1929.
Toward the middle of the century, in the 1960s,price-fixing and antitrust violations were leveledagainst a number of large companies, particularly inthe steel and electrical products industries. The1970s saw a number of governmental actions againstdefense contractors and also labor organizationsthat had been infiltrated by elements of organized
638—�—Economic Crime
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 638
crime. The 1980s witnessed a banking crisis involvingsavings and loan institutions, as hundreds of suchinstitutions failed amid allegations of mismanage-ment, poor controls, and outright fraud. Also duringthis period the junk bond markets collapsed, againinvolving allegations of mismanagement and fraud.The 1990s saw numerous governmental actionsagainst health care providers, as this market seg-ment boomed due to improved medical services andan aging population. And, in the beginning of the21st century, a number of corporate accountingscandals have come to light, in many cases involv-ing huge and apparently profitable companies.
A separate category of economic crimes involvesoccupational fraud, which are frauds committed bymembers of organizations against their employers.Such acts may take place in the public, private, ornot-for-profit sectors and have been estimated tohave cost institutions within the United States asmuch as $600 billion annually. To put such lossesinto perspective, the entire U.S. fast food industry isa $100 billion a year industry and Major LeagueBaseball is estimated to be a $3 billion a year indus-try. As huge as the fraud estimate is, the figure doesnot include estimates of the more mundane fraudsemployees commit against their employers, suchas calling in sick when they are healthy, removingoffice supplies for home use, inflating or abusingtravel and entertainment expenses, or abusing tele-phone or computer privileges.
Included in the figure are active, willful schemesthat result in financial loss to a company. Suchacts are limited only by the imagination of thedefrauder, but normally include putting nonexistent(or ghost) employees on the payroll or paying feesto ghost vendors; inflating work records throughtimecard or other manipulations; falsely claimingovertime; stealing production materials; sellingproprietary information; engaging in kickbackschemes; inflating sales or production numbers toachieve bonuses; diverting business to entities inwhich one has a hidden interest; diverting or manip-ulating checks; stealing cash; rigging the biddingprocess for outside vendors or the purchase of goodsand services; theft of services by allowing othersimproper access to company resources or services;
short shipping or receiving; and fraudulentlyclaiming worker’s compensation. The proportionof occupational fraud committed in the public andprivate sectors has been estimated to be roughly thesame, although some industries appear to be morevulnerable to occupational frauds than others.
Espionage is also a form of economic crime.Whether labeled espionage or spy cases, the natureof these acts has changed greatly in the past 50 years.Historically, spies tended to operate for reasons ofideology. Within the past 30 years, spies, includingJohn Walker of the U.S. Navy, Aldrich Ames of theCentral Intelligence Agency, Ronald Pelton of theNational Security Agency, and Robert Hanssen ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation, have under-taken their acts for money. While the damage theyhave caused is incalculable, but easily in the bil-lions of dollars, their purely economic motivationmakes them guilty of committing occupationalfrauds (the selling of trade secrets to a competitor).Less damaging to national security but of great con-cern to private companies is industrial espionage, inwhich proprietary information is sold to a competi-tor. The information can range from formulas fordrugs or makeup, recipes of foodstuff, or financialdata that would affect a firm’s ability to acquirecredit, participate in a sale or merger, or list itself onthe stock exchange.
Although economic crime is frequently associ-ated with corporations or relatively faceless bureau-crats, a few individuals throughout history haveengaged in schemes that were either so imaginativeor so lucrative that they remain in the public’s mind.Their activities have contributed to the dimensionsand definition of economic crimes. Perhaps oneof the most famous was Charles Ponzi, an Italianimmigrant who in the early years of the 20th centuryfleeced thousands of investors of millions of dollarsin a postal coupon scheme. The scheme, in whichearly investors are paid off with the proceeds fromlater investors, has thousands of pyramid variationsbut most are still referred to as Ponzi schemes.
In the 1970s the name Robert Vesco becamea household word, as news of the internationalfinancer’s Investor’s Overseas Services (IOS)operation began to leak out. In the 1960s there were
Economic Crime—�—639
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 639
800,000 U.S. military personnel stationed abroadand an additional 2.5 million Americans seekingwork in foreign countries. IOS offered them a vari-ety of supposedly tax-advantaged investment vehi-cles and packages. By the early 1970s the sweetdeals had collapsed, millions of dollars were miss-ing, and Vesco became a high-profile fugitive hop-scotching through a string of Caribbean and CentralAmerican countries.
John Bennett, once an aspiring medical studentwho could not muster the academic firepowernecessary to graduate, finally drifted into the worldof not-for-profit fundraising. By the 1990s theFoundation for New Era Philanthropy was in placeand flourishing, due to Bennett’s workaholic habitsand an increasingly large circle of influentialacquaintances. The pitch the foundation made wassimple—it had a cadre of secret supporters whowanted to do good works but also to remain anony-mous. If a charitable entity wanted to invest withthe foundation for six months, its money wouldbe matched by the secret benefactors, effectivelydoubling it. Scores of organizations came forwardand millions of dollars flowed through the founda-tion until it collapsed. Bennett pleaded no contest tocharges against him and was sentenced to 12 yearsin prison. But for Bennett’s conviction, CharlesPonzi would have been proud of him.
Despite these personal sagas of economic crime,there are a number of larger issues involving poli-tics and changing public perceptions and definitionsof what is, and is not, legitimate economic activity.Similar debates have occurred with regard to white-collar and corporate crimes. One has to do with def-inition. What is a white-collar crime? Is it definedby the nature of the act? Oftentimes, the answer isyes, and offenses such as embezzlement are almostalways considered white-collar crimes. However,others see such crimes defined by the nature of theoffender and fall back on the definition used formany years that such offenses were committed bypersons of high organizational or social standing.Thinking of corporate crimes brings even moreambiguity. One question is, Did the entire organiza-tion benefit or only a favored few? Then, in the caseof punishment, does one punish only those most
actively involved in or favored by the crime, doesone punish the organization, or does one punishboth? If the organization is to be punished, howdoes that happen? A publicly traded company canbe forced to pay a financial penalty such as a fine orrestitution, but cannot be incarcerated. Should indi-viduals be sentenced to prison separate from finan-cial penalties? In the case of fines and restitutionby the corporation, it may appear that the honestemployees and shareholders may be being penal-ized more severely than those who benefited by thecrime and now must do little more than cease theirillegal activities. As economic crime continues toflourish and to become more and more sophisti-cated in its methods and its ability to mask the truenature of the activities, these questions can onlybecome more pointed.
Joseph W. Koletar
For Further Reading
Bologna, G. J., Lindquist, R. J., Wells, J. T., & Bologna, J.(1996). The accountant’s handbook of fraud and com-mercial crime, 1996 supplement cumulative. New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory ofcrime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Koletar, J. W. (2003). Fraud exposed: What you don’t knowcould cost your company millions. New York: John Wiley& Sons.
Wells, J. T. (1997) Occupational fraud and abuse. Austin,TX: Obsidian.
Wells, J. T. (2000). Frankensteins of fraud. Austin, TX:Obsidian.
� ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Electronic surveillance refers to the practice ofmonitoring individuals through the use of electronicdevices. Law enforcement agencies are generallythe first entities that come to mind when the termis mentioned because of the obvious benefits suchdevices play in monitoring criminal activities.However, it is worth noting that this is not alwaysan accurate assumption. Although such devices arebeneficial to law enforcement investigations, theuse of electronic surveillance today extends well
640—�—Electronic Surveillance
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 640
into the private and commercial sectors. Manybusinesses have found electronic surveillance ofemployees to be a cost productive method of ensur-ing that the company’s time and resources are notwasted on the personal business of employees.
DEVELOPMENT OFELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
The use of electronic surveillance technology canbe traced back as far as the late 1800s, when it wasdiscovered that the newly constructed telephonelines could be tapped into, thereby allowing for themonitoring of individuals’ phone communications.The technology and procedures associated withthis activity became known as wiretapping, andthe technique is believed to have been used duringthe Civil War as a means of Confederate andUnion agents intercepting military commands. Theuse of such techniques provided new investiga-tive opportunities for law enforcement personnel,since surveillance could now be conducted onconversations coming from rooms, buildings, andother enclosures without the requirement ofphysical entrance into the area. In fact, the justi-fication or determination of the legality of thesedevices was often based upon the grounds thatthere was no physical intrusion into the suspect’sprivately protected areas.
Eventually the Supreme Court examined whetherthe use of such electronic monitoring devices vio-lated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition onunreasonable searches and seizures. In Olmstead v.United States (277 U.S. 438) the court was askedto determine whether law enforcement officers vio-lated the Constitution when they obtained evidenceagainst a suspect through the use of a wiretapdevice attached in the basement of the suspect’sbuilding. The government based its argument on thefact that there was no violation due to there beingno physical trespass into the private areas controlledby the suspect. The Court agreed with the govern-ment’s argument and in 1928 found that “there wasno searching. There was no seizure. The evidencewas secured by the use of the sense of hearing andthat only. . . . The wires are not a part of his house
or office, any more than are the highways alongwhich they are stretched” (pp. 464– 465).
Following the Court’s decision in Olmstead theredeveloped a belief that without physical trespassthere was no violation of the Fourth Amendment,and the use of electronic surveillance was held tobe a valid method of circumventing the protectionsof the Constitution. Congress, in an attempt to regu-late the use of electronic surveillance technology,passed the Communications Act of 1934, whichregulated the unauthorized recording of telephonecalls. However, there were several problems withthe legislation. The primary cause of concern wasthat the Communications Act only regulated therecording of communications that were to bereleased. The legislation was ineffective in dealingwith recordings in which the government did notreveal any of the contents of communications. Onceagain the issue turned to the courts, and over thenext three decades the Supreme Court began sys-tematically eliminating the belief that physical tres-pass was necessary for a violation of the FourthAmendment.
While the Supreme Court’s opinions in the 1940sand 1950s alluded to the fact that electronic sur-veillance could not be used to avoid physical tres-pass during an investigation, it was in 1967 that thecourt openly ruled against the use of electronicdevices in this manner. In Katz v. United States (389U.S. 347) the issue was whether law enforcementpersonnel violated the Fourth Amendment whenthey obtained evidence of the defendant transmit-ting wagering information from a telephone booth.A microphone was attached to the top of the tele-phone booth and conversations by the defendantwere recorded. The defendant argued that without awarrant the seizure violated his constitutional rightto privacy, an argument to which the governmentresponded by claiming that there was no need for asearch warrant because the microphone was on topof the phone booth and there was no physical tres-pass involved in the seizure of the communications.The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that previouscase law concerning the issue of trespass hadmoved the Court beyond such an argument andtherefore found that “the fact that the electronic
Electronic Surveillance—�—641
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 641
device employed to achieve that end did not happento penetrate the wall of the booth can have no con-stitutional significance” (p. 353). It ruled that theFourth Amendment protects people and not places,and because electronic surveillance devices weredesigned to record personal information with lim-ited or no physical trespass, the use of such devicesmust be regulated by the courts.
Following the Court’s decision there appeared tobe some level of confusion, as many law enforce-ment agencies had relied on the Olmstead doctrineas a foundation in their approach to surveillance.In an effort to provide regulation to the use of elec-tronic devices to monitor suspects, Congress onceagain passed legislation in the form of Title III ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts.Title III regulated the interception of oral and wirecommunications through the use of electronicdevices. These statutes are still used today in theregulation of electronic surveillance, and in 1986the statutes were amended with the addition of theElectronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). TheECPA regulated the government’s ability to obtainelectronic communications and is considered one ofthe more instrumental pieces of legislation in regardto electronic surveillance due to the prevalence ofe-mail and other forms of electronic communication.
CURRENT ISSUES INVOLVINGELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
There are several devices now used in the processof electronic surveillance. The more commonlyencountered devices are wiretaps, miniature micro-phones, pen registers, digital cameras, and e-mailmonitoring technology. Wiretaps were the devicesemployed in the Olmstead case. Miniature micro-phones are recorders capable of capturing low levelsof sound while being worn without detection bythose who are under surveillance. Today the devicesare used extensively when collecting evidence forundercover operations involving narcotics or prosti-tution. The ability of the judges and jurors to seeand hear individuals as they commit a criminal actis a powerful tool in the process of carrying outjustice. Pen registers are used in cases involving
telephone communications. Unlike wiretaps, whichprovide the actual communications, pen registersonly provide information relating to the telephonenumbers dialed by the telephone that is undersurveillance.
The last two devices, digital cameras and e-mailmonitoring technology, are the more heatedlydebated devices currently used for electronic sur-veillance. The technology associated with digitalcameras has advanced at incredible rates over thepast two decades, with cameras today capable ofmagnification of 200 times or greater. This meansthat an individual could be clearly monitored fromas far away as 150 yards or more. Also, softwarehas recently been developed that will work inconjunction with digital cameras and digital videorecorders that is capable of comparing images takenfrom one of these devices with images in a knowncriminal database. The technology, referred to asfacial recognition technology, has not been com-pletely developed but has seen increasing levels ofinterest in the past five years.
Digital cameras have also been modified in aneffort to record not only physical appearances butalso the heat emanations given off by people andobjects. The use of these cameras, which are com-monly referred to as thermal imaging devices, wasaddressed in 2001 by the Supreme Court. In Kyllo v.United States (533 U.S. 27) the Court was asked todetermine whether the use of thermal imaging tech-nology to locate the presence of marijuana was aviolation of the Fourth Amendment. The argumentproposed by the government was that there was noviolation of the Constitution because the officersmerely scanned an area that was in public view. Itwas only after this initial scan that law enforcementdiscovered heat emanations consistent with thosenecessary to grow marijuana and obtained a searchwarrant for the residence. The Court, however, dis-agreed and found that any evidence obtainedthrough the use of electronic surveillance technol-ogy that in essence provides for a search of an areathat would be unobtainable without physical intru-sion into a constitutionally protected area must begoverned by the same law as techniques that wouldrequire physical intrusion. Interestingly enough, it
642—�—Electronic Surveillance
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 642
was the Court’s opinion that this should be the casewhen such electronic technology is employed by lawenforcement but is not the case in general public use.This curious statement concerning the public userequirement leads some to believe that should thetechnology become more common and available tothe public, then law enforcement agencies could pos-sibly employ the device without a search warrant.
The use of electronic surveillance devices tomonitor electronic communications is possibly thegreatest argument concerning electronic surveil-lance. As the use of electronic mail, commonlyreferred to as e-mail, has increased, so too has theneed for law enforcement agencies and privateindustries to occasionally monitor the communica-tions for inappropriate behaviors. Private industriesare of course significantly less limited in the appli-cation of such monitoring technology because ofthe issue of diminished privacy held by individualswho work for a company and who use companyequipment to conduct their electronic communica-tions. Law enforcement entities are limited by theECPA and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act, with the ECPA governing theability of governmental agents to gain access tostored electronic communications, or e-mails thatare stored on the Internet service provider’s (ISP’s)computers. Title III is used to obtain electroniccommunications as they occur, as the ECPA onlyprovides for communications that are stored on thesuspect’s ISP’s network server.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hasbeen at the center of heated privacy rights debatesfor the past several years as a result of its use ofa surveillance device designed to intercept e-mails.DCS1000, which was originally named Carnivore,is a computer that attaches to the e-mail server of anISP and monitors e-mails that pass through on theirway from or to subscribers. The device is designedto capture any or all of the following portions ofan electronic communication: the e-mail addresses,subject lines, headers of e-mails, and content ofe-mails. According to the FBI, the device is only usedto monitor communications coming from or to indi-viduals under criminal investigation, but privacyrights groups have argued that the device is actually
monitoring others who are not under investigation.In response to these criticisms, and at the request ofprivacy rights groups, the FBI has released largeamounts of information relating to the operation ofDCS1000. This information, however, has been cen-sored by the FBI in an attempt to protect the opera-tional integrity of the device. As a result, manygroups have continued to argue that the device isbeing used to illegally monitor the electronic com-munications of innocent people, but the FBI hasconsistently denied using the device outside ofauthorized surveillance orders from the court.
THE FUTURE OFELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
There is little reason to believe that the use of elec-tronic surveillance will decrease in the near future.On the contrary, the issue of terrorism has led to amoderate increase in the belief that electronic sur-veillance is important to the nation’s protection.Building from thermal imaging technology, airportshave even considered the possibility of institutingthermal imaging scanners to prevent individualsfrom bringing weapons on board commercial air-crafts. Of course, with the development of each newform of electronic surveillance technology theredevelops an argument concerning the constitution-ality of the device’s use. However, considering therole electronic surveillance devices plays in theoperations of law enforcement agencies and privatesecurity operations today, it is unlikely that neitherdevelopment nor use of the technology will cease inthe foreseeable future.
Robert Moore
For Further Reading
Coolidge, T. (2000, February). Electronic surveillance. FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 25–32.
Elder, W. (2003, October). Electronic surveillance: Unlawfulinvasion of privacy or justifiable law enforcement. YaleNew Haven Teachers Institute. [Online]. Available:http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1983/4/83.04.07.x.html
Farmer, D., & Mann, C. (2003). Surveillance nation.Technology Review, 106(4), 46–52.
Electronic Surveillance—�—643
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 643
Harrison, A. (2000). Privacy group critical of release of carni-vore data. Computerworld, 34(41), 24.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).Olmstead v. United States, 277. U.S. 438 (1928).Pannuru, R. (2003, October). 1984 in 2003? National Review,
pp. 17–18.Quinton, B. (2000). Watching the detectives. Telephony,
239(4), 8.
� EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
At the scene of an emergency such as a natural oraccidental disaster, a terrorist attack, an act of massviolence, or an incident in which a considerablenumber of fatalities occur, law enforcement person-nel are among the first to respond and are respon-sible for the management of the rescue, recovery, andinvestigation. Mass violence can be defined as acriminal incident whose consequences result in amassive number of casualties and traumatized sur-vivors. A terrorist attack is a prime example of suchmass violence.
The federal government’s response to a large-scale critical incident anywhere in the United Statesis most frequently managed by the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA, whichwas created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter tomerge a number of disaster-related responsibilitiesin the federal government, remained an independentagency until March 2003, when it was merged intothe new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The role of federal law enforcement, particularlyin the case of a terrorist attack, lies in the coordi-nated management of the consequences of the inci-dent as well as a planned approach for prevention.The emergency preparedness plans and proceduresdeveloped by federal law enforcement agencieshave become the models for state and local agen-cies. Each agency has a unique role and performsspecialized tasks at the scene of the emergency. Inthe case of natural disasters such as tornados orhurricanes, FEMA remains in charge. In disastersin which criminal conduct is involved, the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI) takes on a muchlarger role in conjunction with the state or local
police agency in whose jurisdiction the eventoccurred. FEMA is the lead agency responsible forcoordinating the federal response to the conse-quences of an emergency incident such as a terror-ist attack and has developed comprehensive plansfor emergency operations.
INITIAL RESPONSE
Since its creation in 2003, the DHS has had primaryresponsibility for the prevention of terrorist attackswithin the United States and has been delegated tolead the recovery from any attacks that may occur.To address these objectives, the Federal ResponsePlan and the U.S. Government Interagency Domes-tic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan weredeveloped. These plans include guidelines on thecoordination of federal, state, and local law enforce-ment agencies, emergency public information andmedia relations procedures, and plans for recoveryefforts.
Another important part of emergency prepared-ness plans has been the establishment of color-codedthreat levels. The threat levels are severe (red), high(orange), elevated (yellow), guarded (blue), and low(green). These threat levels were established to helpstate and local law enforcement officials provide forthe safety and welfare of their communities. Warningsof a potential incident can come from the CentralIntelligence Agency, FBI, or from any law enforce-ment agency.
Local law enforcement’s responsibility lies inthe first response, establishing incident commandand assessment of personnel and equipment needs,evacuation, and rescue. State and federal lawenforcement can provide reinforcement and assis-tance with personnel, equipment, and otherresources. Although each critical incident is unique,the role and responsibility of federal, state, and locallaw enforcement is similar. The goal is to preventfurther incidents and protect those in the immediatearea from harm. The personnel, equipment, and otherresources employed will largely depend on the spe-cific event and its magnitude. As the local enforce-ment officers respond to the incident, appropriatenotifications are made to local, state, and federal
644—�—Emergency Preparedness
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 644
authorities. Crisis and consequence managementis critical in the early stages and usually takes placein the command center located in the outer perime-ter. It is from here that law enforcement leadershipcontrols and implements the plan of action.
Working closely with DHS and FEMA, the FBIis responsible for assessing all information relayedby local and state law enforcement personnel andfor managing the criminal investigation along withstate and local law enforcement agencies. FEMAretains responsibility for coordinating supportteams for recovery operations. Fast, accurate infor-mation is of paramount importance in order toensure an effective and coordinated response fromall agencies involved in disaster recovery. This willprevent public hysteria and minimize the possibilityof related disasters or crimes in the aftermath of theoriginal emergency.
The Department of Health and Human Serviceshas been designated to coordinate the mobile triagesupport teams and to assess the need for personnel,supplies, and triage locations. The American RedCross has historically played a major role in theseefforts. Bioterrorism, or exposure to chemical andradioactive agents, requires specialized responseplans that call for a high level of interagency collab-oration to meet unique treatment and investigationobjectives. Mental health support services are criti-cal during an emergency incident, particularly whenthere are massive casualties. Because survivors,families, friends, coworkers of victims, and othersare at risk for psychological trauma and require men-tal health services, emergency preparedness plansgenerally include instructions for contacting psychi-atrists, psychologists, social workers, spiritual careproviders, and pet therapy providers.
At the scene of mass violence, law enforcementagencies are confronted with survivors, witnesses,and onlookers. Taking control, rescuing survivors,and providing a sense of security to those in crisis isone of the most difficult tasks for law enforcementofficers. Law enforcement personnel who respond tothe consequences of an emergency related to massviolence are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorderand are also vulnerable to vicarious trauma. The ini-tial trauma experienced by the officer can become
magnified by further exposure to the victims ofthe incident and their families. Many law enforce-ment agencies have employee assistance programs toaddress the consequences of responding to emergen-cies of this magnitude.
It is critical for law enforcement to continue toassess the threat potential for additional acts of vio-lence. Secondary devices, conventional explosives,and chemical, biological, and radioactive agentsare among the list of possible modes of attack.Emergency plans are developed with contingencyplans for multiple crises sites or for multiple crisesat the same site.
RECOVERY
In the early hours of an emergency incident, the firstagency on the scene, which will usually be the localpolice department, will have charge until FEMAtakes over coordination of the response and therecovery. Agencies that may become involved in addi-tion to local law enforcement, emergency respon-ders, and public health authorities include theDepartments of Justice, Defense, Energy, Healthand Human Services, and Agriculture; the Environ-mental Protection Agency; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, and the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention.
Natural disasters are unpredictable and may beinescapable; however, a crisis and consequencemanagement plan can be developed in anticipationof any type of emergency. In addition to planningfor natural disasters, since September 11, 2001, lawenforcement agencies have become more aggres-sively involved in counterterrorism initiatives. Counter-terrorism units have been created in federal, state,and local law enforcement agencies and continue tocoordinate their efforts. Additional training, oftenheld jointly among the various agencies, has alsobeen increased in recent years.
Prevention of acts of terrorism is in the forefrontof law enforcement’s preparedness. Such strategiesinclude prevention, interdiction, ongoing investigation,and intelligence gathering. In addition, prepared-ness includes a proactive crisis and consequencemanagement plan.
Emergency Preparedness—�—645
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 645
Emergency preparedness can involve the businesscommunity, educational facilities, human serviceorganizations, the medical and psychological com-munity, and mortuary services. Determining the roleand responsibilities of responders, local fire depart-ments, state and local law enforcement personnel,state and local governments, hazardous materialteams, paramedics, and the National Guard requiresongoing dialogues about response plans. Prior emer-gency incidents are used as critical analysis toolsto assess what was effective previously and whatshould be avoided for future incidents. It is alsoduring this open communication that interjuris-dictional responsibilities can be addressed. Formalmemorandums of agreement are often prepared inorder to avoid confusion over jurisdictional author-ity and responsibility when the incident has alreadytaken place.
FEMA has developed an extensive database thatcan be used as a reference guide for training andplanning. It is a resource for crisis and consequencemanagement and response to emergencies of a ter-rorist nature including chemical, biological, or nuclearattacks. Federal response capabilities, educationalinformation that includes indicators of chemical,biological, and radiological emergencies, first respon-der concerns, and other sources for assistance, arediscussed. This database also addresses first responderconcerns for explosions and fires.
VULNERABLE AREAS
A key portion of emergency preparedness for policeis being aware of locations that are likely targetareas of an attack. The identification of these loca-tions is usually coordinated with the FBI. Likelytargets generally include government facilities,airports, communication and electrical facilities,transportation carriers and facilities, major high-ways, bridges, tunnels, and critical access roads.Emergencies occurring in tunnels or on bridges,highways, and waterways—whether through acci-dental, natural, or criminal acts—may result in mas-sive casualties and critical service disruptions.Preparedness plans should include details on allhigh-risk areas, including where heavy volumes of
traffic can be anticipated that would raise thecasualty levels and that could also delay or impederesponse or rescue efforts.
Transit carriers and facilities around the worldhave been prime targets for hijacking, hostageor barricaded situations, shootings, detonation ofexplosive devices, and the release of chemical, bio-logical, radiological, or nuclear weapons. Tightenedsystem security programs to protect passengers,employees, and facility structures have been initi-ated in response to these incidents. In addition toplanning for alternate routes, law enforcementagencies have periodically implemented mandatorycheckpoints for inspection of possible incendiarydevices or hazardous materials. The terrorist attackson the World Trade Center and the Pentagonwere accomplished through the use of airplanesas weapons. This led to heightened security proce-dures at all airports, where the DHS has authorityover the facilities’ security systems.
Government offices, schools, prominent skyscrap-ers, stadiums, monuments, and landmarks may beprime targets because of their high traffic volumesand congestion. They are also vulnerable because theymay have symbolic meaning, may attract tourists, ormay be centrally located. If they are well known, theirdesirability as targets will be enhanced because of theimpact their destruction will make on supporters andantagonists of the terrorist group. Certainly both thePentagon and the World Trade Center are examplesof the vulnerability of targets that are recognizablearound the world and are viewed as representing thepower of the group or nation under attack.
Water supply facilities are another type ofvulnerable target, subject to chemical, biological,nuclear, or radiological contamination. Agriculturalfacilities are at risk for biological contamination,making security at processing, packaging, and stor-age locations critical. Checkpoints where creden-tialing and weapons inspection are implementedhave become routine for enforcement personnelcharged with the protection of these types of sites.The detection of suspicious packages, vehicles, andindividuals is an ongoing operation for many locallaw enforcement agencies in cooperation with stateand federal authorities. In addition to physical
646—�—Emergency Preparedness
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 646
targets, elected and appointed public officials mayalso be at risk, enhancing the need for dignitaryprotection specialists in many agencies.
Law enforcement agencies are charged with themission of protecting life and property and prevent-ing crime. Their roles in emergency preparednessinclude responding to initial crises and managingthe immediate consequences. Emergencies that takethe form of incidents of mass violence, particularlyterrorist attacks, require a key focus on prevention.Emergency preparedness includes not only appro-priate and effectual crisis and consequence man-agement plans, but also effective measures to avertthose emergencies that may be avoidable.
Grace A. Telesco
For Further Reading
Bodrero, D. (2002, February). Law enforcement’s new chal-lenge to investigate, interdict, and prevent terrorism. ThePolice Chief [Special Issue “Defeating Terrorism”],pp. 41–48.
Bridges, D. (2002, February). It’s a police problem: The ter-rorist threat’s impact on state and local law enforcement.The Police Chief [Special Issue “Defeating Terrorism”],pp. 35–38.
Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). Emergency pre-paredness and response. [Online]. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect4.html
FEMA–Rapid Response Information System. [Online].Available: http://www.fema.gov/rris/index.htm
Managing the emergency consequences of terrorist incidents:Interim planning guide for state and local governments.(2002). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency ManagementAgency.
Patterson, G., & Telesco, G. (2003). Mass violence and lawenforcement personnel. In L. Straussner & N. Phillips(Eds.), Understanding mass violence: A social work per-spective (pp. 117–125). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Telesco, G. (2002, Summer). Rescue and recovery: Providingcrisis intervention to the families of the victims of theWorld Trade Center. Reflections, pp. 12–18.
� ENCRYPTION
The concept of encryption dates back to the timeof Greek and Roman generals, who used the tech-nique in their fields of battle. Similar methods havesince been employed in many situations of war.
Cryptography is also used by civilians for protectingindustrial and scientific secrets and financial infor-mation. The function of the encryption is to protectthe confidentiality, the authenticity, and the integrityof the message. Encryption is used to scramble theinformation or message sent so that unauthorizedpersons cannot read the content. The technique alsoprovides digital signatures that can be used to iden-tify the author of a message. Furthermore, methodshave been developed to verify that a message hasnot been altered during the transmission process.In situations in which information needs to beprotected, the effectiveness of the transmissionof messages becomes crucial. Military, civilian, ordiplomatic organizations are therefore faced withthe challenges of intercepting and decipheringenemy communications, as well as keeping theirown codes from being decoded. The use of encryp-tion by major criminals and terrorists can seriouslyaggravate the work of law enforcement agencies,given that it can be used to conceal unlawful activ-ities. Lawfully intercepted and retrieved materialcan therefore be an essential tool in the fight againstserious crimes and threats to national security.
Encryption is a cryptographic technology.Cryptography is the basic technology that protectsinformation during the transit process. A messageis transformed and is viewed as an unintelligibleformat by an unauthorized recipient. However, anauthorized receiver can transform it back to its orig-inal form or content. The modern cryptographicmethod consists of the paired processes of encryp-tion and decryption. Encryption is the systemthrough which a plaintext (message) is transformedinto a ciphertext (second message) using encryptionalgorithms and encryption keys. Decryption isdefined as the opposite of encryption: the ciphertextis transformed back into the original format. Theonly way to decrypt an encrypted message is byknowing the particular key used in the algorithmsystem of choice.
Two major types of encryption algorithms arein existence. The first algorithm, called private keyalgorithms, uses the same key to code and decode.In this system only the one coding-decoding keycan be used to decrypt a message coded in this way.
Encryption—�—647
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 647
A second type of algorithm is the public keyalgorithms. Public key algorithms use differentkeys to respectively encrypt and decrypt the mes-sage. The encryption key is a public key since it ismade publicly available, whereas the decryptionkey is the secret key. Consequently, only the autho-rized receiver can decode the message in the publickey algorithm system.
The ability of a system to protect informationfrom being decoded is dependent on four factors: itspower of protection to keep the key secret, the levelof difficulty for a hacker to be able to guess possi-ble keys, the nonexistence of additional ways todecrypt final messages other than by use of the rightkey, and the prevention from decrypting an entiremessage of that system even when parts of thedecoding process are known. Unfortunately, eachlogarithm system can only have a finite number ofkeys. For those hackers who have the time and thecomputer skills, a system can be cracked by usingevery possible key. So far, no encryption algorithmexists without a flaw.
A type of attack employed against private keysystem coded information is referred to as a keysearch attack, in which every possible key is tried.No system can offer absolute protection against thisattack; however, this method is not very efficientgiven the astronomical number of possible keys thatneed to be tested until the right one is found.Another method for attacking a system is calledcryptanalysis. The goal of this method is either todiscover the plaintext or to discover the encryptionkey used to code text. Sophisticated mathematicalskills and computer power are needed to performcryptanalysis. A third type of attack, the system-based attack, is designed to strike the encryption-decryption system instead of attacking the algorithmitself. Public key algorithms can be attacked by usingthe publicly known key to determine the secret keythrough the help of mathematical skills. Finally, asystem may also be beaten by finding a fundamen-tal mathematical flaw in the encryption system.
Under United States law, the export of cryp-tography systems is restricted by the DefenseTrade Regulations. As of December 1996, an indi-vidual needs a license from the U.S. Commerce
Department to export a cryptography program. U.S.cryptography export rules have relaxed since theSecurity and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE)Act, HR 850, was introduced in 1999. SAFE allowsU.S. citizens to use any type of encryption any-where in the world and permits the sale of anyencryption type domestically. The same act pro-posed that the export laws should be eased forencryption software and hardware if a foreignmanufacturer has already made it widely available.Additionally, the act created criminal penalties forthe willful use of encryption to conceal a crime,enforced by the Department of Justice. SAFE alsoproposed that the president of the United Statesconvene an international conference to draft anencryption policy agreement. However, the amend-ment (dated July 21, 1999) of the SAFE HR 850Act granted the president authority to deny encryp-tion exports and to dictate the level of encryptioneligible for license exceptions.
Since 2001, there has been an increase in con-cerns regarding software encryption policy in theUnited States. In the wake of the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001, there have been renewed callsamong some lawmakers for restrictions on the useand availability of strong encryption products. It isbelieved that the restrictions on strong encryptiontechniques may reduce the risk of terrorist groupsacquiring encryption techniques. In addition, elec-tronic message tracking is currently used to surveyterrorist communications. Access to the encryptionkey is necessary for government agencies to decryptsuch messages. Consequently, proposals have beenmade that would grant law enforcement access toencryption keys.
Nadine Santos and Richard C. Li
For Further Reading
Bramson, A. (2003, March). Encryption legislation at aglance. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/legislation.htm
Center for Democracy and Technology. (2003, March). SafeHR 850: The Security and Freedom through Encryption(SAFE) Act: 2/25/99 Introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte(R-VA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). [Online]. Available:http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_106/SAFE/
648—�—Encryption
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 648
Encryption policy: Hearing before the Committee on ArmedServices, House of Representatives, 106th Cong., firstsession (July 1 and 13, 1999) [microfiche].
Garfinkel, S., & Spafford, G. (1997). Web security andcommerce. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates.
Howard, M. (2002). Writing secure code. Redmond, WA:Microsoft Press.
Kippenhahn, R. (1999). Code breaking: A history and explo-ration. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.
Knight, W. (2003, March). Weakened encryption lays bare al-Qaeda files. [Online]. Available: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991804
Maiwald, E. (2001). Network security: A beginner’s guide.New York: London: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Stallings, W. (1999). Cryptography and network security:Principles and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Stimson, D. R. (2002). Cryptography: Theory and practice.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
� EXCLUSIONARY RULE
The exclusionary rule, created by the U.S. SupremeCourt, states that any evidence seized by govern-ment agents (usually police) in violation of theFourth Amendment’s protection against unlawfulsearch and seizure is not admissible in an ensuingcriminal trial. Although the exclusionary rule is notpart of the U.S. Constitution, this issue of whetherevidence obtained in violation of the Constitutioncould be used in court against a defendant wasraised before the Supreme Court as early as 1886(Boyd v. United States), but remained open to debateuntil 1914. Finally, in 1914, in order to enforce themandate of the Fourth Amendment, the SupremeCourt determined that prohibiting the introductionof evidence seized in violation of the FourthAmendment, in a criminal trial, was the only way todeter law enforcement officials from future uncon-stitutional conduct. The development of the case lawsurrounding the exclusionary rule is tied to issues offederal versus states rights, because the early deci-sions pertaining to the rule applied only to cases inthe federal courts. This created a dual system ofexclusion until 1961, when the Court extended therule to all state courts and to all law enforcementpersonnel, whether federal, state, or local.
Without the exclusionary rule, evidence seizedby government officials was admissible in criminaltrials, even if it was procured by constitutionallyimpermissible means. A police officer could enter ahome, without a warrant or probable cause, in directviolation of the Fourth Amendment, and any con-traband discovered during that unlawful search wasadmissible in the following criminal trial. A defen-dant could not have the evidence barred from trial,but could only seek other remedies at law, such asa lawsuit against the government agent, to recoverdamages for any injury sustained as a result of theagent’s misconduct.
All this changed in 1914, when the SupremeCourt decided in the case of Weeks v. United Statesthat evidence seized by federal authorities in viola-tion of the Fourth Amendment was inadmissible infederal criminal trials. The Court reasoned that thiswould deter federal agents from acting in violationof the Fourth Amendment by removing any poten-tial benefit to the government from the evidenceseized unconstitutionally. Federal officials wouldhave to be careful, the Court reasoned, not to violatethe Fourth Amendment if they knew that the evi-dence seized in such a manner would not be admis-sible at the subsequent federal criminal trial. Thedecision took into consideration the dual system ofthe U.S. government, with both federal and statecriminal statutes. Federal crimes are adjudicatedin the federal courts, while the state courts handlecases involving violation of state laws. BecauseWeeks did not apply to state officers or state courts,evidence seized by state officials, even if in viola-tion of the Fourth Amendment, was still admissiblein a state court criminal prosecution. Additionally,evidence seized by a state agent in violation of theFourth Amendment would be admissible in a fed-eral criminal prosecution, if the state agent turnedover the illegally seized evidence to the federalauthorities, as long as the federal authorities werenot directly involved in the seizure. This becameknown as the silver platter doctrine because thestates’ agents gave the federal authorities the evi-dence on a silver platter. The Court’s rationale wasthat there was no deterrent effect on unlawful searchesand seizures committed by federal authorities by the
Exclusionary Rule—�—649
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 649
preclusion of evidence seized unlawfully by a stateactor from a federal criminal prosecution.
In 1949, the Supreme Court determined that theFourth Amendment applied to the states through theFourteenth Amendment, which extended much ofthe Bill of Rights to the states by incorporation. InWolf v. Colorado, the Court held that even thoughthe Fourth Amendment applied to the states, evi-dence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendmentby a state officer need not be suppressed (precludedfrom introduction into evidence) in a state criminaltrial. The states were free to fashion other remediesto address violations of the Fourth Amendment bystate officials. Additionally, evidence seized in vio-lation of the Fourth Amendment by state officialswas still admissible in federal criminal prosecutionsunder the silver platter doctrine. Once again, therationale was that there was no deterrent effecton wrongdoing by federal agents when evidenceseized illegally by state officials was precludedfrom a federal criminal trial.
As often occurs with controversial constitutionalissues, a number of cases reached the Court. Theissue was revisited in the early 1950s, when theCourt decided two cases originating from California(Rochin v. California and Irvine v. California). TheCourt held that if a state official obtained evidencein a sufficiently offensive manner, and if the officialegregiously violated the Fourth Amendment, admit-ting such evidence violated the constitutional guar-antee of substantive due process. The Court wasconcerned, especially about Rochin, whose stomachhad been pumped to obtain evidence of illegal druguse, that the way in which evidence was obtainedwould not “shock the conscience” or violate theconcept of fundamental fairness. When governmentagents did not follow such rules of fairness, the Courtconcluded that the appropriate remedy was in effectto punish the government by preventing use of theevidence seized in such a manner. Even after thesedecisions, however, states could still use evidenceseized in violation of the Fourth Amendment in allbut the most egregious cases and there was still noprohibition against using evidence seized unlawfullyby a state agent in a federal criminal prosecution, nomatter how serious the constitutional transgression.
The Supreme Court soon realized that the frame-work it had created was rife with loopholes and dif-ficult to apply. It called for myriad gradations indetermining how offensive to consider a particularFourth Amendment violation. It left intact the silverplatter doctrine, which resulted in the odd state ofaffairs that evidence seized by a state official, in amanner that precluded its use in a federal criminaltrial if done by a federal agent, was still admissiblein both federal and state criminal prosecutionswhen done by the state official.
In 1960, the Court exercised its supervisory pow-ers over the administration of criminal justice in thefederal courts and effectively eliminated the silverplatter doctrine (Elkins v. United States). AfterElkins, if the evidence was seized by a state officialin the same way that barred it from a federal crimi-nal trial if done by a federal official, the evidencewould be barred in a federal prosecution, eventhough no federal agents had been involved in theunlawful search or seizure. There was, however, apart of the silver platter doctrine that survived Elkins.Evidence seized by government officials fromcountries other than the United States remainedadmissible in either a federal or a state criminal trialin the United States. In Stonehill v. United States, afederal court of appeals determined that evidenceseized by foreign officials in violation of the FourthAmendment would only be suppressed if therehad been significant involvement by U.S. officials.Basically, this required that the search and seizurebe a joint venture between the two governments forthe evidence to be considered inadmissible in acriminal trial conducted in a state or federal courtwithin the United States.
Shortly after Elkins, in 1961, the Supreme Courthanded down its landmark decision in Mapp v.Ohio. The Mapp decision ended the silver platterdoctrine by extending the exclusionary rule to allstate criminal prosecutions. After Mapp, it made nodifference whether it was a state official or a federalofficial: if any government agent obtained evidencein a manner contrary to the Fourth Amendment, thatevidence would not be admissible in either a state ora federal criminal prosecution. The Court maintainedthat its judicially created remedy to safeguard
650—�—Exclusionary Rule
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 650
Fourth Amendment rights was aimed at deterringofficial misconduct by not permitting the govern-ment to benefit from its unlawful searches orseizures and that the government would make surethat its agents acted within the constraints of theFourth Amendment.
There has been considerable debate over thevalue of the exclusionary rule in deterring policemisconduct. Many observers have commented thatit makes little sense to penalize society for policemisconduct. Why should credible evidence that anindividual has committed a crime be suppressedfrom introduction at a criminal trial simply becausethe government obtained it in a manner that violatedthe Fourth Amendment?
Proponents of the exclusionary rule have main-tained that without a deterrent against governmentaloverreaching, police and prosecutors would violatethe Fourth Amendment at will to obtain evidence.They also have pointed out that there is an elementof fundamental fairness in excluding evidence fromtrial when it is improperly obtained in violationof the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, it wouldimpugn judicial integrity if the courts willinglyallowed a conviction based on evidence seized in anunconstitutional manner.
Detractors of the exclusionary rule have claimedthat there are other adequate remedies to ensuregovernmental adherence to the Fourth Amendment.Government officials who violated the FourthAmendment’s constraints could be punishedadministratively or criminally and could be liablecivilly to injured parties. Those opposed to theexclusionary rule claimed that it was preferable toadmit the evidence at the criminal trial and then letthe government official who violated the FourthAmendment face whatever consequences mightresult from the unlawful actions. In this way, thedetractors argued, society benefited by allowingthe evidence to be used against the criminal and theofficial misconduct was penalized by other means.Despite their arguments, however, the exclusionaryrule has endured.
There have been several important judicially cre-ated exceptions to the exclusionary rule that havemitigated its hampering effect on law enforcement.
The two most important are the good faith exceptionand the inevitable discovery exception. Normally, ifevidence had been obtained in a manner that vio-lated the Fourth Amendment, it was excluded fromintroduction at the subsequent criminal trial. If, how-ever, the government agent acted in good faith,and had a good faith basis to believe that the actionswere constitutionally permissible, the evidence wasnot suppressed at trial. For example, if the policeobtained a search warrant to search a specific apart-ment, but the warrant listed the wrong apartment, andthe police searched that incorrectly identified apart-ment and found contraband, that contraband wasadmissible into evidence in a criminal trial becausethe police had a good faith basis to rely on the war-rant, even though it specified the wrong apartment.According to this reasoning, if the police had a goodfaith basis that the search was lawful (reliance ona warrant), there was no deterrent effect on futurepolice misconduct by suppressing the evidence, sothe court would allow the contraband seized from thewrong apartment to be admitted into evidence.
If the police had seized evidence in violation of theFourth Amendment, but could prove to the court’ssatisfaction that they would have discovered theevidence anyhow, it would be admissible underthe inevitable discovery exception. For example, ifthe police arrested a motorist and performed an ille-gal search of the trunk of the car subsequent to thearrest, the contraband seized was still admissible,despite the unlawful search, if the police couldshow that whenever they arrested someone in a car,the car was towed to the police impound garagewhere an inventory search was always conducted.The court would reason that the contraband wouldhave been discovered during the inventory search,and therefore its discovery was inevitable and theevidence would be admissible despite the originalunconstitutional search. Again, the courts have rea-soned that there was little deterrent effect on policemisconduct by the exclusion of evidence that wouldhave been inevitably discovered despite the policemisconduct.
The exclusionary rule provides a means ofenforcing the Fourth Amendment. By precludingthe government from introducing evidence obtained
Exclusionary Rule—�—651
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 651
in violation of the Fourth Amendment in a criminaltrial, the courts have effectively deterred police mis-conduct. When government agents realized thatthere was no benefit from seizing contraband in vio-lation of the Fourth Amendment, they were carefulto adhere to rulings forbidding its seizure.
Brian S. MacNamara
For Further Reading
Amar, A. R. (1997). The Constitution and criminal procedure,first principles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).Dressler, J. (1997). Understanding criminal procedure
(2nd ed). New York: Matthew Bender.Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954).Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).Stonehill v. United States, 405 F.2d 738, (cert. denied, 1969),
395 U.S. 960 (9th Cir. 1968).Weeks v. United States, 235 U.S. 383 (1914).Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
652—�—Exclusionary Rule
E-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:29 PM Page 652
F� FEDERAL AIR
MARSHAL PROGRAM
The Federal Air Marshal Program is a componentof the Transportation Security Administration,which is housed within the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security. Federal air marshals (FAMs)are a full-time force that continuously deploythroughout the world on all major U.S. carriers inareas where terrorist activities indicate the highestprobability of attack. FAMs respond to criminalincidents aboard U.S. air carriers, as well as otherin-flight emergencies. FAMs are authorized to carryfirearms and make arrests, while preserving thesafety of aircraft, crew, and passengers. As withmany areas of aviation security, only limited infor-mation on the program has been made available tothe public. FAMs disguise themselves as ordinarytravelers to maintain a low profile so that no oneaboard a flight knows an air marshal is presentexcept for the pilot and flight crew.
Aircraft piracy was initially addressed in theFederal Aviation Act of 1958, but it was definedmore specifically by Public Law 87-197 of 1961. Itwas defined as “any seizure or exercise of control,by force or violence or threat of force or violenceand with wrongful intent, of an aircraft in flightin air commerce.” Punishment for this crime waseither the death penalty or imprisonment of not less
than 20 years. Public Law 87-197 also outlinedregulations governing “interference with flight crewmembers or flight attendants” and “carrying weaponsaboard aircraft.” The law was enacted because therewas a rash of air piracy incidents on commercialjets in the 1960s.
The Federal Air Marshal Program began as theSky Marshal Program in 1968, organized under theU.S. Marshal Service, and was designed to stophijackings to and from Cuba. The sky marshals intro-duced certain airport screening processes that are stillin use today, including a special pat-down search.During the four years of the Sky Marshal Program,no hijackings occurred on the agency’s watch. Infact, records show that the sky marshals preventedat least 27 hijackings. In a 1973 speech, MarshalsService Training Chief Jack Cameron stated that skymarshals made 3,457 total arrests, 348 of them forpassengers concealing firearms. By the end of 1973,all airport security duties were transferred to theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The rise of the FAA’s Air Marshal Program camein June 1985 after the hijacking of TWA 847. Onthe flight, two Lebanese Shiite Moslems divertedthe plane to Beirut, where more hijackers boarded theplane, leading to a two-week standoff and the deathof a U.S. Navy diver (a passenger on board theaircraft).This event led President Ronald Reagan toask Congress to expand the Air Marshal Program
653
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 653
and it also led to Public Law 99-83, the InternationalSecurity and Development Cooperation Act. Thisact established the explicit statutory basis for theFederal Air Marshal Program.
Another transition was made in the FederalAir Marshal Program following the hijackings ofSeptember 11, 2001. On this day, four U.S. com-mercial airliners were hijacked; two of themcrashed into the World Trade Center in New YorkCity, one crashed into the Pentagon in Washington,D.C., and the other crashed into a field in Somerset,Pennsylvania. There were no survivors in thesecrashes.
After these events, a surge of security measureswas applied to the commercial aviation industry.Although the Air Marshal Program employed approx-imately 30 agents before September 11, 2001, thenumber had increased into the thousands only a yearlater. On November 19, 2001, President George W.Bush signed into law the Aviation and TransportationSecurity Act, which among other things establisheda new Transportation Security Administration withinthe Department of Transportation. The TSA, whichwas given the responsibility of the Federal AirMarshal Program, was moved to the Department ofHomeland Security in 2002.
The Federal Air Marshal Program tactical train-ing facility and operational headquarters is locatedat the William J. Hughes Technical Center inAtlantic City, New Jersey. This center houses threeoutdoor ranges with moving targets, a 360-degreelive fire shoothouse configured as both a narrow-body and a wide-body aircraft with computer-controlled targets and a bulletproof observationplatform, an indoor laser disc judgment pistolshooting interactive training room, and a close-quarters countermeasures/personal defense trainingroom. The program also uses an inactive five-storyair traffic control tower, a retired B-727 narrow-body aircraft, and a retired L-1011 wide-body air-craft for on-board exercises. In order to become anair marshal, men and women must participate in an11-week training program at the New Jersey center.The TSA will not reveal the exact number or iden-tity of marshals, the specific details of their train-ing, or the routes they fly.
Candidates must be willing to perform regularand extended travel, both foreign and domestic, forseveral weeks at a time. FAMs work irregular hoursand shifts, and may have limited personal contactwith family and limited time off. FAMs travel toand spend time in foreign countries that are some-times politically or economically unstable. Candidatesmust be under 40 years of age and must undergopsychological screening and various fitness tests.FAMs must be eligible for and maintain a top secretsecurity clearance based upon a favorably adjudi-cated special background investigation as a condi-tion of employment.
Ryan K. Baggett
See also Department of Homeland Security, Federal AviationAdministration, Transportation Security Administration,U.S. Marshals Service
For Further Reading
Federal Aviation Administration. (2001, September). Factsheet: FAA Federal Air Marshal Program. FAA News.[Online]. Available: http://www.faa.gov
Taylor, G., & Ramstack, T. (2003, September). Ridge adds5,000 air marshals to help get “surge capacity.” TheWashington Times. [Online]. Available: http://dynamic.washtimes.com
U.S. Marshals Service. (2002, January/February). TheMarshals Service pioneered the Air Marshal Program.Marshal Monitor–The Official Newsletter of the UnitedStates Marshals Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/monitor/jan-2002/jan-2002.html
� FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) isa subordinate agency of the Department of Trans-portation (DOT). It was originally established by theFederal Aviation Act of 1958. The FAA is one of thelargest agencies in the United States and has a broadspan of aviation control including regulatory andprocurement functions and operational responsibili-ties. It has more than 48,000 employees and had afiscal year 2003 budget of approximately $14 billion.
654—�—Federal Aviation Administration
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 654
The FAA’s chief executive is its administrator, who isappointed by the president of the United States for afive-year term and confirmed by the Senate.
Prior to 2002, the FAA had responsibility for civilaviation security, which it regulated through airportand air carrier security programs. The FAA also hadan active Federal Air Marshal Program. Subsequentto the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congresscreated a separate agency (Transportation SecurityAdministration, TSA) under the DOT, and trans-ferred most of the FAA’s security functions to it.The TSA was transferred to the Department ofHomeland Security in 2003. The FAA still main-tains, and exercises, requirements for security ofits own employees and facilities, as well as internalinvestigations.
The FAA has divided its efforts into several coreareas. While none are commonly thought of aslaw enforcement, each has oversight responsibilitiesof a number of enforcement-type activities. Lawenforcement agencies are frequently able to obtainassistance on a wide range of aeronautical issuesdirectly from local FAA offices. Principal activitiesinclude air traffic services, research and acquisition,regulation and certification, airports, commercialspace transportation, and international programs.
Air traffic services encompasses all air trafficcontrol services; construction, installation, and main-tenance of navigational aids and all FAA communi-cation equipment and controller display equipment;runway safety programs (incursion prevention); airtraffic system requirements; control and coordina-tion of military air traffic requirements; and air traf-fic system capacity. The FAA maintains a nationalsystem of weather observing equipment, whichgenerates both radar images and text messages foruse by pilots, air traffic controllers, and air carrierdispatchers.
Research and acquisitions includes system devel-opment, research direction and sponsorship, procure-ment management, system architecture decision andprocurement investment analysis, and a large testingand logistical center. Regulation and certificationcovers flight standards, certification of aircraft andairmen, aviation medicine, enforcement of safety reg-ulations for airmen and aircraft maintenance, inspection
and certification of newly designed aircraft andaircraft propulsion systems, accident investigation,and management of the FAA’s public rulemakingprocess. In aviation accident investigation, theFAA may be delegated investigative duties by theNational Transportation Safety Board or may conductits own investigations for the purpose of determiningregulatory compliance.
The FAA’s responsibilities for airports includeinspections for runway, taxiway, and airfield com-pliance with safety regulations, administration oflarge grant programs for airport improvements,and airport planning and coordination of nationalpolicy issues related to access to public-use airports.Responsibilities in commercial space transportationinclude licensing and safety oversight of all com-mercial space launches in the United States, space sys-tems development, and research sponsorship. Last,international programs involve the exchange of infor-mation with foreign governments on certificationstandards for aircraft and airmen, providing tech-nical assistance on aeronautical issues, assistingU.S. air carriers in regulatory compliance in foreigncountries, and providing scientific and technicalexpertise at international conferences on weather, airtraffic procedures, and flight operations.
In addition to these activities, the FAA maintainsa national registry of airmen and aircraft. Lawenforcement agencies requiring confirmation of air-craft registry or confirmation of airman certificationmay contact the registry in Oklahoma City. FAAregulations are generally contained within 14 C.F.R.Parts 1-199, which are all publicly available fromlibraries, the Internet, and a number of commercialproviders. FAA’s instructions to its employees on theenforcement of regulations are generally found in anumber of FAA orders, handbooks, and policy state-ments. Like regulations, these also are public docu-ments; many are accessible from the FAA’s Web site,but few are available for commercial sale. The FAA’sadvisory circulars are nonenforceable guidance forpilots, air traffic controllers, and airport and aircraftoperators. FAA has taken over responsibility forthe maintenance and publication of aeronauticalcharts from the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.
Federal Aviation Administration—�—655
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 655
The FAA conducts nationwide recruiting for anumber of positions. In general, each of the FAA’sregions manages the recruiting process for itsprincipal lines of business. Pilot certificates arerequired for some, but not all, positions. Specificage requirements are in place for air traffic con-trollers. Bargaining units cover much of the FAA’sworkforce. In most of its procurement requirementsprocesses, modernization plans, and regulatorydevelopment, the FAA utilizes formal advisorycommittees to gather citizen and industry input.Notices of upcoming advisory committee meetingsare published in the Federal Register.
The FAA maintains its principal offices inWashington, D.C., and coordinates its various func-tions through regional offices located in Anchorage,Alaska; Kansas City, Missouri; New York City,New York; Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts;Dallas, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; Los Angeles,California; and Seattle, Washington. In addition, theFAA maintains a significant employee presence ineach of the states and territories of the United Statesand in foreign regions.
Frances Sherertz
See also Federal Air Marshal Program, NationalTransportation Safety Board
For Further Reading
Department of Transportation. [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.gov
Federal Aviation Administration. [Online]. Available:http://www.faa.gov
International Civil Aviation Organization. [Online]. Available:http://www.icao.int
National Transportation Safety Board. [Online]. Available:http://www.ntsb.gov
Transportation Safety Administration. [Online]. Available:http://www.tsa.dot.gov
� FEDERAL BUREAUOF INVESTIGATION
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is theinvestigative arm of the Department of Justice andhas the widest jurisdiction of any federal law
enforcement agency. It is the primary agency for theinvestigation of more than 200 federal statutes andalso collects evidence in any cases in which theU.S. government is a litigant or an interested party,including both criminal and civil matters. The FBIplays an influential role in local and state lawenforcement through collection and publication ofcrime data statistics through the Uniform CrimeReports (UCR) on a quarterly basis; through opera-tion of the National Crime Information Center, anationwide criminal justice information networkthat receives and provides records checks frompolice within the United States and internationallyon stolen property, wanted persons or warrant infor-mation, criminal history data, missing children,and unidentified body parts; and through operationof the National Academy (FBINA), a three-monthtraining program conducted at its Quantico, Virginia,facility for ranking officers of law enforcementagencies within the United States and a number ofother countries.
FOUNDING AND EARLY HISTORY
Although the FBI is the best known federal lawenforcement agency, it is neither the largest nor theoldest. From its creation in 1870 until 1908, theDepartment of Justice had no special agents of itsown but relied on either private detectives or agentsfrom the Secret Service to investigate its cases. In1907, a year before Congress passed legislationrestricting the Secret Service to investigating coun-terfeiting and protecting the president of the UnitedStates, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte wasrefused congressional approval to hire his owninvestigative staff but, with approval from PresidentTheodore Roosevelt, on July 26, 1908, he created aninvestigative agency to which the President trans-ferred a number of Secret Service agents. Despitethe controversy surrounding its creation, this unitattracted little attention under its first chief, StanleyW. Finch, who, reflecting the agency’s roots in theSecret Service, held the title of chief examiner. In1909, Attorney General George Wickersham namedthe group the Bureau of Investigation (BOI) andchanged Finch’s title to chief.
656—�—Federal Bureau of Investigation
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 656
The BOI concentrated on banking, bankruptcy,antitrust, naturalization, peonage, and land fraudmatters, since there were few federal criminalstatutes and the investigations of most crimes werethe responsibility of local police. Because no for-mal training was offered, preference was givento applicants with prior law enforcement back-grounds. The first significant movement toward abroad definition of federal crimes came in 1910,with the passage of the White Slave Traffic Act(better known as the Mann Act), which made it afederal offense to transport a woman across statelines for an immoral purpose. With U.S. entry intoWorld War 1 in 1917 the BOI investigated acts ofsabotage, espionage, and draft-dodging under theSelective Service Act. Agents also engaged in coun-terintelligence efforts against Germany even beforeU.S. entry into the war and agents stationed near theMexican border concentrated on neutrality matters,smuggling, and intelligence collection in conjunc-tion with the aftermath of the Mexican revolution.
William J. Flynn, a former head of the SecretService, became the first person to use the title ofdirector of the BOI in 1919. He was followed from1921 to 1924 by William J. Burns, another formerSecret Service agent who had gained fame as thefounder and head of the William F. Burns DetectiveAgency. After a series of political scandals, bothAttorney General Harry Daugherty, who hadappointed Burns, and Burns left the administrationof President Warren Harding. Harding’s successor,President Calvin Coolidge, appointed Harlan FiskeStone as his attorney general and on May 10, 1924,Stone appointed J. Edgar Hoover as director of theBOI, a post Hoover would continue to hold whenthe BOI became the FBI and which he would notrelinquish until his death on May 2, 1972.
Hoover, a law graduate of George WashingtonUniversity, had begun working at BOI in 1917;during World War I he had been in charge of enemyalien operations and had assisted Attorney GeneralA. Mitchell Palmer in investigating suspectedanarchists and communists. When Hoover becamedirector, the BOI was not a major law enforcementagency. It had fewer than 500 agents and only nine fieldoffices but Hoover dismissed many of the political
appointees and instituted a number of changes,including promotions on merit, uniform performanceappraisals, regular inspections of field offices, and,in 1928, a formal training course for agents.
Law enforcement generally, and specifically theBOI, was shaped in the years from World War Ito the 1930s by the greater mobility of criminals,the enforcement of Prohibition, and the rise ofthe gangster. The public’s fear of crime grew in thisperiod, particularly with the press attention paid tothe violence surrounding the illegal liquor trade andthe rise of organized gangs of bootleggers. Hoover’sgift for keeping the agency in the public eye wasaided by a number of highly publicized crimesand by the expansion of federal criminal statutes.In 1919, the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act(Dyer Act) prohibited the transportation of stolenvehicles across state lines. Passage of the EighteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution (the VolsteadAct) in 1919, which banned the manufacture andsale of alcohol, created new areas of federal lawenforcement and by the time of its repeal in 1933(the Twenty-first Amendment) had spawned anunparalleled level of criminal activity. Although itwas the Treasury Department, not the BOI, that wasresponsible for Prohibition enforcement, Hoovercapitalized on these fears to increase his own and hisagency’s importance as the primary defenders of thethin line between chaos and a crime free nation.
In 1932, hastened by the kidnapping of the baby sonof the world-famous aviator Charles A. Lindbergh,Congress passed pending legislation that made kid-napping a federal offense. Finally, in response to thekilling on June 13, 1933, by Charles Arthur “PrettyBoy” Floyd and other wanted criminals of fourlaw enforcement officers who were transportinga criminal through the Kansas City, Missouri,Union Railway Station, in what has been termed theKansas City Massacre, Congress in 1934 gave BOIagents the authority to carry firearms and makearrests and passed the Fugitive Felon Act, whichgreatly expanded the jurisdiction of the BOI. In1935, the BOI changed its name to the FederalBureau of Investigation and by the end of thedecade had grown to almost 700 agents assignedin more than 40 cities and, more important, had
Federal Bureau of Investigation—�—657
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 657
solidified its reputation as the nation’s leading lawenforcement agency.
WORLD WAR II TO THE 1970S
In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt providedthe FBI with its greatest expansion of power to thattime when he authorized agents to investigate vari-ous fascist and communist groups. With passage ofthe Smith Act in 1940, which outlawed advocatingthe overthrow of the government, the FBI assumeda lead role in national security investigations. Thisrole would place the FBI in conflict with the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA) on numerous occasions,most recently in questions surrounding whethereither or both agencies should have been aware ofthe al-Qaeda plots to hijack airplanes and commitmultiple acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001.
When Congress established the draft in 1940, theFBI was charged with locating draft evaders and mil-itary deserters. The FBI penetrated the FrederickDuquesne spy ring and virtually controlled informa-tion flowing to Nazi Germany and learned of Naziplans for infiltration of North America. When the ringwas broken up, 33 spies were arrested and convicted.When the United States entered war following theJapanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941, the FBI arrested enemy aliens who posednational security threats and turned them over to mil-itary or immigration authorities. Hoover opposed therecommendation of the military, ultimately endorsedby President Roosevelt and the attorney general, thatJapanese aliens and Americans of Japanese descentbe interned. Hoover’s argument was that there was noneed for it, since those who posed any danger to theUnited States had already been identified and arrestedby the FBI. A special branch of the FBI, the SpecialIntelligence Service, performed intelligence opera-tions in Central and South America during the waryears, concentrating on Nazi spies and supporters.
The efforts of the Soviet Union in the postwarperiod to become a nuclear power dominated muchof American thinking, augmented by fears thatforeign agents had infiltrated various levels of thegovernment. Under Presidents Harry S. Trumanand Dwight D. Eisenhower the national security
mandate of the FBI was expanded and in 1946 theAtomic Energy Act gave the FBI responsibility fordetermining the loyalty of individuals having accessto atomic energy data. It was during this period thatthe arrest, conviction, and execution of Ethel andJulius Rosenberg took place for their passing atomicsecrets to the Soviet Union. By the time the KoreanWar ended the FBI had 6,200 agents and spentmuch of its resources combating the influenceof the Communist Party–USA. At the same time,the bureau’s investigations of organized crimeincreased after the New York State Police docu-mented a major organized crime meeting in upstateNew York in 1957.
Another expansion of the FBI’s role was itsinvestigation of violations of the Civil Rights Actsof 1960 and 1964. In 1964 the bureau investigatedthe murders of three civil rights workers—MichaelSchwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney—in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and later would inves-tigate the murders of civil rights leaders Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr. and Medgar Evers. The OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 expandedthe use of court-authorized electronic surveillanceand the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-tions Act in 1970 provided prosecutors new tools touse against mob operations. Finally, the assassina-tion of President John F. Kennedy caused Congressto pass legislation making assaulting the president afederal crime.
The Vietnam War era saw both rising crime ratesin the United States and increased militancy on thepart of antiestablishment groups. The Weathermen,one such group, claimed responsibility for anumber of bombings in protest of the war, whilethe killing of four young people at Kent StateUniversity by National Guard troops further frayedthe national psyche. Draft dodging and propertydamage in demonstrations became increasinglycommon.
NONENFORCEMENT ROLES: TRACKINGCRIMINALS AND TRAINING POLICE
Hoover also greatly expanded the range and impor-tance of the FBI through its nonenforcement roles.
658—�—Federal Bureau of Investigation
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 658
By the end of the 1930s, the FBI had establisheditself as the federal agency to which local and statepolice would turn for assistance in the importantareas of tracking wanted persons and property andfor training personnel, particularly those movinginto management positions.
After fingerprinting emerged as the preferredmethod of tracking criminals, the Departmentof Justice in 1905 had established a Bureau ofCriminal Identification as a central repository offingerprint cards. When, in 1907, it was movedto Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary and inmateswere assigned to maintain the system, police inmany cities were leery and set up their own systemsor turned to one operated by the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police. In 1924, Congressmerged the two systems under the BOI. Also, at thistime, studies were underway that would lead to theformation of the FBI’s Technical Laboratory and itsmaintenance of the UCR.
Sensing that public support was an importantelement of his plans for the Bureau of Investiga-tion, Hoover tapped into a growing interest in crim-inals and their activities. In 1932, improving on thetechnique of wanted posters that Wells Fargo, thePinkerton Detective Agency, and railroad policehad used since the 1870s, Hoover created FugitivesWanted By Police, which would eventually evolveinto the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, a monthlymagazine. In 1950, Hoover further revised the old-time wanted posters into the Ten Most WantedProgram, which featured mug shots of wantedcriminals posted in public buildings around thecountry and which can now be accessed on theInternet.
In 1935, the FBI convened its first NationalAcademy class for state and local police; interna-tional officers were invited to attend starting in1940. The FBINA and shorter training programs forpolice executives, the National Executive Instituteand the Law Enforcement Executive Seminar, areconsidered important career enhancements forthose seeking positions as chiefs of police in stateand local agencies throughout the United Statesand, to a lesser degree, in departments outside thecountry.
THE POST-HOOVER YEARS TO 2001
Following Hoover’s death on May 2, 1972, PresidentRichard M. Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray actingdirector, but his tenure was short-lived followingallegations of improper conduct relating to the inves-tigation of the Watergate burglary. A number ofdirectors have served since that time; some had onceworked for the FBI but none were promoted directlyfrom the ranks as Hoover had been. Clarence M.Kelley, a former agent who was the police chief ofKansas City, Kansas, at the time of his appointment,held the position from 1973 to 1978. In addition to anumber of other changes, Kelley implemented morestringent guidelines for investigations in counterin-telligence and domestic security matters, stepped uprecruitment of accountants to enhance enforce-ment of organized crime and white-collar crime, andbegan to more aggressively recruit women and ethnicminorities as special agents. When Kelley left therewere approximately 8,000 agents and 11,000 supportemployees.
The 1980s saw yet another shift in the FBI’s pri-orities, including the beginnings of interest in coun-terterrorism investigations and a renewed interestin espionage. The bureau also became more heavilyinvolved in drug investigations, an area of lawenforcement that Hoover had avoided. In part as aresult of its involvement in security preparations forthe Olympics held in Los Angeles in 1984, thebureau created the Hostage Rescue Team to deal withhigh-sensitivity tactical situations. In 1986 Congresspermitted the FBI to investigate terrorist acts againstU.S. citizens abroad and in 1989 the Department ofJustice authorized the FBI to arrest certain classes offugitives abroad without the consent of the countrywhere they resided. Responding to the rise of tech-nology, the FBI also created computer analysis andresponse teams in its major offices and enhanced itslaboratory facilities to take advantage of DNA test-ing, a form of identification superior to fingerprints.
PUBLIC SCRUTINY
Perhaps reinforcing Hoover’s concerns about jointinvestigations and participation in areas that were
Federal Bureau of Investigation—�—659
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 659
beyond the FBI’s specialties, two major events thatbrought severe criticism to the bureau developedunder the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms(BATF), since 2003 renamed the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: the fugitivestandoff at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the standoff inWaco, Texas, which ended in the mass suicide ofmembers of the Branch Davidian religious cult. In1982 an FBI sniper shot and killed Vicky Weaver, thewife of Randy Weaver, who was wanted in conjunc-tion with an investigation into white supremacistgroups in Northern Idaho. Weaver and a familyfriend, Kevin Harris, were also wounded, and thegovernment later paid Weaver more than $3 millionin a wrongful death suit. On February 28, 1993, raidson the Branch Davidian compound in Waco resultedin the deaths of 86 residents, including a largenumber of children; the deaths of four BATF agents;and the wounding of an additional 16 agents. Publicand media responses were highly critical of theactions of special agents at the scenes.
The FBI has also been stung by a number ofinternal controversies, including failure to detectspies among its staff and separate claims of discrim-ination in the 1990s by female, homosexual, AfricanAmerican, and Hispanic agents and most recently,in 2003, by agents of Middle Eastern heritage. Theagency was harshly criticized when it becameknown that agent Robert Philip Hanssen, who, from1985 until he was arrested, was a spy for the formerSoviet Union and then for Russia in exchange forcash and diamonds. Hanssen pled guilty on July 6,2001, to 15 counts of espionage and conspiracycharges in exchange for prosecutors agreeing not toseek the death penalty and was sentenced to life inprison without parole on May 10, 2002. The case ledto new security procedures at the FBI.
TARGETING TERRORISM
Foreshadowing the expanded role in terrorisminvestigation that the FBI would acquire afterSeptember 11, 2001, agents investigated the WorldTrade Center bombing in New York City in 1993,the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building inOklahoma City, Oklahoma, in 1995, and the
Olympic Park bombing at the Olympics in Atlantain 1996. Agents also were involved in the 1996arrest of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. Soonafter former U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller, III wassworn in as FBI director on September 4, 2001,exactly one week before the September 11, 2001terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and thePentagon, his priorities and those of the more than11,000 agents stationed around the world changedquickly. Amid criticism of its failure to uncover thehijacking plots, the FBI was forced to focus itsinvestigative efforts away from organized crime,white collar crime, and drug cases to counterterror-ism investigations. By 2003, more than 2,000 of theFBI’s almost 9,000 agents within the United Stateswere working virtually full-time on counterterrorismcases. Mueller noted that the day before the terroristattacks (September 10, 2001), the FBI had only 535international terrorism agents stationed around theworld and only 82 at FBI headquarters. The shifts inpersonnel undertaken are unprecedented; in fiscal2002, 21% of agents investigated organized crimeand drug violations; by fiscal 2003 the percentagehad fallen to 14 while more than one third of allagents (36%) were assigned to three areas: coun-terterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber-crime.
This change in focus has renewed concernsof turf battles between the FBI and the CIA overunwillingness to share intelligence data. A reportreleased by the House and Senate intelligence com-mittees on July 24, 2003, that was highly critical ofboth the FBI and the CIA for their failures to assessand share available information that might haveprevented the attacks has raised the same questionsoriginally raised in the 1940s; namely, whether theFBI’s crime-fighting role is inconsistent with itsrole as the monitor of domestic intelligence thatmay involve international threats to the UnitedStates. These concerns have also affected state andlocal police departments, who complain that theyhave difficulty getting information from the FBIwhile at the same time they have been forced topick up investigations of crimes such as local bankrobberies and fraud cases that were previously han-dled by special agents either alone or as part of taskforces with local police. How the FBI will meet the
660—�—Federal Bureau of Investigation
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 660
challenge of balancing its new mandates with itstraditional crime-fighting duties will continue toconcern politicians, civil libertarians, and membersof the law enforcement community.
Joseph W. Koletar
See also Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives; National Academy, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; Prohibition Law Enforcement; SecretService; Uniform Crime Reporting Program
For Further Reading
Cook, F. J. (1964). The FBI nobody knows. New York:Macmillan.
Deakin, T. J. (1988). Police professionalism: The renaissanceof American law enforcement. Springfield, IL: CharlesC. Thomas.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available:http://www.fbi.gov
Fields, G., & Wilke, J. R. (2003, June 3). FBI’s new focusplaces big burden on local police. The Wall Street Journal,pp. 1, A12.
Gentry, C. (1991). J. Edgar Hoover: The man and the secrets.New York: Norton.
Johnson, D. (2003, July 25). Report of 9/11 panel cites lapsesby C.I.A. and F.B.I. The New York Times, p. 1:506.
Kessler, R. (2002). The bureau: The secret history of the FBI.New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mueller, R. S., III. (2003, July 31). Agreeing to disagree withthe ACLU. Law Enforcement News, pp. 11, 14.
O’Reilly, K. (1982). A new deal for the FBI: The Rooseveltadministration, crime control, and national security.Journal of American History 69, 638–658.
Theoharis, A. G. (2002). Chasing spies: How the FBI failedin counterintelligence but promoted the politics ofMcCarthyism in the Cold War years. Chicago: IvanR. Dee.
Whitehead, D. (1963). The FBI story. New York: RandomHouse.
� FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION, ENFORCEMENTBUREAU
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)was founded as a result of the 1934 CommunicationsAct as an independent government agency directlyresponsible to U.S. Congress. The Communications
Act gave the FCC jurisdiction in regulating interstateand foreign communication by wire or radio trans-mission (the regulation of television, satellite, andcable were later added). The FCC is headed by fivepresidentially appointed and Senate-approved offi-cials for five-year terms. The FCC has three regionaloffices, 16 field offices, and nine resident agentsoffices located throughout the country.
The Enforcement Bureau (EB) of the FCC isconcerned with regulating compliance with FCCrules and regulation. The EB is headed by a bureauchief and is split into four divisions with a separatedivision chief in charge of each. The Telecom-munications Consumer Division is responsible forhandling complaints on consumer-related obliga-tions of telecommunication providers, includingunsolicited faxes, long distance telephone slam-ming, special provisions to persons with disabilities,and telemarketing. The Market Disputes ResolutionDivision handles market disputes and assists innegotiation between competing communicationscarriers. The Spectrum Enforcement Division assistsin the maintenance and support of public safety sys-tems such as sufficient lighting on radio towers andmaintenance of the Emergency Broadcast Systemand investigates all unauthorized use of public safetysystems. The responsibilities of the Investigationand Hearings Division include resolution of com-plaints and enforcement of regulations of broadcaststations on nontechnical matters.
The FCC ensures compliance with its rulesand regulations by utilizing several enforcementoptions. A letter of inquiry may be issued if a sus-pected rules violation has occurred. The letter willoutline a possible rule violation that the FCC hasreason to believe has occurred. The accused mustrespond to the letter within 10 days. The response tothe letter will be considered before further investi-gation takes place. One such further action wouldbe a field inspection of the facilities in question. If,after the inspection, further action is deemed neces-sary a subpoena for records will be issued. If a ruleviolation is found, the FCC may issue a warning, anotice of violation, or a citation, which would onlybe given to unlicensed operators, or a fine may beassessed. If the violation is severe the FCC may
Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau—�—661
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 661
issue a cease and desist order to stop the violationfrom continuing. If the violation continues, the FCCmay revoke the operator’s license or seize equip-ment. The FCC also reserves the right to refer theoffender to the Department of Justice for criminalcharges.
The FCC also assists local, state, federal, andmilitary law enforcement and public safety organi-zations. EB agents share information with state lawenforcement in cases involving the violation of con-sumer telecommunication laws. The EB maintainsand licenses public safety band radio. Agents inves-tigate abuses of these channels by non-public safetypersons. They assist the Coast Guard in locatingmayday transmission signals from damaged orwrecked vessels and assist other agencies whenFCC expertise is required.
The FCC also assists in interoperability, which isthe ability of different law enforcement and publicsafety agencies to communicate across jurisdictionswith each other. This often will require the use ofwireless communication and designating radio bands.Interoperability ensures quick and effective responsetimes in disaster situations. The ability of local, state,and federal agencies to communicate leads to a higherlevel of efficacy and productivity in law enforcement.
David A. Hohn
For Further Reading
Federal Communications Commission. (2003). FederalCommunications Commission, Enforcement Bureau.[Online]. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/
Taylor, M. J., Epper, R. C., Tolman, T. K., & National LawEnforcement & Corrections Technology Center (U.S.)Rocky Mountain Region. (1998). State and local lawenforcement wireless communications and interoperability:A quantitative analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice.
The United States government manual 2002-2003. (2003).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
� FEDERAL DRUGSEIZURE SYSTEM
The Federal Drug Seizure System is the power ofthe federal government to seize property if it is
used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part,to commit or to facilitate the commission of a drugcrime. Federal drug seizure statutes were firstenacted by Congress in 1970. However, it was thepassage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Actof 1984, part of the increased focus on the Waron Drugs during the administration of PresidentRonald Reagan, that significantly strengthened theabilities of the government to seize property orassets if there was probable cause to assume that theproperty or asset in question was being used for thecommission of drug crimes. The laws state that anyperson convicted of a federal drug offense punish-able by more than one year in prison shall forfeitto the United States any personal or real propertyrelated to the violation, including houses, cars, andother personal belongings. A warrant of seizuremay be issued and property seized at the time anindividual is arrested on charges that may result inforfeiture. However, property and assets may beseized prior to conviction and retained by thefederal government even in the ultimate absence ofconviction.
Forfeiture laws have evolved from admiralty lawsto the present-day United States Code. Assets can beforfeited under civil forfeiture or criminal forfeitureproceedings. Civil forfeiture actions are in rem, againstthe property, whereas criminal forfeiture actions arein personam, against the person. Forfeiture lawsremained essentially unchanged until the 1970s whenthe first federal laws to authorize criminal forfeiturewere enacted. These two key laws were the RacketeerInfluenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act of1970, which focused on organized crime syndicates,and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, whichfacilitated the War on Drugs.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROGRAM
Throughout the 1970s, law enforcement agenciesprimarily used asset forfeiture in an attempt to dis-mantle traditional organized crime. As the concernwith drug trafficking increased, federal forfeitureprograms began concentrating their forfeiture-related initiatives on drug-related seizures. By 1980,federal investigative agencies with jurisdiction to
662—�—Federal Drug Seizure System
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 662
investigate drug offenses began seizing assets innumbers that exceeded what was contemplatedin the 1970s. Thousands of illegally gained assetswere seized, the majority of which were processedadministratively for civil forfeiture. This shift ofinvestigative priorities had a significant impact onthe type of property seized. RICO seizures weregenerally for high-value assets processed undercriminal forfeiture procedures while drug-relatedseizures were generally of lower value and processedunder civil forfeiture procedures.
MANAGEMENT OFFORFEITED AND SEIZED PROPERTIES
Many federal agencies are involved in the removalof illicit drugs from the market. The Federal-wideDrug Seizure System (FDSS) reflects the combineddrug seizure efforts of the Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investiga-tion (FBI), U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. BorderPatrol within the jurisdiction of the United States, aswell as maritime seizures by the U.S. Coast Guard.FDSS eliminates duplicate reporting of a seizureinvolving more than one federal agency.
Issues regarding the expenses associated withprocessing seized and forfeited property (storage,maintenance, disposal, etc.) arose. Over time, theseissues precipitated the 1992 enactment of legisla-tion, 31 U.S.C. 9703, which shaped the funding,operation, and management of the present dayTreasury Forfeiture Fund. Prior to this legislation,only the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. CoastGuard participated in what was then the CustomsForfeiture Fund. Today, both of these agencies; theInternal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation;the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives; and the U.S. Secret Service participatein the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
At a federal level, the law established two newforfeiture funds: one at the U.S. Department ofJustice, which gets revenue from forfeitures done byagencies such as the DEA and the FBI, and anothernow run by the U.S. Treasury, which gets revenuefrom agencies such as Customs and the Coast Guard.These funds can now be used for forfeiture-related
expenses, payments to informants, prison building,equipment purchase, and other general law enforce-ment purposes.
Local law enforcement agencies also get a pieceof the forfeiture funds or goods. Within the 1984act was a provision for so-called equitable sharing,which allows local law enforcement agencies toreceive a portion of the net proceeds of forfeituresthey help make under federal law—and under cur-rent policy that can be up to 80%. Previously, seizedassets had been handed over to the federal govern-ment in their entirety.
CRITICISMS OF THE SEIZURE LAWS
Critics have said that the government has over-stepped its bounds by encouraging police to makeblatantly unconstitutional seizures. Of particularconcern to the critics was that the property may beseized without probable cause and retained by lawenforcement officials so long as the police canestablish probable cause at the forfeiture proceed-ing itself. Furthermore, if the government can laterestablish probable cause (through investigationof the seized property after the seizure), that issufficient to uphold a forfeiture.
To address some of these concerns, the ForfeitureReform Act was signed into federal law in 2002. Thepassage capped a nearly decade-long crusade andis the result of cooperation between unlikely allies.Henry Hyde, a conservative Republican from Illinoisand chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wasjoined by the House Judiciary Committee’s rankingDemocrat, John Conyers of Michigan, to spearheadthe effort—which united politicians as diverse asoutspoken conservative Bob Barr of Georgia withDemocratic liberal Barney Frank of Massachusetts.An equally impressive coalition formed in the Senatearound the issue. Joining in support were suchwide-ranging organizations as the American CivilLiberties Union, the National Rifle Association,the American Bankers Association, the NationalAssociation of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform,and organizations representing groups such as pilots,boaters, and hotel owners.
Federal Drug Seizure System—�—663
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 663
The new law requires the government to havemuch stronger evidence of wrongdoing before itcan seize a person’s property—raising the burden ofproof from probable cause to a preponderance ofthe evidence that the property is linked to a crime.Equally important, it shifts the burden of proof tothe federal government, meaning that the govern-ment must now prove in court that the property wasinvolved in crime—instead of the property ownerneeding to prove the opposite.
In sum, the federal government has substantiallyincreased its police powers with respect to drugtrafficking. The constitutional procedural safe-guards simply do not apply to those who are sus-pected of, or are convicted of, drug trafficking inthe United States.
Aviva Twersky-Glasner
For Further Reading
2002 legislation civil asset forfeiture reform. [Online]. Available:http://www.improvenewmexico.org/pdfs/asset_forfeiture02.pdf
Duke, S. (2003). The drug war on the Constitution. [Online].Available: http://www.cato.org/realaudio/drugwar/papers/duke.html
Find Law. [Online]. Available: http://www.findlaw.comU.S. Department of Justice, drug and crime facts. [Online].
Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/def/enforce.htm
� FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICERS ASSOCIATION
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association(FLEOA) is a professional, voluntary, nonpartisanassociation that advocates for more than 19,000federal law enforcement officers employed in morethan 50 agencies. The association was designed tooffer services and support to all federal law enforce-ment officers, as well as to advocate on their behalf.
Since its formation in 1977, FLEOA has grantedregular membership to any person employed asa full-time or permanent Series 1811 CriminalInvestigator (federal law enforcement officer) for theU.S. government. Among the larger agencies whoseofficers are members are the Secret Service, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the InternalRevenue Service. FLEOA members are offered asso-ciation-sponsored benefits, which include 24-houraccess to legal services and representation by alegislative counsel who handles issues that mightpotentially affect the officers.
Memberships are also offered to retired officers,resigned officers, and associate members, consistingof those who do not fall under the other categories.FLEOA insists, however, that in order to gain mem-bership, all persons must have an interest in promot-ing the aims and objectives of the association.
All members also receive the 1811, which isa bimonthly publication created to keep officersabreast of any governmental activities that mayinfluence their careers. The name of the publica-tion is derived from the Series 1811 CriminalInvestigator title for federal law enforcement offi-cers. The 1811 also informs FLEOA members ofassociation activities undertaken on their behalf.
Typical of these activities, in July 2003, FLEOAleaders testified at congressional hearings on paydisparity and the need for pay reform for federallaw enforcement agents. Former FLEOA presidentRichard J. Gallo and then-incumbent presidentTimothy Danahey testified before the HouseGovernment Reform Committee. Earlier that year,Danahey had also appeared before a House JudiciaryCommittee meeting concerning organization of theDepartment of Homeland Security.
In addition to its concern with legislative action,another of FLEOA’s main goals centers on theFederal Law Enforcement Officers Foundation.Funds are used primarily for financial assistanceto family members of officers who die in the lineof duty and to disabled officers. Funds are alsodisbursed for need-based scholarships to officers’families, particularly to allow students to pursueeducation in the fields of criminal justice, politicalscience, and law. Funds are also used for charitabledonations to organizations based on recommenda-tions from its members.
FLEOA is also an active member of the LawEnforcement Steering Committee, a group com-prised primarily of local and state law enforcementagencies but to which FLEOA contributes on behalf
664—�—Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 664
of federal law enforcement officers. The committeegenerally discusses matters pertaining to officers’daily work-lives and emerging career opportunitiesin the law enforcement field. Participation byFLEOA provides the ability to voice the concernsof the federal law enforcement officers in theseareas. Although FLEOA has expanded since itsinception in 1977, the leadership remains focusedon the main objective to act as an advocate on thebehalf of federal law enforcement officers at thefederal, state, and local levels.
Christopher Morse
For Further Reading
Federal law enforcement groups join forces for better overtimepay. (1989, June 19). Crime Control Digest, p. 6.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. [Online].Available: www.fleoa.org
Federal law enforcement personnel: How can we fix an imbal-anced compensation system? Hearing before the Committeeon Government Reform (July 23, 2003). [Online.] Available:http://reform.house.gov/CSA/Hearings?EventSingle.aspx?EventID=362.
Personnel issues affecting federal law enforcement and payreform: Hearings before the Committee on GovernmentReform (July 23, 2003) (testimony of Richard J. Gallowwith Timothy Danahey). [Online.] Available: http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Gallo_FLEOA.pdf
� FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTTRAINING CENTER
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center(FLETC), established in 1970 as a bureau of theDepartment of the Treasury, is the primary organi-zation for training all federal law enforcement per-sonnel. It provides basic and advanced training touniformed and investigatory personnel employedby more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies.Throughout the 1990s, FLETC graduated about25,000 students annually. In 2003, FLETC wasmoved from the Department of the Treasury intothe Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Initially located in temporary space in theWashington, D.C., area, planners envisioned that per-manent space would be found nearby. Construction
delays resulted in the selection of the formerGlynco Naval Air Station as a permanent locationin May 1975. Training began there in September1975 and the facility has been in constant use eversince. Glynco is located near Brunswick, Georgia,between Savannah, Georgia, and Jacksonville,Florida. The location, which has its own ZIP codeeven though it is not a recognized city, often causesconfusion, particularly among the newly assignedagents who will be attending training there. Twentyof FLETC’s participating agencies have establishedpermanent offices at Glynco to coordinate theirtraining. The facility is a 1,500-acre site comprisedof more than 100 buildings, including classrooms,gyms, dormitories, and staff and faculty housing.
FLETC has expanded to three additional facili-ties across the United States: in Artesia, NewMexico; in Charleston, South Carolina; and inCheltenham, Maryland. The Glynco, Artesia, andCharleston locations are residential facilities thatoffer housing and meals 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek; the Cheltenham facility is designed as a com-muter facility primarily for inservice training.
The Artesia center, near Roswell, New Mexico,opened in 1990 to provide advanced training for theImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S.Border Patrol, Bureau of Prisons, and other partici-pating agencies with large numbers of personnellocated in the western United States. Located onwhat had been the Artesia Christian College cam-pus, the facility includes firearms and driver train-ing ranges, a physical training complex, and acomputer classroom. The Artesia center also housesthe Department of the Interior’s Bureau of IndianAffairs Indian Police Academy, which provides 16weeks of training for tribal law enforcement offi-cers. Approximately 4,000 officers graduate annu-ally from the Artesia Center.
The Charleston campus, although consideredtemporary, has been in operation since 1995, pri-marily to accommodate the training needs of INSand the Border Patrol. It is located on theCharleston Navy Base and Naval Weapons Station.The newest facility, in Cheltenham, is used primar-ily for inservice and requalification training for offi-cers and agents working in the Washington, D.C.,
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center—�—665
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 665
area. It opened in early 2003 for use solely by theU.S. Capitol Police but has since expanded to useby all area agencies.
Although it is used by a wide array of agencies,FLETC remained under the administrative and finan-cial auspices of the Department of the Treasury until2003, when it was transferred to the newly createdDHS, along with many of the law enforcement func-tions that had previously been housed in Treasury.Other aspects of the administration remained intact.The FLETC director is assisted in the managementof the center by four associate directors (for training,administration, planning and development, andWashington operations), three deputy associatedirectors, and seven assistant directors. Trainingpolicy, programs, and standards are overseen by aneight-member interagency board of directors. Fiveof the eight are voting members, one each from theDepartments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury; onefrom the General Services Administration; and onetwo-year rotational member representing the otherorganizations whose officers train at the facilities.Due to the large number of students it was sendingfor training, in 2002 the Transportation SecurityAdministration (TSA) was selected to represent allother partner organizations.
FLETC offers courses for entry-level and man-agement personnel. It is the locale of basic policetraining for most federal law enforcement officers.The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), whichmaintains its own training facility in Quantico,Virginia, is one of the few agencies that does notsend its agents to FLETC for either basic oradvanced training. For other agencies, the basictraining academy normally lasts from 10 to 16weeks. Specialized and management courses gener-ally run from 3 to 14 days in length. FLETC offersmore than 300 courses that address almost allaspects of law enforcement work. The courses aredivided into 12 categories: behavioral science, diverand marine, enforcement operations, enforcementtechniques, financial fraud institute, firearms divi-sion, FLETC management institute, legal division,office of Artesia operations, physical techniquesdivision, security specialties division, and trainingmanagement division.
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
FLETC’s courses are available only to agents andofficers sent by their agencies. Providing consolida-tion at FLETC is viewed by the cooperating agenciesas both cost-effective and a way to ensure that officersof many agencies receive similar training experi-ences. Agencies whose officers have received trainedat FLETC from its inception until 2003 include theForest Service (Agriculture Department); NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, NationalMarine Fisheries Services, Office of Security, andOffice of Export Administration (Commerce Depart-ment); Food and Drug Administration and NationalInstitute of Health (Health and Human ServicesDepartment); Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau ofLand Management, Bureau of Reclamation, NationalPark Service, Office of Surface Mining and Reclama-tion, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (InteriorDepartment); Bureau of Prisons, Drug EnforcementAdministration, Immigration and NaturalizationService, and the Marshals Service (Justice Depart-ment); Bureau of Diplomatic Security (State Depart-ment); Federal Aviation Administration and CoastGuard (Transportation Department); Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureauof Engraving and Printing, Financial CrimesEnforcement Network, Internal Revenue Service,Customs Service, Mint, and Secret Service (TreasuryDepartment); and Defense Protective Service, NavalCriminal Investigative Service, and the NationalSecurity Service (Defense Department). The threepolice departments under congressional control,namely, the Government Printing Office, Libraryof Congress, and U.S. Capitol Police, also trainat FLETC, as do the Supreme Court’s Police.Independent agencies whose officers receive theirbasic and advanced training at FLETC includeAmtrak’s Northeast Corridor Police, the CentralIntelligence Agency’s Office of Security, the Environ-mental Protection Agency’s Office of CriminalInvestigations, the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency’s Security Division, the General ServicesAdministration’s Office of Federal Protective Service,the Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park Office ofProtection Services, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s
666—�—Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 666
Police, and the Postal Services’ Inspection Serviceofficers and the Postal Police.
Virtually all the agents of the Offices of InspectorsGeneral receive their basic and advanced trainingat FLETC, including those employed by the Agencyfor International Development; the Departmentsof Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,Energy, Environmental Protection, Health andHuman Services, Housing and Urban Development,Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, andTreasury; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;Federal Emergency Management Agency; GeneralServices Administration; Government PrintingOffice; National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office ofPersonnel Management; Railroad Retirement Board;Resolution Trust Corporation; Social SecurityAdministration; Small Business Administration;Tennessee Valley Authority; U.S. InformationAgency; and Veterans Affairs.
LOOKING AHEAD
FLETC’s transfer from the Treasury Department tothe Department of Homeland Security in early 2003reflected at least in part its increased focus onantiterrorism training in the wake of the attacks onthe Pentagon and New York City on September 11,2001. New demands for training brought thenumber of officers who attended courses to an all-time high in 2002, with more than 32,000 studentsattending classes at FLETC, a 25% increase overthe previous year. In additional, FLETC workedclosely with the TSA to create programs at Artesiafor the Federal Air Marshal Training Program andat Glynco for the thousands of TSA officers andagents who were hired to replace private securityofficers at airports throughout the United States. OnJuly 31, 2002, Connie L. Patrick became the fifthdirector of FLETC, succeeding outgoing directorW. Ralph Basham. Patrick, who reports to theundersecretary for border and transportation secu-rity of the DHS, served as a Brevard County,Florida, deputy sheriff before moving to the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement, where she rosethrough the ranks to become director of human
resources and training. She has been closelyinvolved with developing new programs for theDHS component agencies, the source of the major-ity of FLETC’s students over the past few years,and in designing an accreditation program, theFederal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation,to establish standards and procedures for accredit-ing training programs and academies throughoutthe country.
Candido Cubero
For Further Reading
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. [Online].Available: http://www.fletc.gov
Patrick, C. L. (2003, March) Training as an agent of change.Police Chief, pp. 12–13.
� FEDERAL MARITIMECOMMISSION
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) wasestablished in 1961 as an independent governmentagency, responsible for the regulation of shippingin the foreign trades of the United States. Its fivemembers are appointed by the president of the UnitedStates, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The FMC’s jurisdiction encompasses manyfacets of the maritime industry. Its duties and regu-latory powers include protecting U.S. shippers, car-riers, and others engaged in foreign commerce fromrestrictive rules and regulations of foreign govern-ments and from the practices of foreign-flag carri-ers that have an adverse effect on shipping inU.S. trades. It investigates discriminatory, unfair,or unreasonable rates, charges, classifications, andpractices of ocean common carriers, terminal oper-ators, and freight forwarders operating in the for-eign commerce of the United States. Other dutiesinclude receiving and monitoring agreementsentered into among ocean common carriers ormarine terminal operators to ensure that they arenot anticompetitive or in violation of the ShippingAct of 1984 and receiving, reviewing, and main-taining electronic tariff filings that contain the rates,
Federal Maritime Commission—�—667
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 667
charges, and rules established by water carriersoperating between the United States and othercountries.
Additionally, the FMC regulates rates, charges,classifications, rules, and regulations contained intariffs of carriers controlled by foreign governmentsand operating in U.S. trades to ensure that suchmatters are just and reasonable. It licenses U.S.-based international ocean freight forwarders,requires bonds of non-vessel operating commoncarriers, and issues passenger vessel certificatesshowing evidence of financial responsibility ofvessel owners or charterers to pay judgments forpersonal injury or death or to repay fares for thenonperformance of a voyage or cruise.
Among its statutory functions, the FMC regulatescommon carriers by water and other personsinvolved in the foreign commerce of the UnitedStates under provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984,as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Actof 1998, portions of the Merchant Marine Act of1920, the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988,sections of the Financial Responsibility for Death orInjury to Passengers and for Non-Performance ofVoyages, and other applicable statutes.
A major responsibility of the FMC is enforcingthe Shipping Act of 1984, which established a non-discriminatory regulatory process for the water-based transport of goods in the foreign commerce ofthe United States and ensured a minimum of gov-ernment intervention and regulatory costs. It wasintended to encourage the development of an eco-nomically sound and efficient U.S.-flag liner fleetcapable of meeting national security needs andto promote the growth and development of U.S.exports through competitive and efficient oceantransportation and by placing a greater reliance onthe marketplace.
When the FMC was created under ReorganizationPlan No. 7, not more than three of the five FMC com-missioners were to belong to the same political party,a provision still in effect. The chairperson, who isdesignated by the president, is the agency’s chiefexecutive and administrative officer and has exclu-sive authority over agency personnel matters, organi-zation and supervision, distribution of business, and
use of funds for administrative purposes. Thechairperson and the other four commissioners areresponsible for making decisions on docketed casesand for ensuring the efficient, equitable, and expedi-tious resolution of all other matters arising understatutes administered by the commission. The FMCmaintains its headquarters in Washington, D.C., withfive area representatives assigned throughout thecountry.
Aviva Twersky-Glasner
For Further Reading
Arizona State University Libraries Government DocumentsService. Federal Maritime Commission. [Online].Available: http://www.asu.edu/lib/hayden/govdocs/onlinepubs/fmc.html
Federal Maritime Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.fmc.gov.
National Unaffiliated Shippers’ Association. [Online].Available: http://www.nusa.net/fmcguide.htm
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure. (2000). Ocean Shipping Reform Act.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Speeches and Remarks. (1997). A Collection of Speechesand Other Presentations Given by Various FMC Officials.[Online]. Available: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS14482
� FEDERAL POLICINGIN INDIAN COUNTRY
Native Americans have a unique relationship withthe government of the United States. On the onehand, tribes are considered sovereign nations thatenjoy a government-to-government relationshipwith federal authorities. On the other hand, Indiansare considered wards of the government whoseassets must be held in trust for them. The tensionbetween these two views of Indian nations affectsevery aspect of their government. Law enforcementis a prominent example.
Chapter 18, section 1151 of the United StatesCode defines Indian Country as any land granted bytreaty or allotment to Nations, tribes, reservations,communities, colonies, or individuals and recognizedas such by the federal government. Today there are
668—�—Federal Policing in Indian Country
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 668
close to 300 federally recognized reservations andcommunities. Relocation policies dating from the1800s have caused some reservations to be sharedby two or more tribes.
Although the majority of reservations are locatedin sparsely settled rural locations, there are excep-tions. For example, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colonyof Nevada is located within the Reno metropolitanarea; the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community isjust outside of Phoenix, and part of the OneidaIndian Nation lies within the city of Oneida,New York.
In a number of states, state or local agencies pro-vide policing on reservations. A very small numberof tribes provide the entire funding for their ownpolice departments. The vast majority of tribesreceive law enforcement services under somearrangement with the federal Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA). In 2000, tribes operated 171 policeagencies employing 3,462 full-time personnelunder BIA contracts or compacts calling for federalfunding, often supplemented by tribal funds. TheBIA directly operated 37 agencies, employing 281sworn officers.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court havecontributed to the confusion surrounding the statusand power of tribal governments. Chief JusticeJohn Marshall laid the groundwork for all futuredecisions on the rights of Indians when, in 1831,he defined tribes as “domestic dependent nations”(Cherokee Nation v. Georgia). The phrase was clearlya compromise between the position of the stateof Georgia, which claimed jurisdiction over theCherokee lands in its midst, and the Cherokees,who claimed to be a sovereign foreign nation. Hedescribed the relationship between the Indians andthe federal government as one that “resembles thatof a ward to his guardian.” Marshall thus validatedthe Cherokee assertion that, as a nation, they shoulddeal only with the federal government but he madeit clear that the relationship was one of paternalism,not one between equals. This set the stage for fed-eral provision of tribal law enforcement services.
The General Crimes Act of 1854 spelled outsome of the implications of the federal wardship ofIndian Country. Most important was the assertion offederal jurisdiction over crimes in which one of theparties was not Native American, unless the Indianoffender had already been punished by tribal jus-tice. There were two exceptions—arson and assaultwith intent to kill or maim a non-Indian—whichwere federal offenses even when the offender wasan Indian and even if the offender had been pun-ished. Already, the tendency to limit tribal juris-diction over tribal members was clear. Furtherimplications for Indian law enforcement are foundin Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883). Crow Dog, a BruleSioux, had killed Spotted Tail, another Sioux whowas popular with white officials and settlers. Aswas customary, the families of the killer and victimagreed upon proper compensation and the casewas considered closed. Spotted Tail’s friends in theDakota Territory were appalled that Crow Dogwas not punished and insisted on his capture. TheDakota Territorial Court tried him for murderand sentenced him to death. On appeal, the U.S.Supreme Court affirmed the criminal jurisdiction ofthe Sioux nation over its members. In doing so, thecourt stated that Indian nations had all the attributesof sovereign nations except those that were extin-guished by an act of Congress. Congress promptlytook up the invitation and passed the Major CrimesAct (1885), which gave jurisdiction of major crimeson Indian lands to the federal government. This isthe legal basis for federal jurisdiction over mostfelonies even when the reservation has its own tribalpolice force; the legislation conveyed the convictionthat serious crimes should be handled by a civilizedjustice system rather than the primitive one used bythe Sioux.
A more recent (1953) piece of legislation reflectsthe sense, strong in the 1950s, that Native Americansshould be assimilated into mainstream U.S. cultureand that the way to do this was to terminate any ves-tiges of tribal sovereignty. The result was PublicLaw 280 (67 Stat. 588), which directed the states ofCalifornia, Nebraska, and Wisconsin to assumecivil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian Countrylocated within their borders; Minnesota and Oregon
Federal Policing in Indian Country—�—669
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 669
were directed to do the same, with a few exceptions.This ended both federal and tribal policing ofIndian Country in these states.
HISTORY OF FEDERALPOLICING IN INDIAN COUNTRY
The federal government began policing IndianCountry in the early 1800s, during the period inwhich Native Americans were being confined toreservations. Federal troops stationed near thereservations carried out law enforcement duties. Thesoldiers were less concerned with the well-being ofNative American reservation residents than withthe possibility that crime, violence, or disorder onthe reservation would interfere with the ever-growingnumber of non-Indians who were settling nearby.The troops were responsible for keeping Indianswithin the reservation boundaries and for prohibitingindigenous activities—such as the Ghost Dance—that were seen as either immoral or threatening.
The relationship between the federal governmentand American Indians was made clear in 1824, whena Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in theWar Department; American Indians were enemies tobe subdued, not citizens to be protected and served.Shifting the BIA to the Department of the Interior in1849 brought about a gradual decrease in the roleof the military, but in most cases the only alterna-tive available to the Indian agent–the BIA officialadministering the reservation–was to call upon fed-eral deputy marshals. Marshals were few in numberand their reputation among Indians was poor. TheHomestead Act of 1862, which made Indian landin Kansas and Nebraska available to white settlers,increased the demand for troops to keep NativeAmericans on the reservations and to make sure thatthey did not disturb the homesteaders.
The role of the military did not diminish untilwell after the Civil War, when the American popu-lation grew tired of a seemingly never-ending seriesof Indian Wars and grew even more tired of payingfor them. At the same time, many people began toview Indians less as hostile savages and more aspeople who could be civilized and eventually assim-ilated into the general population. Indian agents
found themselves at odds with military forces,which still considered Indians to be the enemy. Butthe military had provided an example that couldbe followed. The U.S. Army had employed NativeAmericans as scouts to help subdue other tribes.This example gave rise to the first Native Americanpolice officers.
Indian Agent John T. Clum was appointed to theSan Carlos Apache reservation in Arizona in 1874.He found that the military had virtually controlledhis predecessors and that the reservation, or agency,was subject to violence and disorder. Clum appointeda small group of Apaches to be a reservation policeforce, a force that pacified the reservation anddistinguished itself by capturing the insurrectionistGeronimo and 50 of his followers. Clum’s successled to the gradual disappearance of the army fromIndian reservations and the concurrent establish-ment of police forces staffed by Native Americans,a creation that was officially authorized in 1878,when Congress appropriated $30,000 to employ430 privates and 50 officers. This form of policingincreased rapidly and by 1881, 49 of the 68 BIAagencies had some type of Indian police force. BIAagents organized their forces according to themilitary model of policing then common in the restof the country, complete with short haircuts, ranksand chain of command, and military-style uniforms.
BIA agents and other white settlers in IndianCountry divided Indians into two groups. Tradition-alists were those who tried to preserve prereser-vation traditions and who resisted acculturation,whereas progressives were those who saw the futurein the hands of the white man and who tried toadopt white norms, values, and customs as quicklyas possible. BIA agents chose their police largelyfrom the progressives, which undermined the legit-imacy of the forces in the eyes of the traditionalists.
The early BIA reservation police forces facedother problems. The salaries authorized byCongress were absurdly low. Uniforms and equip-ment were unavailable or shoddy. Training wasnonexistent. Their duties were not limited to lawenforcement, but consisted of doing whatever theBIA agent felt needed to be done. In addition tomundane duties such as cleaning out irrigation
670—�—Federal Policing in Indian Country
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 670
ditches, building roads, and acting as interpreters,Indian police officers were often expected to forcechildren into BIA boarding schools, oppose theinfluence of tribal healers, stop “heathen” dances,and report whether fellow tribesman were work-ing hard enough to have earned their governmentrations of sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Hiring Indiansto police Indians was not an early version of com-munity policing. The military model, with itsemphasis on impersonality and authority, precludedany such thing. The police did not enforce tradi-tional Indian law and did not support traditionalIndian methods of justice. Reservation residentsoften perceived reservation police as traitors andemployees of an occupying army.
The year 1907 saw a development that reflectedthe reform model of policing that was graduallyreplacing the military model. Consistent withreform’s call for greater centralization, better train-ing, and a narrower police function, the commis-sioner of Indian Affairs appointed a number ofspecial officers. Their primary duty was to enforceCongress’s ban on selling alcoholic beverages toIndians on or off reservations. Centralized undera chief special officer headquartered in Salt LakeCity, the special officers received extensive trainingand concentrated on finding bootleggers, traffick-ers, and buyers. When the nation’s general disen-chantment with Prohibition resulted in less concernwith alcohol on the reservations, the BIA foundadditional duties for these officers, who now hadyears of law enforcement experience and wideknowledge of Indian Country. They were trans-ferred to reservations and given the duty of investi-gating major crimes, becoming the genesis of theinvestigative division of the BIA Division of LawEnforcement. In 1953 Congress changed the law toallow Native Americans to buy and consume alco-hol off the reservation and gave tribal councils theright to allow alcohol on the reservation. The shiftfrom enforcing alcohol legislation to general inves-tigative duties was now complete.
In the 1960s, the BIA Division of LawEnforcement services continued successfully topress Congress for funds to train its officers andprovide them with better equipment. One result of
this was an even greater influence of the reform andprofessional styles of policing. The growth of theBIA gave the federal government greater controlover Indian police policy and management, whilethe professional model distanced the police fromthe communities they served. Policing also sufferedfrom inefficiencies in the BIA structure. BIA patrolofficers reported through a long chain of commandto the highest levels of BIA administration locatedin Washington, D.C. Investigators, on the otherhand, reported directly to the BIA Division of LawEnforcement Services. Thus, although each func-tion was highly centralized, each reported to differ-ent departments within the BIA.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Native Americansbegan working effectively to assert claims of sover-eignty and self-government. They demanded morecontrol over the institutions that affected their lives;primary among these were education, health, andpolicing. In response, Congress passed PublicLaw 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act of 1975. This allowedtribes to contract with the federal government toprovide their own services that had previously beenprovided by the government. This included con-tracting with the BIA to provide law enforcement.Tribal governments submitted plans for organiza-tion and performance measurements and the BIAprovided basic funding. This arrangement gave theBIA the right to approve or withhold approval oftribal suggestions and approved contracts that usu-ally strongly resembled conventional non-Indianpolicing arrangements. Funding was supplied on aline item basis.
Feeling the need for more autonomy, NativeAmericans pressed for the Self-GovernanceAmendments of 2000. These amendments callfor tribes to compact with the BIA. The main dif-ference between contracts and compacts is that thelatter are funded by block grants rather than byline items. Tribal governments have been quick toexercise their rights under both of these arrange-ments that diminish but do not extinguish theinfluence of the BIA. Another way in which theBIA continues to be a presence is that some tribaldepartments provide only patrol services, relying
Federal Policing in Indian Country—�—671
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 671
on the BIA for investigation of misdemeanors andfelonies.
An additional way in which the BIA continues toaffect tribal policing is through the Bureau of IndianAffairs Training Program (BIATP) at the IndianPolice Academy located in Artesia, New Mexico,on the campus of the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center. The 16-week Integrated BasicPolice Training Program is required of BIA officersand is also open to tribal law enforcement officers.In addition to the topics taught to any police recruitclass, the BIATP also includes conflict management,Indian Country law, and BIA specialized training.
The BIA no longer has the long chain of commandmentioned above, but its structure is still unusual.Patrol officers are supervised by their department’scommanding officer, who usually holds the rankof captain. Captains now report directly to the BIADivision of Law Enforcement Services, which nowhas its headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Department commanding officers have no lineauthority over investigators, who report directly toBIA Law Enforcement Services.
THE JURISDICTIONAL MAZE
The cumulative effect of laws, decisions, and prac-tices reflecting different attitudes at different timesis the creation of a jurisdictional nightmare. Stateor federal authorities handle all crimes involvingIndians and taking place outside of Indian Country.If either the suspect or the victim is non-Indian,state or federal authorities have jurisdiction even ifthe crime took place within Indian Country. If bothsuspect and victim are Indians and the crime tookplace within Indian Country, tribal officers havejurisdiction—unless the offense is one listed in theMajor Crime Act, in which case federal officershave jurisdiction; either the BIA or the FederalBureau of Investigation may carry out the inquiry.Federal authorities may decline jurisdiction, inwhich case tribal authorities may prefer a lessercharge, which would bring the crime within theirjurisdiction. The situation is complicated evenmore when state or federal roads run across Indianlands.
One partially successful attempt to escape thejurisdictional maze is cross-deputation or commis-sion. This takes place when two or more lawenforcement agencies confer full or partial juris-dictional privileges on each other’s members. BIAforces may form agreements with sheriffs’ or munic-ipal police departments, with state police agencies,or with other federal agencies such as the NationalPark police or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Thiscross-deputation is the most recent example of theevolving relationships between Native Americansand the local, state, and federal governments of theUnited States. First treated as enemies and then aswards of the federal government, Native Americanstoday continue to assert their autonomy in all areas,including law enforcement.
Dorothy H. Bracey
For Further Reading
Barker, M. L. (1998). Policing in Indian Country. Guilderland,NY: Harrow and Heston.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1831 (1831).Deloria,V., & Lyttle, C. M. (1983). American Indians,
American justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).Hagan, W. T. (1966). Indian police and judges: Experiments
in acculturation and control. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.
Harring, S. L. (1990). Crow Dog’s case: A chapter in the legalhistory of tribal sovereignty. American Indian LawReview 14, 192–239.
Luna, E., & Walker, S. (1998). Policing in Indian Country:A national survey of tribal law enforcement agencies.Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Wakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., & Begay, M.(2001). Policing on American Indian reservations.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
� FEDERALPROTECTIVE SERVICE
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) provides bothsecurity services and law enforcement to more than8,000 federally owned and leased buildings nation-wide. These buildings include office buildings,courthouses, border stations, and warehouses. FPS’sheadquarters is in Washington, D.C., but because
672—�—Federal Protective Service
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 672
of the large number of buildings for which it isresponsible, it also operates regional offices inNew York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver,Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Fort Worth, KansasCity, and Washington, D.C. In addition, FPS oper-ates a megacenter in each state and in the U.S.Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico that serves as a dis-patch network to provide emergency communi-cations for police business and routine monitoringof security alarms in federal facilities.
The FPS traces its history to 1790, when PresidentGeorge Washington appointed three commissionersto establish a federal territory that was to become thepermanent seat of the government. The commission-ers hired six night watchmen to guard the buildingsthat the government occupied, including those occu-pied by Congress and by the president. The creationof the FPS was an outgrowth of Americans’ reluc-tance to create a national police force, requiringestablishment of a protective service designated toprevent attacks on governmental personnel and facil-ities. Because of this diffusion of responsibilities,protection of the White House and Capitol is cur-rently provided by the Capitol Police and uniformedSecret Service officers. Since its creation, manyof the FPS’s federal guard force operations weretransferred and divided among several departments.
In 1948, Congress enacted Title 40 U.S.C. 318,which gave federal guards arrest powers and the newrole of police officers. Congress directed the appoint-ment of special police officers to have the same pow-ers as sheriffs and constables. One year later, thenewly formed General Services Administration(GSA) assumed leadership of the federal police,which were known as U.S. Special Police.
In 1971, the GSA administrator signed an orderformally establishing the FPS to provide a uni-formed force to protect government occupied build-ings. However, over the decades, the FPS providedonly reactive fixed guardposts. Until 1995, theagency operated in relative obscurity, and legisla-tors, in their effort to shrink governmental spending,diminished the number of FPS officers. The bombingof the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in OklahomaCity, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995, changed legis-lators’ minds. Soon after, the Department of Justice
recommended increasing the level of security atvulnerable buildings and upgrading the role of theFPS. As a result, the FPS doubled its size to 724 offi-cers and shifted its strategy to a mobile, proactivepolice force.
In 2000, GSA relinquished control of governanceof security and law enforcement to the FPS’s assis-tant commissioner, who was the agency’s head, andin March 2003, the FPS was transferred to theDepartment of Homeland Security. The FPS wasincorporated into the Bureau of Immigration andCustoms Enforcement, and the head of the FPS wasretitled director.
CURRENT ORGANIZATION
The FPS is organized around four distinct job titles,each with a somewhat different set of responsibilities:law enforcement security officers (LESOs), criminalinvestigators, police officers, and support servicespersonnel. LESOs assess federal facility vulnerabili-ties and recommend appropriate security measuresto prevent attacks against building tenant agencies.LESOs act as liaisons with the FPS and managementofficials of the customer agencies. LESOs furtherassist FPS police officers during emergencies. LESOsare authorized to wear uniforms and exercise policepowers for the duration of an emergency.
Criminal investigators (also called specialagents) are plainclothes personnel who investigatefelonies committed in federal buildings, collect evi-dence, preserve crime scenes, conduct surveillanceand interviews, and make arrests. The results oftheir investigations are presented to U.S. attorneysand investigators may testify in front of grand juriesand at trials. Criminal investigators may furtherparticipate in federal task forces.
FPS police officers are the front lines in federalbuildings. They wear blue uniforms, carry weapons,and perform routine patrol on foot, in motor vehi-cles, and on bicycles. Like other patrol officers,they conduct preliminary investigations of crimes,arrest offenders, and work with criminal investiga-tors. They further assist citizens in emergencies andprovide a visible force both inside and outside offederal buildings.
Federal Protective Service—�—673
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 673
Support services personnel provide nontacticalservices and maintenance not provided by the othercomponents. For example, dispatchers operating inmegacenters monitor break-ins at federal buildings,and physical security specialists conduct routinesecurity assessments and communicate findingswith LESOs and each building’s tenants.
All sworn officers receive their training at theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco,Georgia, and additional field training in the regionsin which they are assigned.
Paula Gormley
For Further Reading
General Services Administration, Historical Background.[Online]. Available: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/offerings_content.jsp?contentOID=116083&content
Johnson, M. (1998, February 3). Protective service gets beefedup. The Tampa Tribune, p. 8.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, EnforcementFederal Buildings. [Online]. Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/enforce/enforce_fb.htm
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FederalProtective Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/careers/fps/
� FEDERALTRADE COMMISSION
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is empow-ered to ensure that the nation’s free market systemworks in a way that is productive yet not harmfulto consumers. The FTC enforces the nation’s con-sumer protection laws, which are designed to pro-tect consumers from unfair and deceptive tradepractices. Examples of consumer protection viola-tions include telemarketing fraud, Internet scams,price-fixing schemes, and other deceptive practices.The FTC is also charged with regulating advertisingclaims and approving corporate mergers.
The Federal Trade Commission was created in1914 in an effort to prevent unfair methods of com-petition and to help with federal antitrust legisla-tion. The U.S. Congress strengthened the power ofthe FTC in 1938 with the passage of the Wheeler-Lea Act, which gave a broad interpretation to the
prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts orpractices. The authority of the FTC was furtherincreased in 1975 with the passage of the Magnuson-Moss Act, which gave the FTC the authority to defineunfair and deceptive acts that were specific to partic-ular industries. The FTC is divided into three bureaus:Consumer Protection, Competition, and Economics.Although the FTC does not employ special agents,the investigative staff includes 500 attorneys, 70economists, a large number of paralegals, andother support personnel. The Environmental ProtectionAgency’s Office of Inspector General aids thesebureaus in fulfilling the mission statement of thecommission.
ACTIVITIES OF THE BUREAUS
The Bureau of Consumer Protection is charged withprotecting consumers against unfair, deceptive, orfraudulent practices. The bureau enforces not onlythe laws enacted by Congress, but the regulationsand rules implemented by the FTC as well. It hasthe authority to investigate individual companies, aswell as to conduct industry-wide investigations. TheDivision of Advertising Practices enforces truth inadvertising laws. This division works to ensure thatproducts are labeled correctly and that no producerof any product is making claims that are untrue ormisleading. The Division of Enforcement ensuresthat businesses comply with FTC cease and desistorders or federal injunctive court orders.
The Division of Financial Practices developsand enforces rules and regulations governing con-sumer privacy laws and financial and lending lawsaffecting consumers. The Division of MarketingPractices files federal court actions on behalf of theFTC to prevent scams and scam artists from repeat-ing their crimes, freezes assets, and seeks compen-sation for scam victims. This division also enforcesthe laws and regulations pertaining to telemarketingsales practices, funeral price disclosures, properdisclosure of warranty information, and franchiseand business disclosure policies applicable topotential buyers. The Division of Planning andInformation works to get pertinent information toconsumers via newsletters, press releases, telephone
674—�—Federal Trade Commission
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 674
banks, and help lines. The Consumer and BusinessEducation Program creates advertising campaignsthat target everyday consumers. This programstresses consumer research of products and compet-itive business practices.
The Bureau of Competition is the antitrust branchof the FTC. It is empowered to promote fair compe-tition between businesses by monitoring andapproving mergers and acquisitions that might haveanticompetitive effects. This bureau protects compe-tition through enforcement of the federal antitrustlaws that regulate unfair methods of competition andpossible trade monopolies. The FTC also regulatesall mergers between companies to determine whichmergers may potentially harm consumers. TheBureau of Competition also investigates complaintsmade by consumers concerning business practicesthat threaten competition but do not involve mergersor acquisitions. This bureau also analyzes impor-tant consumer-related information for Congressand the public and regularly issues reports on indus-try deregulation, pricing, and any subject of currentinterest. The bureau is also a source of informationfor businesses regarding proper competitive businesspractices.
The Bureau of Economics helps the FTC evalu-ate the impact of its actions on consumers. It ana-lyzes financial and economic information regardingpossible antitrust regulations and consumer protec-tion investigations and also analyzes data regardingpossible legislative actions as they pertain to pricingand competition.
The FTC’s Office of Inspector General wasestablished in 1989 to promote the economy, effi-ciency, and effectiveness of FTC programs andoperations. The Office of Inspector General doesnot investigate possible violations of regulationsand laws. It is, however, empowered to investigateallegations of possible wrongdoing by FTC employ-ees or to investigate allegations of waste or abuse ofauthority by the FTC or its staff.
Stephen E. Ruegger
For Further Reading
Federal Trade Commission. About the FTC. [Online].Available: http://www.ftc.org
Garland, S., & Dwyer, P. (1999, May 31). A new era of trust-busting may be just warming up. Business Week, p. 55.
Thibodeau, P. (2001, October). FTC shifts focus to enforce-ment. Computerworld, p. 41.
� FEDERAL WITNESSPROTECTION PROGRAM
The Federal Witness Protection Program, alsoknown as the Federal Witness Security (WITSEC)Program, was authorized by Congress as part ofthe Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Thisprogram, which was implemented in 1971, is pro-claimed to be the government’s best tool in combat-ing organized crime, drug-related crimes, terrorism,and other serious law violations. Witnesses receiveprotection from the U.S. Marshals Service from thetime they testify before a grand jury until the trial iscompleted. After the trial, witnesses and their familyare relocated, given new identities, and providedwith monthly stipends. The U.S. Marshals Serviceassists protected witnesses in obtaining such servicesas housing, medical care, job training, and employ-ment. Ninety-seven percent of these witnesseshave criminal histories but their recidivism rateis only half of the national average. Their testimonyis extremely important because they have insideinformation that would be difficult or impossiblefor law enforcement to obtain. Since witness intim-idation is a pressing problem, without the protec-tion afforded by WITSEC, many believe, mostwitnesses would be too afraid to cooperate with lawenforcement.
From 1970 to 1996, protection was providedfor more than 6,600 witnesses and 9,000 of theirfamily members. There are about 20 to 25 witnessesadded to the program each month (this numberdoes not include dependents). According to statis-tics released by the program, the witnesses whohave received protection have helped to bring abouta conviction rate of 89% in cases in which they havetestified. No witnesses who have followed the rulesof the program have been killed or harmed,although about 30 people who have left the programhave been murdered.
Federal Witness Protection Program—�—675
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 675
HISTORY OF WITSECAND ITS DEVELOPMENT
The importance of implementing this program wasrecognized in 1962 after the U.S. Senate organizedcrime hearings, commonly known as the Valachihearings. Joe Valachi, a known mobster, agreed totestify against the Mafia organization. As a result,the Mafia allegedly placed a price tag of $100,000on his life, but he was never killed because he wasprovided with federal law enforcement protection.In 1971, he died of natural causes.
The success of Valachi’s protection promptedCongress to pass the Organized Crime Control Act of1970, which allowed for the implementation of WIT-SEC. Initially the program was only used to housewitnesses testifying in organized crime cases, but theWitness Security Reform Act of 1984 extended thisprotection to witnesses of any serious crime. Familymembers are also protected. Reflecting the changingnature of criminal activity, since the 1980s, most wit-nesses were involved in drug-related cases, with theMafia accounting for only one-fifth of new wit-nesses. The act also authorized the victim compensa-tion fund, which allowed the U.S. attorney generalto compensate victims of crime perpetrated byprotected witnesses. All financial matters and childcustody issues are supposed to be resolved by thewitness prior to entering the program.
ADMISSION TO WITSECAND SERVICES PROVIDED
Title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970gives the attorney general or a designee the powerto select witnesses for WITSEC. Factors that areconsidered include the importance of the witnesses’testimony in securing a conviction and the possibil-ity that similar information might be obtained fromanother source. All witnesses and their familymembers must submit to a psychological evaluation(to determine stability and possible dangerousness tothe community) and a Marshals Service Assessment(to determine suitability for the program). Witnessesare also required to sign a memorandum of under-standing (MOU) that states they will testify in
court, they will desist from all criminal activity,they will keep their identity a secret, and they willfollow all other rules imposed upon them by theprogram. The Bureau of Prisons provides incarcer-ated witnesses with protection. The marshals areresponsible for providing protection for these wit-nesses during transport but these witnesses are eli-gible to apply to WITSEC when they are releasedfrom prison.
Every member of the family that is relocatedwith the witness must receive a new identity. Eachis required to choose a new last name but maychoose to maintain his or her first name. The lastname must be ethnically compatible and it cannotbe a previously used or current family name. TheMarshals Service will not pay for plastic surgerybut will help witnesses obtain this service if theycan afford to pay for it on their own. Each witnessis provided with a new birth certificate, social secu-rity card, driver’s license, and diplomas to the levelof education previously obtained. Marshals will notprovide any false documents (i.e., no false refer-ences, resumes, college degrees, etc.); all documen-tation is legal. Once the legal name change hastaken place, records will show that the witness’prior identity never existed. There is no paper trail.Families will also be provided with monthlystipends and given additional money for clothes,furniture, automobiles, moving expenses, and so on.During this time, marshals provide job training andjob placement. When families are self-sufficient,they no longer receive stipends from the govern-ment. However, their progress is still monitored byan inspector.
Those who enter the program must be preparedto start an entirely new life. All witnesses aretrained to answer questions, or how to properlyavoid questions, about their past. They are taughteverything that they might need to know about thecounty and state they supposedly originated from.Witnesses can have only limited contact with pastassociates. They can initiate phone calls throughsecure lines but they cannot receive any calls. Theymust also use secure mailing channels. They canwrite to others but any mail addressed to them issent through the marshals.
676—�—Federal Witness Protection Program
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 676
WITSEC remains very secretive. The witness’sidentity is not released unless felony criminal activ-ity is suspected. Federal court judges have autho-rized protected witnesses to testify in cases withoutdivulging their new identities if it can be demon-strated that the witnesses would be in danger. Tofurther protect the identity of witnesses, only asmall number of marshals know their true identities.
WITSEC is a voluntary program and witnessescan choose to withdraw from the program at anytime. If witnesses do not follow the strict guidelinesset forth by the MOU, they can be removed fromthe program. Federal courts have ruled that the pro-gram’s guidelines fall under the jurisdictional dis-cretion of the government. The government cannotbe held responsible for failing to provide protectionfor a witness or for terminating a witness from theprogram.
CRITICISMS OF WITSEC
Criticisms of WITSEC have centered on issuesof secrecy and the problems inherent in witnessesstarting new lives. The unwillingness of the attor-ney general to disclose a witness’s identity has cre-ated problems for creditors who are trying to collectdebts and to nonrelocated parents who were grantedvisitation or custody rights of relocated children.Most witnesses have criminal histories and criticsbelieve that WITSEC allows them to evade justice,since, in return for testifying, the witnesses mayreceive reduced prison sentences or total immunity.They are relocated to a new community and free tocommit new crimes. Since the recidivism rate forwitnesses averages about 17–23%, there is also abelief that relocation to a new community allowsthe witnesses to commit new crimes and prey onmembers of their new communities. Even thoughthe Victim Compensation Fund was created, itplaces a limit on the value of a human life. Thefamily members of those who have been killed byprotected witnesses will only be awarded a maxi-mum of $50,000. Moreover, state and local officialscan rarely obtain information on a federally pro-tected witness in their jurisdictions and prosecutorsand victims of protected witnesses have faced great
difficulty in filing civil or criminal suits againstthem. Since witnesses may opt to leave the programat any time, those with serious criminal pasts areable to evade community supervision. Althoughsome critics have recommended review boards toscrutinize the practices employed within WITSEC,by 2003, none had been formed.
Another major concern is the difficulty witnessesmay have starting new lives, especially when thereare children involved. Children may disclose theiridentities accidentally, particularly since it is diffi-cult for protected witnesses to make friends becausethey must constantly lie to protect their identities.Very little is known about witnesses because ofthe program’s secretive nature; empirical researchis virtually impossible, yet critics maintain that wit-nesses often suffer from depression and anxiety andhave higher rates of suicide than the general popu-lation. The program has also been criticized for itspoor record in finding witnesses’ employment orproviding them with adequate job training.
Another area of concern is less about the wit-nesses than about those protecting their identities.There is concern that fiscal difficulties have createddisgruntled inspectors. Between 1990 and 2000,staffing difficulties resulted in a loss of 115 inspec-tors, leaving only about 200 to oversee 21,000witnesses. Although the Marshals Service has anexcellent record in protecting witness for the past30 years, these internal issues may lead to the futureendangerment of witnesses and their families.
Kimberly Collica
See also U.S. Marshals Service
For Further Reading
Koedam, W. (1993). Clinical considerations in treating partic-ipants in the federal witness security program. AmericanJournal of Family Therapy, 21, 361–368.
Maier, T. (2002, July 22). Terror witnesses may be left in cold.Insight, 24.
Office of Inspector General. (2002, January). The federal wit-ness security program criminal division (Report No. 02-05). [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/01g/audit/0205/index.htm.
Sabbag, R. (1996, February 11). The invisible family.New York Times Magazine, pp. 32–39.
Federal Witness Protection Program—�—677
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 677
Slate, R. (1997). The federal witness protection program: Itsevolution and continuing growing pains. Criminal JusticeEthics, 16, 20–35.
� FINANCIAL CRIMESENFORCEMENT NETWORK
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network(FinCEN), a Treasury Department bureau, wasestablished in 1990, to enforce anti-money launder-ing laws and to help combat money laundering inthe United States and elsewhere. FinCEN collects,analyzes, and exchanges information, provides intel-ligence reports and technological services, andimplements the Bank Secrecy Act and otherTreasury Department mandates. FinCEN providesinformation and analytical reports to national andinternational law enforcement agencies, to financialinstitutions, and to domestic policy makers. FinCENemploys specialists from areas such as intelligence,financial analysis, and information technology.
A major responsibility of FinCEN is oversight ofthe Bank Secrecy Act, a key tool in the monitoringof money laundering activities. The Bank SecrecyAct, enacted in 1970, was intended to limit secrecyof certain types of financial transactions, to preventcriminals from using financial institutions to con-vert funds from illicit sources into clean money, andto give the secretary of the treasury the authority torequire banks and financial and nonbank financialinstitutions to keep specific records, file certainreports, for example, currency transaction reports(CTRs) and reports of international transportationof currency or monetary instruments, report cashtransactions over $10,000, and it put into actionanti-money laundering programs and complianceguidelines. Amendments in 1992 gave the secretaryof the treasury the right to require suspicious trans-actions reports (SARs) from all financial institu-tions, and the authority to require all financialinstitutions to establish anti-money launderingtraining programs. In 1994, the Money LaunderingSuppression Act (MLSA) provided for a singleagency to take the SARs sent in; required specifictypes of negotiable instruments, transported acrossborders, to be reported; and required certain types of
nonbank financial institutions, for example, moneytransmitters and check cashiers, to register with theTreasury Department. This MLSA is the main toolfor regulating nonbank financial institutions. TheBank Secrecy Act has also been expanded to includeboth state-licensed and tribal gambling casinos andcard clubs involving $10,000 or more in funds orassets. The institutions are also encouraged to volun-tarily report suspicious transactions below $5,000.
FINCEN DATABASES
Agents assigned to FinCEN create and maintain data-bases that contain law enforcement, commercial, andfinancial records that provide information and ideasfor strategies for investigators tracking suspects, theirpatterns and assets, and the movement of illegalmoney. The financial database includes the reportsrequired by the Bank Secrecy Act—including CTRs,SARs, and foreign bank and financial accounts.These analytical tools provide an audit trail so thatFinCEN agents are alerted to the possibility of moneylaundering activities. FinCEN maintains a memoran-dum of understanding with various law enforcementagencies and federal and regulatory agencies, whichallows agents to access individual law enforcementagencies’ databases. FinCEN also has access to com-mercially maintained databases that are useful inlocating individuals, determining the ownership of anasset (including property) and the asset’s tax assess-ment, and establishing links between individuals,businesses, and assets. FinCEN’s databases are usedby law enforcement agencies (federal, state, andlocal), and regulatory bodies.
FinCEN fosters cooperative efforts around theworld to deter and prevent global and domesticfinancial crimes by cooperating with financial intel-ligence units (FIUs) in other countries. In additionto supporting investigations into money laundering,FinCEN personnel provide training and technicalhelp and evaluate the controls other countries havein place for deterring financial crimes. FinCEN’ssecure Web site, the Egmont International SecureWeb System, is used by FIUs to access and sendinformation regarding money laundering and ana-lytical and technological tools.
678—�—Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 678
TRENDS
Money laundering has been included in a numberof recent legislative initiatives. The Anti-Drug AbuseAct (1986) enhanced the penalties for launderingdrug-related funds to include forfeiture and alsosought to stimulate financial institutions to reportthis activity without fear of civil liability. In 1998,the Money Laundering and Financial CrimesStrategy Act created mechanisms for all levels oflaw enforcement to coordinate resources to identifyso-called high-risk money laundering and relatedcrimes areas (HIFCAs). FinCEN is part of theHIFCA that reviews applications for intensiveinvestigation because a particular target is thoughtto represent a high risk for financial crimes. Evenmore recently, in 2001, Title III of the USAPATRIOT Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act in anattempt to make it more difficult to use the nation’sfinancial system to launder money and to make iteasier to prosecute the international laundering ofmoney and financing of terrorism.
FinCEN has reported to Congress regardinghawala, an informal value transfer system that usesvery little paperwork and therefore is difficult totrace. The report, required by Section 359 of theUSA PATRIOT Act, documented how the systemis legitimately used to send money to families incountries where Western-style banking is relativelyunknown. Hawala is quick, cheap, and reliable, andthe identification process can be used to evadetaxes, commit financial crimes, and fund terroristactivities. In addition, FinCEN is continually look-ing for weaknesses in new technology tools thatcan be exploited for financial crimes, for example,Internet gambling or the use of a cell phone totransfer value from one credit card to another with-out the use of a bank. As more and more transac-tions are conducted in a paperless world and theglobal exchange of information and money increases,FinCEN will be challenged to enforce the growingbody of legislation aimed at curbing money laun-dering and related financial crimes.
Marvie Brooks
See also USA PATRIOT Act
For Further Reading
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). [Online].Available: http://www.fincen.gov
FinCEN strategic plan for 2000–2005. (n.d.). AboutFinCEN/Strategic plan. [Online]. Available: http://www.fincen.gov/af_strategicplan.html
Harris, S. (2002, February 1). Disrupt and dismantle. [Online].Available: http://www.govexec.com/features/0202/0202s4.htm
Hawala: The invisible bank. (2002, April). U.S. CustomsToday. [Online]. Available: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/April/custoday_hawala.xml
Jost, P. M., & Sandhu, H. S. (2000, January). The hawalaalternative remittance system and its role in money laun-dering. [Online]. Available: http://www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/MoneyLaundering/hawa
Mariano-Florentino, C. (2003) The tenuous relationshipbetween the fight against money laundering and the dis-ruption of criminal finance. Journal of Criminal Law &Criminology, 93(2/3), 1–72.
Richards, J. R. (1999). Transnational criminal organizations,cybercrime, & money laundering: A handbook for lawenforcement officers, auditors, and financial investiga-tors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992). Money laundering:State efforts to fight it are increasing but more federal helpis needed. Report to the chairman, Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Money laundering:U.S. efforts to fight it all threatened by currency smug-gling. Report to the chairman, Permanent Subcommitteeon Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs,U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: Author.
� FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,DIVISION OF LAWENFORCEMENT
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish andwildlife. This involves managing ecosystems, sav-ing endangered species, protecting migratory birds,preserving habitat, and promoting wildlife conser-vation. The FWS is also responsible for enforcinglaws, regulations, and treaties that relate to wildliferesources. In 2003, the service received an annualbudget of approximately $1.27 billion with a pro-posed increase in 2004 of $25 million.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement—�—679
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 679
To support the service’s mission, the Division ofLaw Enforcement (DLE) investigates wildlife crimes,regulates wildlife trade, improves public understand-ing and compliance with wildlife protection laws,and collaborates with international, state, and triballaw enforcement agencies to conserve and protectwildlife resources. To fulfill this mission, the DLEis involved in investigatory, enforcement, educative,and monitoring functions. The DLE enforces hunt-ing regulations, inspects wildlife shipments, combatssmuggling of protected species, and provides special-ized training to other federal, state, and foreign lawenforcement officers. The division uses forensicscience to analyze evidence and solve wildlife crimesso violators can be prosecuted and punished. Thebudget of the DLE averages about $50 million butan increase in 2004 of $3 million was proposed andearmarked for hiring additional wildlife inspectorsand increasing enforcement of Florida waterwayspeed zones to protect the manatee.
HISTORY
In the early 1900s, the first pieces of federal legisla-tion, including the Lacey Act (1900), the MigratoryBird Law (1913), and the Migratory Bird Treaty(1918), were passed to protect wildlife. The respon-sibility to enforce these laws and treaties was ini-tially given to the Department of Agriculture in theDivision of Biological Survey (later renamed theBureau of Biological Survey). In 1934, a Divisionof Game Management was created within thebureau to specifically handle wildlife enforcement.In 1939, the Bureau of Biological Survey, alongwith the Commerce Department’s Bureau ofFisheries, was transferred to the Department of theInterior and merged to form the Fish and WildlifeService. Law enforcement responsibility continuedto reside in the Division of Game Management until1956 when the service was renamed the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and reorganized into twobureaus: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife andthe Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Wildlife lawenforcement responsibilities were placed withthe Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, in theBranch of Management and Enforcement. Until
the 1970s, wildlife law enforcement primarily dealtwith game protection and management. This orga-nizational structure continued until 1972, whenthe responsibility for waterfowl management wasshifted elsewhere in the service and the divisionwas renamed to its current title—Division of LawEnforcement. In the 1970s, a flurry of legislationwas passed and treaties signed that increased pro-tection for endangered species and migratory birds.This led to a much expanded role for wildlife lawenforcement.
ORGANIZATION
The Division of Law Enforcement is organized intoseven regional law enforcement offices, managed byan assistant regional director for law enforcement,who reports to a regional director, and the headquar-ters office, called the Office of Law Enforcement, inWashington, D.C. Besides coordinating the effortsof the seven regional offices, the headquarters officesets policy, manages the budget, and is responsiblefor member training. The office also hosts a SpecialOperations division that conducts complex investi-gations that are national and international in scope.
The DLE also includes the Clark R. BavinNational Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory inAshland, Oregon. The laboratory supports investi-gations and prosecution of wildlife crime. It isthe only crime lab worldwide devoted to wildlifelaw enforcement and is fully accredited by theAmerican Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.Since its inception in 1988, the lab has analyzedmore than 44,000 pieces of evidence from morethan 6,100 cases and each year those numbersincrease steadily. Laboratory scientists are largelyresponsible for creating the field of wildlife foren-sic science and contribute heavily to this body ofknowledge with their research. The laboratorystrives to make species-specific identifications ofwildlife parts and products to link suspects, victims,and crime scenes through the physical examinationof evidence. They also create or apply new analyti-cal methods and techniques to wildlife situations.
According to the publication Federal LawEnforcement Officers, 2000, the FWS employs 888
680—�—Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 680
personnel with arrest and firearm authority. Thisfigure includes refuge personnel who perform somelaw enforcement activities in addition to their regu-lar duties. The Division of Law Enforcement, whenfully staffed, employs 253 special agents and 94wildlife inspectors who exclusively work in lawenforcement. Special agents are criminal investiga-tors with full federal law enforcement authoritywho conduct investigations, make arrests, partici-pate in the preparation of court cases, and mayengage in surveillance and undercover work.Agents can be assigned to work at border ports orone of 540 wildlife refuges, 133 fish hatcheries, or78 field stations. Successful investigations haveinvolved the breakup of an international smugglingring in the reptile trade that in 1998 resulted in 40arrests, a multistate investigation in 1998 of illegalmussel trafficking, and prosecution in 2002 of amajor U.S. caviar importer for illegal trade activi-ties that included misrepresentation of the originand quality of roe. Indicative of the complex inves-tigations that must often precede charges, agentsworked from 1999 to 2002 on a case that involvedexposure of poaching of moose, caribou, Dall sheep,and black and grizzly bears on protected land inAlaska. Special agent positions are highly competi-tive and candidates must be U.S. citizens, betweenthe ages of 21 and 36, and possess at least a bache-lor’s degree preferably in wildlife management orcriminal justice. Typically, candidates undergoextensive background checks and medical, physical,and psychological tests. Newly hired special agentsreceive basic training for 18 weeks at the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center in Glynco,Georgia. Agents can begin at the federal governmentemployment levels of GS-7, 9, or 11, depending ontheir qualifications. In the year 2001, special agentswere involved in 8,681 investigations that resulted inpenalties of approximately $14 million in fines andcivil penalties, 41 years in prison, and 503 years ofprobation. More than half of these cases dealt withviolations of the Endangered Species Act.
Wildlife inspectors closely monitor wildlifeimports and exports with an annual trade of $1 billionat more than 30 major airports, ocean ports, andborder crossings by physically inspecting shipments
and reviewing required permits and documentationthat facilitate legal trade and deter or detect illegaltrafficking in protected species. These uniformedinspectors must be conversant with laws, regula-tions, and treaties relating to wildlife and be ableto identify thousands of different species, animalparts, and products. Inspectors work closely withspecial agents as well as the U.S. Customs Serviceand the Department of Agriculture’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service. A backgroundin wildlife biology, zoology, or criminal justice isadvantageous for employment. Newly hired wildlifeinspectors receive four weeks of basic trainingat the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centerin Glynco, Georgia, and then train on the job.Inspectors can begin at the federal governmentemployment levels of GS-5, 7, or 9, depending ontheir qualifications. In 2001, wildlife inspectorsprocessed more than 116,000 shipments.
Today wildlife crime has become a big business,international in scope with large amounts of moneyat stake. The seriousness of offenses has increased,as has the involvement of firearms. Additionally, theservice is charged with patrolling the third largestland area (90 million acres) of any federal agencyin the United States. Yet the DLE has been under-funded and understaffed for the past 15 years, mak-ing it extremely challenging to police effectively.Some crimes and violations are prevented or uncov-ered, but many escape detection. In Miami, Florida,alone the U.S. Customs Service has about 500agents—double the number assigned to the entireDLE. More support is needed from Congress toincrease funding and staffing and provide stifferpenalties for perpetrators in order to stem the tide ofwildlife crime.
Katherine B. Killoran
For Further Reading
Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife ForensicsLaboratory. [Online]. Available: http://www.lab.fws.gov
Reaves, B. A., & Hart, T. C. (2001, July). Federal law enforce-ment officers, 2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Tobias, M. (1998). Nature’s keepers: On the front lines of thefight to save wildlife in America. New York: Wiley.
Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement—�—681
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 681
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement.(2002). Annual report FY 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement.[Online]. Available: http://www.le.fws.gov
� FOOD AND DRUGADMINISTRATION
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is anagency within the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services with broad regulatory, investigatory,and educative duties intended to protect the healthand safety of American consumers. It administers thefederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 andcertain related laws. Its mission was updated by theFDA Modernization Act of 1997 and its jurisdictionis under continuous definition and expansion. In thewake of the September 11, 2001, and subsequentterrorist attacks, Congress has enhanced the FDA’sresources by allocating funds to hire additionalemployees to ensure the safety of both domesticallymanufactured and imported products.
The FDA embodies eight centers, each with spe-cific duties: the Centers of Biologic Evaluation andResearch, Devices and Radiological Health, DrugEvaluation and Research, Food Safety and AppliedNutrition, Veterinary Medicine, ToxicologicalResearch, and Offices of the Commissioner andof Regulatory Affairs. Under the direction of thesecenters, posts and field offices send out agents tomonitor manufacturing facilities and warehouses,employ chemists and other specialists to analyzethe samples, and maintain a legal staff. Its employ-ees, both full-time and part-time, are hired and pro-moted by merit within the Civil Service system andmust meet education and experience qualificationrequirements suitable to their duties. For example,the position of Paralegal Specialist GS-9 requiresat least one year of specialized experience in thefederal service, a master’s degree, or two years ofhigher level graduate education leading to such adegree or an LLB or JD, if related to the duties.
The Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) directsthe activities of approximately one third of FDA per-sonnel. Stationed in more than 150 offices, resident
posts, and laboratories throughout the United States,including Puerto Rico, this staff monitors morethan 115,000 business establishments that produce,warehouse, import, and transport consumer goods.Consumer safety officers and inspectors examineplants before the FDA approves a product to ensurethat firms are capable of high-quality production,monitor clinical trials that precede submissions forFDA approval, and check at intervals afterwardto determine if the plants are following suitableprocesses. Scientists in 13 ORA laboratories analyzethe products to determine whether they meet FDAstandards. Included are imports that are overseen byinspectors at ports of entry. Public affair specialistsexplain FDA policies and actions to consumergroups, health care professionals and state healthauthorities, and the media and encourage compli-ance with FDA standards. They also respond withthe rest of the field staff to public health emergen-cies, natural disasters, and product problems.
In addition to being the agency responsible forensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and prop-erly labeled, the FDA regulates medicines, medicaldevices, blood products, vaccines, cosmetics, vet-erinary drugs, animal feed, and electronic productsthat emit radiation, such as microwave ovens andvideo monitors to ensure that they are safe andeffective.
Other agencies handle issues related to restaurantfood and sanitation, unsolicited products in themail, accidental poisonings, pesticides or air andwater pollution, hazardous household products,alcoholic beverages, drug abuse and controlledsubstances, hazardous chemicals in the workplace,warranties, dispensing and sales practices of phar-macies, and medical practice.
Before the FDA considers approving productsfor sale, it requires manufacturers to conduct testson small batches and submit satisfactory results toestablish the safety of products, such as drugs andmedical devices. After approval, manufacturerssubmit samples of production lots of antibioticdrugs, insulin, or color additives periodically toFDA laboratories for testing for purity, potency,effectiveness, and safety. In some instances prob-lems remain undetected until the products are
682—�—Food and Drug Administration
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 682
widely used. If the problems pose a significantdanger to the consumer, the product is withdrawnfrom the market, retailers and wholesalers are noti-fied immediately to remove the product from theshelf, and the media alerts the public. Ordinarily,this is usually accomplished through cooperationbetween the FDA and the parties involved. With theexception of baby formulas and medical devices,the FDA does not have legal authority to requirerecalls. If immediate action is not taken, usuallylegal measures are avoided by issuing warningsor notices to the parties involved that the matterwill be referred for prosecution.
Congress has not empowered the FDA withauthority to arrest offenders or to initiate litigation.The power to file civil or criminal charges againstcompanies or individuals is vested in the U.S.Department of Justice. The FDA has the responsi-bility to recommend action. FDA personnel whofind violations report them to the legal staff, whichreviews and reports them to the U.S. attorneyoffices in the federal judicial district in whichthe violations occur. FDA can act in the name ofthe United States, as the plaintiff. Occasionally,approval of a product is obtained by fraudulentmeans—by submitting unscientific or inadequatetesting or by deliberately omitting or underreport-ing adverse effects. In such cases the secretary ofthe department may enjoin the offenders from fur-ther violations and submit evidence for the assistantU.S. attorneys to initiate prosecution in the federalcourt system. Offenders are subject to seizure,fines, and incarceration.
Consumers, health providers, and vendors areinvited to report any adverse reactions or other prob-lems with the products the agency regulates. TheFDA maintains extensive educational programs topromote compliance by industry with its regulationsand to enable consumers to benefit from its work.Since the late 1990s, the FDA has been under publicpressure to formulate rules pertaining to over-the-counter so-called natural remedies and dietarysupplements; weight reduction formulas containingephedra; and genetically altered plant foods, espe-cially corn products, and to establish guidelines forsuitable drug dosage for children. Each of these issues
has proved controversial and final determination isunder review. Accusations of being too slow in warn-ing drug companies against false or misleading adver-tising and of withholding products from the marketbeyond a reasonable time period have prompted theFDA to streamline its processes and, in some cases,relax some of its release procedures.
Lorine Swainston Goodwin
See also Pure Food, Drink, and Drug Act
For Further Reading
Food and Drug Administration. [Online]. Available:http://www.fda.gov/opacom/org.htm
Goodwin, L. S. (1999). The pure food, drink, and drugcrusaders, 1879-1914. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industryinfluences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Parisian, S. (2001). FDA inside and out. Front Royal, VA: FastHorse Press.
� FORENSIC ACCOUNTING
Forensic accounting has historically referred solelyto the application of accounting skills, tests, andprinciples to financial books and records whenlitigation is anticipated. Since the 1970s, though,thousands of accountants, auditors, and investiga-tors have become involved in such undertakingsand, accordingly, the use of the term has broadened.Today, forensic accounting has expanded to involvecriminal investigations, regulatory examinations,internal corporate inquiries, pre- or postpurchaseprice disputes, preacquisition due diligence, licens-ing disputes, vendor and purchasing integrity pro-grams, bankruptcy investigations, protection ofintellectual property, monitoring of joint ventureactivities, construction or project analysis, or vari-ous forms of controls and compliance assessment.
At the same time that the term forensic account-ing has broadened, so, too, have the types of pro-fessionals engaged in these activities. Forensicaccounting may involve accountants, auditors, civil orcriminal investigators, computer forensic specialists,
Forensic Accounting—�—683
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 683
data management and archival professionals, billingand coding specialists, and various subject matterexperts knowledgeable in the intricacies of variousbusinesses. When undertaken by law enforcementofficials, forensic accounting investigations mayseek to document illegal political payoffs and kick-backs, frauds committed against organizations andindividuals, tax evasion, organized crime and drugcartel operations, consumer scams, crimes commit-ted by corporations and their officers, fraud againstthe government, violation of the Foreign CorruptPractices Act, economic espionage, money launder-ing, and the financing of terrorism activities.Although the term was not in use at the time, theincome tax evasion case made against Prohibition-era mob boss Al Capone would today be calledforensic accounting.
When undertaken by regulators, such inquiriesmay focus on revenue management by publiclytraded corporations, insider trading, pump-and-dump schemes, front-running activities, fraudulentconveyance, federal program abuse, or deceptivesales practices. Depending upon the circumstances,some regulatory inquiries may become criminalinvestigations. Whether criminal or civil in nature,such investigations are frequently international inscope, because, by the 21st century, more and morebusinesses have become multinational. Also, the abil-ity of individuals and organizations to move moneyin and out of safe havens via electronic funds trans-fer has greatly complicated many such inquiries.
The development of forensic accounting and theactivities surrounding it have not gone unnoticed inother areas. Increasingly, attorneys filing suits onbehalf of their clients seek to make fraud one of theallegations in their pleadings. Some knowledgeableexperts have estimated that more than one third ofthe civil suits filed in U.S. district courts now con-tain an allegation of fraud as one of the elements.
One of the largest forensic accounting projectsever undertaken occurred in the 1990s with regardto Holocaust accounts. During this period, majorSwiss banks operating in the United States cameunder severe political, regulatory, and publicscrutiny due to allegations that they had improperlyretained and profited from accounts of persons whoperished during the Nazi Holocaust of World War
II. During these inquiries hundreds of forensicaccountants worked for years to trace and unearththe history of thousands of such accounts. Anothermajor forensic accounting effort, both criminal andregulatory in nature, was the savings and loan crisisof the 1980s, in which hundreds of such institutionsfailed amid allegations of fraud, mismanagement,loose supervision, and poor business practices.
In the public sector, forensic accountants maybe law enforcement officers, regulators, auditors,examiners, program analysts, members of aninspector general’s staff, tax or revenue agents, orcontract administration personnel. In the privatesector, they may be sole practitioners, membersof a private investigations firm, associates of a lawfirm, certified public accountants, or members of aninternational professional services firm. In someinstances, forensic accountants may be appointedby a court or special master to assist in monitoringan entity with a history of corruption problems.Sometimes referred to as independent private sectorinspectors general, such monitors have beenappointed to oversee the activities of some compa-nies and unions with a history of organized crimeinvolvement or infiltration.
As more and more individuals have becomeinvolved in forensic accounting inquiries, so, too, haveorganizations. The American Institute of CertifiedPublic Accountants and the Institute of InternalAuditors are two of the largest organizations tooffer training and research to their members onissues pertinent to forensic accounting. The oldestand largest organization devoted solely to forensicaccounting is the 26,000-member Associationof Certified Fraud Examiners, headquartered inAustin, Texas. The association offers training, sem-inars, and research to both members and nonmem-bers and also offers the certified fraud examinerdesignation to those who complete a course ofstudy and pass a certification test.
Joseph W. Koletar
For Further Reading
2002 report to the nation: Occupational fraud and abuse.(2002). Austin, TX: Association of Certified FraudExaminers.
684—�—Forensic Accounting
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 684
Eizenstat, S. E. (2003). Imperfect justice: Looted assets, slavelabor, and the unfinished business of World War II.New York: Public Affairs.
Koletar, J. W. (2003). Fraud exposed: What you don’t knowcould cost your company millions. New York: Wiley.
� FOREST SERVICE, LAWENFORCEMENT ANDINVESTIGATIONS
The motto of the Forest Service (FS), “Caring for theLand and Serving the People,” reflects its mission toprotect, manage, and promote use—timbering, graz-ing, and mining, as well as recreational—of morethan 175 national forest units. Under the Departmentof Agriculture, the FS is responsible for stewardshipof natural resources on more than 192 million acres,8.3% of America’s land area. The Law Enforcementand Investigations (LEI) program is responsible forpublic safety and protecting the natural resources,employees, and property on lands under the jurisdic-tion of the FS. LEI investigates violations of, andenforces federal laws and regulations that relate to,the National Forest System (NFS). LEI also worksto prevent violations through public education pro-grams and cooperates with other federal, state, andlocal law enforcement organizations. Internal inves-tigation is also part of its responsibilities. In 2001,LEI personnel handled 215,484 incidents and,according to Assistant Director Ann Melle, issued64,000 written warnings and citations, and made5,000 arrests in the year 2000. The FS budget totaled$4.75 billion of which $80 million was designatedfor LEI operations in 2003.
HISTORY
As early as the 1880s, the federal government setaside public lands for forest preserves. The OrganicAdministration Act of 1897 authorized regulationsfor the protection and use of forest preserves and pre-scribed criminal sanctions for violations. The ForestService was established under the Department ofAgriculture by the Transfer Act (1905) to managethese lands under a philosophy of multiple use andsustained yield. It also gave FS employees arrest
powers for federal violations while states retainedjurisdiction to enforce state laws. For the first halfof the 1900s, most law enforcement duties involvedwild game law and livestock violations and wereperformed by forest rangers as part of their regularjobs. An increase in arson during the 1950s broughtabout the hiring of the first criminal investigators.The 1960s brought a rise in the recreational useof the NFS as well as an increase in illegal drugactivity. To respond, the number of law enforce-ment personnel grew as well. In 1971, Congressgranted the FS new authority to work cooperativelywith state and local law enforcement organizationsto enforce state and local laws, rules, and regula-tions on national forest lands. Law enforcementpersonnel were cross-designated with the authorityof the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1988 toinvestigate and suppress illegal drug activities andaid in asset seizure. The same bill granted FSlaw enforcement authority to personnel from otherfederal agencies. A memorandum of understand-ing was exchanged in 1990 between the depart-ments of agriculture and the interior, cross-designating their law enforcement personnel withthe powers of each.
At this point, management of law enforcementpersonnel within the FS was decentralized andpersonnel reported to district rangers and forestsupervisors, not other law enforcement personnel.In 1994, Congress mandated that FS law enforce-ment personnel have a separate reporting structureresulting in the formation of the Law Enforcementand Investigation program, which reports directly tothe FS chief. Congress remained concerned aboutthe reporting structure and, in 1996, ordered anindependent study to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe new structure. The Star Mountain Report con-cluded that overall effectiveness, quality of resourceprotection, and enforcement improved under thenew structure but expressed major concerns withdata collection practices, accountability, and com-munication within the agency.
ORGANIZATION
The director of the LEI program reports directly tothe chief of the forest service, bypassing the regular
Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations—�—685
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 685
FS chain of command. The director is assisted by adeputy and four assistant directors in Washington,D.C. Special agents-in-charge supervise the lawenforcement activities in each of the nine FSregions. Regional hierarchy varies but usuallyincludes zone and forest level supervision. In 2000,the FS employed 457 law enforcement officers(LEOs) and 123 special agents. The staff is over-whelmingly male (83%) and Caucasian (82%), butemploys the highest number of Native Americansof any federal law enforcement agency (8%). TheNFS is responsible for more acreage and visitationsthan the National Park System and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service combined, yet there are six timesthe number of LEOs serving under those two agen-cies as serving under the FS.
Special agents are the agency’s criminal investi-gators. In 2001, special agents opened 2,700 resourceinvestigations, closed 1,988, and conducted 172internal investigations. Candidates must possess abachelor’s degree or three years of experience inlaw enforcement and be less than 37 years of age.Additional experience can be substituted for educa-tion. Agents are generally hired at the GS-5 levelwith promotion to GS-7 and GS-9 levels. Specialagents attend the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC) for 11 to 13 weeks inaddition to field training in their first year. Types ofcases special agents may be involved in includeproperty and timber theft, arson investigation, ille-gal drug activity, violent crime, and occasionallyinternal investigations.
LEOs are uniformed members who provide regu-lar, reoccurring presence and enforce laws and regu-lations on FS lands. They primarily perform patrolduties dealing with public safety incidents such astraffic accidents, search and rescue, disputes, shoot-ing incidents, drug or alcohol abuse problems, andassaults. They have many of the same powers as spe-cial agents and assist them in conducting investiga-tions. Candidates must have a bachelor’s degree orone year of experience in law enforcement althoughadditional experience can substitute for education.Training takes place at FLETC for 11 weeks fol-lowed by field training. Initial appointments forLEOs occur at the GS-5 level.
The LEI program also has approximately 500cooperative patrol agreements with state, county,and local law enforcement organizations, whichinclude reimbursement for their services. In 1998,more than 8% of the LEI budget was encumberedfor cooperative agreements.
FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
LEI personnel are involved in a number of majorareas. The theft of timber causes losses valued in themillions of dollars, and protection of archaeologi-cal artifacts and sites continues to be problematic.Wildfires have become more prevalent, resulting inmajor loss of habitat and property. Special agentssearch for the origin, causes, and persons responsi-ble. The Forest Service is a favorite target of radicalenvironmentalist groups, such as the Earth LiberationFront, that protest its timber management practicesusing public demonstrations, vandalism, destructionof property, and sometimes even violence with dam-ages that had totaled $40 million by 2003.
Drug control is a major challenge for all federallaw enforcement agencies, but marijuana cultiva-tion and clandestine drug laboratories are particu-larly rampant in the national forests. Their remotelocations appeal to growers and use of publicland protects their own properties from seizure.According to LEI Assistant Director Ann Melle,730,000 marijuana plants were eradicated, 9,000pounds of processed marijuana were seized, and450 drug labs were closed in 2000.
In recent years the Forest Service, including theLaw Enforcement and Investigations program, hasbeen under close scrutiny by Congress. Questionshave been raised about the need for the program.Some see the law enforcement role as inappropriatefor the FS and feel the job can be more efficientlyand effectively done by other federal or local lawenforcement agencies. Cooperative agreements areincreasingly being encouraged as the level of fund-ing and staffing for the LEI program continues to beinsufficient to address the magnitude of the lawenforcement problems in the national forests.
Katherine B. Killoran
686—�—Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 686
For Further Reading
Berkowitz, P. D. (1995). U.S. rangers: The law of the land.Redding, CA: CAT.
Forest Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us.Forest Service, Law Enforcement & Investigations. [Online].
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/lei/Melle, A. R. (2001, September 12). The U.S. Forest Service
approach to forest law enforcement. Paper presented at theEast Asia Ministerial Conference on Forest Law Enforcementand Governance, Denpesar, Indonesia. [Online]. Available:http://Inweb18.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attachments/FLEG_S7a-2/$File/7a+2+ Anne+Melle+-+USFS.pdf
Oversight hearing on Forest Service law enforcement. Hearingbefore the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,105th Cong., 2 (1998, June 23). [Online]. Available http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/resources/hii49653.00/hii49653_0.htm
Reaves, B. A., & Hart, T. C. (2001, July). Federal law enforce-ment officers, 2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Tippets, D. W. (1988, April). Understanding U.S. ForestService law enforcement. Law and Order, pp. 58–66.
Torres, D. A. (1985). Handbook of federal police and inves-tigative agencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Tobias, M. (1998). Nature’s keepers: On the front lines of thefight to save wildlife in America. New York: Wiley.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2002).Report of the Forest Service, FY 2001: Incorporatingfinancial and performance accountability. Washington,DC: Department of Agriculture.
� FREEDOM OFINFORMATION ACT
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) wasenacted to make accessible to members of the gen-eral public, as their right, the records held by fed-eral executive branch departments and agencies. Itis based on the belief that government belongs tothe people and they have a right to know what theirgovernment is doing and why.
The FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) provides for routinerelease of most requested executive branch govern-ment records within specified, relatively narrow,time limits unless the records fall within ninespecific categories of exemptions. It requires uni-form fees, which can be waived, for all aspectsof the process, from searching for the records to
duplicating them and in some instances reviewingthem to determine if they can be released. Requestersare entitled to written explanations if their requestsare denied.
A requester can appeal a denial, first to theagency and then, more important, to federal districtcourt, which can review all the records, overrideagency decisions, and require the government topay reasonable court costs if it finds that the recordswere improperly withheld. Each agency is requiredto submit an annual report detailing all aspects ofFOIA administration to the attorney general who, inturn, is required to make the reports available, elec-tronically, at a central location and to submit anannual report assessing overall operations to theCongress.
The statute, signed into law July 4, 1966, byPresident Lyndon B. Johnson at his Texas ranch,covers not only Cabinet agencies and other executivedepartments, but also the military, government cor-porations, government-controlled corporations, theexecutive office of the president, and independentregulatory commissions. It does not cover electedofficials (president, vice president, members ofCongress), the federal courts, government contrac-tors, or nonprofit organizations. A record is a docu-ment in any format, including print, tape recordings,photographs, maps, records in all digital and elec-tronic formats, and technologies not yet invented.
The two fundamental principles on which theFOIA rested were that agency records were to bemade available to any person, on request. Any personapplies to an individual, corporation, citizen, orforeigner. Under the original law, every requesterhad equal access to a record but had to ask for and(reasonably) describe the records. This meant thatin deciding to release or withhold a governmentrecord, the agency had to examine the record, notthe person making the request, the reason forthe request, or the purpose for which the recordwould be used. The burden was on the agency toshow why a record should not be released, not on therequester to prove that he or she has a right to see therecord.
The principle of any person remained in placeuntil November 15, 2002, when Congress passed
Freedom of Information Act—�—687
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 687
the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year2003 (Pub. L. No.107-306), which for the first timeincluded restrictions on who could make FOIArequests. Intelligence agencies (and segments ofagencies that deal with intelligence) now cannotdisclose records requested under FOIA eitherdirectly to “any foreign government or internationalgovernment organization” or indirectly through arepresentative. This is a major reversal of thestatute’s original intent because it moves the stan-dard for releasing records away from the recorditself and looks instead at the requester.
AMENDING THE FOIA
Since 1966, the statute has been amended seventimes: three times with major revisions and fourtimes with less sweeping changes. In 1974, a bipar-tisan Congress amended and significantly strength-ened the FOIA, with procedural and substantivechanges, quickly overriding President Gerald R.Ford’s veto. Congress was responding to wide-spread criticism of such problems as long delays ingetting documents, improper denials, and unreason-ably high copying charges. Legislative resolve,however, was also a reaction to an executive branchaccused of illegal activities, as revealed by theWatergate investigation and President RichardM. Nixon’s subsequent resignation.
These amendments, although since modified,form the framework of the act, setting such require-ments as time limits for agency response torequests, uniform reasonable search and copyingfees, and waiver or reduction of fees “in the publicinterest.” Nonexempt portions of records had tobe released and indexes had to be provided to helpthe public identify agency matters. In addition,Congress rewrote the exemption on security classi-fication (b) (1) to reverse a 1973 Supreme Courtdecision (EPA v. Mink) that held the court lackedauthority to review classification decisions. Perhapsmost important, a person was given the right toappeal to the federal district courts if a request wasdenied and administrative remedies had beenexhausted. The courts could, independently, reviewthe documents de novo and in camera.
The 1986 amendments, attached to the OmnibusAnti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, reflected a shifttoward increased restrictions. Three categories ofrequesters were created, each subject to differentfees depending on status and purpose: commercial(profit-making) requesters, news media representa-tives or educational or noncommercial scientificinstitutions engaged in scholarly or scientificresearch, and everyone else. Uniform fee and feewaiver guidelines were to be promulgated by theOffice of Management and Budget. At the sametime, the court’s review of fee waivers was reducedto considering only the record before the agency,and more conditions had to be met to qualify. Until1986, judges were required to give FOIA casesprecedence over other cases but this special statuswas repealed with these amendments. Further, thelaw enforcement exemption (b) (7) was modified,giving agencies more discretion to withhold morekinds of records.
The 1996 amendments (Electronic-FOIA, Pub.L. No. 104-231) were written to encourage agenciesto use electronic technology to enhance publicaccess to agency records and information and, tothe extent possible, make available records in anyformat requested. Agencies may set up multitrack-ing systems and expedite the process for com-pelling need. Increased reporting requirementsprovide Congress with a more detailed picture ofhow agencies handle FOIA requests.
EXEMPTIONS
Whereas the FOIA was designed to ensure thatagencies would make their requested records avail-able, nine categories of information were identifiedin which agencies could exercise discretion andwithhold records. These exemptions are commonlyreferred to by their numbers, (b) (1) through (b) (9).The first, (b) (1), concerns documents specificallydesignated by presidential executive order to bekept secret, “in the interest of national defense orforeign policy,” and “properly classified.” However,an agency can review a requested document todetermine whether the classification is still appro-priate and must release the document if its status
688—�—Freedom of Information Act
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 688
has changed; there is also a procedure in the executiveorder to request declassification.
The eight remaining exemptions cover an arrayof categories. Exemption (b) (2) applies to internalpersonnel rules and regulations. Exemption (b) (3)deals with information exempt under other laws. Inmany cases, as with the 2003 Intelligence Autho-rization Act, congressional committees or individ-ual members have attached FOIA exemptions toother legislation not handled by the House andSenate committees responsible for FOIA so thatcertain agencies have been exempted from havingto respond to FOIA requests or additional categoriesof information can be withheld. These exemptionsnow number in the hundreds.
The exemption for confidential business informa-tion, (b) (4), protects trade secrets and commercialor financial information that has been obtained froma person and is privileged or confidential. It coversnarrowly defined trade secrets (e.g., the formula forCoca-Cola) and other business information that iscompetitively sensitive. Exemption (b) (5) protectssome interagency and intraagency communicationsin memorandums, letters, and e-mails. Exemption(b) (6) protects some aspects of privacy, focusing onprotections against “a clearly unwarranted invasionof personal privacy.” These records include personneland medical files and similar files.
Exemption (b) (7) applies to records or informa-tion that has been compiled for law enforcementpurposes. In 1974, categories of what could be with-held were narrowed, making it easier to obtaindocuments; in 1986 categories were broadened,permitting more documents to be withheld and mak-ing it more difficult to get documents. The exemp-tion now covers records and information, not justrecords. The withholding threshold has been low-ered from “would” cause harm to “could reasonablybe expected” to cause harm. This exemption protectslaw enforcement activities, both the work of theagencies (enforcement, proceedings, ongoing inves-tigations, confidential sources, and agency proce-dures for investigation and prosecution) and therights of individuals (to a fair, impartial trial,personal privacy, and life and physical safety).These are further identified by six subexemptions.
Exemption (b) (8) applies to information concerningfinancial institutions. Exemption (b) (9), which hasbecome more important since the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks, pertains to informationconcerning geological and geophysical informa-tion and data, including maps concerning wells.Additionally, agencies are permitted, under limitedcircumstances related to law enforcement or for-eign intelligence, to respond to a request byneither confirming nor denying that a record exists(exclusions).
HISTORY, IMPLEMENTATION,AND ADMINISTRATION
The campaign that led to the FOIA began in 1953.Representative John Emerson Moss (D-CA) wasconcerned about widespread government secrecyand about Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s attacks onunnamed Communists in government. A year later,Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr. (D-MO) madeopenness a high-priority issue as well. WhenHennings died in 1960, his successor, Senator JohnV. Long, although initially most concerned withprotecting citizen privacy from government intru-sion, took on the fight for access. It was his versionof the FOIA that passed the Senate and House.
Enactment of the FOIA marked the end of a13-year effort by members of Congress, with sup-port from the American Society of NewspaperEditors. The FOIA amended Section 3 (PublicInformation) of the 1946 Administrative ProcedureAct (5 U.S.C. 1002). The amendments expandedthe kinds of information that must be publishedin the Federal Register, and after 1996, also elec-tronically; required certain records be available forinspection and copying; and forced agencies tochange the way requests from the public wouldbe handled. It was also the beginning of an ongoing,often hotly contested, debate on how to balancethe needs for access with the needs of governmentto restrict information for such reasons as privacy,law enforcement, and national security.
FOIA administration has varied considerablyover the decades, shaped by competing and some-times contradictory interpretations from all three
Freedom of Information Act—�—689
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 689
branches of government. Congress has writtenthe key legislation and conducts oversight throughhearings and General Accounting Office studies.At times, however, House and Senate membershave differed, often along party lines, on contentand implementation of the statute.
In the executive branch, some presidents haveencouraged disclosure, whereas others have dis-couraged it. Presidents have issued executive orderson security classification, expanding or narrowingwhat could be classified and for how long. Theattorney general has had a central role in interpretingthe statute, issuing guidance to agencies, although attimes, members of Congress have disagreed sharplywith these interpretations.
The courts have played a central and critical rolein interpreting the statute, including several landmarkSupreme Court cases. Virtually every aspect of thestatute has been litigated. The Justice Department’sMay 2002 Freedom of Information Case List identi-fies 4,917 published and unpublished judicial deci-sions that address FOIA and privacy access issues.More than 2 million federal FOIA requests arenow filed every year, according to the NationalSecurity Archive at George Washington University,at a total cost, for fiscal year 2001, of $287,792,041.08, or approximately $1 per citizen, based on2003 census data.
Requests have led to thousands of storiesreported in books, journals, newspapers, and ontelevision on topics as varied as civil rights, flightsafety, and telemarketing practices. Requests haveled to books documenting Federal Bureau ofInvestigation and other government agencies’ sur-veillance of civil rights leaders, such as MartinLuther King, Jr., and of many writers and artists.Central Intelligence Agency experiments into LSDand mind control in the 1950s and 1960s and gov-ernment radiation experiments (1945–1947), whichinvolved injecting plutonium into a small numberof men, women, and some children, without theirknowledge or consent, have also been documented.FOIA records from the Environmental ProtectionAgency for 2000 to 2001 showed that almost onethird of major industrial facilities and government-operated sewage treatment plants routinely violated
pollution discharge regulations, but were neverpenalized. All of these stories confirm the vitalhistoric and current importance of the act.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, ter-ror attacks on New York City and the Pentagon,access issues have become more divisive andintense. The executive branch has moved to curtailaccess to large categories of records. The Home-land Security Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-296)added broad new FOIA exemptions and criminal-ized release of this information, for example bywhistleblowers.
Critics have claimed increasing evidence of asystem “in extreme disarray.” In 2002, the GeneralAccounting Office reported governmentwide “sub-stantial and growing” FOIA processing backlogs.The number of classification decisions increased14% for fiscal year 2002, to more than 23 millionindividual classification actions, according to thegovernment’s Information Security OversightOffice. A major House and Senate intelligencecommittee report in June 2003, assessing CIA andFBI actions before and after the terrorist attacks,cited growing concerns that overclassification isimpairing the government’s ability to adequatelyprotect the country from terrorism by limitingcongressional oversight over and guidance to theintelligence community.
That democracy depends on an informed citi-zenry was a fundamental belief of the FoundingFathers, beginning even before the Constitution waswritten, but there has always been disagreement onhow best to balance the people’s right of access withthe government’s privilege to conceal. The debatehas often revolved around the meaning of informed,the controls over concealment, and determination ofwhere this balance should be set. Issues surroundingthe FOIA today form a major portion of that debate.
Lotte E. Feinberg
For Further Reading
Cross, H. (1971) The people’s right to know. New York: AMS.(Original work published 1953)
Hammitt, H. (Ed.). (2002). Litigation under the federal opengovernment laws. Washington, DC: Electronic Privacy
690—�—Freedom of Information Act
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 690
Information Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.accessreports.com
Hernon, P., Relyea, H. C., Dugan, R. E., & Cheverie, J. F.(2002). United States government information: Policiesand sources. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Mitgang, H. (1988). Dangerous dossiers. New York: Donald I.Fine Books.
National Security Archive, George Washington University.[Online]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchive
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy.(2002). Freedom of Information Act guide & Privacy Actoverview. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost
� FUGITIVE FELON ACT
Fugitive felon legislation was introduced into theU.S. Congress in 1934 as part of a package of billsdesigned to give the federal government power toaid states in addressing the activities of criminalgangs. The Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073,1074), considered a major part of this antigangsterlegislation, made it a federal offense to flee a stateto avoid prosecution for committing a felony or toavoid giving testimony in a criminal proceeding.Enforcing the act was and remains the responsibil-ity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The criminal gang problem in the country at thetime was extensive enough for one of the bill’s sup-porters to note that there were more armed gang-sters in the country than armed forces. In addition,interstate flight problems were increasing as meth-ods of transportation became more readily accessi-ble. Many of the bill’s supporters, such as SenatorArthur Hendrick Vandenberg (R-MI) and SenatorRoyal Samuel Copeland (D-NY), represented statesthat had large cities where gangster activity flour-ished. Like the lawmakers who supported the bill,law enforcement officials from cities such asDetroit, New York, and Chicago welcomed the newlaw. Because of their proximity to state borders,felons or witnesses routinely fled these cities tofade-away or hideout areas outside the jurisdictionof their courts. Before the act was passed, state lawenforcement officials were not only inhibited by thecost of potential out-of-state investigations, but
even if fugitives were apprehended, extraditionand rendition procedures were time consuming andcostly.
The act was amended to enumerate types offelonies but in 1961 was subsequently amended tomake the law applicable to all felonies as definedby the state in which the original crime occurred.Under Title III of the Organized Crime Control Actof 1970, the Fugitive Felon Act was expanded tomake it a federal offense to flee to avoid giving tes-timony in a proceeding before a state agency orstate authorized commission investigating criminalactivity. This came in response to a proliferation ofstate commissions formed around that time to betterdeal with organized crime. Since 1980, the act hasbeen used to aid in the apprehension of anothertype of offender—parents who kidnap their ownchildren. Part of the Parental Kidnapping Preven-tion Act allows states to use the Fugitive Felon Actin cases in which noncustodial parents take a childacross state lines to avoid prosecution. Only thosestates that have felony parental kidnapping laws canmake use of the provision.
A strict reading of the act calls for federal author-ities to search and apprehend interstate fugitives andthen prosecute them for the flight. The act’s legisla-tive history, however, suggests that the law’s intentwas not for the offenders to be prosecuted for theflight, but rather to give the federal authorities thepower to secure custody and to return fugitives forlocal prosecution for the original crimes. In fact,very few people were ever federally prosecutedunder the act. In addition, very few offenders wereever returned to authorities in the original local juris-diction by federal authorities. A set of guidelinespublished by the FBI after the act was amended in1961 suggests that the actual procedure followed byfederal law enforcement only helped secure custodyof the fugitives. The states were still charged withthe task and costs of instituting extradition proceed-ings and transport. This is still true; the CriminalResource Manual of the Department of Justicepoints out that the act does not give the FBI theauthority to supersede state extradition proceedingsand it directs that the federal complaint be dismissedas soon as a felon is turned over to state authorities.
Fugitive Felon Act—�—691
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 691
Fugitives who are in violation of the FugitiveFelon Act fall under the rubric of the FBI’sUnlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution (UFAP)Program. When a jurisdiction applies to the U.S.attorney in its district to obtain a UFAP warrant, thejurisdiction must first apply for a state warrant andthen show probable cause, agree to pay extraditioncosts, and agree to prosecute the fugitive if appre-hended. In the mid-1980s, Congress debated mov-ing the UFAP Program from the FBI to the U.S.Marshals Service, which already engaged in theinvestigation and apprehension of fugitives notdefined by the act, such as parole violators andprison escapees. A study performed by the GeneralAccounting Office, however, found that such a
move would not necessarily be cost effective, norwould it benefit either agency.
Nancy Egan
For Further Reading
Abrams, N. (1986). Federal criminal law and its enforcement.St. Paul, MN: West.
Fugitive Felon Act, 18 U.S.C. 1073, 1074 (1934).U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Criminal resource manual.
[Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01780.htm
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1986). Who should beresponsible for state fugitives—the FBI or U. S. Marshals?Washington, DC: Author.
692—�—Fugitive Felon Act
F-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 692
G� GOVERNMENT
PRINTING OFFICE POLICE
The Government Printing Office (GPO) Police forceis one of three legislative-branch police departmentslocated on Capitol Hill. The other two are the U.S.Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police.The GPO Police authority is granted under 44 U.S.C.317, which says in part that the GPO Police are to“bear arms in the performance of their duties; makearrests for violations of the laws of the United States,several states and the District of Columbia” and thatthe GPO Police jurisdiction is “concurrent with thejurisdiction of the respective law enforcement agen-cies where the premises are located.”
As a small and highly specialized federal policeagency, the GPO Police force has had little visibil-ity beyond its immediate jurisdiction. One of therare public mentions of Government Printing Officelaw enforcement was when the agency was workingovertime on a weekend to print the voluminousreport of independent counsel Kenneth Starr andready CD-ROM and online formats for publicrelease early Monday, September 21, 1998. Thework was done under tight security, with GPOpolice officers monitoring the building and allproduction areas around the clock.
The Government Printing Office, under the direc-tion of the public printer, was established June 23,
1860, to provide printing and binding services forCongress, the White House, and the various federalagencies. This monopoly on government printingcontinued until 2003 when President GeorgeW. Bush ordered competitive bidding for printingjobs at various government agencies. The Printing Actof 1895 authorized the GPO to sell and distributegovernment documents. With the advent of theInternet and other electronic-format informationmedia, the GPO has undergone a radical transfor-mation in the way it disseminates documents. Whatonce was a chain of 20 GPO bookstores around thecountry has been condensed into a smaller numberof regional distribution centers for both print andelectronic format materials. The GPO also main-tains an online operation for electronic access topublications and databases. As an arm of Congress,the GPO’s responsibilities include the daily printingof the Congressional Record when the national leg-islature is in session; the Federal Register, whichlists proposed changes in laws and regulationsas well as other detailed information about govern-ment agencies and their activities; and theCommerce Business Daily, which provides infor-mation about government contracts, bids, and sales.
In addition to guard duties and basic securityfunctions, the GPO authorizes its police officers tobe armed and have arrest power in their jurisdiction.The GPO Police area of operations extends beyond
693
G-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 693
the headquarters building and plant to include a14-square-block area straddling the H StreetCorridor and North Capitol Street. This expandedarea of operations came after a GPO police officerwas discharged from the force for using a depart-ment patrol car and making arrests too far fromGPO facilities. In addition, Congress, in response tocommunity requests, amended the National CapitalRevitalization and Self-Government ImprovementAct of 1997 to allow federal police to enter intocooperative agreements with Metropolitan Police toaddress crime in Washington, D.C.
GPO Police incident reports are destroyed aftertwo years, as are the daily police activity logs, thoughin an electronic format these maybe kept for as longas five years. The agency also maintains a reportaccountability database to track the status of policeinvestigative reports. Log entries are deleted when aninvestigation is completed or at the end of each fiscalyear. GPO Police personnel receive their training atthe Federal Law Enforcement Training Center inGlynco, Georgia. The course covers instruction infirst aid, officer safety, firearms training, defensivedriving, physical fitness, defensive tactics, interviewand interrogation, report writing, radio communi-cation, criminal law, constitutional law, situationalawareness, and weapons of mass destruction. Allofficers must successfully complete the 11-weekcourse. Upon completion of this course, officersserve a one-year probationary period and receive30 days of additional training in the field prior toreceiving regular officer status. The GPO Police havean authorized a police chief, with the rank of com-mander, and 80 uniformed officers, including super-visory ranks. Women constitute approximately6.25% of the force.
David Schulz
See also Library of Congress Police, U.S. Capitol Police
For Further Reading
Chourey, S. (2002, May 22). GPO police seek right to patrolneighborhood. The Hill. [Online]. Avaiable: http://www.hillnews.com
The United States government manual 2002-2003. (2003).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
� GUN CONTROL ACT
The United States’ primary gun law is the GunControl Act of 1968. It was drafted following theassassination of President John F. Kennedy by LeeHarvey Oswald using a mail-order gun. It waspassed in the wake of the murders of civil rightsleader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and presidentialcandidate Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY). Thesehistoric events, combined with rising rates of crimeand violence throughout the United States, wereinstrumental in passage of the law, which was spon-sored by Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT), a formerprosecutor of Nazi war crimes. The aim of the actwas to keep firearms out of the hands of those notlegally entitled to possess them because of age,criminal background, or incompetence.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 greatly expandedthe only two prior federal gun laws existing in theUnited States, the Prohibition-era National FirearmsAct of 1934 (NFA) and the Federal Firearms Act of1938. These two laws had few provisions, but hadbanned machine guns and had begun the practice ofFederal Bureau of Investigation background checksof gun purchasers.
The 1968 Gun Control Act had far more sweepingprovisions. It prohibited the following as purchasersand possessors of firearms: persons convicted ofany non-business-related felony, fugitives from jus-tice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyoneadjudicated mentally defective or having been com-mitted to a mental institution, anyone dishonorablydischarged from the military, illegal aliens, andanyone who had renounced U.S. citizenship.
For gun dealers, it required licensing and setstandards. It established a licensing fee schedule formanufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearmsand set record-keeping standards, including requir-ing that licenses be obtained from the secretary ofthe treasury. It also required that serial numbers beplaced on all guns.
The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibited the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition and theinterstate sale of firearms. A handgun purchasermay only buy a gun in the state in which he or sheresides; however, long gun sales to individuals in
694—�—Gun Control Act
G-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 694
contiguous states that did not violate either statelaw were allowed. (Subsequent changes to the lawpermitted long guns to be purchased from gun deal-ers in any state, regardless of purchaser’s state ofresidence). The act set age guidelines for firearmspurchased through dealers: Handgun purchasersmust be at least 21. Long gun purchasers must be atleast 18.
Additionally, the law set penalties for carryingand using firearms in crimes of violence or drugtrafficking. It prohibited importation of weaponscovered in the NFA and extended NFA restrictionsto machine gun frames and receivers and conver-sion kits (i.e., the parts used to make machineguns). It prohibited the sale of parts or conversionkits used to make semiautomatic firearms fullyautomatic. It also classified silencer parts and kitsas weapons falling under the National Firearms Act.
Importation of foreign-made military surplusfirearms was also prohibited, as was the importationof nonsporting weapons. It prohibited the importationof small, cheaply made handguns, so-called calledjunk guns or Saturday night specials, and some semi-automatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered inthe 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as twomilitary shotguns. It placed minimum safety stan-dards on imported guns to raise their purchase price.No standards were adopted for U.S.-manufacturedguns, however, and the law helped spawn a hugedomestic gun industry that turns out cheap handguns.The act prohibited the sale and manufacture of newfully automatic civilian machine guns (effectivelyfreezing the number of them in circulation).
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the bestknown of a number of groups that advocate in theUnited States for individual citizens’ right to beararms under the Second Amendment to the Consti-tution, favored the passage of the Gun Control Actof 1968 and helped write some of its key provisions.However, immediately following the enactment ofthis law, the NRA announced that its highest priority
in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban onmachine guns. By 2003, such legislation had notbeen introduced by any member of Congress.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is now enforced bythe Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives (BATF). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms was created in 1972. Although theGun Control Act predated creation of the BATF,enforcement of the law has been one of its primaryresponsibilities thoughout its existence. One provi-sion of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 dividedthe former BATF into two new agencies, the Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(referred to as BATF, despite the name change),which was moved to the Department of Justice, andthe Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,which will remain in the Department of Treasury. Inconjunction with this change, the new BATF willcontinue the original mandate to enforce federalgun laws.
The Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986revised some of the requirements of the GunControl Act of 1968. There were no major changesin federal gun laws until the passage of the BradyHandgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
Patrick Rowan
See also Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
For Further Reading
Day two: A look at gun-control laws. [Online]. Available:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ us/dailynews/guns_laws.html
Firearm Owner’s Protection Act. [Online.] Available: http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/mcclure.htm
Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-618). [Online].Available: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Gun Control Timeline. [Online]. Available: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm
The 1968 Gun Control Act. [Online]. Available: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/1968.asp
Gun Control Act—�—695
G-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 695
H� HARRISON ACT
The Harrison Act, passed by Congress in 1914, wasthe first federal law in the United States to crimi-nalize the nonmedical use of drugs. The chiefproponent of the measure was Secretary of StateWilliam Jennings Bryan, a major force in Americanpolitics at the time, who was closely identified withtraditionalism, particularly with fundamentalistChristianity. He urged that the law be promptlypassed to fulfill U.S. obligations under internationaltreaties aimed primarily at solving the opium prob-lems of the Far East, especially China. The lawwas sponsored by Representative Francis BurtonHarrison (D-NY).
The Harrison Act applied only to opium; mor-phine and its various derivatives, such as heroin;and the derivatives of the coca leaf, such as cocaine.It was basically a revenue code designed to exercisesome measure of public control over these drugs.The law specifically provided that manufacturers,importers, distributors, pharmacists, and physiciansprescribing these drugs should be licensed to do so,at a moderate fee. They were required to registerwith the Treasury Department, pay special taxes,and keep records of all transactions.
As part of the law there were two taxes. The firsttax was paid by doctors. It was $1 a year and thedoctors, in exchange for paying that $1 tax, got a
stamp from the government that allowed them toprescribe these drugs for their patients so long asthey followed the regulations in the statute. The sec-ond tax was a tax of $1,000 of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Thiswas such a large tax on the nonmedical use of thesedrugs that selling them became totally unprofitableand, for all effective purposes, illegal. Nobody wasgoing to pay $1,000 in tax to exchange somethingthat in 1914, even in large quantities, was worth nomore than $10.
The Harrison Act was not intended to be a prohi-bition law. It is unlikely that legislators realized in1914 that the law Congress was passing would laterbe decreed a prohibition law. But the law was in factinterpreted by law enforcement officers to meanthat a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addictto maintain his or her addiction.
Certain provisions of the Harrison Act permittedphysicians to prescribe, dispense, or administer nar-cotics to their patients for “legitimate medical pur-poses” and “in the course of professional practice.”The medical establishment held that addiction wasa disease and that addicts were patients for whomdrugs could be prescribed to alleviate the distress ofwithdrawal. But these clauses were interpreted bylaw enforcement officers to mean that a doctorcould not prescribe opiates to an addict. Becauseaddiction was not a disease, the argument went, an
697
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 697
addict was not a patient, and opiates dispensed to orprescribed by a physician were therefore not beingsupplied “in the course of [a] professional practice.”According to the Treasury Department, the HarrisonAct meant that a doctor’s prescription for an addictwas unlawful.
Thus a law apparently intended to ensure theorderly marketing of opiates and cocaine derivativeswas converted into a law prohibiting the supplyingof these drugs to addicts, even on a physician’s pre-scription. Many physicians were arrested under thisinterpretation, and some were convicted and impris-oned. Even those who escaped conviction had theircareers ruined by the publicity. The medical profes-sion quickly learned that to supply these drugs toaddicts was to court disaster.
After the passage of the Harrison Act, the crimi-nalization process began in earnest. As more andmore heroin users were arrested for the illegal pos-session of the drug, the association of heroin withcrime became more firmly entrenched in the public’smind. Despite extensive efforts over the years by var-ious federal, state, and local law enforcement agen-cies to curb heroin-related crime, heroin use andcrime by heroin users remain serious problems inthe United States. In fact, many observers, includingsome law enforcement personnel, have concludedthere is only so much that law enforcement agenciescan do to curtail heroin markets and heroin-relatedcrime and feel that the relative place of law enforce-ment in the overall approach to controlling heroinneeds to be decreased, that penalties for simple heroinpossession need to be reduced, that more reasonablesentences for heroin offenses need to be adopted, andthat the focus needs to be kept on traffickers, not cus-tomers. In this view, judges and prosecutors in specialdrug courts should continue to have considerable dis-cretion within existing laws to steer abusers towardtreatment instead of jail. Whether this will happencontinues to be a topic of debate, but there is no doubtthat the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914 set thetone for the nation’s drug and alcohol laws by creat-ing revenue acts that ultimately found their way intothe criminal codes of the nation.
Barry Spunt
For Further Reading
Brecher, E., & Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine.(1972). The Consumers Union report on licit and illicitdrugs. Boston: Little, Brown.
Inciardi, J. (2002). The war on drugs III. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
Spunt, B. (2001). Heroin and crime in New York City. InA. Karmen (Ed.), Crime and justice in New York City: Vol. 1.New York City’s crime problem (rev. ed., pp. 90–96).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Whitebread, C. (1999). The history of the non-medical useof drugs in the United States. A speech to the CaliforniaJudges Association 1995 annual conference. [Online].Available: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/Whiteb1.htm
� HATE CRIMES
Hate crimes are defined as those criminal acts inwhich the perpetrator was motivated by bias againstthe victim based on the victim’s religion, race, gen-der, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Criminal actsmotivated by hatred are not new: the Romans per-secuted Christians, the Nazis committed crimes pri-marily against Jews but also against Gypsies andother religious or ethnic minorities, and acts againstAfrican Americans due solely to their skin colorhave been a common occurrence in the UnitedStates from colonial times and continue, to a farlesser extent, to the present.
A resurgent interest in bias-motivated crimesbegan in the 1980s. After the sensationalized murderof a controversial radio talk show host, Alan Berg,in Denver, Colorado, in 1984, which exposed theprevalence of white supremacist groups, and theunprovoked 1986 attack on three African Americansin the white New York City neighborhood ofHoward Beach, hate crimes, once again, capturednational attention.
In 1990, Congress enacted the Hate CrimesStatistic Act. It provided that the U.S. attorney gen-eral should collect data from state and local lawenforcement about bias- motivated crimes. The actdefined hate crimes as those “crimes that manifestevidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexualorientation, or ethnicity, including where appropri-ate the crimes murder, non-negligent manslaughter,
698—�—Hate Crimes
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 698
forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault,intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage orvandalism of property.” Initially, fewer than 20% ofthe states had mechanisms in place to track whichcriminal acts were motivated by hate. With theadvent of the National Incident Based ReportingSystem in the mid-1990s, however, by 1998 moststates were reporting bias crimes to the federalgovernment.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has servedas the central repository of hate crime statisticalinformation. The agency’s Criminal Justice Informa-tional Services Division, which compiles the annualUniform Crime Reports, also administers theBureau’s Hate Crime Data Collection Program. Inaddition to data collection, the bureau conductedtraining conferences nationwide to teach local lawenforcement personnel how to recognize and reporthate crimes. Despite efforts to objectively quantifythe extent of bias crimes, there was still a great dealof uncertainty whether the incidence of hate crimeswas rising, falling, or remaining static. Muchseemed to depend on who was doing the reportingand what criteria were being employed to label aparticular crime as one motivated by bias instead ofsome other motivation. An additional factor thatbecame problematic was the ever-increasing list ofqualifying motivations: crimes motivated by age,economic status, sexual preference, and other factorsbecame reportable hate-motivated crimes.
Despite the somewhat controversial statisticaljustifications, most jurisdictions came to considerhate crimes as a serious problem. In response, thefederal government, along with the vast majority ofstates, enacted legislation designated as hate or biascrime laws, which were aimed at diminishing theincidence of bias-motivated crime. These statuteswere of essentially two types: those that enhancedsentencing if a crime was found to have been moti-vated by bias and those that made a bias-motivatedcrime a separate criminal offense. The laws weremeant to deter biased acts by providing for harsherpunishment when the criminal selected a victimbased on that victim’s race, gender, ethnicity, orother enumerated factors. For example, Californiaand Florida enacted laws that prohibit specific
activities at specific places. Vandalizing a placeof worship or burning a cross on someone else’sproperty would constitute illegal acts under provi-sions of these states’ statutes. Other states, such asNew York, chose to enumerate specific crimes andprovided that when the perpetrator was motivatedby hate in the commission of any of those enumer-ated crimes, the offense level was raised, thus effec-tively increasing the defendant’s sentence uponconviction. So a simple assault in New York, anA misdemeanor for which a convicted defendantcould be sentenced to up to a year in jail, became anE felony if motivated by hate, exposing the defen-dant to up to four years in prison.
Bias crime legislation has not been without itsdetractors. Some critics question the need forspecific laws against bias-motivated crime. Theypointed out that the statistical evidence purportingthat crimes motivated by hatred were prevalent wasinconclusive and that there has been little documen-tation suggesting that new hate-crime legislationwas an effective method of dealing with racially orreligiously motivated acts. Additionally, there maybe basic constitutional infirmities inherent in legis-lation that attempted to legislate subjective motiva-tions. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice addressedthe First Amendment implications of hate crime leg-islation. The First Amendment placed limits on thegovernment’s ability to enact laws that infringed onan individual’s freedom of speech and expression.The Supreme Court has been called upon to decideif punishing an offender more harshly because of histhoughts violated the First Amendment.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., the Courtstruck down a City of St. Paul statute that made it amisdemeanor to “place on public or private prop-erty, a symbol, object, appellation, characterizationor graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burningcross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or hasreasonable grounds to know arouses, anger, alarmor resentment in others on the basis of race, color,creed, religion or gender.” Writing for the Court,Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the statutewas unconstitutional because it prohibited other-wise permitted speech solely on the basis of thesubjects addressed. But, the following year, in
Hate Crimes—�—699
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 699
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court upheld a Wisconsinstatute that provided for an enhanced penalty whenthe underlying crime was motivated by hate. InMitchell, a group of black teenagers beat up a whiteyouth after seeing the movie Mississippi Burning.Immediately prior to the attack, they yelled racialslurs that left little doubt as to their subjective moti-vations. The Court upheld their convictions andenhanced sentencing for the assault motivated byracial bias. Chief Justice William J. Rehnquistexplained that assault is not a form of expressiveconduct protected by the First Amendment.
In many respects, the two decisions seem contra-dictory, and the Supreme Court will likely have toaddress this issue again. Other courts have examinedthe First Amendment implications of hate crime leg-islation. Many state courts have struck down lawsthat violate their own state constitutional guaranteesof free speech and freedom of expression. Often thestate legislatures attempted to redraft the legislationto comport with court decisions.
While critics and proponents debate the efficacyand legality of hate crime statutes, politicians haveraced to enact even broader, sweeping legislationthat has included an ever-increasing group of pro-tected individuals. Political pundits observed thatthis was an easy way to show support for any par-ticular constituency. By fighting for a group to beincluded as a protected class, politicians have beenable to reaffirm their commitment to that group withlittle financial or political expenditure. Politicianscountered that they were looking out for the bestinterests of their communities by deterring criminalacts motivated by hatred or dislike of the particulargroup.
Hate crime laws have become firmly entrenchedin the criminal law. While they may continue to bedebated, it is unlikely that legislatures will abandonefforts to provide enhanced penalties when criminals’actions are determined to have been based on bias.
Brian S. MacNamara
For Further Reading
Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (1998) Hate crimes: Criminal lawand identity politics. New York: New York UniversityPress.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992).Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
� HATE CRIMESSTATISTICS ACT
The Hate Crimes Statistics Act (HCSA) became lawin 1990 in response to a number of high-profile bias-motivated crimes that occurred during the 1980s.These crimes became the basis of claims by a vari-ety of interest groups that such actions had reachedepidemic proportions and that the crimes did notreceive sufficient attention from law enforcementagencies. To support this view and in an effort tocombat bias-motivated incidents, various groups,including the Anti-Defamation League, the NationalGay and Lesbian Task Force/Anti-Violence Project,and the Southern Poverty Law Center, began to col-lect and disseminate data on such incidents. Theactivities of these groups led congressional leadersto pass federal legislation to address the matter. Theresulting HCSA was introduced in 1985 and signedinto law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
The HCSA, however, is not designed to combathate crimes, but rather to serve as a database torecord such crimes in an attempt to monitor wherethey might be occurring and to aid in annual com-parisons. Specifically, the act requires the attorneygeneral of the United States to gather and dissemi-nate data regarding “crimes that manifest prejudicebased on race, religion, sexual orientation, or eth-nicity.” In an attempt to provide accurate data andto ensure that there is some comparability amongreporting agencies, the HCSA also requires theattorney general to develop guidelines to assist lawenforcement with data collection.
Although the HCSA was hailed as the first pieceof federal civil rights legislation to include sexualorientation as a protected status, this developmentwas not without opposition. To ensure the HCSAwas not misconstrued as approving of homosexualbehavior, the act asserts that “the American familylife is the foundation of American society . . . andnothing in this Act shall be construed, nor shall anyfunds appropriated to carry out the purpose of the Actbe used, to promote or encourage homosexuality.”
700—�—Hate Crimes Statistics Act
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 700
AMENDMENTS TO THE HCSA
Since its passage, the HCSA has been amendedtwice. In 1994, passage of the Violent Crime andLaw Enforcement Act added disability as a pro-tected status under the HCSA. In 1996, when theChurch Arson Prevention Act reauthorized theHCSA, it made data collection efforts permanent,expanding the act from its original five-year datagathering mandate. Legislation pending at the endof 2003 (the Hate Crimes Statistics ImprovementAct) was intended to add gender to the HCSA.
HATE CRIMES DATA COLLECTION
Under the HCSA, information on hate crimes iscollected from local law enforcement agencies atthe same time they report statistics to the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI) under the UniformCrime Reporting Program (UCR). In 2001, 11,987agencies, representing approximately 85% of thecountry’s population, provided hate crime statisticsto the UCR. Along with its annual report based onthe material submitted, the FBI also provides datacollection guidelines to assist law enforcement offi-cials in identifying hate crimes, determining theirmotivation, and submitting the required data to theUCR.
The UCR Hate Crimes Statistics annual reportprovides information on the type of bias motivation,the number of incidents, the number of offenses,the race of known offenders, and the location of theoccurrence of hate crime incidents. Since 1991, theannual reports have indicated that race is the mostfrequent type of bias motivation and that the mostfrequent offense is intimidation. The majority ofhate crimes is committed against persons (asopposed to property), but the most frequent hatecrime against property is destruction/damage/van-dalism. In addition to the agency tallies, the annualreport lists agencies that submit zero reports—atotal of zero hate crime incidents within their juris-diction. This list is quite extensive; according toa report released in 2000 from NortheasternUniversity’s Center for Criminal Justice PolicyResearch, 83% of participating agencies submitzero reports.
LIMITATIONS OF HATE CRIMES DATA
Although the passage of the HCSA is a positivestep toward recognizing and documenting bias-motivated crimes, it is not without limitations. First,as with all UCR tallies, incidents reported includeonly those known to law enforcement. Thus, anyincident not reported to police will not be includedin the statistics. Second, the number of law enforce-ment agencies reporting to the UCR varies eachyear. Therefore, an increase or decrease in hatecrime activity may be due to the number of agenciesreporting rather than an actual change in number ofincidents. Third, according to the Criminal JusticePolicy Research report, hate crime statistics mayvary according to the level of training and commit-ment of law enforcement personnel and agencies,the amount of intolerance toward bias crimes in thecommunity, and media attention. Thus, changes inincident totals may reflect variables other than theabsolute number of hate crime incidents. Despitethese drawbacks, the act has led to a greater focusby law enforcement agencies on bias-motivatedcrimes and has provided some mechanism for mon-itoring the occurrence of these types of incidents.
Nickie Phillips
See also Church Arson Prevention Act, Hate Crimes,Uniform Crime Reporting Program
For Further Reading
Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research and Justice Researchand Statistics Association. (2000). Improving the qualityand accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally. [Online].Available: http://www.dac.neu.edu/cj/crimereport.pdf
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Hate crimes statis-tics, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01hate.pdf
Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 28 U.S.C. 524 (1990).Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime: From
social movement to law enforcement. New York: Sage.Levin, B. (2002). The vindication of hate violence victims via
criminal and civil adjudications. Journal of Hate Studies,1, 133–165.
Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (2002). Hate crimes revisited:America’s war on those who are different. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Rosenthal, A. (1990, April 24). President signs law for study ofhate crimes. The New York Times, Section B, p. 6.
Hate Crimes Statistics Act—�—701
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 701
HIRING STANDARDS FORFEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Hiring standards for law enforcement officers atthe federal level generally have been more stringentthan at the local and state levels. In fact, severalagencies, most notably the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), have traditionally set thebenchmark for all law enforcement agencies to fol-low, especially in terms of basic entry requirements,education, work experience, and the rigor of theselection process. Because of low turnover and highdemand, federal law enforcement positions arehighly competitive, and only the most qualifiedapplicants are selected for employment.
At the federal level, there are at least 13 govern-mental departments (i.e., Departments of Justice,Defense, and Treasury), composed of approximately50 law enforcement agencies, as well as a hostof independent agencies (i.e., National Aeronauticsand Space Administration, Nuclear RegulatoryCommission) that employ thousands of individualsin hundreds of different law enforcement positions.Moreover, the shuffling of departments and agenciesin 2002 and 2003 in conjunction with the creation ofthe Department of Homeland Security has changedthe federal law enforcement picture and createdadditional positions. The specific requirements andstandards for any given position may vary notably,but are almost always listed on an agency’s Web site.
Despite the variation in hiring standards withinpositions and agencies, the overwhelming majorityof federal law enforcement agencies share somebasic requirements and expect applicants to presenta combination of education and work experienceand to complete a number of steps in the selectionand hiring process.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
All federal agencies adhere to some basic require-ments for potential employees. Generally, an appli-cant should be a U.S. citizen, have a valid driver’slicense, be registered with Selective Service, and bewithin a certain age range. For example, the FBIrequires that applicants be between ages 23 and 37.
All agencies also have minimum requirements foreyesight (corrected and uncorrected) and hearingloss. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, andExplosives (BATF) requires applicants to haveuncorrected vision of at least 20/100 in each eye orcorrected 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other.Several agencies also require that applicants be will-ing to relocate, in some cases outside of the conti-nental United States (i.e., the Bureau of DiplomaticSecurity).
Federal agencies also have more vague require-ments for physical condition. BATF requires thatthe applicant’s weight be proportional to height,and the U.S. Marshals Service requires applicantsto be in excellent physical condition. Applicantswill be given a complete medical examination by aphysician to ensure they have no serious illness andare in good physical health. Examples of conditionsthat may result in exclusion from the hiring processinclude heart disease, hypertension, and conditionsaffecting mobility.
Federal agencies employ rather restrictive stan-dards with regard to criminal history. Individuals withprior felony convictions are barred from employmentwith all federal law enforcement agencies. Many alsowill not consider candidates with misdemeanor con-victions. Although prior arrests and even excessivedriving violations do not necessarily bar someonefrom consideration, those factors come into playduring the overall assessment of the candidate.
Most federal agencies also have strict rulesregarding recent and prior drug use. For example,the FBI will not consider applicants who have usedan illegal substance within the past three years, usedany drug other than marijuana at any point, or usedmarijuana more than 15 times. Additionally, as partof the selection process, applicants to most posi-tions will be drug-tested and must take a polygraphexam, where questions about drug use will beaddressed.
WORK EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
Federal law enforcement agencies generally requiresome combination of prior work experience in lawenforcement or a related field and college education.
702—�—Hiring Standards for Federal Law Enforcement
�
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 702
Most, but not all, require a four-year college degree.However, applicants are generally rated based ontheir combined education and experience, so thateven if a college degree (or work experience) is not abasic minimum qualification, the education or expe-rience serves to improve the applicant’s likelihoodof being hired. Examples may help to illustrate thevalue placed on education and work experience. TheU.S. Postal Service, Naval Criminal InvestigativeService, FBI, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) arejust a few of the many agencies that require a four-year degree. For an agent position in the SecretService, applicants must have, at a minimum, afour-year college degree and three years of workexperience, with at least two years in criminal inves-tigation. The BATF has different work and educationrequirements depending on what government grade(or level) the applicant is seeking. Other agenciessuch as the Bureau of Citizenship and ImmigrationServices (BCIS, formerly Immigration and Natural-ization Service) and the U.S. Park Police do notrequire a four-year college degree and place greateremphasis on prior related work experience (thoughoften college education can be substituted for workexperience).
Many federal agencies will accept active dutymilitary experience in place of work experience oreducation. In fact, toward the end of 2003 severalagencies were actively seeking applicants withmilitary experience. The U.S. Marshals advertisedOperation Shining Star IV, an accelerated recruit-ment drive for active military personnel who quali-fied for the U.S. deputy marshal position. TheVeteran’s Readjustment Authority allows federalagencies, at their own discretion, to appoint eligibleveterans to positions without competition, assum-ing they meet the basic requirements.
There are many positions within federal lawenforcement agencies that, because of their special-ized nature, also require specific knowledge andskills. For example, in order to apply for an AirSafety Investigator position at the Federal AviationAdministration, one should be a licensed pilot withextensive knowledge of aircraft design and aviationsafety. Applicants for positions in the Bureau ofCustoms and Border Protection (CBP, formerly
Border Patrol) should be able to read and speakSpanish fluently. In 2003, the Secret Service wasoffering a salary bonus (25% of annual salary paidin one lump sum) to applicants with foreign lan-guage proficiency. The IRS strongly prefers appli-cants with degrees in law or accounting, as well ascertified public accountants. Applicants who meetthe basic qualifications for the FBI then mustchoose from five different entrance programs, eachwith its own requirements for specialized knowl-edge and skills.
SELECTION AND HIRING
Each of the federal law enforcement agencies usesa selection and hiring process that is composed ofseveral steps for the applicant to complete. Many ofthe agencies, such as the U.S. Marshals and theFederal Protective Services (FPS is the investigativearm of the U.S. General Services Administration),require applicants to first complete a written civilservice exam. The BATF, Bureau of Immigrationand Customs Enforcement (ICE, formerly U.S.Customs), IRS, and Secret Service all require appli-cants to take and pass the Treasury EnforcementAgent Examination, given by the U.S. Office ofPersonnel Management. Individuals applying to theCBP for a position as a border patrol agent mustfirst pass the Border Patrol Agent Examination.Other agencies, including the Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA) and many of the Offices ofthe Inspector General, require completion andsubmission of Form OF-612 as a first step in theapplication process.
Once an applicant passes the initial phase (anexam or completion of federal forms), he or she canexpect a rigorous, intensive, and lengthy selectionprocess. Although agencies vary in the order inwhich different steps occur, and, in some casesagencies employ slightly different tests, there areseveral general screening mechanisms used toidentify the most qualified candidates. All agenciesconduct extensive background investigations ofapplicants, focusing on such issues as workhistory, criminal history, drug use, spendinghabits, and character. Family, friends, coworkers,
Hiring Standards for Federal Law Enforcement—�—703
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 703
and employers (past and current) will be contactedand interviewed.
Most federal agencies also require an applicantto complete an oral interview with agency person-nel. The content of the oral interview can differ byposition and agency, but issues typically addressedinclude any questions or problems uncoveredthrough the background investigation, logic andreasoning questions, and scenario and situationalquestions, as well as general questions about theapplicant’s goals and reasons for seeking employ-ment with the agency. Generally, during the inter-view agencies are assessing a number of theapplicant’s qualities such as communication andverbal skills, ability to think on one’s feet, logic andreasoning, judgment, and ability to answer difficultquestions under pressure. Other potential steps inthe application process include additional writtenexams, a polygraph examination, complete physicalexamination by a licensed physician, and drug test.
Once an applicant has successfully completed theinitial steps of the selection process, he or she is thensent for specialized training at one of several federallaw enforcement training facilities. Many agenciessend their applicants to the Federal Law Enforce-ment Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia,or, if the agency assigns its staff principally to thewestern states, in Artesia, New Mexico. Federalagencies that send applicants to FLETC includeBATF, ICE, U.S. Marshals, FPS, INS, BCIS, U.S.Park Police, and the Secret Service. Several agencieshave their own training facilities or programs,mostly notably the FBI Academy in Quantico,Virginia. The DEA and IRS also run their own spe-cialized training programs. Several agencies sendtheir applicants to training at FLETC in Georgia andthen provide additional, more specialized trainingupon completion of the initial program.
Applicants undergo rigorous, intensive trainingregardless of which agency they have applied to orwhere they are receiving their training. The lengthof the training program varies, but generally runsfrom 11 to 17 weeks. For example, special agenttrainees at the FBI Academy in Quantico receive15 weeks of training, while the U.S. Marshals trainingprogram is 12 weeks and Border patrol agent training
is 16 weeks (both at FLETC). The content of trainingvaries somewhat based on the responsibilities andduties of the specific agencies, but applicants typi-cally receive instruction in the criminal law, lawenforcement, and investigative techniques, use andcare of firearms, defensive tactics, undercover oper-ations, surveillance techniques, protective tech-niques, defensive driving, and first aid. Much of thetraining occurs in a classroom setting (similar toa college atmosphere) with much less emphasisplaced on the militaristic, boot camp-style trainingthat is more common at state and local law enforce-ment training facilities. However, federal lawenforcement training is physically demanding, andsuccessful completion of academy training willhinge on an applicant’s physical conditioning. As aresult, there is a fair amount of attrition amongtraining classes at both FLETC and the FBI Academydue to failure to meet the rigorous physical andacademic requirements.
Upon completion of academy training, recruitsare assigned to agency field offices for employ-ment. Applicants’ preferences for assignment aretypically given consideration, but new officers willbe assigned wherever need for additional manpoweris greatest. Several agencies, such as the FBI andBICE, place new officers on a one-year probation-ary appointment, and if their work is satisfactoryafter that time, they receive permanent positions inthe agency.
THE FUTURE
Federal law enforcement hiring standards involv-ing basic considerations such as U.S. citizenship,physical health, criminal history, drug use, educa-tion, and prior employment are unlikely to changein the foreseeable future. However, the shifting offederal agencies, as well as changing responsibili-ties and objectives following the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks, has produced some minorchanges in hiring standards and recruitment prac-tices. As of fall 2003, most of the federal agenciesdescribed were actively recruiting for open posi-tions, several for applicants with specialized skills(computer and foreign language proficiency, for
704—�—Hiring Standards for Federal Law Enforcement
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 704
example). In the wake of the September 11, 2001terrorist attacks, as well as changing technologyand criminal behavior, federal law enforcementagencies will continue to employ the most rigoroushiring standards to ensure only the best, most qual-ified applicants are selected for employment.
Michael D. White
For Further Reading
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco, Firearms, and Explosives.[Online]. Available: http://www.atf.gov
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. [Online]. Available:http://www.cbp.gov
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.bcis.gov
Delucia, R. C., & Doyle, T. J. (1998). Career planning in crim-inal justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Department of Homeland Security. [Online]. Available:http://www.dhs.gov
Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj. gov
Department of State. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.govDrug Enforcement Administration. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dea.govFederal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available:
http://www.fbi.govU.S. Marshals Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj
.gov/marshals/U.S. Treasury Department. [Online]. Available: http://www
.ustreas.gov/usss/Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in law
enforcement (2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
� HISPANIC AMERICAN POLICECOMMAND OFFICERSASSOCIATION
The Hispanic American Police Command OfficersAssociation (HAPCOA) was established in Californiain 1973 and is the largest and oldest organizationof Hispanic American command officers in lawenforcement and criminal justice agencies in theUnited States and Puerto Rico. Formerly known asthe Mexican American Police Command OfficersAssociation, the association changed its name in1984 to reflect a broader representation of Hispaniccommand-level officers. HAPCOA offers assistance
in the recruitment, retention, and promotion ofqualified Hispanic American police officers at allranks and levels of government. It further serves asan advocate for issues of importance for HispanicAmerican law enforcement officers and the Hispaniccommunity. A third goal of the association involvesthe development of partnerships and outreach activ-ities with other law enforcement organizations,civilian agencies, and corporations in an effort toincrease community involvement, understanding,and support.
HAPCOA is comprised of 12 local chapters anda national office located in Falls Church, Virginia.Each local chapter elects officers and holds events inpolice training, criminal justice education, and com-munity outreach. The national office is made up of a10-member executive board elected from the associ-ation’s membership of law enforcement executives.The national office is responsible for coordinatingthe goals and activities of the association, developingpolicy, and addressing issues salient to the associa-tion at the national level. The national office alsoholds an Annual National Training and CareerConference that provides workshops on police edu-cation and training and major criminal justice issuesand that offers opportunities for community outreachand professional liaisons. HAPCOA’s membershipin 2003 was approximately 1,200 command-levelHispanic law enforcement officers employed at alllevels of government. Individuals who do not holdsupervisory positions in law enforcement or criminaljustice agencies and organizations who are interestedin furthering the goals of HAPCOA may becomeassociate, student, or organizational or corporatemembers. These members, however, cannot vote orrun for elected offices in the association at either thelocal or the national level.
Corporate sponsorship plays a major role inHAPCOA’s achievement of its goals and initiatives.An advisory board of corporate members estab-lishes, develops, and maintains mutually beneficialworking relationships between HAPCOA and aselect group of corporate entities. Membership onthe board, however, is limited to corporations thatprovide cash or in-kind contributions of $12,500 to$17,500 to the association. Major corporations
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association—�—705
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 705
supporting the goals and initiatives of HAPCOAinclude Anheuser-Bush, which in 1998 cosponsoreda national Hispanic Community Leadership forum.
HAPCOA has proven to be an important advo-cate in bringing attention to issues and policiesthat negatively impact Hispanic law enforcementofficers and the Hispanic population. In 2002,for example, HAPCOA passed two resolutions thataddressed the discriminatory treatment of Hispanicspecial agents in the U.S. Customs Service andthe Drug Enforcement Administration. HAPCOAvoiced its support of a class-action discriminationsuit against the U.S. Customs Service filed byHispanic special agents and called upon the presi-dent of the United States, the U.S., attorney general,and U.S. secretary of treasury to exercise appro-priate and firm oversight to end institutional racismin these organizations and to ensure equal and fairtreatment in promotions, training, transfers, anddisciplinary actions for all Hispanic special agents.
Other initiatives of HAPCOA include partnershipsand agreements with several other national organiza-tions and federal agencies including the Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services (COPS); theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA); the U.S. State Department’s Bureau ofPopulation, Refugee, and Migration; the NationalCouncil of La Raza (NCLR); and the National LatinoPeace Officers Association. Closing the Gap Projectis a joint effort of COPS and HAPCOA in which non-Spanish speaking officers take a course in the Spanishlanguage and Hispanic culture. The goals of thecourse are to alleviate the fear, frustration, and distrustbetween Hispanic community members and lawenforcement officers that arise from language barriersand to increase the ability of the Hispanic communityto interact more effectively with law enforcement pro-fessionals and the criminal and juvenile justice sys-tems. HAPCOA’s partnership with the NHTSA isgeared toward identifying the most effective methodsof providing traffic safety information to the Hispaniccommunity and instructing Hispanics on how to reactto police stops. Its work with the U.S. State Depart-ment’s Bureau of Population, Refugee, and Migrationhelps promote traffic safety among immigrant popu-lations. Collaborative efforts between HAPCOA and
other minority organizations such as the NCLR haveprovided strategies for addressing improper policepractices and policies (e.g., racial profiling) thatnegatively affect racial and ethnic minorities.
Becky L. Tatum
For Further Reading
Hispanic American Police Command Officers AssociationOnline. [Online]. Available: http://www.hapcoa.org
Office of Community Oriented Policing Service. (2003).Closing the communication gap between the Hispaniccommunity and law enforcement. [Online]. Available:http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/print.asp?Item=511
� HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Trafficking of women into the United States forsexual exploitation first came to the nation’s atten-tion between 1860 and World War I. There was alarge amount of migration of young women fromChina, Japan, and Central and Eastern Europe toAmerican cities. The Mann Act was enacted in1910, criminalizing the transport of women acrossstate lines for “immoral purposes.” Formally titledthe White Slave Traffic Act (36 Stat. 825), the MannAct was also intended to protect the nation’s minorsagainst sexual exploitation.
After 1914, public concern over sex traffickingpeaked and faded as an important issue on theAmerican political front. Since the 1970s, however,there has been a reemergence of women traffickedinto the United States for sexual exploitation. Therehave been four waves of imported prostitution overthe past 30 years: (1) Southeast Asia during the1970s and early 1980s, (2) Africa in the 1980s,(3) Latin America in the late 1980s, and (4) Centraland Eastern Europe in the late 1990s. Recent atten-tion in the United States on the trafficking issuemay be due to a number of high-profile sex traf-ficking rings discovered in several U.S. citieswithin the past five years.
According to 2003 estimates, 50,000 women andchildren are trafficked annually into the United Statesfor purposes of sexual exploitation. The worldwidefigure of men, women, and children trafficked ranges
706—�—Human Trafficking
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 706
from 700,000 to 4 million. An official of the U.S.Department of State estimated in 2003 that traffick-ing was a $7 billion a year industry. The victims oftrafficking span nationality, gender, race, and age. In1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Servicereported that sex trafficking was likely to haveoccurred in 250 brothels in 26 different Americancities. Accurate figures on the number of traffickingvictims in the United States are difficult, if notimpossible, to determine. There is vast underreport-ing of the crime due to victims’ fear of retaliation.Until October 2000, when President William J.Clinton signed into law the Trafficking VictimsProtection Act (TVPA; Pub. L. No. 106-386), an addi-tional factor had been a lack of a central repository inthe United States of trafficking statistics. Most traf-ficking statistics are based on victim and law enforce-ment interviews but this pattern is expected to changeas the new legislation takes effect.
The United States mainly serves as a destinationand transit point for trafficking victims. Victimsmostly originate from countries experiencing eco-nomic and political instability. The victims arerecruited abroad through advertisements in localpapers or visits to local villages by traffickers, often-times posing as legitimate work agents or friends ofa friend. The common denominator of virtually allvictims is their desire for a better life. There are twomain methods utilized by traffickers to get traffickedvictims into the United States. The first is the overstayof victims who have used legitimate (or forged) visasor work permits prepared for them by their traffickers.The second method is the smuggling of victims ille-gally into the country for a fee. In either case, theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported at the endof the 20th century that victims were often preventedfrom escaping their traffickers due to the presence of“security guards, violence, threats to themselves andtheir family members, debt bondage, and/or retentionof documents.”
U.S. EFFORTS TO COMBAT TRAFFICKING
The TVPA was designed to protect victims of“severe forms of trafficking,” which the law definesas the following:
• Sex trafficking in which a commercial act isinduced by force, fraud, or coercion or in whichthe person induced to perform such act has notattained 18 years of age
• The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provi-sion, or obtaining of a person for labor or servicesthrough the use of force, fraud, or coercion for thepurposes of subjection to involuntary servitude,peonage, debt bondage, or slavery
The TVPA mandates many efforts to combat traf-ficking, including the preparation of annual reportson U.S. trafficking prevention efforts and nationsreceiving U.S. assistance, the establishment of afederal interagency task force dedicated to stoppingtrafficking, new felony offenses to combat traffick-ing, court-mandated restitution payments to traf-ficking victims, and the use of special T visas fortrafficking victims.
Some public interest groups, including theNational Organization of Women, have objected tocertain conditions of the TVPA. One major objec-tion was that the TVPA does not define all acts ofprostitution as exploitative to women—only forcedones. A second major criticism of the TVPA wasthat only 5,000 T visas are made available for traf-ficking victims annually, dispute the CIA estimatethat 50,000 women and children are trafficked intothe country each year.
Prior to the TVPA’s passage, trafficking offenseswere tried under the following four sections offederal statutory law: Mann Act (Title 18, §2421),Involuntary Servitude and Slavery (Title 18, §1581),Extortionate Collection of Extension of Credit (Title18, §1324), and Harboring for Prostitution (Title 8,§1328). The statutory maximum penalties for theselaws are relatively light; for example, the federalmaximum penalty for imposing involuntary servi-tude is 10 years. The TVPA has 20 years as the max-imum penalty for imposing trafficking offenses, andin some instances (e.g., violations that result indeath, kidnapping, or sexual abuse), there is the pos-sibility of life imprisonment. One case decidedunder the TVPA involved a Berkeley, California,landlord who deceived teenage girls from his homevillage in Southern India to travel to the UnitedStates for legitimate employment. Once the girls
Human Trafficking—�—707
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 707
arrived in the United States, they were forced intosexual servitude. The defendant was ordered to payhis three victims, and the parents of one victim whodied, $2 million in restitution damages. He was alsosentenced to eight years in prison. In another case, a14-year-old girl from Cameroon was lured toMaryland by the promise of an education but insteadwas forced to work as a domestic servant and wassexually abused. Indicating the difficulty in bringingthese cases to trial, in early 2003 the U.S. gov-ernment pointed out the conviction of 36 defen-dants between 2000 and 2002, which representeda doubling of the number of cases in prior years.
Due to trafficking’s international reach, theUnited States maintains official antitrafficking part-nerships abroad. The United States holds a longhistory of signing numerous United Nations treatiesof cooperation and participates in several regionalaction plans to fight sex trafficking. Pursuant to theTVPA, the United States now appropriates foreignassistance to international nongovernmental organi-zations for overseas antitrafficking initiatives.Further impact of the TVPA, and other U.S. domes-tic and international efforts to combat trafficking,still waits to be seen.
Elizabeth Bartels
For Further Reading
American Civil Liberties Union. (2001, July 13). ACLU laudspunishment in immigrant slavery case while urging U.S.
to address growing problem. [Online]. Available:http://www.aclu.org
Coomaraswamy, R. (1996). Report of the special rappoerteuron violence against women, its causes and consquences:Report of the special rappoerteur to Poland on the issueof trafficking and forced prostitution of women. Reportprepared for the United Nations Economic and SocialCouncil. [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org/esa
Langum, D. J. (1994). Crossing over the line: Legislatingmorality and the Mann Act. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Man sentenced for smuggling girls. (2001, November 19). SanFrancisco Chronicle, p. A21.
Marquis, C. (2003, February 26). A crackdown on the trafficin humans. New York Times, p. A3.
Raymond, J., & Gomez, C. (2001). Sex trafficking of womenin the United States. Report prepared for the CoalitionAgainst Trafficking in Women. [Online]. Available:http://www.catwinternational.org
Richard, A. O. (1999). International sex trafficking in womento the United States: A contemporary manifestation ofslavery and organized crime. Report prepared for theCentral Intelligence Agency. [Online]. Available:http://www.cia.gov
U.S. Justice Department. (1997). United States attorney’smanual. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov
U.S. State Department. (2002). Trafficking in persons report.Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. [Online].Available: http://www.state.gov
Wright, J. (2000). Worldwide tragedy: U.S. not immune tosexual slavery. Report prepared for the NationalOrganization of Women. [Online]. Available: http://www.now.org
708—�—Human Trafficking
H-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:30 PM Page 708
I� INFORMANTS, ISSUES
SURROUNDING USE OF
An informant is any person who supplies informa-tion to law enforcement officers about a crime thathas occurred or that is planned. Because an infor-mant’s identity is usually kept secret outside theagency, officials usually refer colloquially to aninformant as a confidential informant. Informantsmay include tipsters who volunteer information,informants who conduct surreptitious investiga-tions, and cooperating defendants who testify orotherwise assist in convicting others in order toobtain reduced sentences. Although many federallaw enforcement officers have come to rely oninformants to build their cases, there are a numberof legal issues surrounding the use of informants.Many of these issues are quite technical and dependon the specific facts of each case. However, to reachan informed assessment of the costs and benefits ofrelying on informants, agencies and law enforce-ment officers need to be aware of how SupremeCourt case law and the federal sentencing guide-lines and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 encouragethe use of informants. Agencies and law enforce-ment officers also need to understand how the law’sencouragement of the use of informants increasesthe risk of the following: investigations by lawenforcement agents that are based on false tips by
informants, surreptitious invasions of individuals’privacy by informants, convictions that are basedon false testimony by cooperating witnesses, andrewards for cooperation that make offenders’sentences disproportional to their culpability.
FALSE TIPS
Arrests, searches, and stops and frisks are fre-quently based on information from tipsters andconfidential informants. Tipsters may name orincriminate innocents because of hatred or similarfeelings. Anonymous letters or telephone callsallow this to be done with impunity. Althoughconfidential informants’ criminal backgrounds mayenable them to uncover crime, there is a risk thatthey will conceal their own crimes by falselyinculpating others. Confidential informants mayalso manufacture reports of crime in order to con-vince law enforcement officers of the worth of theirservices and to continue to be employed. Officersmust consider these factors, because the use ofinformants is costly. The government paid federalinformants hundreds of millions of dollars in the1990s, including $97 million in 1993 alone.
In Aguilar v. Texas in 1964 and in Spinelli v.United States in 1969, the Supreme Court estab-lished what came to be known as the Aguilar-Spinellitest. This formulated the rule that information from
709
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 709
an informant could not establish the probable causethat the Fourth Amendment requires for arrests andsearches without evidence of the informant’s verac-ity and his or her basis for concluding that criminalactivity was afoot. In 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, theCourt replaced the Aguilar-Spinelli test with a total-ity of the circumstances test that allows deficienciesin the government’s showing with regard to the infor-mant’s veracity or basis of knowledge to be curedby a superior showing on the other prong. AlthoughGates criticized the Aguilar-Spinelli test for ham-pering law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment’sentrustment of the probable cause determinationto courts fits oddly with Gates’s allowing probablecause to be established by an unusually reliableinformant’s unexplained belief that criminal activityexists. By also allowing a detailed account of crimi-nal activity to compensate for the lack of evidenceof an informant’s truthfulness, Gates fails to guardagainst tale telling by untruthful informants.
The Supreme Court has provided even less pro-tection against stops and frisks based on false tips. In1972, Adams v. Williams held that because an infor-mant was known to the police, his bare assertion thata person in a nearby car had a gun provided the rea-sonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendmentrequires for a stop and frisk. The informant’s credi-bility had been called into question by the only infor-mation he had previously provided: a false tip abouthomosexual activity. Moreover, in 1990, Alabama v.White deemed an anonymous tip sufficient for aforcible stop, merely because the police had corrob-orated innocent details. The tip predicted that awoman who would be carrying cocaine in an attachecase would leave a particular apartment in a buildingat a particular time and travel to a named motel in aparticular type of car. Although the woman whom thepolice stopped had left the building at the specifiedtime and driven in the direction of the motel in thespecified car, her hands were free when the policeobserved her. More recently, by contrast, Florida v.J.L. held in 2000 that because there was no evidenceof its reliability, an anonymous tip that a black youthwearing a plaid shirt and standing at a bus stop wouldbe carrying a gun did not justify a stop and frisk. Theevents of September 11, 2001, may diminish the
significance of this protection, given J.L.’s reservationthat “We do not say . . . that a report of a person car-rying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability wedemand for a report of a person carrying a firearm”(292 U.S. 273-74).
INVASIONS OF INDIVIDUALPRIVACY BY INFORMANTS
Loopholes for informants increase law enforcement’sability to obtain convictions, but also limit ordinarycitizens’ protection against government interroga-tion and invasions of privacy. Fourth Amendmentsearches do not occur when informants gather infor-mation by concealing their identities and gainingsuspects’ trust. On the rationale that the informanthas obtained the suspect’s consent or that one cannotlegitimately expect legal protection from falsefriends, a search has not occurred, and FourthAmendment protections do not apply, even if taperecordings or videotapes are made (Hoffa v. UnitedStates, United States v. White). Nor do the limits onelectronic surveillance of Title III of the OmnibusCrimes and Safe Streets Act of 1968 apply if infor-mants record their own conversations with suspectsor consent to recording by law enforcement agents.
In Illinois v. Perkins in 1990, the Court reached asimilar conclusion. Here the informant successfullyposed as a fellow prisoner and elicited a murderconfession. The Supreme Court held the confessionadmissible despite the absence of Miranda warn-ings, reasoning that because the informant hadgained the suspect’s trust, Miranda warnings werenot necessitated by coercive pressures.
COOPERATING WITNESSES
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the Anti-DrugAbuse Act of 1986 make cooperating the principalway for federal defendants to obtain reduced sen-tences. Since the prosecutor must request a “sub-stantial assistance” departure for a judge to rewardcooperation with a sentence below the applicableguideline range or the statutory mandatory minimumsentence, defendants are motivated to please theprosecution with their testimonies or other efforts to
710—�—Informants, Issues Surrounding Use Of
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 710
incriminate others. Moreover, while cooperationagreements require defendants to plead guilty andtestify or otherwise assist in the prosecution ofothers, prosecutors usually agree to make substan-tial assistance motions only if they are satisfied withthe defendant’s performance. The fact that, in 2001,17.1% of all guideline defendants and 25.7% ofdrug defendants received substantial assistancedepartures understates the role of cooperation inthe federal criminal justice system. Further, 67.5%of the defendants in drug conspiracy cases prose-cuted in 1992 provided the prosecutor with someform of assistance, yet only 38.6% of the coopera-tors received substantial assistance departures.
The substantial assistance provisions have causedthe anticipated or actual testimony of cooperators toplay a role in most federal criminal cases. However,federal bribery law and professional ethics forbiddefense attorneys from providing or promising toprovide lay witnesses anything beyond expenses fortheir testimony. Although defense attorney paymentsare outlawed on the grounds that they may inducewitnesses to lie, a prosecutorial promise of reducedprison time seems at least as great an inducementto lie. In United States v. Singleton in 1998, a federalcircuit court held that prosecutors violate federalbribery law when they reward or promise to rewardcooperating witnesses with reduced sentences. Butthe decision was reversed only a year later.
The jury’s ability to detect cooperators’ lies iscalled into question by former assistant U.S. attor-neys’ acknowledgements that they were deceived bycooperators. Moreover, jailhouse snitches and coop-erating witnesses played a role in convicting 16 ofthe first 70 people on death row whom postconvic-tion DNA testing exonerated. Unlike many states’laws, federal law increases the risk of wrongful con-victions by allowing convictions to be based solelyon an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony.
INEQUITABLE SENTENCING
Defendants in the know are more likely to providethe prosecutor with useful information and are thusmore likely than minor players to receive substan-tial assistance departures. Among equally culpable
coconspirators, the one who informs on the other(s)first is more likely to receive a substantial assis-tance departure. This may reward more culpabledefendants or those who quickly inform and there-fore conflicts with making sentences proportionalto offenders’ culpability.
Awareness of this inequity in sentencing maycause defendants and their loved ones to questionthe fairness of the American legal system. There isa risk that, by creating this potential for loss of faithin the legal system, the substantial assistance provi-sions of the federal sentencing guidelines andAnti-Drug Abuse Act will impede law enforcement.Scholars have found that if people’s experienceswith legal officials lead them to doubt the fairnessof the law, their voluntary compliance with the lawwill be less likely in the future.
Adina Schwartz
For Further Reading
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990). Amsterdam, A. (1974). Perspectives on the Fourth
Amendment. Minnesota Law Review, 58, 349–477.Curriden, M. (1995, February 20). Secret threat to justice.
National Law Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/threat.html
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966).Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990).Innocence Project. (2001). Factors leading to wrongful con-
victions. [Online]. Available: http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/index.php
Johnston, R. R. (1997, Winter). Paying the witness: Why is itOK for the prosecution, but not the defense? CriminalJustice, pp. 21–24.
Maclin, T. (1996). Informants and the Fourth Amendment:A reconsideration. Washington University Law Quarterly,74, 573–635.
Maxfield, L. D., & Kramer, J. H. (1998). Substantial assis-tance: An empirical yardstick gauging equity in currentfederal policy and practice. [Online]. Available:http://www.ussc.gov
Richman, D. C. (1995). Cooperating clients. Ohio State LawJournal, 96, 69–151.
Informants, Issues Surrounding Use Of—�—711
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 711
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998) and
165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied,527 U.S. 1024.
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2001). Sourcebook of federal
sentencing statistics (Figure G and Table 45). Washington,DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission. [Online]. Available:http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/fig-g.pdf; http:// www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table45.pdf
Yaroshefsky, E. (1999). Cooperation with federal prosecutors:Experiences of truth telling and embellishment. FordhamLaw Journal, 68, 917–964.
� INSPECTORSGENERAL, OFFICES OF
An inspector general (IG) is an official of a federalagency who has been appointed by the president of theUnited States specifically to review and report onoperations within his or her agency. The IG is the chieflaw enforcement official within that department oragency (except for the Department of Justice [DOJ]).The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) consistsessentially of two divisions: criminal investigationsand audit. Unlike an auditor in the private sector,the IG is responsible for reporting under the ChiefFinancial Officer’s Act (Financial Statement Audits),which must meet the standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountantsand Generally Accepted Government Audit Standards.
The idea behind the creation of the Offices ofInspectors General is not new; IGs fulfill roles sim-ilar to those played by internal auditors or integrityofficers. There is evidence that suggests that earlycivilizations performed review and inspection onthe status and accountability of their equipment andpersonnel. This practice has changed from the waysit was carried out by the Samarians and ancientEgyptians or, for that matter, from what was prac-ticed in the United States in the mid-20th century.Agencies historically examined accounts andrecords to detect fraud; today the primary purposeof such audits is to express an opinion on the fairnessof the presentation of financial statements. Following
accepted practices, General George Washingtonmaintained a journal and ledger that he presented tothe Continental Congress for an accounting of fundsduring the Revolutionary War, thus establishingat the very beginning of U.S. history the principalof accountability to an official body of legislators.Later, in the 19th century, railroads were among thefirst private enterprises to regularly require auditsand inspections of their vast property holdings.
As the nation expanded, so, too, did the numberand range of government programs. Along with thisincrease, the government decentralized. Funding andassets were managed by appointed regional adminis-trators, a situation that led to waste, fraud, and abuseof programs and operations. There was one incidentof fraud and abuse that was so egregious thatPresident John F. Kennedy in 1962 directed that anOffice of Investigation and Audit be established at theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The eventinvolved a scheme on the part of a Texas cottonfarmer having USDA officials transfer other farmers’cotton allotments to his own cotton acreage. In thisway all his land could be used to grow this tightly reg-ulated crop. Such a scheme would have been impos-sible without the help of high-level officials, eitherinside the USDA or in Washington, D.C., or both. Thefarmer profited by several tens of millions of dollars.As time went on other federal agencies instituted theUSDA model for investigation and audit.
This specific event led to greater concerns overgovernment integrity, and on October 12, 1978, theInspector General Act was enacted. Initially, 18federal agencies were covered by the act and theexisting Offices of Investigation and Audit werere-formed as Offices of Inspectors General. Thepurpose of the act was to create independent andobjective units to conduct audits and investigationsrelating to the programs and operations of theirrespective federal agencies. By the early 21st century,more than 50 federal agencies had IGs.
MISSION AND DUTIESOF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL
Each agency’s inspector general operates under afive-point mission. The inspector general and his or
712—�—Inspectors General, Offices Of
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 712
her staff are mandated to (a) conduct independentand objective audits, investigations, and inspec-tions; (b) prevent and detect waste, fraud, andabuse; (c) promote economy, effectiveness, andefficiency; (d) review pending legislation and regu-lation; and (e) keep the head of the agency andCongress fully and currently informed.
To ensure that information reaches the highestlevels of the agency, the head of the agency hasbeen defined as the secretary of the departmentor administrator of a cabinet-level agency. For allother agencies, the agency heads appoint and canremove IGs at designated federal entities. The IGAct established the law for the appointment, super-vision, removal, and political activities of an IG.The most important section of the appointmentprocess, meant to ensure the independence of theIG, directed that the appointment be made not bythe agency head, but by the president of the UnitedStates, by and with the advice and consent of theSenate. The process further states that the selectionshould be made without regard to political affilia-tion and solely on the basis of integrity and demon-strated ability in accounting, auditing, financialanalysis, and law.
Neither the head of the agency nor the officer nextin rank is permitted to prevent or prohibit the inspec-tor general from initiating, carrying out, or complet-ing any audit or investigation or from issuing anysubpoena during the course of any audit or investi-gation. To further isolate the IG from agency politicsor pressure, he or she may be removed from officeonly by the president, who is required to communi-cate the reasons for any such removal to both housesof Congress. This effectively makes each IG amember of the president’s subcabinet, which reportsdirectly to the Congress and the president.
Each IG has legislated duties and responsibili-ties, including reporting criminal violations to theattorney general of the United States. The IG isresponsible for conducting, supervising, and coor-dinating audits and investigations relating to theprograms and operations of his or her agency; forreviewing existing and proposed legislation andregulations relating to programs and operations; formaking recommendations in semiannual reports on
the impact of such legislation or regulations onthe economy and efficiency in the administrationof programs; and for detecting fraud and abuse inprograms and operations.
The IG must also keep the agency’s chief officialand the Congress fully and currently informed offraud and other serious problems, abuses, and defi-ciencies relating to the administration of programswithin the agency. The IG is expected to recom-mend corrective action concerning such problemsand abuses and to report on the progress made inimplementing such corrective action. Further, eachIG must comply with standards established by thecomptroller general of the United States for auditsof federal establishments, programs, activities,and functions. These standards are listed in theGovernment Auditing Standards (The Yellow Book),revised July 1988. This publication is the officialguide for all federal agencies, and controls account-ing and auditing standards for all state, local,municipal, and not-for-profit entities receiving fed-eral funds. These standards are revised every 10 years,with interim rules issued during the interveningperiods.
The IG Act requires each IG to transmit to theCongress a semiannual report based upon signifi-cant problems or deficiencies relating to programadministration and operations reviewed during theperiods of October 1 through March 31 and April 1through September 30 each year. These reportsmust be transmitted no later than the last businessday of the following month. If an IG feels that asignificant event or flagrant problem requires animmediate report, the IG is authorized to immedi-ately transmit that report to the CongressionalCommittee of Jurisdiction. Generally the semian-nual report describes problems, abuses, and defi-ciencies within the agency. A description of therecommended corrective actions made by the IGduring the six-month period is included.
Each IG enjoys unique authorities among federaldepartments that are outlined in Section 6 of the IGAct. Important provisions of this section authorizeeach IG to have access to all records, reports,audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommenda-tions, or other material related to programs and
Inspectors General, Offices Of—�—713
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 713
operations for which IG has responsibility. The IGmay subpoena the production of all information,documents, reports, answers, records, accounts,papers, and other data and documentary evidencenecessary in the performance of his or her office’sfunctions. If the subpoena is refused, the IG isauthorized to turn to any U.S. district court toenforce the order.
An IG or an employee of the OIG is authorized toadminister an oath, affirmation, or affidavit when-ever necessary. This is an often-used tool for an IG,because if a person is proven to be swearing falsely,that person can be charged with a felony under 18U.S.C. 1001–False Swearing. This section is fre-quently used by law enforcement officers and hasconsistently been upheld by U.S. appeals courts.
The sizes of OIGs vary considerably throughoutthe federal bureaucracy. In 2003, the largest of themore than 50 OIGs was the one at the Departmentof Health and Human Services, with 1,600 employ-ees working in 85 field offices around the country.Savings attributed to this office in 2002 were $21.8billion, an increase over the $15.6 billion in savingsachieved in 2000. This IG’s main job is to investi-gate fraud and abuse in the federal Medicare andMedicaid programs, which in 2003 cost more than$400 billion. Agents also investigated a variety ofother health care frauds. Investigations resulted inmore than 500 convictions and the recovery ofabout $518 million from people accused of filingfalse claims. The postal service IG is a muchsmaller operation; it 2001 it had about 725 employ-ees and a budget of about $117 million.
Not all IG reports are about waste; some look atthe overall operations of their agencies. In June2003, the Department of Justice IG issued a reportthat was highly critical of the department’s handlingof approximately 750 illegal aliens detained in thewake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.The report called for clearer criteria for labeling ter-rorism suspects, improved communication betweencounterterrorism agents and immigration officials,and better training of guards assigned to supervisedetainees. Other nonfinancial issues in DOJ that theIG has examined included the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s misplacement of thousands of pages
of documents in the 1993 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,bombing case and why immigration officials sentvisa approval notices for two of the September11 hijackers to attend a Florida flight schoolsix months after they died in the plane they crashedthat day.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS
One section of the IG Act that has received consider-able publicity is Section 7, which is commonly referredto as the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989(5 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq.). This section authorizes anIG to receive and investigate complaints or informa-tion from any employee concerning the existence ofan activity constituting a violation of law, rules, orregulations or mismanagement, gross waste of funds,abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific dan-ger to the public health and safety. The IG is directednot to disclose the identity of the employee withoutthe consent of that employee, unless the IG deter-mines that the disclosure is unavoidable during thecourse of the investigation. The Office of SpecialCounsel, an independent arm of the Merit SystemsProtection Board, carries out oversight for enforce-ment of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
To ensure the autonomy of the OIGs, eachincumbent operates independently of his or herdepartment or agency, a status that is ensured byassigning the OIG its own personnel, budget, andprocurement authority. It is for these reasons thatIGs have been called the watchdogs of America andhave been able to save the government severalbillions of dollars each year.
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
There are uniform personnel requirements for allOIGs. At a minimum, all professional employeesmust possess a bachelor’s degree. All criminalinvestigators are job series 1811, which means thatthey are authorized to conduct criminal investiga-tions, make arrests, execute warrants, and carryfirearms. They carry the title of special agent.
Each special agent is required to undergo trainingat the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
714—�—Inspectors General, Offices Of
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 714
(FLETC) for 12 weeks of entry-level training incriminal investigations, firearms, law, interviewingtechniques, surveillance methods, arrest techniques,defensive tactics, testifying at mock trials, and man-agement. In addition special agents must return toFLETC for three weeks of intensive training at theInspector General Academy, which is co-located atFLETC, for specific instruction in the operationscovered by the IG Act.
Auditors are required to meet established academicrequirements in addition to a bachelor’s degree. Theymust have successfully completed at least 24 semesterhours of accounting and auditing. In practice, a bach-elor’s degree in accounting satisfies this requirement.However, those who want to be auditors and havedegrees in other disciplines must meet the additionalrequirement of the 24 semester hours in accounting.
Each auditor must attend the Inspector GeneralAudit Academy for 12 weeks. During this time theywill be trained in specific requirements of theComptroller General’s Yellow Book. These standardsdiffer from financial audits in the paperwork, mainte-nance, and format requirements. Additionally, eachperson working in job series 501 (auditor) mustundergo a minimum of 40 hours in accounting andaudit training annually.
As of 2003, the agencies with IGs appointed bythe president were the Agency for InternationalDevelopment, the Department of Agriculture, theCentral Intelligence Agency, the Department ofCommerce, the Department of Defense, the Depart-ment of Education, the Environmental ProtectionAgency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora-tion, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,the General Services Administration, the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development, the Depart-ment of Interior, the Department of Justice, theDepartment of Labor, the Department of NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, the NuclearRegulatory Commission, the Office of PersonnelManagement, the Railroad Retirement Board, theSmall Business Administration, the Social SecurityAdministration, the Department of State, the Depart-ment of Transportation, the Department of Treasury,the Department of Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration, and the Department ofVeterans Affairs.
Some agencies have IGs who are not appointed bythe president and are not confirmed by the Senate.These IGs are appointed by the agency head and maybe removed at any time without cause. They includeAmtrak, the Appalachian Regional Commission,the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, theConsumer Product Safety Commission, the Corpo-ration for Public Broadcasting, the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission, the Farm CreditAdministration, the Federal Communications Commis-sion, the Federal Election Commission, the FederalHousing Finance Board, the Federal Labor RelationsAuthority, the Federal Maritime Commission, theFederal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commis-sion, the Government Printing Office, the U.S. Inter-national Trade Commission, the Legal ServicesCorporation, the National Archives, the National CreditUnion Administration, the National Endowment forthe Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,the National Labor Relations Board, the NationalScience Foundation, the Peace Corps, the PensionBenefit Guaranty Corporation, the U.S. Postal Service,the Securities Exchange Commission, the SmithsonianInstitution, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Roger C. Viadero
For Further Reading
Government Accountability Office. (1988). Government audit-ing standards. Washington, DC: Author.
IG Net. [Online]. Available: http://www.ignet.govInspector General Act, Publ. L. No. 95-042.Lichtblau, E. (2003, July 5). Report on detainees shines a
brighter spotlight on an inspector general. The New YorkTimes, p. A9.
Pear, R. (2003, June 6). Report criticizes health dept. inspectorgeneral as a poor manager. The New York Times, p. A24.
� INTEGRATEDAUTOMATED FINGERPRINTIDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Automated fingerprint identification systems weredeveloped in the mid-1990s as a computer-based
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems—�—715
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 715
alternative to ink fingerprinting. These automatedsystems have allowed law enforcement agenciesto accurately take and match fingerprints withinseconds that previously would have taken years tomatch manually.
Using the Integrated Automated FingerprintIdentification System (IAFIS), law enforcementpersonnel no longer must roll the fingers of thosebeing printed in ink and then press each finger ontoa paper card. Rather, automated systems use a com-puter to take fingerprints and handprints when theindividual’s hand is placed on the machine justas one would place a sheet of paper on a copymachine. The IAFIS computer scans the images andreproduces them on paper, in many cases dispens-ing altogether with the need for fingerprint cards.These images, unlike those on a copy machine, arenot immediately forgotten. Fingerprint data arestored and logged in a central national database.
One of the first agencies to make use of thistechnology was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’sDepartment, which by the late 1990s had joined with46 smaller departments in the county to create a live-scan network that minimized duplication and sped upthe process of identifying those printed. Such com-puterized fingerprint technology has led not only togreater efficiency, but also to a radical change inthe way law enforcement agencies now track crime.In July 1999, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s(FBI’s) Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision’s system became operational. IAFIS pro-vides five key services: 10-print services, subjectsearch and criminal history request services, docu-ment and image searches, remote search services,and latent print services. In its first six months ofoperation, IAFIS reduced the FBI’s criminal 10-printprocessing time from 45 days to two hours.
With IAFIS, the FBI replaced a 64-year-old fin-gerprint identification process that was not fulfillinglaw enforcement needs with a system that providesexpeditious and accurate identification services ina paperless environment. Its vast computing powerexamines the characteristics of fingerprints pro-vided by law enforcers nationwide and convertsthem to searchable code. The information is addedto a criminal database of some 41 million entries.
When a department requests a latent search, whichis a search of fingerprints left at a crime scene,IAFIS searches the characteristics of the latentagainst the criminal database for a possible match.The technical ability to search this large group ofknown fingerprint specimens allows for a previouslyunidentified piece of evidence, in some cases abloody print, to be matched with a the name of aperson in the FBI’s criminal records. These areexamples of the types of searches that can be con-ducted. Jurisdictional boundaries are virtuallyerased. Law enforcers can now more easily track acriminal simply with the use of latent prints. If thesuspect is already in the system, police can attach anidentity. Moreover, fingerprints lifted from variouscrime scenes and entered into IAFIS can be linked.
This technology has fostered interdepartmentalcommunication and net widening, along withhigher closure rates. Law enforcers from numerousdepartments can easily keep one another abreast ofa suspect’s whereabouts simply by tracking thatperson through IAFIS. For example, a personcharged with a crime in one part of the countrywhose information is entered into IAFIS and latercommits a crime somewhere else can be identi-fied simply by lifting latent prints from that crimescene. This function allows police to attach a nameto seemingly anonymous forensic evidence. Addi-tionally, IAFIS has drastically reduced the demandson police resources associated with maintaininglarge collections of fingerprints and has minimizedthe need to store on paper cards all fingerprintstaken by a particular agency. Compiling and orga-nizing such data has always been a time-consum-ing process. Prior to the introduction of IAFIS,the burden on police departments was even greaterwhen large collections of fingerprint cards andlatent finger marks were processed completelymanually.
While the resources necessary to maintain suchcollections were a great hindrance to law enforce-ment agencies, the prospect of maintaining similarcollections of palm prints and latent palm markswas a deterrent in itself. The task was intimidatingbecause of the difficulties associated with palmdata. As a consequence, few agencies maintained
716—�—Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 716
collections of palm prints and latent marks. IAFISis one of a number of computer-based tools that hasprovided benefits to law enforcement agencies. It isa cost-effective identification tool that has elimi-nated the use of messy inkpads to fingerprint sus-pects and has reduced the identification process to afraction of the time it once took.
Alisa Camacho
For Further Reading
Clay, B. (1994, November). Los Angeles County’s live-scanfingerprinting network is world’s largest. Law and Order,pp. 24–25, 28–29.
Dilworth, D. C. (Ed.). (1977). Identification wanted:Development of the American Criminal IdentificationSystem. Gaithersburg, MD: International Association ofChiefs of Police.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). The science of finger-prints: Classification and uses. Washington, DC: Author.
Lee, H. C., & Gaenssien, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Advances infingerprint technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
� INTELLIGENCE ANDSECURITY COMMAND,DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The impetus for the Intelligence and SecurityCommand, Department of the Army, Departmentof Defense (INSCOM) originated in 1975 with theArmy’s Intelligence Organization and StationingStudy’s recommendation that intelligence, counter-intelligence, and electronic warfare operations atechelon above corps level be combined into oneorganization. Based on this recommendation, theformer U.S. Army Security Agency was renamedINSCOM on January 1, 1977, and established itsheadquarters near the Pentagon, in Washington,D.C. INSCOM absorbed the Army Security Agency,the U.S. Army Intelligence Agency, three militaryintelligence (MI) groups (66 MI in Germany, the470 MI in Panama, and the 500 MI in Japan), and afourth group, the 501st MI, that had been activatedin Korea. Today INSCOM serves as the mechanismfor the implementation of multidiscipline intelligence
and security operations at echelon above corpslevel. Many of its civilian investigators havemilitary backgrounds, and it has integrated theArmy’s different intelligence disciplines under onecommand, an important first in military intelligencehistory.
INSCOM’S MISSION
The mission of the INSCOM is to plan, implement,and coordinate multidiscipline intelligence, security,and information operations and protection of the bat-tle forces for military commanders, national decisionmakers, and the intelligence community. Membersof INSCOM provide electronic warfare intelligence,force protection, and multidiscipline intelligence(imagery, signals, human, measurement and signa-ture, and technical) as well as operations security,counterintelligence, and intelligence productionand dissemination. The two major subcommandsof INSCOM are the National Ground IntelligenceCenter (NGIC) and the Land Information WarfareActivity (LIWA). Both commands are located at FortBelvoir, Virginia, near where the entire INSCOMcommand moved in 1989.
The NGIC’s mission is to produce and dissemi-nate reports using all types of intelligence on for-eign ground forces and their combat technologiesto help U.S. military commanders keep informed sothey can have a decisive edge on all types of enemyoffensive and defensive battlefield activities. TheNGIC analysts not only assess the foreign groundforce current capability (e.g., battlefield operatingsystems, tactics, training, and logistics) but alsoprovide forecasts 20 years into the future. The spe-cialists (chemists, computer scientists, mathemati-cians, engineers, simulation experts, modelers, andphysicists) evaluate all types of foreign combatequipment and technologies (e.g., rocket launchers,tanks, chemical weapons, radars, electronic coun-termeasures, and military engineering equipment).
Center staff is also responsible for the Army’sForeign Materiel Exploitation Program and foreignmateriel acquisitions requirements. Foreign materielis exploited by garnering intelligence (understandingof the adversary’s capabilities and threat projection
Intelligence and Security Command, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—�—717
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 717
assessment) from deserted foreign battlefieldmateriel. Thus, electronic warfare equipment, pas-sive and active jamming equipment, satellite com-munications, battlefield computers found on thebattlefield or other locations are examined, vali-dated, and verified as to the materiel’s usage guide-lines, state-of-the-art status, and origin of thetechnology used in the design and constructionalcapacity of the equipment. The military is also pro-vided with imagery intelligence by NGIC’s ImageryAssessments Directorate located at the Washington,D.C., Navy Yard.
Army Regulations 520-20 established LIWAto support Information Operations and Command-Control Warfare. As of October 16, 2002, the LandInformation Center was redesignated as 1stInformation Operations Command (Land). LIWA isthe center for information operations and its person-nel assist military commanders all over the world toplan, implement, and evaluate information opera-tions. Three important support units within LIWAare the Field Support Teams, Army ComputerEmergency Response Teams, and InformationOperations (IO) Vulnerability Teams.
LIWA assists the land component command andthe separate Army commands (both active andreserve soldiers) with technical expertise for conduct-ing full spectrum (offensive, defensive, stability, andsupport actions) information operations. LIWA coor-dinates multidiscipline intelligence and counterintel-ligence and provides intelligence monitoring, analysis,and tailored reports. The Army Computer EmergencyResponse Teams send alerts when there are computerintrusions and provide appropriate countermeasures.LIWA deploys skilled field support teams with variedexpertise; for example, skills in electronic warfare,computer network defense, and operational securityassist battle staff responsible for strategy or policyand those charged with the physical and mechanicalactivities for putting the strategy into action to incor-porate information operations into their battle plans,operations, and exercises.
LIWA’s IO Vulnerability Assessment Teams(skilled in information operations, information sys-tems security and architecture, communications, andcomputers) assess and mitigate real and potential
weaknesses in a command’s information operationelements that would allow penetration by theenemy. LIWA ensures interoperability between theIO components of the United States and allies sothat both sides can communicate, work together,and share in the development of Army doctrine andtraining materials.
INSCOM has played an important intelligenceand security role in a number of recent U.S. militaryoperations, including Operation Just Cause inPanama in 1989 and in both Desert Shield andDesert Storm in the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Marvie Brooks
For Further Reading
Alexander, K. B. (2001, September 14). INSCOM 25thanniversary. INSCOM News, p.1. [Online]. Available:http://www.nasaa-home.org/AF/new/inscom.htm
A-R&D and analytical services for the exploitation of com-munications systems and other electronic equipment SOLDASC01-00-R-0004. (2000, April 10). Commerce BusinessDaily Issue. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2000/04(April)10-Apr-2000/Aso1002.htm
Center for Army Lessons Learned. (n.d.). CALL - LIWA oper-ational structure (pp. 1-6). [Online]. Available: http://call.army.mil/io/structure.htm
Finnegan, J. P., & Danysh, R. (1997). Reorganization andrenewal. In Military intelligence (chap. 10, p. 12).[Online]. Available: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/lineage: m:/ch 10.htm
History of Army Intelligence and Security Command. (1997).[Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/inscom/history.htm
Introduction to Army Intelligence and Security Command.(1997). [Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/inscom/intro.htm
McCarl, J. N., & Putnam, K. D. (2002). Land InformationWarfare Activity. INSCOM Journal Almanac 25(3), 20.[Online]. Available: http://www.inscom.army.mil/PAO/journal/almanac 02.pdf
Responsibilities of supporting agencies. Land InformationWarfare Activity. (1996). Field manual No. 100-6(Appendix B). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.[Online]. Available: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/adtl.dll/fm/100-6/appendix.html
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. (2002). LandInformation Warfare Activity. INSCOM Journal Almanac,25(3), 1–31.
718—�—Intelligence and Security Command, Department of the Army, Department of Defense
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 718
The United States government manual. (2000/2001). ArmyIntelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register/NationalArchives and Records, General Services Administration.
� INTERNAL REVENUESERVICE, CRIMINALINVESTIGATION DIVISION
The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,passed in 1913, gave Congress the power to levyand collect tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue,under the Department of the Treasury, was theagency responsible for collecting taxes on indivi-duals and corporations. In 1919 there were wide-spread accusations of fraudulent tax reporting.Daniel C. Roper, then the commissioner of theBureau of Internal Revenue, was a former firstassistant postmaster general; Roper requested thesecretary of the treasury and the postmaster generalto assign six experienced postal inspectors to theBureau of Internal Revenue to investigate fraudu-lent income returns. These inspectors formed a newunit called the Special Intelligence Unit, with ElmerL. Irey as its first chief.
In 1952 the Bureau of Internal Revenue reorga-nized and was renamed the Internal RevenueService (IRS). The Special Intelligence Unit wentthrough a series of similar name changes until1978 when it was renamed for the last time to theCriminal Investigation Division (CID). Since itsinception in 1919, the CID has remained the pri-mary tax fraud investigator in the world. Throughits efforts the government has brought cases againstsuch organized crime figures as Al Capone, FrankNitti, Albert Anastaisa, and Frank Costello. TheCID also played a major part in the investigation ofthe Lindbergh baby kidnapping case.
The Criminal Investigation Division is mandatedto act as the IRS investigation division. It ensurescompliance with Title 26 of the United States Code,which gives the IRS the authority to investigatealleged criminal tax violations, including tax eva-sion and filing a false tax return. Under Title 18U.S.C., the IRS has authority to investigate a broad
range of fraudulent activities, such as false claimsagainst the government and money laundering. Title31 U.S.C. gives the IRS the responsibility forenforcing certain record-keeping and reportingrequirements of large currency transactions, such ascash bank deposits of more than $10,000. In carry-ing out its responsibilities, CID coordinates as nec-essary with IRS’s District Council, the Tax Divisionwithin the Department of Justice, and local U.S.attorneys to prosecute violators of these statutes.
The CID is the only law enforcement agency thathas the jurisdiction to investigate cases involvingthese statutes. If its members did not investigatethese fraud cases, no other law enforcement agencywould have jurisdiction to investigate them. Thestated mission of the CID is to support the overallIRS mission by enforcing the criminal statutesrelative to tax administration and related financialcrimes in order to encourage and achieve, directlyor indirectly, voluntary compliance with internalrevenue laws.
The CID attempts to achieve its goal of voluntarytax compliance through deterrence by investigatingand publicizing the results of tax fraud cases. Eventhough its goal is compliance by deterrence, theCID is mandated by Treasury Department policyto conduct all investigations by the least intrusivemeans necessary. These fraud cases are divided intotwo categories. The first category is tax gap investi-gations in which the target is a citizen or legalcorporation in a legal industry not involved innarcotics. Tax gap investigations may involve otherillegal activities including extortion, bribery, ormoney laundering, but not narcotics. Narcoticinvestigations, the second category, are casesinvolving narcotics and any other illegal activitiesthe investigators may come across in their investi-gation. CID also investigates the possibility ofmoney laundering and other tax violations includ-ing using tax-exempt organizations to fund terroristactivities. Besides using tax and income informa-tion, CID investigators file for grand jury or IRSadministration subpoenas to obtain statements andrecords from witnesses or use witnesses’ statementsto obtain search warrants. Information on ongoingcases is stored in the Criminal Investigation
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division—�—719
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 719
Management Information System (CIMIS). Not onlydoes CIMIS collect information on current cases,but it also tracks time expended by CID employees.
Special agents take the information collected intheir investigations to a U.S. attorney, who decideswhether a case will be prosecuted. The U.S. attorneymay also request that the CID investigate an individ-ual or a corporation. The CID’s assistance may alsobe requested if tax expertise is needed in an intera-gency taskforce. Although the CID has a missionstatement, the U.S. attorney’s office has considerabledetermination in the CID’s agenda. About 60% of theCID’s investigation time is taken up with tax gap ortax-related violations and close to 25% of the time isspent in narcotics-related investigation. The rest ofCID’s time is consumed in interagency taskforcesconcerning issues such as narcotics. Agents also haveassisted in investigations concerning organized crime,health care fraud, and 61% of all Organized CrimeDrug Enforcement Task Force Programs.Their exper-tise in tax law and their agents’ access to tax informa-tion is invaluable. Often the only case that can be builtagainst a target is a tax fraud case.
In 2004, CID employed nearly 3,000 specialagents and had an operations team of almost 1,700members consisting of auditors, revenue officers, andrevenue agents. Their job is to assist the agents in allinvestigations. Special agents and the operations teamsare located in 33 district offices in four regions, aswell as those in the central office in Washington,D.C., those stationed overseas in Interpol, and morethan 350 agents assigned to assist in interagencytaskforces. Due to the emergence of Internet com-merce, some agents are placed overseas to investi-gate computer fraud cases. The CID has a classictop-down organization structure with the assistantcommissioner of criminal investigation as its topofficer. In 2003, that position was held by Nancy J.Jardini, the first woman to head CID. She and herdeputy assistant oversee the four regional directors.Every field office reports to a division chief of itsdistrict, who reports to a regional director.
Applicants to the CID must be U.S. citizens witha bachelor’s degree with at least 15 semester hoursof accounting and 9 hours of business courses in arelated field. If they do not have a degree, those with
a combination of work and educational experiencemay be considered. Certified public accountants areencouraged to apply as well. Applicants must beunder 34 years of age, with at least 20/200 visionin each eye, and must pass a physical examination.Applicants must provide proof of a valid driver’slicense prior to applying. Candidates must alsoappear for an interview to measure their level ofpoise, expression, and presentation. A passing scoreon the Treasury Enforcement Agent Examination isalso required. Special agents start at a federal generalschedule pay rate of GS-5 or GS-7, which in 2003meant a salary of $30,000 or more annually depend-ing on the office location to which the agent isposted. Those who start above a GS-5 rating havehad more extensive education, had excellent grades,or were members of a national scholastic society.Agents are guaranteed they will move up one GSlevel annually provided they perform at satisfactorylevel, until they reach a GS-11 rating. Thereafter theycompete with other agents for promotions. GS-14level is considered management level and requiresextensive training before an agent is able to apply.
Special agents of the Criminal InvestigationDivision receive the top training available at theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center inGlynco, Georgia. There, after 1 week of orientation,agents-in-training have an additional 21 weeks oftraining in the Criminal Investigation TrainingProgram and the Special Agent Basic Training. Theprograms emphasize physical fitness, arrest tech-niques, firearms, computer skills, and courses oncriminal law, evidence, and criminology. In today’stechnology dependent world, information thatagents are looking for is often encrypted or pass-word protected. Agents must also be extensivelytrained in computers in order to be effectiveenforcers of tax laws, especially when dealing withelectronically filed tax returns. After completion ofthe 22-week course, agents are posted to their fieldoffices for on-the-job training that can last anywherefrom one to two years. CID employees are alsoexpected to go to continuing professional educationcourses every year. This ensures agents have the up-to-date training needed to be safe and effective lawenforcement agents. Since 1992 advanced special
720—�—Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 720
agent training has been available to any agents withat least six years of experience looking to rise to alevel GS-12 or GS-13 rating. These courses teachadvanced investigation techniques, defensive tactics,operational procedures, and advanced computertraining.
Although much of the special agent’s work isdone in the office poring over tax and income state-ments for larger operations, investigators of the CIDtake advantage of classified informants and under-cover operations. These investigations are dividedinto two categories. Group I involves operations of amore sensitive nature, with the expectation that theagent will be undercover longer than six months.These cases must be approved by the assistant com-missioner of criminal investigations and only afterthe National Undercover Committee recommendsthem. Those that are deemed to not meet the criteriaof Group I are classified into Group II and may beapproved by a regional director of investigations.The special agents of the CID are the only lawenforcement agents that are mandated to conduct allinvestigation by the least intrusive means possible.Therefore CID agents only use undercover opera-tions when there are no other options available.
The special agents and support staff of the CIDare an invaluable asset to the federal law enforce-ment community. Over many years, they havesuccessfully pursued white-collar criminals, orga-nized crime figures, drug traffickers, terrorists,and those who provide financial support to terroristgroups.
David A. Hohn
For Further Reading
Internal Revenue Service. (1990). History of taxation:Organization of the IRS, functions within the IRS (IRSPublication T22.2:h 62/2). Washington, DC: U.S. IRSPrinting Office.
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division.[Online]. Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/
IRS criminal investigation in action. (1992). (IRS PublicationRev 11-92). Washington, DC: U.S. IRS Printing Office.
Tax administration: IRS’s audit and criminal enforcementrates for individual taxpayers across the country. (1998).(GAO/GGD-99-19). Washington, DC: U.S. GeneralAccounting Office.
Tax administration: IRS’s efforts to place more emphasis oncriminal tax investigations. (1997). (GAO/GGD-98-16).Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Webster Commission. (1999). Review of the Internal RevenueService’s Criminal Investigation Division (IRS PublicationNo. 3388 (4-1999)). Washington, DC: U.S. IRS PrintingOffice.
� INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,INSPECTION SERVICE
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was created in1862, during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.To help pay the cost of the Civil War, one of its firstcharges was to enact an income tax. The income taxwas repealed in 1872 and although this tax wasrevived for a year in 1894, it was not until 1913 thatthe Sixteenth Amendment was ratified givingCongress the power to institute an income tax.
It was inevitable that a mandatory income taxwould to lead to fraudulent behavior by some citi-zens and on July 1, 1919, the IRS commissionercreated the Intelligence Unit to investigate possibleacts of tax fraud. This original unit consisted of sixU.S. Post Office inspectors who were moved to theInternal Revenue Service to become the first specialagents. This unit of inspectors evolved into thehighly trained staff of professionals who todayinvestigate tax evasions by citizens, businessper-sons, and the government.
To help ensure that IRS officials and inspectionemployees are best serving the taxpayer, the 1988amendments to the Inspectors General Act createdthe Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG).The Treasury OIG had the responsibility of inves-tigating possible misconduct, waste, fraud, andabuse involving IRS inspection employees and IRSofficials, as well as overseeing the functioningof the IRS Inspection Service. The Treasury OIGand the IRS Inspection Service shared someresponsibilities outlined in a 1994 IRS Commissioner-Treasury OIG memorandum of understanding. TheTreasury OIG could refer any accusation to the IRSfor investigation, and the IRS in turn could referthe case back to the Treasury OIG if deemednecessary.
Internal Revenue Service, Inspection Service—�—721
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 721
In 1998, the commissioner of the IRS, CharlesO. Rossotti, decided to review the IRS InspectionService to determine how effectively it accomplishedits mission. A team of experts was recruited to reviewthe organization and methodology used by theInspection Service and to also access the relationshipbetween the Inspection Service and the IRS manage-ment and between the Inspection Service and theTreasury inspector general. The review identified anumber of opportunities to enhance the effectiveness ofthe Inspection Service, particularly in the areas of inde-pendence, public reporting of both audit results andaccounting for investigative results, and the processof managing complaints in the IRS. The reviewersrecommended that the Inspection Service concentratemore on the quality of its investigations than on thequantity. In January 1999, most of the responsibilitiesof the IRS Inspection Service were moved to theTreasury Inspector General for Tax Administration,which, although organizationally within the Depart-ment of the Treasury, is independent of it.
Sandra Shoiock Roff
See also Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
For Further Reading
Commissioner orders review of IRS Inspection Service. (1998,February 4). IRS Tax News, IRS New Release #IR-98-05.
Independent report on IRS Inspection Service released.(1998). Practical Accountant, 31(8), 52.
Internal Revenue Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.irs.gov/irs
Willis, L. (1998). IRS inspection service and taxpayer advo-cate roles for ensuring that taxpayers are treated properly.Hearing before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,February 5. GAO/T-GGD-98-63. [Online]. Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta/
� INTERNATIONALASSOCIATION OF CAMPUSLAW ENFORCEMENTADMINISTRATORS
The International Association of Campus LawEnforcement Administrators (IACLEA) is an
organization of college and university securitydirectors and police chiefs serving both public andprivate institutions. Its history dates to November 6,1958, when 11 security directors came together atArizona State University to discuss mutual jobproblems and frustrations. This small conferenceillustrated a need for security directors across theUnited States to network with one another and toformulate a clearinghouse to share their experiencesand concerns.
Job problems then were very similar to currenttimes. They included, but were not limited to, theuse of narcotics on campus, parking problems oncampus, cooperation with other law enforcementagencies, search and seizure, arrest, civil defense,key systems, crowd control, and organization andmanagement of university police departments.
The first official IACLEA conference was held inHouston, Texas, in 1959 and members of the grouphave been meeting annually since. The conferencesare designed to provide professional developmenttraining programs for campus law enforcementadministrators and to provide a forum for dis-cussing common problems, solutions, and the latesttrends in campus law enforcement. As an educa-tional goal for the 21st century, IACLEA launchedits first Executive Development Institute to provideprofessional training for new college and universitylaw enforcement administrators. In addition to itsconferences, IACLEA sponsors the Campus LawEnforcement Journal, a bimonthly magazine pub-lished since 1961 to provide information and dis-cussions on timely matters. The journal goes out tomore than 1,750 campus law enforcement adminis-trators throughout the world.
ADDRESSING CURRENT ISSUES
IACLEA has taken advantage of the technology ofthe Internet to provide easier professional discussionbetween college and university security directorsand police chiefs thorough an international Listserv.Using the Listserv, the campus law enforcementadministrators discuss up-to-the-minute issues,share and network information, and provide oneanother with timely alerts and crime trends.
722—�—International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 722
Over the years many changes have taken placein college and university law enforcement and the1990s were no different. New federal legislation,titled the Crime Awareness and Campus SecurityAct of 1990, required all public and private collegesand universities that received certain federal fund-ing to formulate accurate reporting procedures andguidelines to disclose to current and prospectivestudents, faculty, and staff members crime statisticson and around their campuses. The law, which aftermany revisions added numerous additional require-ments, came to be known in the late 1990s as theJeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policyand Campus Crime Statistics Act. This new legis-lation generated many discussions over its firstdecade among campus law enforcement administra-tors concerning interpretations and proceduresrequired by the new laws. IACLEA played a majorrole in helping law enforcement administratorsthroughout the country interpret the legislation andanswer questions concerning the new laws and wasactive in lobbying for future legislative adjustmentsand needs.
Realizing that the coming changes would havea great impact on campus law enforcement andwould require better standardization and profes-sionalism, the board of directors came togethertoward the end of 1990 and adopted 19 positionstatements that would identify the association’sposition on professional college and university lawenforcement. These position statements wouldserve as benchmarks in campus policing. By thelate 1990s, concerns of alcohol consumption andthe marketing of alcohol on college and universitycampuses were major and complex concerns forcampus law enforcement administrators and agen-cies. IACLEA called on its member institutions toadopt guidelines for promoting responsible alcoholmarketing on campuses and for promoting healthylifestyles and responsible use of alcohol amongcollege and university students.
IACLEA’s mission to advance public safety foreducational institutions by providing educationalresources, advocacy, and professional developmentfor all current issues continues with the 21st centuryconcerns of terrorism. After the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center inNew York City and on the Pentagon in Washington,D.C., protecting universities and colleges became amajor concern. After coming to grips with the factthat many colleges and universities are vulnerableto terrorist attacks because they provide many of thebasic target criteria for terrorists, the InternationalAssociation of Campus Law Enforcement Adminis-trators, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and theOffice of Domestic Preparedness formulated a part-nership to discuss how best to protect the nation’scampuses from weapons of mass destruction terror-ism while also ensuring the openness that is vitalto their missions. The first conference on weaponsof mass destruction was held in Washington, D.C.,on December 3, 2002.
MEMBERSHIP
In 1978 the Canadian Association of UniversitySecurity Directors formally merged with theInternational Association of Campus Law Enforce-ment Administrators, greatly enhancing interna-tional relations for the organization.
IACLEA’s membership in 2003 representedmore than 1,000 colleges and universities through-out the world, with primary membership comingfrom the United States and Canada. In additionto these institutional memberships, IACLEA hasan individual membership category open to campuslaw enforcement administrators, criminal justicefaculty members, and municipal chiefs of police. In2003, more than 1,750 people held such individualmemberships.
William J. Schmitz
See also Campus Safety and Security Acts
For Further Reading
Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/security.html
Doner, S. (2002). IACLEA is on the move. Campus LawEnforcement Journal, 32(6), 3.
International Association of Campus Law EnforcementAdministrators. [Online]. Available: http://www.iaclea.org
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators—�—723
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 723
Wolf, R. A., & Watkins, R. C. (2001). Alcohol and drug usein American colleges and universities. Campus LawEnforcement Journal, 31(4), 33–35.
� INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF CHIEFS OF POLICE
The International Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP) is a not-for-profit private association pro-viding a variety of law enforcement related servicesto federal, state, county, local, tribal, and otherpolice agencies. In 2002, the IACP had close to20,000 members. Although the majority were fromNorth America, primarily the United States andCanada, police executives from more than 100countries world are represented and many attendthe annual conference traditionally held in the fall.The staff members of the IACP are not sworn lawenforcement officers and cannot assist with crimi-nal investigations or complaints about citizens orpolice officers, but assist police departmentsthrough information exchange through publicationsand a series of regional meetings around the world.
The IACP was founded in 1893 by chiefs ofpolice who met in Chicago, Illinois, where theycreated the National Union of Chiefs of Police ofthe United States and Canada. The first meeting ofpolice chiefs occurred in 1871 in St. Louis,Missouri, and although they had hoped then tomeet annually, future meetings failed to material-ize until 1893, when Chief William Seavey ofOmaha, Nebraska, convinced Superintendent RobertMcLaughrey of Chicago to host a gathering thatbrought together 51 chiefs from 18 states and theDistrict of Columbia. In 1902 the name InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police was adopted.
Seavey and the other chiefs created the associa-tion primarily to aid in the apprehension and returnof wanted persons who fled local jurisdictions.As early as 1897 the organization began workingtoward the national identification of criminals andthe compilation of crime statistics. The chiefsbelieved this information would not only help themfight crime, but would also serve as a managementtool to help them measure the crime fighting activities
of their officers. Toward these ends, they beganto collect data from member chiefs and in 1924the IACP’s criminal identification files became thebasis of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s(FBI’s) Identification Division. In 1930 these fileswere turned over to the FBI to form the beginningof the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
Virtually all the early police chiefs whose namesare associated with police reform were membersof the IACP. Seavey was president of the NationalUnion of Chiefs of Police and Washington, D.C.,police chief Richard Sylvester was the first IACPpresident. Berkeley, California, police chief AugustVollmer, an early advocate of advanced educationand training for police, was president in 1914. Manyissues were discussed at the annual meetings,including police involvement with their cities’homeless populations, many of whom slept in policestations in the years prior to other provisions beingmade for them; the responsibility of police for com-bating juvenile delinquency; the role of women inpolicing; the introduction of technology into polic-ing, including the telegraph, the telephone, and latercars and motorcycles; and scientific crime detectionincluding the use of fingerprint technology.
In 1934 the IACP and the FBI established theFBI National Academy (FBINA), where municipaland state police leaders went for advanced training.Initially located in Washington, D.C., the FBINAwas later relocated to the Marine Corps base inQuantico, Virginia, where ranking officers continueto go for management training. The IACP alsobegan publication of the Police Chiefs Newsletter,the forerunner of The Police Chief, the monthlymagazine that describes itself today as the “profes-sional voice of law enforcement.” In 1940 theIACP established its first headquarters office inWashington, D.C., where the staff remained until1992, when the IACP purchased a building at 515North Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia, andrelocated staff and activities to the new site.
The association’s goals are to advance the art andscience of police services; to develop and dissemi-nate improved administrative, technical, and opera-tional practices and promote their use in lawenforcement; to promote police cooperation and the
724—�—International Association of Chiefs of Police
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 724
exchange of intelligence, information, and experienceamong police administrators throughout the world;to bring about recruitment and training in the policeprofession of qualified individuals; and to encour-age adherence of all police officers to high profes-sional standards of performance and conduct. Tothis end the IACP has developed a host of programsand initiatives through its Research Center. Thecenter’s mission is to identify issues in law enforce-ment and to conduct timely policy research, evalua-tion, follow-up training, and technical assistanceand to provide information and direction to lawenforcement leaders, the criminal justice system,and the community. Programs and initiatives havecovered a vast array of policing issues, includingnational policy development, policy recommenda-tions and reports, technology projects, improvingpolice-based victim services, violence againstwomen, technical assistance for smaller policedepartments, and education and training of policepersonnel. All the information developed by thecenter is available to the law enforcement commu-nity at little or no cost.
To keep pace with 21st century technology, theIACP has formed the Law Enforcement InformationTechnology Standards Council (LEITSC), whichwill provide a voice for the law enforcement andcriminal justice community in the advancement ofinformation technology (IT) standards. The purposeof LEITSC is to foster the growth of strategic plan-ning and implementation of integrated IT systemsin law enforcement and criminal justice. The coun-cil plans to accomplish this mission by promotingthe merits of information technology standards;providing advice to the law enforcement commu-nity at large on the technical aspects of IT stan-dards; sharing practical solutions; and representingthe entire criminal justice system in the expansionof justice and public safety information technologystandards. In this way, the IACP will attempt tofacilitate the integration of all the criminal justiceinformation systems nationally by influencing thedevelopment of information technology standardsand protocols that will meet the technical, practical,and political needs of law enforcement within thecriminal justice community.
The IACP has worked toward expanding itsservices throughout the world in other ways. Sincethe 1990s, the IACP has been expanding worldwideto become international in more than name. It hasencouraged wider attendance at its annual meeting,the largest law enforcement gathering in the world,and has increased the number of smaller confer-ences that it sponsors outside of North America,since the annual conference has historically been inmajor U.S. or Canadian cities. In 2002 the IACPheld two international executive policing confer-ences, one in Budapest, Hungary, and another inBrasilia, Brazil. In 2002, at the 109th annual con-ference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, translationservices were provided in French, Spanish, andPortuguese for six of its workshops, both generalassemblies, and the opening ceremonies. Indicatingthe international focus of policing, the conference,now called an education and technology exposition,attracted close to 13,000 people representing 48nations. In addition to conducting the association’sbusiness and receiving training, attendees were ableto view exhibits sponsored by almost 800 vendorsand law enforcement agencies promoting theirservices.
Steven D. Cherry
For Further Reading
International Association of Chiefs of Police. [Online].Available: http://www.theiacp.org.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (1994).The IACP today: From 1893 to 1993, a century of servinglaw enforcement. Alexandria VA: Author.
Sterling, J. W. (1994, October). A history of the IACP insignia.The Police Chief, pp. 125–141.
� INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF WOMEN POLICE
The International Association of Women Police(IAWP) was formed in 1956 as a continuation of theInternational Association of Policewomen (IAP),which was founded in 1915 and discontinued in 1932.Membership is open to all sworn law enforcement
International Association of Women Police—�—725
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 725
officers—male and female—around the world;nonsworn officers and those in related fields are eli-gible for associate membership. Primarily an orga-nization of women law enforcement professionalsfrom almost 50 countries worldwide, approximately5% of the IAWP’s membership is male. As of mid-2002, membership was approximately 2,500, withan additional 4,000 officers in affiliated chaptersaround the world. The association sponsors anannual training conference, usually in the fall, andpublishes a quarterly magazine titled Women Police.
The IAWP traces its origins to the IAP, foundedin 1915 by Alice Stebbins Wells, who in 1910 wasgiven the title “policewoman” by the City of LosAngeles Police Department (LAPD). Although notactually the first policewoman in the United States,she is generally considered to be the first person tohave been officially designated with that rank.
Stebbins Wells, a graduate theology student andsocial worker who campaigned actively for her posi-tion with the LAPD, pioneered preventive protec-tion principles for youth. On May 18, 1915, whileattending a meeting of the National Conference ofCharities and Correction (NCCC), Stebbins Wellsand a small number of policewomen formed theIAP. The NCCC (later the National Conference ofSocial Work, NCSW) was a group through whichwomen prison reformers and social service profes-sionals had increased their influence on socialpolicy. Although members of the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 1922passed a resolution supporting policewomen, thesocial work background of most of the policewomenmade the NCCC a more appropriate fit than theIACP for their outlooks and concerns. Until the IAPdisbanded in 1932, it met each year as an adjunct ofthe NCCC (later NCSW) meetings, not with theIACP. While the IAP is often viewed as a casualtyof the Great Depression, the more direct cause ofits demise was the death of Lieutenant Mina VanWinkle, the director of the Washington, D.C., PoliceDepartment’s women’s bureau. Van Winkle, who in1920 succeeded Stebbins Wells as president of theIAP, had also provided financial support to the groupfrom personal and family resources.
In 1956, at a meeting of the Women PeaceOfficers of California, in San Diego, the remnants
of the IAP became the present-day IAWP when theorganization was reestablished by Dr. Lois LundellHiggins. A 30-year veteran of the Chicago PoliceDepartment, Higgins held the presidency for 8years and served an additional 12 years as executivedirector. The IAWP at this time, through its consti-tution and its activities, promoted separate women’sbureaus. Many women felt this was their ownopportunity for advancement since, before 1968,these women were never on uniformed patrol.
Reflecting on the changing role of women in polic-ing, in 1972 the IAWP deleted from its constitutionthe clause encouraging the establishment of women’sbureaus in police departments and in 1976 extendedvoting membership to men in law enforcement.
Somewhat earlier (in 1963), annual conferenceshad replaced biennial meetings and in 1978 the pre-sent five-day training format was instituted. Trainingtopics today, often provided by expert practitioners,cover all facets of police activity. The conferences,which attract upward of 750 people, also serve as aforum for reporting on developments in law enforce-ment and for publicizing women’s advancement andaccomplishments in policing. Although historicallyconferences were held only in the United States orCanada, recent sites reflect the increasingly interna-tional outlook of the association and its success inenrolling non-North American members. Inter-national participation in the conferences increasedsubstantially in 1987, in part due to the venue ofNew York City and in part due to participation by anumber of IAWP members at other internationalwomen’s police gatherings. Since then, the 1996meeting was held in Birmingham, England (in con-junction with the European Network of Policewomen),and the 2002 conference was in Canberra, Australia(in conjunction with the Australasian Council ofWomen and Policing).
In 1979 the Woman Officer of the Year Awardwas instituted. This award has traditionally gone toa woman who exhibits not only bravery and valor,but who is involved with community projects andwho exemplifies the ideas of policing as a multifac-eted public service. To be eligible for the award,a candidate must be recommended by her chief. Sincethe late 1980s the IAWP has used money from abenefactor to support an International Officer
726—�—International Association of Women Police
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 726
Scholarship for a woman from a country other thanthe United States or Canada. The recipient of theaward traditionally attends the annual conferenceand speaks about police practices in her country.Many have retained their ties with the organizationand provided a link with new members in countriesthat were previously unrepresented. In 1998 theIAWP developed an Adopt a Member Program,which encourages members to sponsor (or adopt) awoman from a country where police salaries are lowand who would be unlikely to join if she had to paythe annual membership fee on her own. Sponsorsare urged to overcome language and cultural barriersby corresponding with their adoptees.
In recent years, as women’s roles in policing haveexpanded, the IAWP has also become involved insuch issues as state (U.S.) and provincial (Canadian)car licensing procedures, U.S. gun control, transportof firearms across state lines, missing children, andserial murder programs. The IAWP also underwritesand staffs an informational booth at the annual IACPconferences and has worked closely with theNational Law Enforcement Officers Police Memorialto ensure that women are represented on the memo-rial itself and at annual commemoration ceremoniesin Washington, D.C., each May.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
International Association of Women Police. [Online].Available: http://www.iawp.org
Schulz, D. M. (1995). From social worker to crimefighter:Women in United States municipal police. Westport, CT:Praeger.
Schulz, D. M. (1998). Bridging boundaries: United Statespolicewomen’s efforts to form an international network.International Journal of Police Science and Management1, 70–80.
� INTERNATIONAL TRADEADMINISTRATION,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The International Trade Administration (ITA) wascreated by Congress on January 2, 1980, to protectdomestic industries from unfair foreign trade practices.
In addition to a number of advisory roles, the ITA isresponsible for ensuring that foreign governmentsabide by U.S. trade laws. The trade law enforce-ment role has grown over the years as more indus-tries have sought trade protection. ITA agents workto ensure international compliance with the tradeagreements, to eliminate market barriers for exports,and to promote trade.
Located within the Department of Commerce,the ITA has four divisions: Market and Access andCompliance, Commercial Service, Trade Develop-ment, and the Import Administration. The MarketAccess and Compliance unit keeps world marketsopen to U.S products. Country specialists identifypossible barriers and work with governments toremove obstacles to international trade. Within thisunit, the Trade Compliance Center monitors, inves-tigates, and evaluates foreign compliance withAmerican trade agreements.
The Commercial Service unit helps U.S. busi-nesses engaged in exporting. Staff members pro-vide businesses with market information, tradeleads, overseas contacts, and promotional opportu-nities. The Domestic Export Assistance Centers,with staff stationed at embassies and consulatesaround the world, provide businesses with exportcounseling. The Trade Development unit promotesU.S. companies, supports trade negotiations, andanalyzes markets. Its Advocacy Center assists busi-nesses to win overseas contracts and its TradeInformation Center provides data on all governmentexport assistance programs. In addition, informa-tion and assistance is provided on general andcountry-specific export regulations; internationalmarket research and trade leads and sources ofexport finance; advice on export licenses andcontrols; and opportunities for U.S. companies incountry-specific markets. These services aredesigned to minimize the difficulties in doing busi-ness overseas and to assist U.S. companies infollowing the laws of the nations in which theywant to operate. To facilitate adhering to all legalrequirements, trade center staff maintain lists offoreign contact information, lists of trade publications,and calendars of trade events. Last, the ImportAdministration helps defend American companiesagainst foreign governments that are subsidizing
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce—�—727
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 727
the exports of their own businesses or selling theirproducts below market prices in this country.
To assist in meeting its goals, the ITA’s Web siteprovides links to many sources of business infor-mation. Information on the legal aspects of interna-tional trade and investment is provided through theChief Counsel for Industry and Security (formerlythe Office of the Chief Counsel for InternationalCommerce), which administers and enforces U.S.export controls. There are also links to researchaids such as trade and industry data, includingTradeStats Express and Export America Magazine.As economic globalism continues even in the faceof terrorist threats around the world, agents of theITA will continue to work with American business-people overseas not only to keep open foreign mar-kets but to enforce trade laws by ensuring that U.S.firms are in compliance with international laws andthat foreign firms are in compliance with U.S. laws.
Sandra Shoiock Roff
For Further Reading
Aaron, D. (1998). The International Trade Administration inchanging times. Business America, 119, 2–4.
Export.gov. [Online]. Available: http://www.ita.doc.gov/Hansen, W. L. (1990). The International Trade Commission
and the politics of protectionism. American PoliticalScience Review, 84, 21–46.
Hansen, W. L., & Park, K. O. (1995). Nation-state and plural-istic decision making in trade policy: The case of theInternational Trade Administration. International StudiesQuarterly, 39, 181–211.
� INTERNET FRAUDCOMPLAINT CENTER
The Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC) wascreated in May 2000 as a partnership betweenthe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and theNational White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). TheIFCC is a federally funded, not-for-profit organiza-tion, based in Morgantown, West Virginia. At itsinception the IFCC staff consisted of 12 FBI agentsand 25 employees of the NW3C, with an annualbudget of $12 million. In February 2002, the IFCC
was the recipient of the Excellence in GovernmentAward, which is an award given to federal govern-ment agencies that have demonstrated innovativeelectronic government initiatives.
The IFCC’s primary function is to act as a clear-inghouse for Internet fraud complaints filed byvictims. Because a victim of Internet fraud oftendoes not know where to file a complaint, the IFCCcentralizes this function and disseminates complaintsto the proper jurisdictional authority. Complaints canbe filed via the IFCC Web site (http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp) 24 hours a day, seven days a weekfor all types of Internet fraud—auction fraud, nonde-livery of merchandise, credit card fraud, investmentfraud, business fraud, confidence fraud, identitytheft, check fraud, and Nigerian letter fraud. Theinformation is collected, entered into a database, ana-lyzed to determine patterns or trends, and dissemi-nated to the appropriate federal, state, or local lawenforcement and regulatory agencies.
In its first full year of operation, 2001, the IFCCreceived approximately 50,000 complaints and17,000 reports of fraud were referred to law enforce-ment or regulatory agencies. Total loss from thesecases was $17.8 million. In the second full year ofoperation complaints rose to 75,063 and referralsalmost tripled. The associated loss was $54 million.
For the consumer, the IFCC provides a central-ized way to file a complaint of Internet fraudregardless of jurisdiction. The IFCC determineswhich agencies have jurisdiction and forwards thecomplaint to them. The consumer only needsthe Web site address and the details pertaining tothe fraud. When filing a complaint, the informationrequested is similar to that found on a standardpolice complaint report, such as name, address, andnature of complaint. In addition, specific informa-tion about the fraud should be included, forexample, transaction numbers, auctions sites, andelectronic payment documentation.
Once a complaint is received, IFCC analystsreview it and check it against their fraudulent com-plaint database to determine if there have been othercomplaints against the same party. If there is amatch, the complaint is grouped with the othersand reviewed by the same analyst. The IFCC may
728—�—Internet Fraud Complaint Center
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 728
conduct a preliminary investigation, which includesthe number of victims and the dollar loss. The IFCCthen forwards this information to all relevant agen-cies with jurisdiction, including a copy of eachcomplaint, results of various database checks on thesubject, and lists of agencies receiving the reportwith contacts and phone numbers. The IFCC willcommunicate with agencies electronically, by fax,and by mail. The IFCC does not dictate whichagency should investigate but leaves it up to theindividual agencies to coordinate so that a duplica-tion of work does not occur.
Agencies that want to receive information fromthe IFCC must file a memorandum of understandingwith the National White Collar Crime Center. Theseagencies may be law enforcement, regulatoryenforcement, civil enforcement, or administrativeauthority. The IFCC maintains the highest level ofconfidentiality. Inquiring agencies will never be toldif another agency is investigating. However, they canbe advised if the subject of the complaint has beenthe subject of other complaints and from what loca-tions. It is up to the agencies to contact each other.
What makes the IFCC unique and effective isits ability to centralize and disseminate informationregardless of location and to identify patterns. Whatappears to be an isolated incident may be linked toothers, forming a pattern. Isolated incidents mayappear to be minor, but collectively the losses cantotal millions of dollars. Losses of some proportionmight prompt agencies to coordinate and perhapsconduct joint investigations. This linking technologyallows police agencies and, upon arrest, prosecutorsto see that the perpetrator has scammed other people.
Consumers should be aware that each time theIFCC Web site is accessed certain information isrecorded and tracked. This information includes thedomain, date and time of access, Internet address ofthe computer from which the site was accessed, andspecific page visited. This tracking information isforwarded to the agencies along with the complaint.Even if a referral is not made at that time, the track-ing information is maintained and could be avail-able for retrieval at a later date.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,the IFCC Web site was utilized to collect tips on
terrorists. The IFCC was chosen due to its ability tocollect and organize data and disseminate it to lawenforcement agencies regardless of whether theyare federal, state, or local and it continues to playthis role in homeland security.
Jacqueline D. Mege
For Further Reading
Corr, K. (2002, May). Internet Fraud Complaint Center. Lawand Order, pp. 38–43.
Government launches center to combat Web-based fraud.(2000, May 9). Wall Street Journal, p. A2.
Internet Fraud Complaint Center. (2002). IFCC 2001 Internetfraud report, January 1, 2001–December 31, 2001.Morgantown, WV: National White Collar Crime Center.[Online]. Available: http://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/IFCC-2001-AnnualReport.pdf
Internet Fraud Complaint Center. (2003). IFCC 2002 Internetfraud report, January 1,2002–December 31,2002.Morgantown, WV: National White Collar Crime Center.[Online]. Available: htttp://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/IFCC-2002-AnnualReport.pdf
Johnston, R. (2002, January). The battle against white-collarcrime. USA Today Magazine, p. 130.
� INTERSTATECOMMERCE COMMISSION
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) wasestablished in 1887 as an independent agency of thefederal government with the responsibility for regu-lating railroads and water carriers. During the 108years of its existence, the ICC’s jurisdiction grew toinclude all surface forms of transportation includingbus lines, railroads, trucking companies, water carri-ers, freight forwarders, and transportation brokers.In 1995, Congress abolished the ICC and transferredsome of the functions and staff to the Department ofTransportation. Regulatory responsibilities had beenreduced by Congress during the previous 15 years.The workforce of more than 2,000 employees hadbeen reduced to around 400 employees by 1995.
The history of the ICC is important to the studyof law enforcement because many precedent-settingcourt cases were brought by the ICC against trans-portation companies. Law enforcement professionals
Interstate Commerce Commission—�—729
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 729
investigated irregularities in the practices oftransportation companies. Their goal was to ensurethat the transportation companies were providingfair and reasonable rates and services to the public,whether they used then-existing transportationmodes for shipping or for their own travels.
The Interstate Commerce Commission wasestablished by an act of Congress passed on February4, 1887, called the Interstate Commerce Act, tomonitor interstate railroads and water transportationsystems. Congress acted after years of complaintsfrom small farmers and shippers about the railroadsusing their monopolistic power to drive up rates.Congress gave the ICC the power to investigate thebusiness operations of transportation companies andto require those companies to file annual reportswith specified data. An ICC commissioner couldrequest that the company stop the unfair behaviorand make payment for any injury done. Shouldthe transportation company refuse, then the com-missioner was empowered to use the federal courtsystem to enforce ICC regulations.
Over the years Congress added to the powers ofthe ICC. The ability to set rates and fine companieswas not explicitly stated in the original act of 1887.When the ICC commissioners tried to enforce justand reasonable rates, the railroads fought backthrough the courts. In 1897 the case of InterstateCommerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleansand Texas Pacific Railway Company was decidedin favor of the railroads. Subsequently the ICCrequested that Congress pass specific legislationgiving the ICC the ability to set rates. With theHepburn Act in 1906 Congress granted the ICC thepower to set a federal ceiling on rates and to finecompanies that violate the orders of the ICC. Onceagain the railroad industry tried to curb the rate-setting ability of the ICC through the courts. But in1913, with the case of Delaware, Lackawanna, &Western Railroad Co. v. United States, the SupremeCourt upheld the rate-setting power of the ICC.
Other functions of the ICC included makingrulings about proposed mergers or acquisitions bytransportation companies. All common carriers had
to obtain certification from the ICC. Regulationswere established for accounting procedures, inven-tory and distribution of equipment, and rebating.The ICC also had to approve new construction orabandonment of railroad lines. Small businessesused the ICC for filing protests on shipping ratesor filing requests for extension of service to geo-graphic areas not currently serviced.
The role of protecting railroad workers becamepart of the ICC’s function after legislation waspassed in 1933. During the 1920s, the railroadswere consolidating, cutting costs, and laying offworkers. In 1933 Congress passed the EmergencyRailroad Transportation Act, which set a three-yearfreeze on employment levels for railroads. The ICCthen issued regulations that required dismissed orlaid-off railway workers to be given protection withcompensation and benefits. Even with the legisla-tion that abolished the ICC in 1995, Congressincluded protection for workers of midsized railroadsthat downsized due to mergers.
When the ICC was abolished, newspapers wroteof the Interstate Commerce Commission as the“once-mighty oak.” Despite criticism for wieldinggreat power during stages of its 108-year history,the ICC played a critical role in developing the trans-portation industry in this country and in developingthe legal balance of regulatory power betweengovernment and big industry.
Gretchen Gross
For Further Reading
Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Co. v. UnitedStates, 231 U.S. 363 (1913).
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleansand Texas Pacific Railway Company, 167 U.S. 479(1897).
Interstate commission abolished. (1996). CongressionalQuarterly Almanac, 51, 3–38.
Stone, R. D., & Landry, M. (2002). The decline and rise of theInterstate Commerce Commission. Journal ofTransportation Law, Logistics and Policy, 70, 64–78.
The United States government manual. (1995). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
730—�—Interstate Commerce Commission
I-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 730
J� JOINT TASK FORCES
The fragmented nature of federal law enforcementhas meant that different agencies have differentareas of responsibility. Although various agenciesmay enforce different laws and concentrate on dif-ferent crimes, criminal acts have always crossedjurisdictional boundaries, whether defined by geog-raphy or statutory functions. Joint task forcesemerged in the 1970s as a management tool to over-come the autonomy of law enforcement agencies.
A task force is any group of officers who areemployed by different agencies assigned to worktogether on a specific case or specific types ofcases. In addition to personnel, agencies formingtask forces may commit other resources, includinginvestigative records, surveillance equipment, cleri-cal support, and such common tools as vehicles,telephones, and office space for the task force touse. Members of the task force are often given jointpowers and jurisdictions, so that federal officers areable to enforce state laws and so that state and localofficers may engage in police activities outside theirnormal jurisdictions. For task forces to operate suc-cessfully, agencies and their personnel must putaside individual goals to achieve larger goals.
Task forces represent an important departurefrom the older, go-it-alone mentality that previouslyexisted in most agencies. These task forces confronted
the reality of the need for interagency cooperationwhile balancing criminal justice goals. Limitedresources and personnel also propelled agenciesinto task force arrangements of varied structure andduration. The sophistication and mobility of manycriminals and organized criminal enterprises alsomade it necessary for law enforcement agencies topool their resources to keep up with those they wereinvestigating.
Federal tasks forces have specialized in organizedcrime and drug trafficking investigations. Early taskforces targeted bank robberies and kidnappings,while more recent task forces, since the 1990s andinto the 21st century, have been created to stemdomestic and international terrorism. Each of thesetypes of cases shares in common the complexity ofthe investigations and the mobility of the criminalactors. Their reliance of law enforcement agencieson joint operations was also encouraged by researchin the 1980s that identified the multiagencyapproach to crime control and policy as an importantsolution to almost any crisis affecting cities.
TASK FORCE ENTITIES
Task forces may be comprised of any number ofagencies and may involve agencies that crisscrossmany jurisdictions. Although some task forces aremade up solely of officers from different federal
731
J-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 731
law enforcement agencies, many task forces alsoinvolve nonfederal officers. These types of combi-nations traditionally rely on the federal agencies forinvestigative experience and technological expertiseand on the local police for contacts, informants, anda more general knowledge of criminals working inthe area. Issues of funding, concurrent or overlap-ping jurisdiction, and elevated identification ofcommunity safety and interest all contribute to theformation of interagency efforts.
Federal task forces have played a major rolein drug enforcement. The Organized Crime DrugEnforcement Task Forces (OCEDTF) and HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) taskforces realized unprecedented funding and supportwhile engaging any variety of federal, foreign,state, and local partnerships. OCEDTF and HIDTAtask forces received approximately $140 millionin 2000 to support a vast network of international,national, state, and local partnerships. Since the1990s, a variety of task forces have also been cre-ated to address non-drug-related issues, includingchild pornography, computer and health care fraud,and violent crime initiatives. Many of these havecontinued in operation into the 21st century.
TASK FORCE ADMINISTRATION
Task forces are designed to undertake specificinvestigations while skirting the usual agencyhierarchies and addressing collective crime prob-lems. Task forces generally fall within three struc-tural categories: ad hoc, major case, or permanentco-location. Task forces involve varied combinationsof federal, foreign, state, and local police agencies.
The ad hoc task force is a form of liaison charac-terized by telephone contacts and infrequent meet-ings regarding an ongoing criminal matter of mutualinterest. Personnel and resources are not usuallycommingled and intelligence sharing is limited by aneed-to know prerogative. At the conclusion of sucha task force, all the participating agencies mayappear together at a joint press conference so thateach receives its share of the publicity surroundingsuccessful completion of the investigation.
Major case task forces are generally formedspecifically to target a single investigation and aredispersed upon completion. Major case task forcesoften involve temporary co-location of supervisorsand street investigators. Intelligence sharing andcredit claiming are coordinated throughout theinvestigation. By their nature, these task forcesinvolve high profile matters such as acts of terror-ism, kidnappings, or major business frauds.
Permanent, co-located task forces are long-termcommitments and focus on general categories ofcrime. These ventures always involve issues of taskforce control and leadership, mission consensus,security clearances, federal deputation of state orlocal officials, thorough memorandums of under-standing among involved agencies, budgeted fund-ing, multiagency on-site supervision, division ofresource allocation and responsibility, and the oftencited intelligence sharing dilemma. Joint and coor-dinated press releases are expected. The permanentnature of these task forces requires careful staffingof street managers and investigators. Continuedparticipation of agencies is likely to change overtime as primary agency duties dictate.
For task forces to succeed they must be sup-ported from the most senior managers. Personnelassigned to these ventures are usually the mostexperienced investigators both in case work and ininteragency relations. Consensus management isexpected. Task force success is usually measuredin law enforcement language of arrests, warrants, andseizure/forfeiture statistics. However, its true legacyis found in the enduring law enforcement relationsit generates securing the protection and safety oftheir mutual constituencies. Agency primacy andautonomy is relinquished in favor of future relationsand investigative matters. Successful task forceshave addressed many areas of crime. Some of themore successful prosecutions included the PizzaConnection investigation in the 1980s that wasdirected against the Sicilian Mafia, a large numberof drug cases in the 1980s and 1990s, and healthcare fraud in 1997.
Katherine M. Newbold
732—�—Joint Task Forces
J-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 732
For Further Reading
Bottoms, A. E. (1990). Crime prevention facing the 1990s.Policing and Society, 1, 3–22.
Guiliani, R. W. (1985). Organizing law enforcement as well asorganized crime. Public Administration Review 45,712–717.
Sampson, A., Stubbs, P., Smith, D., Pearson, G., & Blagg, H.(1988). Crime, localities, and the multi-agency approach.British Journal of Criminology, 28, 478–493.
Joint Task Forces—�—733
J-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:33 PM Page 733
L� LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
The Law Enforcement Assistance Administrationwas created in response to concern about crimein the United States. The President’s Commissionon Law Enforcement and the Administration ofJustice established in 1965 by President Lyndon B.Johnson recommended that a federal agency beestablished within the Department of Justice toassist states in controlling crime. That same year theOffice of Law Enforcement Assistance was created;it provided federal funds to states and localitiesdirected toward improving criminal justice agen-cies, especially the police. Three years later, onJune 19, 1968, the Omnibus Crime Control andSafe Streets Act was signed into law.
Title I of this legislation contained five majorprovisions that (1) created the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration (LEAA) within theDepartment of Justice, (2) provided grants to statesfor operating planning agencies to develop criminaljustice plans, (3) made action grant funds availableto the states, (4) established a National Instituteof Law Enforcement and Research within LEAA,and (5) provided funding for the first four. Theseprovisions were designed to achieve three goals:to encourage comprehensive planning by statesand municipalities, to direct grants toward the
improvement of law enforcement, and to encourageresearch and development programs for the improve-ment of law enforcement.
There were five offices within the agency, theOffice of Administration, Office of Law Enforce-ment Programs, the National Institute of LawEnforcement and Criminal Justice, the Office ofAcademic Assistance, and the National CriminalJustice Information Statistics Service. Regionaloffices were responsible for assisting and oversee-ing grants issued to the states. During the first yearof operation LEAA provided funds to states toestablish state planning agencies (SPAs) that wereresponsible for assessing the criminal justice sys-tem and developing proposals that would guideexpenditures of the federal grants. After LEAAapproved a state’s plan, funding for planning andaction grants was released. By December 1968,each state had established an SPA.
LEAA disbursed funds for the improvement ofstate and local criminal justice systems through itsaction block grant program. Initially, most fundingwent to law enforcement agencies; later, courts, cor-rections, juvenile justice agencies, and communityanticrime programs were funded as well. LEAA alsoadministered a discretionary grant program.
LEAA was instrumental in what is now referredto as the research revolution. The National Instituteon Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice funded
735
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 735
numerous research projects that led to importantreforms in police work. The Kansas City PreventivePatrol Experiment, studies of criminal investiga-tions, rapid response time, fear of crime, foot patrol,and numerous other topics, challenged traditionalassumptions about policing and contributed to newoperational strategies including community polic-ing. Over time, LEAA funded important researchprojects related to criminal justice agencies otherthan the police.
During its brief existence, LEAA also fundeda number of innovative programs, projects, work-shops, and conferences. National programs includedCareer Criminals, Citizens’ Initiative, High ImpactAnti-Crime, and Pilot Cities. Another importantprogram, the Law Enforcement Education Program,provided financial assistance to criminal justiceprofessionals to continue their higher education.Special projects included the National CrimeSurvey, the National Advisory Commission onCriminal Justice Standards and Goals, and theNational Institute of Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice. LEAA also spearheaded numerous techno-logical advancements including the development ofinformation systems, bulletproof vests, and forensicapplication of DNA technology.
LEAA was abolished during President JimmyCarter’s administration as a result of the JusticeSystem Improvement Act (1979) and officially dis-mantled in 1981. Several LEAA initiatives are carriedout today in other Department of Justice bureaus.
Helen Taylor-Greene
For Further Reading
Feeley, M. M., & Sarat, A. D. (1980). The policy dilemma:Federal crime policy and the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration. Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
Gordon, A. R., & Morris, N. (1985). Presidential commissionsand the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. InL. Curtis (Ed.), American violence and public policy(pp. 117–132). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Navasky, V. S., & Paster, D. (1976). Law enforcement: Thefederal role. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office of Justice Programs. (1997). LEAA/OJP retrospective.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
� LAW ENFORCEMENT RANGERS,NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
The U.S. Organic Act (1916) established as the mis-sion of the National Park Service (NPS) the preser-vation of the natural and cultural resources of theNational Park System for the enjoyment, education,and inspiration of this and future generations. TheNational Park Service, a bureau of the Departmentof the Interior (DOI), in 2004 consisted of 387 indi-vidual parks, monuments, historical sites, battle-fields, recreation areas, and so forth on more than84 million acres. The size of the national park sys-tem has doubled since 1970. The NPS has morethan 20,000 employees and provides service toapproximately 280 million visitors each year. Themission of the law enforcement personnel in theservice is to protect park resources—natural and cul-tural; to protect visitors, employees, and personaland government property; and to provide a safeenvironment in which to enjoy national parklands.
Law enforcement in the parks is largely handledby park rangers, who are commissioned law enforce-ment officers; criminal investigators; special agents;and the U.S. Park Police, who serve in urban unitsof the NPS. Law enforcement (LE) rangers havearrest authority and carry firearms. In addition toenforcing laws and regulations, and detecting andinvestigating crime, LE rangers provide emergencymedical services, search and rescue services, trafficcontrol, and fire prevention and control. LE rangerswork cooperatively with state, local, and other fed-eral agencies. The total budget for the park servicein the 2005 proposed budget is $2.36 billion. Ofthis, approximately $109 million was for lawenforcement and protection and another $250 millionfor visitor safety. In addition, the NPS receivesapproximately $9 million per year in federal drugcontrol funding.
In 2002, more than 100,000 offenses werereported in national park units. The most frequentwere liquor law violations, vandalism, drug posses-sion, and disorderly conduct. Property crime madeup fewer than 5% of the offenses. Violent crimeshave historically been low in park facilities,
736—�—Law Enforcement Rangers, National Park Service
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 736
although drug seizures, primarily marijuana, havebeen increasing in the national parks. Certainoffenses, such as poaching, marijuana cultivation,narcotics smuggling, sale and manufacture of illegaldrugs, and theft of cultural and natural resources,are major problems.
At facilities that abut the U.S./mexican border,drug smuggling and undocumented alien traffickinghave skyrocketed partially due to tighter security atdesignated border entry sites. These illegal activi-ties have caused tremendous damage to the naturalresources of these parks, particularly in Arizonawhere it has been estimated 1,000 undocumentedaliens enter the United States daily. NPS units share365 miles of international border and 72 miles ofshoreline with Mexico. The increased levels of crimehave also contributed to the danger and violencefaced by rangers. In a report from the Department ofJustice, the NPS had the highest annual assault rateper 1,000 officers (39.6) between the years 1997 and2001, almost triple the next highest agency, theImmigration and Naturalization Service. Four parkrangers were killed in the line of duty between 1990and 2004.
HISTORY
Yellowstone, established in 1872, was the firstnational park but the slaughter of wildlife in the newpark continued, since no formal mechanism existedfor the protection of wildlife or natural resources. Inresponse, a scout and mountain man, Harry Yount,was appointed in 1880 as the park’s first game-keeper to enforce hunting limits and protectYellowstone’s unique geological features. Yount,considered the first park ranger, resigned after oneyear citing the impossibility of his task and recom-mending creation of a small police force. In 1883,Congress authorized U.S. Army Cavalry troops topatrol the park and the appointment of 10 assistantsuperintendents as a civilian police force. The Sec-retary of the Interior did not utilize the troops andwildlife slaughter continued unabated. In 1886,Congress refused to provide additional resourcesfor the force and the Secretary of the Interior wasforced to bring in Cavalry troops. This arrangement
continued for 30 years with the commander of thetroops acting as the park superintendent and report-ing directly to the Secretary of the Interior. Approxi-mately 150 troops were assigned to Yellowstone andothers were assigned to national parks as they werecreated by Congress.
In 1916 the National Park Service was estab-lished under the DOI to oversee the 14 nationalparks and 21 national monuments. The Organic Act(16 U.S.C. l, 2, 3, and 4) consolidated various civil-ian scout and assistant superintendent positions intoone civilian ranger force that assumed the dutiesof the military troops needed for World War I. TheOrganic Act also empowered the DOI to createrules and regulations for the use and managementof parklands. The first director of the NPS, StephenT. Mather, believed in the necessity of a uniformedpolice force. His view was that the primary duty ofthe ranger force was to protect park resources. Asvisitation rose, the ranger force was given addi-tional duties to enforce federal law and governmentregulations, including general policing of the park,educating the public on rules protecting fish andgame, enforcing laws and regulations, makingarrests, and regulating traffic.
Visibility of the law enforcement role of theranger force varied by the particular park and wassubject to the discretion of superintendents. No uni-form policies existed and for the next 30 years thetasks assigned to the ranger force were diversified.In addition to maintaining public order, rangerswere used to perform maintenance, fight fires, managewildlife and resources, and provide interpretationalmaterials for visitors. The ranger’s law enforcementrole was subsumed by some of these other activitiesas the NPS increasingly altered its focus from lawenforcement to the promotion of the parks as peace-ful, pristine places in order to build public and con-gressional support.
In 1970, the inadequacy of law enforcementefforts came to light when acts of civil disobedienceby a large gathering of youth in YellowstoneNational Park resulted in riots and 170 arrests. Thisexposed the need for improved training concentrat-ing on modern law enforcement techniques andcrowd control. In 1972 a Branch of Protection and
Law Enforcement Rangers, National Park Service—�—737
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 737
Law Enforcement was established within the VisitorServices Division. The branch was responsible forthe oversight of LE ranger operations nationallyand was an attempt to centralize oversight of lawenforcement efforts, although park superintendentsmaintained supervisory responsibility. Subsequentyears saw efforts to professionalize the LE rangersby the addition of police academy training programsand standardized reporting procedures. In responseto the death of a ranger in 1973, new policies requir-ing LE rangers to be armed at all times, establishingnational standards for law enforcement training,and establishing criteria for the delegation of lawenforcement authority and the use of firearms anddefensive equipment were enacted.
In 1976 the Authorities Bill (16 U.S.C. 1a-6)codified the statutory authority of the NPS to desig-nate employees to maintain law and order and pro-tect persons and property in the national parks.These powers included the ability to carry firearms,make arrests for any federal offense, execute war-rants, and conduct investigations. During the late1970s and early 1980s, a restructuring of the rangerclassification system downgraded the service levelof new and existing LE rangers. NPS managementmade law enforcement an unattractive career pathand many LE rangers left for higher-paying posi-tions in federal, state, and local law enforcement.After a series of grievances and the introductionof new management, in 1992 special agent andspecial agent supervisory positions were created inWashington, D.C., to coordinate criminal investiga-tions. Shortly after, the NPS clarified law enforce-ment policy, declared law enforcement to be anindispensable component of NPS operations, andidentified LE rangers as the core of the protectionworkforce who should aggressively combat crimi-nal activity in the parks.
ORGANIZATION
As a result of an increased need for homelandsecurity and as a response to a 2002 study bythe Interior inspector general, the secretary of theInterior appointed a deputy assistant secretaryresponsible for law enforcement and security, who
also coordinates training and supervision of the fiveDOI bureaus with law enforcement personnel. Eachbureau was directed to appoint a director of lawenforcement to establish a separate law enforce-ment chain of command. The NPS created a newassociate director for Visitor and Resource Protection,who acts as the chief ranger and who is responsiblefor managing NPS law enforcement and emergencyservices, fire and aviation, risk management, wilder-ness management, and wireless communications.The chief ranger also serves on the DOI LawEnforcement and Security Board of Advisors, whichacts to unify security policy, programs, and coordi-nation among bureaus. Under the DOI’s direction,the NPS is moving to centralize supervision of lawenforcement personnel under managers who havelaw enforcement training and experience ratherthan individual park superintendents. New chains ofcommand are being established so that specialagents and rangers with law enforcement dutieswould ultimately report to the chief ranger.
The NPS is organized into seven regions and aregional director supervises park superintendentswho head each park. All LE personnel previouslyreported to park superintendents and funding forlaw enforcement was taken out of each park’s bud-get giving discretionary control to the park superin-tendents. This did not prove optimal for lawenforcement, which has received greater resourcesthrough creation of the National Leadership Council(NLC) consisting of the director, deputy director,associate directors, seven regional directors, and theU.S. Park Police chief. In late 2002, the NLCformed the Protection Ranger Leadership Board toadvise the council on law enforcement policy andoperational issues.
In 2002, the NPS had 1,549 park rangers com-missioned as law enforcement officers and 56 spe-cial agents; 83% of LE rangers were male and 10%had minority backgrounds. Rangers are hired at theGS-5 to GS-9 levels depending on college degreesand experience. Candidates receive 20 weeks ofbasic law enforcement training at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.An additional 12 weeks of field training is pro-vided, usually at one of the larger parks. LE rangers
738—�—Law Enforcement Rangers, National Park Service
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 738
are eligible to become criminal investigators afterthree years of experience as commissioned LErangers. Criminal investigators receive 10 weeksof specialized training that covers investigativeconcepts and techniques, investigative technology,human behavior, and law. New hires may advanceto the GS-9 level after having spent at least one yearat the lower grades.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Over the years, the law enforcement role withinthe NPS has been embraced with varying levels ofcommitment. Since 2000, several reports examin-ing the effectiveness of law enforcement withinthe DOI and its individual bureaus were authoredby the International Association of Chiefs of Police,the Inspector General’s Office of the Department ofthe Interior, and the National Academy of PublicAdministration. The reports call for a more central-ized, standardized approach to law enforcement,improved accountability, the earmarking of fundingfor law enforcement, increases in law enforcementpersonnel, and the installation of an effective inci-dent tracking and management system. Thesereports have identified several strategies to enhanceranger safety, including better training, a communi-cations system that is compatible with other lawenforcement agencies, additional funding for vehiclesand equipment, and regional availability of special-ized technological devices to detect and deter crim-inal activity. The NPS has been slow in addressingmany of the recommendations; however, it is beingchampioned by the DOI and by Congress. Improve-ment in law enforcement within the national parksultimately may depend on appropriate fundingand support as well as a consistent atmosphere ofaccountability.
Katherine B. Killoran
See also U.S. Park Police
For Further Reading
Berkowitz, P. D. (1995). U.S. rangers: The law of the land.Redding, CA: C.A.T. Publishing.
Budget of the United States Government, FY 2005. [Online].Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
Disquieting state of disorder: An assessment of Department ofthe Interior law enforcement. (2002). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the InspectorGeneral. [Online]. Available: http://www.indianz.com/docs/oig/2002-I-014.pdf
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000). Policingthe national parks: 21st century requirements. [Online].Available: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/documents/IACP.pdf
Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, 2002. (2003).Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/02leoka.pdf
Lukas, L. (1999). National Park Service law enforcement: Toconserve and protect. Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse.
National Park Service, Division of Ranger Activities. [Online].Available: http://www.nps.gov
The U.S. Park Police: Focusing priorities, capabilities, andresources for the future. (2001). Washington, DC:National Academy of Public Administration. [Online].Available: http://www.napawash.org/publications.html
Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in lawenforcement (2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
� LAW ENFORCEMENTTELEVISION NETWORK
Technology has changed the way people accom-plish tasks in every area of life, and education isno exception. At one time, correspondence coursesprovided the primary means for students to learnoutside the traditional classroom environment. Theterm distance education or distance learning is a spe-cific instructional delivery that does not constrainthe student to be physically present in the same loca-tion as the instructor. Today, audio, video, andcomputer technologies are more common deliverymodes. Distance education can be as simple asa lecture prerecorded on an audio or videotape or ascomplex as a two-way, real-time audio and videointeraction using videoconferencing equipment. Forlaw enforcement agencies working with limitedbudgets, distance learning represents a cost-effectiveway to provide the training that their employeesmight not receive otherwise.
In 1989, Primedia Workplace Learning (PWPL)created a Law Enforcement Training Network
Law Enforcement Television Network—�—739
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 739
(LETN) that delivers training via satellite orvideotape to law enforcement agencies across theUnited States. LETN focuses on the creation anddelivery of vital emergency response and pre-paredness training, along with providing news andinformation to first-responder professionals and gov-ernment service agencies. Its programs meet state-mandated requirements with topics covering patrol,drug enforcement, legal issues, and professionaldevelopment. PWPL, based in Dallas, Texas, a divi-sion of Primedia, Inc. is a privately owned and oper-ated company and the leading provider of distancelearning. It has more than 1.6 million viewers in theautomotive, banking, fire, health care, industrial, andlaw enforcement markets.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
LETN is known for examining training issues asso-ciated with tragedies and helping the law enforce-ment community gain insight needed for the nextchallenge. Like a cable network for law enforce-ment officers, LETN provides subscribers witha variety of training and educational programs.Viewers can tune into both live and prerecordedprograms on a variety of law enforcement topics.LETN’s satellite feed programs come from suchsources as the International Association of Chiefsof Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, andthe Federal Bureau of Investigation. Once recorded,these programs are broadcast numerous timesduring the course of a month.
Illinois was the first state to introduce this train-ing method. The Illinois Law Enforcement Trainingand Standards Board (ILETSB) needed to delivertraining to part-time officers scattered throughoutthe state and distance learning was the answer. In1997, the ILETSB graduated a class of 200 part-time officers who completed a 12-month intensiveBasic Training Program conducted via television.
Combining curriculum-based training and tech-nology, LETN developed the Specialized Training,Testing and Recordkeeping System (STTAR). Thissystem comes with a desktop computer system thatallows students to view live LETN satellite broadcasts.The system’s touch screen and voice instructions
make computer literacy unnecessary. The STTARprogram also serves as a paperless database, givingdepartments an easy and efficient way to track theirinservice training. A video recorder hookup makesit possible to record live programs or watch prere-corded tapes. Students can take pre- and posttestson the computer and send them electronically toLETN for grading. The Mission Police Department,in Texas, viewed the pretest as an eye-openingexperience for officers going through the training.In order to evaluate the students’ skill levels orknowledge, they are tested before watching a train-ing program. The officers are amazed at how littlethey know about properly handling a crisis situationcompared to what they think they know.
The Mission Police Department is training itsofficers in real life crisis scenarios. LETN is sched-uled one day a week, and officers are rotated toreceive eight hours of training per month. Each pro-gram depicts a situation or an event that officersmay or have encountered and encourages them torethink how to handle it in the future. The feedbackfrom officers is that situations or events shown onvideo are more realistic than reading them in abook. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office in FortLauderdale, Florida, has a state mandatory 40 hourinservice training requirement for all personnel.The certification expires every four years and eachofficer is responsible for renewing the certification.To recertify, officers sit at a terminal located in eachdistrict, watch a training program, and then com-plete an exam. This format frees up personnel forpatrol as opposed to losing an officer for a one- ortwo-day traditional lecture session.
Prompted by the events of September 11, 2001,Primedia Workplace Learning launched an emer-gency preparedness and response initiative thatincludes more than 50 new learning courses fromterrorism to critical incident stress debriefing. Ascriminals continue to take technological leapsahead of police officers across the nation, the cor-nerstone of any law enforcement organization is itsability to educate and train personnel with theutmost advanced technology available.
Denise Zerella
740—�—Law Enforcement Television Network
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 740
For Further Reading
Christenberry, T., & Waggoner, K. (1997, October). Virtuallearning: Distance education for law enforcement. LawEnforcement Bulletin, p. 65.
Clede, B. (1998). Innovations in police training. [Online].Available: http://www.clede.com/Articles/Police/ways.htm
Distance Learning Resource Network. (n.d.). What is distanceeducation? [Online]. Available: http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/whatis.html
Law Enforcement Training Network. (n.d.). The new face ofLETN. [Online]. Available: http://www.pwpl.com/law/
Training via television: Making life safer in the field. (1999,December). Law and Order, pp. 57–58.
� LIBRARY OFCONGRESS POLICE
There are more than 30 small federal police forcesoperating in the District of Columbia. The Libraryof Congress (LOC) Police is one such agency withonly 122 sworn officers and five civilians on staff.The LOC Police operate within the Capitol Hillarea along with the Government Printing Office(GPO) Police and the United States Capitol Police(USCP). All three police forces are part of thelegislative branch of the federal government.
The library was established for the use of Congressby law in 1800. Eventually its services were expandedto the attorney general of the United States and jus-tices of the Supreme Court and to the general publicby 1866. But the institution did not get its own specialpolice agency until 1950. In 1987, LOC police officerswere authorized to carry firearms (a nine-millimeterpistol) and make arrests. Unlike the USCP and theU.S. Supreme Court Police, however, the LOC policeofficers have to leave their weapons at work whenthey go off duty. The LOC police force does not havea single squad car.
LOC police are part of the LOC’s Office ofSecurity, which in fiscal year 2003 submitted abudget request of about $14 million. The Office ofSecurity reports to the librarian of Congress. Thelibrarian is appointed by the U.S. President with theadvice and consent of the Senate.
The major task of the LOC police force is to pro-vide security for the collections, staff, and visitors
to the library, a charge that requires maintaining afine balance between safeguarding one of the mostunique institutions in the world and providingaccess to an open public space that gets 1 millionvisitors annually. Library police are officiallyassigned to one of two 12-hour shifts, working fourdays a week with three days off. They are usuallyscheduled for 10 hours on regular pay and then earntwo hours overtime.
LOC police officers perform a variety of lawenforcement and security functions within sixbuildings and parking lots adjacent to these build-ings, including the Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,James Madison, Library’s Child Care Center,Taylor Street annex, and Landover, Marylandannex. More than 17 million books, 48 million orig-inal manuscripts, 4.4 million maps, and 16 millionaudiovisual materials are monitored by walkingpatrols, visitor control, static posts, and controlroom operations.
The security in the LOC was tightened in the early1990s when it was detected that almost $2 millionworth of printed materials had been stolen from theLibrary’s 532 miles of bookshelves. The stacks arenow blocked by electronic doors to the public and toall but a tenth of Library staff. Police officers moni-tor visitors and the staff by using the metal detectorsat the building’s entries and theft detection system atthe exit points. Researchers have to register in personby presenting a valid photo ID and are allowed tobring only pencils and marked paper into the readingrooms. All reading rooms and stacks are constantlysurveyed by closed circuit television. Missing itemsare now reported to the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation and art dealers, booksellers, and auction housesare alerted immediately.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,events, the Congress began considering a merger ofthe LOC Police, the GPO Police, and the USCPin order to improve the emergency planning andresponse to terrorist attacks, fire alarms, and otherdangerous situations on Capitol Hill. Currently, theLOC Police and the USCP patrol along the samestreets but do not share equipment, security proce-dures, or even radio frequencies. The merger, whichwould cost between $15 million and $26 million,
Library of Congress Police—�—741
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 741
will benefit the LOC police officers by providingthem with a unified chain of command and morevaried assignments, expanding their powers whileoff duty, and bringing better retirement benefits.The librarian of Congress expressed a concern thatsome of the expertise in protecting the library’sunique collections might be lost in a consolidatedforce. If a merger were to take place, the Congresswould have to redefine the role of the librarian andstatutory responsibility for facility and collectionssecurity.
Eighteen percent of LOC police officers werehired and trained between May 2000 and the end of2002. Police candidates must meet a list of minimumeducational requirements, pass a written exam, andundergo an interview, background check, polygraphtest, and psychological and medical evaluations.New police officers complete an eight-week BasicPolice Training Program at the Federal Law Enforce-ment Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, as well asa two-week agency-specific and eight-week on-the-job training program that includes courses in criminallaw, search and seizure, laws of arrest, interviewingtechniques, handling of firearms, first aid, and othersubjects.
Maria Kiriakova
See also Government Printing Office Police, U.S. CapitolPolice
For Further Reading
Love, A. A. (1997, March 30). Guarding the nation’s history.Chicago Sun-Times, p. 56.
Mitgang, H. (1987, August 20). Reacting to document thefts,libraries move to add security. The New York Times, p. C21.
Security bolstered at library. (1995, August 12). TheWashington Post, p. C5.
Thurman, S. (1997, December 5). Safeguarding library trea-sures from theft. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.
U.S. Capitol Police Merger Review. GAO-02-792R [Online].Available: www.gao.gov/new.items/d02792r.pdf
� LINDBERGH LAW
The passage of federal legislation to deal with thecrime of kidnapping has been forever linked to the
1932 kidnapping of the infant son of the famousaviator, Charles A. Lindbergh. In actuality, the lawwas intended to quell the epidemic of kidnappingsthat took place from the end of the roaring twentiesinto the early 1930s in conjunction with criminalturf battles associated with Prohibition and the riseof organized crime. Criminals were kidnappingother criminals as well as wealthy individuals ortheir family members. Reinforcing the associationwith the Lindbergh case, the law, although officiallytitled the Federal Kidnapping Act (18 U.S.C. 1201),is to this day popularly referred to as the LindberghLaw.
Although most states had by the 1930s enactedkidnapping laws that carried severe penalties, theabsence of a federal kidnapping statute forced locallaw enforcement agencies to abandon pursuits ofoffenders at their state boundaries. Knowing this,offenders frequently snatched their victims in onestate and transported them to another from whichthey sent their ransom requests. In the years prior tothe Lindbergh baby kidnapping, there were approx-imately 2,000 kidnappings annually throughout theUnited States. Just prior to the kidnapping, twoMissouri legislators, Senator Roscoe C. Patterson(R-MO) and Representative John J. Cochran (D-St.Louis), concerned that because of St. Louis’s cen-tral location in the country it had experienced alarge number of kidnappings, introduced identicalbills in the Senate and the House forbidding thetransportation in interstate or foreign commerce ofany person who had been kidnapped, held for ran-som or reward, or for any other unlawful purpose.Shortly after the Lindbergh case, in March 1932,Congress enacted the law, which became effectiveon June 22, 1932, and which for the first timeauthorized federal law enforcement agencies tobecome involved with the investigation and pursuitof the offenders who had taken their victims acrossstate lines or who had used the U.S. mail in further-ance of the crime. Because members of Congresswere careful not to infringe on state’s rights, the lawspecified, somewhat arbitrarily, that 72 hours had topass before allowing law enforcement officials tomake the presumption that the victim was or couldhave been taken over state lines. In August 1956,
742—�—Lindbergh Law
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 742
reflecting improvements in transportation andcommunication, the time that had to pass wasdecreased to 24 hours. The federal law enforcementagency assigned primary jurisdiction for kidnap-ping was, and continues to be, the Federal Bureauof Investigation.
The original Lindbergh Law called for a maxi-mum of life imprisonment, but in 1934 PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt requested, and Congressagreed, that the law be amended to include imposi-tion of the death penalty if the victim had beenkilled any time during the commission of the crimeand if the jury specifically recommended thatpenalty. The amendment (18 U.S.C. 408a), effectiveMay 18, 1934, stated that the jury was barred fromrecommending the death penalty if the victim hadbeen “liberated unharmed,” but it did not defineunharmed. In 1945, the Supreme Court affirmed thejury’s right to impose the death penalty when thevictim was harmed but released alive (Robinson v.United States), but in 1968 the court invalidated thatportion of the law, finding that since the deathpenalty could only be imposed by a jury verdict,and not by a judge, the provision made “the risk ofdeath” the price for asserting the right to a trialby jury (United States v. Jackson). An additionalamendment in 1934 made conspiracy to commit akidnapping a federal crime even if commission ofthe crime was unsuccessful, a section of the law thatremains in effect.
The media frenzy surrounding the Lindberghbaby kidnapping was intense. Lindbergh was afamed aviator who had flown nonstop, solo fromNew York to Paris in 1927 and his wife, AnneMorrow Lindbergh, whom he married two yearsafter his historic flight, was an author and thedaughter of wealthy parents. The child, CharlesA. Lindbergh Jr., was taken from his home inHopewell, New Jersey, on March 1, 1932; a ransomnote found in his nursery demanded $50,000.Posters seeking information featured the photos ofthe blond and dimpled, 20-month old boy, whosebody was discovered on May 12, 1932. The arrestof Bruno Hauptman in September 1934 broughtextensive publicity to the recently created NewJersey State Police and its 26-year-old superintendent
H. Norman Schwarzkopf. The trial, which began onJanuary 2, 1935 amid strong anti-German sentimentin the nation, has been likened to a carnival and wasbelieved to have been the most widely covered trialup to that time. Hauptman was convicted after a six-week trial and executed on April 3, 1936. In theaftermath of the crime and resultant publicity, theLindberghs had in 1935 moved to England.Uneasiness about the guilty verdict, though, persiststo the present time.
The original term kidnapping was appliedin 17th-century England only to the abductionof children; quite literally napping (or stealing)children (kids), but eventually came to designatethe same offense with regard to adults. Kidnappinginvolves the seizure, confinement, and abduction ofanother by force or threat of force against thevictim’s will. Kidnapping occurs if the purpose ofthe abduction is to (1) obtain ransom or reward;(2) use the victim as a shield or hostage; (3) facilitatethe commission of another offense, such as robberyor rape; or (4) terrorize or inflict bodily injury onthe victim. The crime may occur even with the con-sent of the victim if the removal is induced by fraudor if the victim is legally incompetent to give validconsent, is a child, or is a feeble-minded person.While traditional kidnappings continue to occurthroughout the world, where financial gain throughpayment of a ransom is the motive for the crime,kidnapping has also become closely associated withhijacking, skyjacking, hostage-taking, and otherterrorism-related activities.
Hijacking, defined as the forcible seizure of avehicle while in transit in order to commit robbery,extort money, kidnap passengers or crew, or carryout other crimes, had earlier been called highwayrobbery. Initially applied primarily to the theft ofgoods in transit by truck, it also came to include thetaking of ships (piracy) and, by the 1950s, of air-planes (air piracy), when the term skyjacking wascoined. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 wasamended in 1961 to made aircraft piracy a federalcrime, defining the act as exercising control, bythreat of force with wrongful intent, of any aircraftin flight in air commerce (49 U.S.C. [Supp. IV]1472 (i)). Initially the Air Operations Area was
Lindbergh Law—�—743
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 743
considered the nonpublic areas of an airfield, forexample the runways, taxiways, and under oraround the aircraft, but it is now understood thatonce people enter the secure area of the airport, pastthe screening positions, they have entered federaljurisdiction. Skyjackings of U.S. aircraft became aserious problem in the 1970s; in 1973 the FederalAviation Administration required airlines to beginsearching passengers and checking carry-on bag-gage and instituted the Sky Marshal program ofhaving armed officers on selected flights. Althoughthese precautions, as well as international agree-ments, alleviated the problem, the skyjacking andcrashing of planes into the World Trade Centerin New York City, the Pentagon, and in ruralPennsylvania on September 11, 2001, has renewedconcerns over the safety of air travelers.
Kidnapping has also been extended to includehostage-taking even though the term hostage wasnot included in the original law. The addition ofhostage-taking to the terrorists’ repertoire resultedin the 1980s in passage of 18 U.S.C. 1203, whichdefines as federal violations specific types ofhostage situations that differ from state criminaldefinitions. Hostage-taking as a form of kidnappingwas thrust into the lexicon of crime on September 5,1972, when eight members of Black September, asplinter group of the Popular Front for the Libera-tion of Palestine, crashed their way into the Israeliliving quarters at the Olympic village in Munich,Germany, killing two Israeli athletes and capturingnine others. As the world looked on through theeyes of almost 3,000 members of the news media,the terrorists held the athletes bound and gagged foralmost 18 hours. Attempts to negotiate with the
hostage-takers were unsuccessful, as wasa rescue attempt at the airport. The failed rescueresulted in the deaths of the nine hostages, five ofthe terrorists, and one police officer. It also ledpolice departments around the world to createhostage negotiating units, a new response to thispolitically charged version of kidnapping, in whichachieving a worldwide stage to publicize politicaldemands replaced financial gain as the rationale forthe crime.
Such situations were far from the thoughts ofthose who created the Lindbergh Law, which todayhas been expanded to define kidnapping to includeany situation in which a bystander becomes a humanshield. Air piracy and hostage-taking are examplesof how a law created in response to a narrowlydefined set of actions can be applied to a broaderarray of criminal activities.
Frank A. Bolz, Jr.
See also Federal Air Marshal Program, Federal AviationAdministration
For Further Reading
Alix, E. K. (1978). Ransom kidnapping in America, 1874-1974. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bolz, Jr., F. A., Dudonis, K. J., and Schulz, D. P. (2002). Thecounterterrorism handbook: tactics, procedures, andtechniques (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Findley, R. C. (1940). The Lindbergh Law. GeorgetownUniversity Law Journal, 29, 908–942.
Geis, G., & Bienen, L. B. (1998) Crimes of the century: FromLeopold and Loeb to O.J. Simpson. Boston: NortheasternUniversity Press.
Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945).United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968).
744—�—Lindbergh Law
L-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 744
M� MANN ACT
The passing of the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910(36 Stat. 825), popularly known as the Mann Act,was the federal government’s regulatory response tothe white slavery hysteria that gripped the countryduring the early years of the 20th century. The act,which applied the commerce clause of the Consti-tution to combat prostitution, contained vague lan-guage that was broadly interpreted by the SupremeCourt. Its enforcement at times created the potentialfor blackmail, criminalization of the women it wasdesigned to protect, and abuse of prosecutorialdiscretion. As the number of investigations and vio-lations increased, so too did the scope and respon-sibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI)
Although many cities, homes to red light dis-tricts, dealt with prostitution on a local level, theissue received national attention when concernsover increased immigration, urbanization, andwomen’s independence led middle-class Americansto fear an erosion of traditional white Protestantvalues. From 1910 to 1914, white slavery hysteriapeaked. Influenced by purity reformers and vicecommission reports, a significant portion of theAmerican population apparently believed that largenumbers of white women and girls from rural areaswere going to the cities and being coerced by
scheming foreigners into lives of prostitution. This,coupled with the government’s desire to fulfill itsobligation to a 1908 international agreement for therepression of trade in white women, called for anational remedy.
James R. Mann, Illinois congressman and chair-man of the House Committee on Interstate andForeign Commerce, drafted a bill that treated whiteslavery as interstate commerce and made it a federalcrime to transport a woman or girl from anothercountry or state “for immoral purposes.” Althoughcouched in general language, the little debate therewas over the bill emphasized that it was framedto specifically address the commercial traffic ofwomen. President William Howard Taft signed itinto law in 1910.
Early Supreme Court rulings, such as Hokeand Economides v. United States (227 U.S. 308),affirmed the law’s constitutionality. Its scope wasaddressed in cases such as Wilson v. United States(232 U.S. 563) in 1914, which found that intent ofimmoral activity was enough to violate the act, andin United States v. Holte (236 U.S. 140) in 1915,which found that a woman could be party to a con-spiracy. In 1917, the landmark case Caminetti v.United States (242 U.S. 470) was decided. In this,the Court ignored legislative intent and found thattwo men who transported their willing mistressesacross state lines violated the act even though there
745
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 745
was clearly no financial motive. This application ofthe law in noncommercial cases led to incidents andfear of blackmail and changes in law enforcement.
Earlier, in 1908, the attorney general had createdthe Bureau of Investigation (later to become theFederal Bureau of Investigation) in the Departmentof Justice. Originally maintaining operations onlyin Washington, D.C., Mann Act investigations gavethe new agency its impetus for growth. In 1910, thefirst field office was opened in Baltimore. In 1912,its director, Stanley W. Finch, resigned to take thenewly formed position of special commissionerfor the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, adivision of the Bureau. In this role, he developed aplan to use part-time agents to work with local lawenforcement officers to make detailed censuses ofbrothels. This system became obsolete as prostitu-tion moved underground. By 1914, Finch’s officewas abolished and enforcement of Mann Act viola-tions once again fell under the rubric of the parentdivision.
The Caminetti decision created a surge in inves-tigations as large numbers of individuals lodgedcomplaints based on their limited understanding ofthe law. The 1937 annual report of the attorney gen-eral listed the number of FBI Mann Act investiga-tions between 1922 and 1937 as 50,500. During thatperiod, the number of convictions in any given yearranged from only 203 to 528. In the decade follow-ing Caminetti, as young people tested the limits ofsexual mores, prosecutors zealously pursued con-victions in noncommercial cases. After 1928, how-ever, noncommercial cases were pursued lessfrequently and only at the discretion of the FBIand prosecutors. These usually involved politicallyunpopular individuals. At the end of the 1930s andinto the 1940s, J. Edgar Hoover, then the directorof the FBI, personally led several high-profile viceraids and used investigations to get information thatwould help his political career.
The number of Mann Act convictions declinedthroughout the 1950s and the sexual revolution ofthe following decades resulted in a judicial reinter-pretation of the term immoral purpose. Eventually,the Department of Justice urged its offices to exer-cise restraint in applying the act and the number of
convictions dropped steadily so that by 1980, therewere only 14. The act was amended in 1978 (92Stat. 7), 1986 (100 Stat. 3510), and 1994 (108 Stat.2037) to address male prostitution, the use ofchildren in pornography, and interstate or foreigntravel for the purpose of engaging in a sexual actwith a minor. The 1986 amendments included achange in language that replaced the term immoralpurpose with “any sexual activity for which anyperson can be charged with a criminal offense.” TheMann Act, as amended, is still in force today.
Nancy Egan
For Further Reading
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).Grittner, F. K. (1990). White slavery: Myth, ideology, and
American law. New York: Garland Publishing.Hoke and Economides v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913).Langum, D. J. (1994). Crossing over the line: Legislating
morality and the Mann Act. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140 (1915).White Slave Traffic Act, 36 Stat. 825 (1910).Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563 (1914).
� MARIJUANA TAX ACT
The hemp plant, which grew abundantly in ColonialAmerica, was used for many years beginning in the1600s to make rope, as bases for paints and var-nishes, and in birdseed. It was not until the early1900s, however, that the smoking of marijuana, themixture of dried, shredded flowers and leaves thatcomes from the hemp plant, was introduced toAmerican culture. And it was not until 1937 that thefirst federal law to restrict the usage, distribution,and production of marijuana—the Marijuana TaxAct—was passed.
After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexicanimmigrants flooded into the United States, andsmoking marijuana (as hemp had been known col-loquially in the Sonoran region of Mexico) becameassociated with these immigrants. Fear and preju-dice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers and thedrug many of them used developed and eventually
746—�—Marijuana Tax Act
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 746
became widespread. During the Great Depression,massive unemployment increased public resentmentand fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating publicand governmental concern about the problem ofmarijuana.
In large measure, the hysteria created over mari-juana, which ushered in the Marijuana Tax Act, wasmotivated by a desire to destroy the burgeoninghemp industry. Cheap, durable hemp paper poseda dire threat to timber companies, who feared thathemp would be used for paper and plywood insteadof trees. The attack on the hemp industry wastwofold: a massive propaganda campaign demo-nized cannabis in the eyes of the public, and thepower of government was used to cripple and even-tually exterminate industrial uses of hemp. The twoleaders of the antimarijuana campaign who playeda key role in the drug’s criminalization were HarryAnslinger and William Randolph Hearst. Anslingerwas the commissioner of the Federal Bureau ofNarcotics (FBN) from 1930 until 1962. Beginningin the early 1930s the FBN flooded the nation witheducational propaganda against marijuana use, por-traying its use as a great menace that needed to becontrolled because it was directly linked to crime,induced violent behavior, and caused insanity.
An ally of Anslinger was William RandolphHearst, whose chain of newspapers made himamong the most influential men in America. He alsoowned vast timber holdings, which fed the paperindustry. He and other industrialists (including hisfriend Lammont Du Pont, who supplied chemicalsthat were needed for making paper) wanted indus-trial cannabis production to be stopped. Hearst warnedhis readers of terrible crimes attributed to marijuanaand those who used it. Hysterical stories that deni-grated Mexicans, African Americans, and jazzmusicians whipped readers into a frenzy.
After a few years of this campaign, the FBNeffectively lobbied for the passage of the MarijuanaTax Act, which was signed into law by PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt on August 2, 1937, and wentinto effect September of that year. At the congres-sional hearings, Commissioner Anslinger hadclaimed that marijuana was an addictive drug thatproduced in its users insanity, criminality, and
death. The only witness to appear in opposition tothe administration’s proposal, an American MedicalAssociation spokesperson who argued that the evi-dence again marijuana was incomplete, was barragedwith hostile questions.
The act outlawed marijuana in America, classify-ing it as a narcotic and placing it under essentiallythe same controls as the Harrison Act had done withopium and coca products. The tax act did not crimi-nalize the cultivation or transfer of marijuana. Rather,the bill charged a $100 per ounce tax on any com-mercial hemp transaction, which made Americanhemp noncompetitive. As a result, all hemp used byAmerica had to be imported. Marijuana was crimi-nalized, and the hemp industry died.
Barry Spunt
For Further Reading
Inciardi, J. (1992). The war on drugs II. Mountain View, CA:Mayfield Press.
Musto, D. (1973). The American disease: Origins of narcoticcontrol. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Whitebread, C. (1995). The history of the non-medical use ofdrugs in the United States. A speech to the CaliforniaJudges Association annual conference. [Online]. Available:www.forces.org/articles/files/whiteb/white05.html
� MILITARY POLICE,DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Military Police Corps of the U.S. Army tracesits roots to the Revolutionary War, but despite itspresence in some form during each subsequent warin which the United States was involved, it was notuntil 1941 that it was established as a permanentbranch of the Army. Each arm of the U.S. military,which includes the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, AirForce, and Coast Guard, has its own police force.On military installations around the world, the Army’sMilitary Police Corp, known as military police orMPs, performs roles similar to a civilian policeforce. MPs enforce military laws and regulations,
Military Police, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—�—747
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 747
control traffic, prevent and investigate crime,apprehend military absentees (soldiers absent with-out leave), and provide physical security for mili-tary personnel and property. They also maintaincustody of military prisoners. In combat situations,they have the added duty of maintaining custody ofprisoners of war (POWs) and may be ordered tofight with infantry soldiers.
General George Washington formed the firstprovost unit, the Marechaussee Corps, on May 27,1778, to perform police functions at ContinentalArmy camps and in the field. The name of the unitwas borrowed from a French term for provosttroops, and it was commanded by a provost marshalwho held the rank of captain. The unit’s responsi-bilities were similar to modern times. Candidates,selected from the ranks, patrolled the camp and itssurrounding area to detain fugitives and generallyprevent crime. During actual fighting, unit membersrounded up stragglers and prevented desertions.Beginning what would be the history of militarypolicing units being disbanded at the end of hostil-ities, the corps was disbanded in 1783, only for asimilar unit to be formed during the War of 1812and again during the Civil War. During the CivilWar, General George B. McClellan, commander ofthe Union Army, established the Office of ProvostMarshal General of the Army and extended the juris-diction of military police to areas off base to includeregulation of places of public accommodation andamusement where soldiers might congregate andto control access of civilians to military areas. Thisbegan a tradition of MP involvement with tradesper-sons and others who conduct business with themilitary. General McClellan also assigned provostpersonnel, often wounded soldiers or those unablefor other reasons to fight, to secure draft offices, adangerous job when protesters attempted to avoidthe draft, as they did in New York City in July 1863.
After the United States entered World War I in1917, the War Department in 1918 again createdmilitary policing. In addition to their traditionalpolicing functions, unit members maintained POWcamps and transported close to 50,000 prisoners.Yet from the end of World War I until World War II,law enforcement duties were primarily performed
on a temporary and rotational basis by members ofthe service, and most of the training was informaland on the job. As the law enforcement responsibil-ities continued to expand and become more com-plex, the role of the military police in the Armybecame more professional and formalized. OnSeptember 26, 1941, the Military Police Corps wasfinally officially established and given permanencewithin the Army chain of command. A MilitaryPolice Service School was established at Fort Myer,Virginia, in 1941 to train MPs in military law, trafficcontrol, police methods, and criminal investigation.
The current training facility, The U.S. ArmyMilitary Police School, located at Fort LeonardWood, Missouri, has far broader mandate. Trainingfor MPs, along with other law enforcement person-nel for other branches of the military, includesclassroom instruction on civil and military laws,law enforcement administration, investigation pro-cedures and techniques, traffic control, evidencecollection, prisoner control and discipline, andcombat skills, including the use of a wide array offirearms. Personnel also receive on-the-job and spe-cialist training. MPs receive training that is not onlyvery similar to law enforcement training in the otherbranches of service but that has begun more andmore to resemble the training for civilian policeofficers. Soldiers are required to complete 9 weeksof basic training, followed by another 8 to 12 weeksof advanced classroom instruction and on-the-jobtraining. Recent changes in training have stressedboth urban warfare and urban crime problems.Officers are taught how to question crime victims,including those who may have suffered sexual vio-lence, as well as procedures of house-to-housesearches to locate either crime victims or suspects.
As the nature of war has changed to numerouspeacekeeping missions, the role of the MPs hascontinued to evolve. No longer just responsible forbase security, enforcing military law and regula-tions, or even securing POWs, they have expandedtheir general law enforcement duties to handle avariety of emergencies and such general policeduties as protecting designated buildings, public works,and localities of importance from looting, sabotage,and damage; performing security investigations;
748—�—Military Police, Department of the Army, Department of Defense
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 748
protecting supplies and equipment, and learninghow to master the nuances of rape kits and domes-tic violence cases. The new roles are further com-plicated by shifts in the military that are expected totransfer more policing roles from full-time militarypersonnel to reservists, whose civilian jobs may notprepare them for the multifaceted responsibilities oftoday’s Military Police Corps.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
See also Military Policing
For Further Reading
American military law enforcement links. [Online]. Available:http://members.aol.com/JJOusaf/web/Unitlist.htm#USMC
Coakley, R. W. (1988). The role of federal military forcesin domestic disorders, 1789-1878. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.
Falcone, D. N., & Smith, B. A. (2000). The army militarypolice: A neglected policing model. Police Quarterly 3,247–261.
Schmitt, E. (2004, March 11). Army retraining soldiers to meetits shifting needs. The New York Times, p. A22.
U.S. Department of Defense. Defense links. [Online].Available: http://www.defenselink.mil/
Wright, R. K. (1992). Military police. Washington, DC: Centerof Military History, U.S. Army. [Online]. Available:http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Lineage/mp/mp.htm
� MILITARY POLICING
The U.S. military is comprised of the Army, MarineCorps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Eachbranch of the armed forces has an internal lawenforcement force that is unique to its own branchand that has specific peace- and wartime missions.Law enforcement forces, in general, are responsiblefor protecting military resources and bases; protect-ing coastal waters and shores; enforcing militarylaw and regulations; preventing crime; protectingindividuals, property, and classified information;and guarding military correctional facilities.
The U.S. Army Military Police School at FortLeonard Wood, Missouri, provides law enforce-ment training for all branches of service. Trainingfor law enforcement personnel typically includes an
average of 7–28 weeks of classroom instruction.Classes include instruction on civil and militarylaws, law enforcement administration, investigationprocedures and techniques, traffic control, and pris-oner control and discipline. In addition to class-room instruction, personnel receive on-the-jobtraining and, depending on the military occupa-tional specialty (MOS), some personnel receivespecialty training. As the law enforcement organi-zation and roles in each branch have evolved, sohave the titles, ranks, and responsibilities, but theprimary missions have remained the same.
AIR FORCE
Aviation in the military began in the early 1900s.Aviation operations were placed under the umbrellaof the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Aviation operationsin the Army went through several changes andfinally became the Army Air Service on May 24,1918. The mission of the Army Air Service was toprovide protection for the military ground forces. Atthat time, law enforcement duties in the Army AirService were primarily focused on guarding aircraftand were simply an extra detail for personnel.
After World War I (1926), the Army Air Servicebecame the U.S. Army Air Corps (AAC) andremained the AAC until World War II. With theadvent of World War II, and with projections forrecord growth, including the use of 60,000 air-planes, the semiautonomous United States ArmyAir Force (USAAF) was created within the Army in1941. The creation of the USAAF led to the con-struction of hundreds of air bases that needed to besecured and protected. The difference between thetraditional role of the military police (MP) in thearmy and the new role of the military police guard-ing air bases became evident.
Black enlisted men, serving in the newly formedAir Base Security Battalions (ABS Battalions),were the first troops to be charged with defendingthe new airbases. During World War II, the ABSBattalions continued to provide domestic base duties,but also began to perform general police duties inthe war zones. This new role in World War II led toa new designation, both domestically (Guard
Military Policing—�—749
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 749
750—�—Military Policing
Companies) and overseas (Military Police Company,Aviation). The end of the war led to military down-sizing, ultimately releasing the most trained andexperienced law enforcement personnel. At thistime, the training of new law enforcement person-nel became virtually nonexistent.
After the war, in 1947, the Air Force becamean autonomous branch of the armed forces and thegroundwork for a new law enforcement force began.The new law enforcement force became known asthe Air Police, but changed to Security Police in1966, followed by Security Forces in 1997.
The primary mission of contemporary SecurityForces is to protect and control access to bases,protect resources and classified information, per-form general police duties (including traffic patrol,crime prevention and investigation, and guardingof inmates), and engage in antiterrorism efforts.Training for the Security Forces includes classroominstruction and on-the-job training in law enforce-ment security, combat skills, and other specializedareas such as traffic management, accident investi-gation, and corrections.
Throughout the years, the law enforcement forcein the Air Force has been periodically renamed andreorganized with various efforts to upgrade andclarify goals, missions, and law enforcement dutiesand will continue to do so in the face of new inter-national challenges.
U.S. COAST GUARD
The forerunner of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)(1790) was called the cutters. The cutters was asmall maritime force that was responsible forenforcing national laws and protecting the coastsand other maritime interests. By 1799, the formalrole of the cutters in the military was established.The responsibilities of the cutters continued toexpand as the nation expanded and included assist-ing those in distress; enforcing laws against slavery,piracy, and smuggling; and protecting the maritimeenvironment.
The primary mission of the original cutters con-tinues today with the USCG performing general lawenforcement, humanitarian, and emergency-response
duties, including the enforcement of maritime laws,the interception of drug smugglers and illegal immi-grants, and the protection of ports, the flow of com-merce, and marine resources. Thus, the USCG is anactive law enforcement agency. In fact, the USCG isoften referred to as America’s maritime guardians.
In terms of personnel, there are two jobs that sup-port the law enforcement function of the USCG, thecriminal investigator and the port security specialist.Criminal investigators are specialists who providesupport to the law enforcement and intelligence com-munity. Criminal investigators in the USCG performsimilar duties to those of civilian investigators, suchas conducting background checks, investigating crim-inal acts, and analyzing evidence and intelligenceinformation. They also provide protection servicesfor various dignitaries and other officials.
Port security specialists protect ports, bothdomestically and internationally, against terrorismand other crimes; prepare for national defense oper-ations; monitor and inspect vessels, waterways, andports; and maintain the operational capability ofthe ports under all circumstances. The positions ofcriminal investigator and port security specialist areopen only to the Coast Guard Reserves; they are notactive duty positions.
The modern-day USCG is working in an increas-ingly complex and dangerous environment. Thelaw enforcement responsibilities of the USCG havebeen heightened with the increased attention placedon homeland security after the terrorist events ofSeptember 11, 2001. As an integral part of theDepartment of Homeland Security, the USCG ison the front line of protecting the shores and water-ways of the United States.
MARINE CORPS
The role of the military police in the United StatesMarines Corps can be traced to World War I, whenthe military police protected supply routes, guardedmilitary prisoners, and performed traffic controloperations. Historically, these general law enforce-ment duties were performed by Marines from vari-ous occupational specialties on a temporary androtating basis.
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 750
Marine military police battalions were establishedduring the Vietnam conflict. The military policebattalions maintained order and discipline on thebattlefield, conducted traffic control operations andcheckpoints, patrolled off-limit areas, and investi-gated drug violations, black-market transactions,and war crimes.
After the Vietnam conflict, significant changesoccurred within the military police. A formalizedMOS for military police in the Marines was estab-lished and the job was professionalized with theinitiation of formal training. Marines received formaltraining at the U.S. Army Military Police School andthe U.S. Army Criminal Investigation School at FortGordon, Georgia. One impetus for the formalizedMOS of military police resulted from a media inves-tigation of the abuse of prisoners of war in 1969. Therise of the drug culture in the 1960s, the civil rightsmovements in the 1970s, and increasing crime ratesand racial tensions shifted the focus from wartimeduties to general law enforcement duties.
Military police responsibilities include traditionallaw enforcement duties, such as maintaining orderand discipline, conducting accident and criminalinvestigations, implementing crime prevention strate-gies, and general physical security. In addition, themilitary police are responsible for traffic control,antiterrorism efforts, monitoring brig (jail) opera-tions and correctional custody units, and the handlingand safeguarding of prisoners of war, refugees, andevacuees. Military police personnel receive class-room training as well as training in battlefield mis-sions, in traffic control, in enemies of war operations,in area security, and in other law enforcement duties.
NAVY
The master-at-arms (MAA) designation can betraced back to the 16th century Royal Navy. Thesheriff counterpart aboard Royal Navy ships wasresponsible for securing and monitoring theweapons on the ship and also had the responsibilityof training the crew in hand-to-hand combat shouldthey need to fight enemy forces boarding the ship.
The American Navy service began with theRevolutionary War when a naval force was needed
to combat the Royal Navy. The master-at-armsposition was mirrored by colonial forces, but remaineda collateral duty until 1973 when it became profes-sionalized and formalized with an official rating.
From the time of the Revolutionary War, themaster-at-arms position became increasingly com-plex and important as the role of Navy wartimeoperations became more involved and the Navybecame an increasingly vulnerable target. By WorldWar I, the Navy was a major force in military oper-ations and the function of the master-at-arms was tomaintain order and security on the ship and to pro-vide protection from potential enemy attacks.
The primary responsibilities of the MAA todayare to maintain order and discipline, provide antiter-rorism protection, and perform general law enforce-ment duties, including apprehending suspects,conducting investigations and interrogations, prepar-ing required reports, operating brigs, and enforcingmilitary orders and regulations.
Due to the nature of this job, selection of person-nel is of the utmost importance. In order to enterthis MOS, individuals must have normal color per-ception, no speech impediments, and a securityclearance and must be U.S. citizens. Individualsreceive both formal schooling and the on-the-job training. MAA’s receive general law enforce-ment, traffic control, terrorist, and other specializedtraining.
ARMY
The roots of the military police in the U.S. Armycan be traced to the Revolutionary War, when a spe-cial unit of troops patrolled and protected militarycamps. This special military unit in the ContinentalArmy was authorized by Congress in 1778 and wasdirected by General George Washington to performlaw enforcement duties in the camp and the field.
From then until World War II, law enforcementduties were primarily performed on a temporaryand rotational basis by members of the service, andmost of the training was informal and on the job. Asthe law enforcement responsibilities continued toexpand and become more complex, the role of themilitary police in the Army became more professional
Military Policing—�—751
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 751
and formalized. In 1941, the military police wasofficially established in the U.S. Army.
Today, similar to the military law enforcementroles in the other branches of the armed forcesduring peacetime, the military police are responsiblefor base security, general law enforcement duties,traffic control, responding to emergencies, andenforcing military law and regulations. Wartimeduties of the military police include the enforcementof military laws and regulations, the maintenance oforder and discipline, and traffic control. MPs arealso responsible for such general law enforcementduties as protecting designated buildings, publicworks, and localities of importance from looting,sabotage, and damage; performing security investi-gations; protecting supplies and equipment; appre-hending deserters; and escorting prisoners of war.
Training for this MOS is very similar to lawenforcement training in the other branches ofservice. Soldiers are required to complete 9 weeksof basic training, followed by another 8 to 12 weeksof advanced classroom instruction and on-the-jobtraining. Soldiers are trained and educated in civiland military laws and regulations, traffic control,investigation procedures, evidence collection, andcombat skills, including the use of firearms.
All branches of the armed services have an internallaw enforcement force that maintains order and disci-pline and performs basic police functions on militarybases and on the battlefield. Although each force isunique in its branch mission, there exists a sharedresponsibility to perform law enforcement duties toprotect military resources and personnel and ensurecombat readiness of troops anywhere in the world.
Angela S. Maitland
For Further Reading
American military law enforcement links. [Online]. Available:http://members.aol.com/JJOusaf/web/Unitlist.htm#USMC
Defense Links. [Online]. Available: http://www.defenselink.mil/sites/a.html#armedforces
Flynn, S. E. (2001). Homeland Security is a Coast Guard mis-sion. Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute,127(10), 72–76.
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. [Online]. Available: http://www.ftleonardwood.com/
U.S. Department of Defense. [Online]. Available: http://www.defenselink.mil/
Wright, R. K. (1992). Military police. Washington, DC: Centerof Military History, U.S. Army.
� MILITIAS
Militias are groups that deploy or encourage para-military rituals and use informal social networks,charismatic leaders, and various forms of conscious-ness raising to mobilize individuals on behalf of anideology that expresses antipathy toward the federalgovernment, multinational corporations and organi-zations (such as the United Nations), and interna-tional treaties (such as the North American FreeTrade Agreement). Militias also seek to protect fun-damental American rights such as individual libertyand gun rights. Because there is no national militiaorganization, not all militia groups are the same. Forexample, while some engage in military training,others, such as the Militia of Montana, only encour-age others to train militarily since Montana lawsprohibit paramilitary training activity.
The militia movement arose in the early 1990sas a reaction to federal legislation that limited gunrights and to perceived federal law enforcementmisconduct. Initially, most of the American publicwas unaware of these groups. This changed, how-ever, after the media linked them to the April 19,1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federalbuilding in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Althoughthis attention led to a short-term increase in mem-bership, the media’s negative portrayal of militiasultimately resulted in diminishing membership formany of them. In the ensuing years a number ofstandoffs between armed groups and law enforce-ment officials (e.g., sieges occurred at the com-pounds of the Montana Freemen and the Republicof Texas) received media attention and reinforcedthe public’s negative view of the militia movement.Despite some resurgence of militia activity, particu-larly in Arizona and California, the movement as awhole declined at the end of the 20th and the begin-ning of the 21st centuries.
Despite individual differences among the militiagroups, law enforcement authorities and other
752—�—Militias
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 752
observers have been able to develop a number ofgeneralizations that apply to many of them. Indeed,one of the most important aspects of the militiamovement is the diversity of its beliefs.
IDEOLOGY
Most militias deeply distrust centralized authority,federal bureaucracy, government encroachment,and multinational corporations. Their message tomembers stresses the primacy of the individual andlocal communities. Closely related is the desire toprotect the sovereignty of the United States. Manymilitia members fear that a one-world govern-ment will be established that subordinates the U.S.government to global entities such as the UnitedNations and to international treaties and organiza-tions. According to many militia supporters, foreignand international troops are already in the UnitedStates as part of a plan to do away with Americanindependence and personal liberties. These troopsare said to be acting on behalf of a shadowy globaldictatorial elite that is commonly referred to as thenew world order.
Some militia groups blame the media for demo-nizing them as well as numbing the American pop-ulace to the looming dangers. Sheeple (blind sheep)is just one of the terms applied to the general popu-lation by some militia and patriot supporters. Further,a number of movement activists assert that, unliketheir brethren, they will not be lulled into compla-cency. They will do whatever is necessary to protecttheir republic’s independence and their personalautonomy. This is why owning guns, indeed manyand different types of guns and other weapons, isimportant. Their significance lies not in their utilityfor hunting or recreation but in their ability todefend liberty. Militia leaders wonder, moreover,how it is possible to infringe upon gun rights sinceguns (and revolution) are what created this country.National sovereignty, personal liberty, and privatefirearm ownership are thus not distinct issues butinterrelated parts of a single issue.
Other beliefs flow from these core values. Somemilitias praise nature and the outdoors and cam-paign against federal land regulations. Similarly, a
number of militias endorse jury nullification asan important bulwark against corrupt government.Most in the movement firmly contend that the fed-eral government has no right to tax the earnings ofits citizens. Further, militias condemn public educa-tion as wasteful and maintain that public educatorsare brainwashing students. Some militia groups arealso strong proponents of religion in general andspecific social issue campaigns, in particular move-ments centered on antiabortion, antihomosexuality,and proprayer in the public school system. Finally,certain militia groups focus heavily upon issuesrelevant to their local communities. The patriot andmilitia movements in Kentucky, for example, seizedupon the campaign to legalize industrial hemp dueto its importance to that state’s farming community.
ORGANIZATION
The movement is composed of diverse, independentlocal groups that sometimes communicate amongthemselves to further their ends. There are twomain types of organizations. Many of the better-known militias (e.g., Michigan Militia, Missouri 51stMilitia) are hierarchal, military-style entities. Thesemilitias tend to be more moderate and worry lessabout government infiltration. The employment ofa public organization model is a calculated step, infact, undertaken to reassure the public and lawenforcement that they are not a threat. Militiamembers argue that part of their mission is to aidthe government during times of natural disaster orother crises. These groups tend to decry racism andnativism, are less likely to embrace conspiracytheories, are more accepting of the political system,and attempt to work with local officials to achievetheir goals.
Groups that are more distrusting and fearful ofthe federal government’s intentions shun publicity.Some utilize the leaderless resistance model andoperate in small underground cells. They also tendto be extreme and are more likely to subscribe toracism, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy theories.Some groups are a hybrid of these two. Apparentlycertain paramilitary groups organize in public butalso have a secret wing that is open only to trusted
Militias—�—753
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 753
members. Finally, some researchers and lawenforcement personnel contend that militia groupscan be differentiated by their level of threat to thesocial order. These outsiders have also observedthat the ritual that most distinguishes the militiamovement is the military motif, paramilitary train-ing, and the wearing of military style camouflageuniforms. This is not a novel phenomenon; theUnited States has a long history of far-right groupsemploying a paramilitary structure and engaging inprivate military training.
The militias recruit members by publicizing theiragenda and activities. Patriot leaders with nationalreputations have toured the country setting forth themovement’s beliefs and urging people to get involved.Similarly, militia groups circulate and sell books andaudio- and videotapes and organize public meetings.Almost all militias operate Web sites on the Internetand engage in leafleting at venues such as gun showsor expositions, thought to draw individuals predis-posed to their ideology. Further, some militias operateshortwave radio stations and rely on fax machines and-mail to advertise their message. The most effectivemilitia recruitment technique, however, is informalsocial networks—friends recruiting friends.
THEORIES EXPLAINING MILITIAS
A number of explanations have been offered toaccount for the emergence of this particular style ofparamilitary activity in the 1990s. One major thesismaintains that a paramilitary culture emerged as aresult of cultural and structural changes that led to adecline in the power and status positions of manywhite native-born American males. This thesis beginsby focusing on the Vietnam War. Because this mili-tary campaign was viewed as America’s first overseasdefeat, it proved upsetting to American males. Inaddition, since American culture and tradition arguedthat U.S. military strength reflected moral purity, theloss in Vietnam forced Americans to confront thepossibility that their country was not ethical and just,which proved traumatic and stressful to many people.
Further, a number of domestic social movementsemerged during this period that brought about sig-nificant changes in American society and threatened
white male power. The civil rights movementchallenged and defeated most de jure racist restric-tions and began curtailing de facto racist practicesin society and was followed by the feminist move-ment, which was successful in achieving greaterequality for females in the workplace and the home.At the same time, changes in U.S. immigration lawsand policies led to a rising proportion of non-whiteimmigrants entering the United States. Many whitemales viewed these changes as ominous and,according to some, began to experience feelings offrustration and anxiety that led to participation in anextreme social movement.
The paramilitary culture (which encompasses themilitia and patriot movements) that emerged in theUnited States in the 1970s and 1980s is just sucha world. In the pages of this culture’s novels andmagazines, and on the screens of its movies, whitenative-born American males are portrayed asmorally upright. Nonwhites rarely appear in thesestories and females are portrayed as either loyalsubmissive subjects or sexually dangerous creatureswho must be tamed.
Another major perspective associates the emer-gence of the antigovernment militia and patriotmovements with the farm depression that plaguedrural America in the 1980s and peaked in 1987. Thefederal government was blamed for this downturnbecause it encouraged farmers to expand by takingout loans in the late 1970s. Many farmers overex-tended themselves and when interest rates increasedthey could not make payments, resulting in a surgein farm foreclosures.
Researchers maintained that the unique culture inrural areas magnified the problem. Rural cultureplaces a premium on individual self-sufficiency andpersonal honor. To many people farming is a way oflife, not just an occupation, and is central to theiridentity. Losing one’s farm was traumatic and manycould not cope. Moreover, although the depressionbegan in the farm economy it took on a life of itsown and devastated other, related industries. Theeffects soon spread beyond economic conditionsto undermine the social fabric of communities.Economically depressed circumstances led to theweakening of social institutions. These economically
754—�—Militias
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 754
and socially weakened communities comprised ofbitter, vulnerable individuals who externalized theirrage and partially blamed the government for theircircumstances were more likely to post higherparticipation rates in antigovernment groups.
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES
The media and watch groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty LawCenter have consistently highlighted the militiamovement’s involvement in crime. Some scholarshave argued that the movement, although some-times unintentionally, fosters deviance and acts ofpolitical violence. Federal and state law enforce-ment authorities, in fact, have thwarted a number ofcriminal antigovernment plots involving militia andpatriot members. Some of these crimes involvedplanned attacks against federal installations as wellas violations of gun and tax laws.
Because the militia movement is stigmatized,feared by many in the general public, and viewedby some in law enforcement as a potential threat,it has garnered attention from law enforcement.Federal Bureau of Investigation agents Duffy andBrantley (1997) have argued that distinctions needto be made among different types of militia organi-zations and have urged local law enforcement agen-cies to open a dialogue with militia groups in theirjurisdictions because “such contact should allow lawenforcement representatives the chance to gaugeand assess the true, or at least unprovoked, nature ofthe militia leaders.” Local law enforcement agen-cies must be extremely careful while communicat-ing with these militia groups “because differentgroups operating within the same geographicagency may pose varying degrees of threats.” Thisis why local law enforcement agencies must makeserious efforts to distinguish among types of militiagroups. To aid in this process, Duffy and Brantleyoutlined a typology which consists of four differenttypes of militia groups from the first (least serious)category, which “engages in no known criminalactivity,” to the fourth (most serious) category, whosemembers “plot and engage in serious criminal activ-ity, e.g., homicide, bombings.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Mark Pitcavage, the founder ofthe militia watchdog Web site, has noted that manyconfrontations between law enforcement personneland militia and patriot members have occurredduring traffic stops. For example, in 2002 and 2003militia members in Michigan and Ohio were, respec-tively, involved in separate shootouts with lawenforcement that resulted in the deaths of officers inthe line of duty. Pitcavage has advised law enforce-ment officials to be vigilant during traffic stops andto pay attention for the following warning signs:strange license plates or bumper stickers (e.g.,“sovereign citizen”), claims from the driver that heor she is not required to have a license, or that thedriver is a law enforcement official from a strange-sounding agency. He has also advised officers whoconclude that they are interacting with an antigov-ernment extremist to remain calm and vigilant (espe-cially for the presence of concealed weapons) andto defuse any tension that might exist. In addition,officers are urged to humanize themselves andwarned that they should not argue political ideologywith the patriot member.
Joshua D. Freilich
For Further Reading
Abanes, R. (1996). American militias. Downers Grove, IL:Intervarsity Press.
Barkun, M. (1997). Religion and the racist right: The originsof the Christian identity movement. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.
Bennett, D. H. (1995). The party of fear: The American farright from nativism to the militia movement. New York:Vintage.
Castells, M. (1997). The information age, economy, societyand culture: Vol. 2. The power of identity. Maudens, MA:Blackwell.
Chermak, S. (2002). Searching for a demon: The constructionof the militia movement. Boston: Northeastern UniversityPress.
Crothers, L. (2003). Rage on the right: The American militiamovement from Ruby Ridge to homeland security.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Dees, M., & Corcoran, J. (1996). Gathering storm: America’smilitia threat. New York: Harper Collins.
Duffy, J. E., & Brantley, A. C. (1997). Militias: Initiatingcontact. FBI Web page. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/1997/July/975.htm
Militias—�—755
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 755
Dyer, J. (1997). Harvest of rage: Why Oklahoma City is onlythe beginning. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Freilich, J. (2003). American militias: State-level variation inmilitia activities. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Freilich, J., Pichardo-Almanzar, N., & Rivera, C. (1999). Howsocial movement organizations explicitly and implicitlypromote deviant behavior: The case of the militia move-ment. Justice Quarterly 16, 655–683.
Freilich, J, Pienik, J. A., & Howard, G. J. (2001). Toward com-parative studies of the U.S. militia movement. InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology 62, 163–210.
Gallaher, C. A. (2003). On the fault line: Race, class and theAmerican patriot movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman andLittlefield.
George, J., & Wilcox, L. (1996). American extremists:Militias, supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and others.Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
Gibson, J. W. (1994). Warrior dreams: Paramilitary culture inpost-Vietnam America. New York: Hill and Wang.
Karl, J. (1995). The right to bear arms: The rise of America’snew militias. New York: Harper.
Mariani, M. (1998). The Michigan Militia: Political engage-ment or political alienation? Terrorism and PoliticalViolence, 10, 122–148.
Militia Watchdog Web site.[Online]. Available: http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Neiwert, D. A. (1999). In God’s country: The patriot move-ment in the Pacific Northwest. Pullman, WA: WashingtonState University Press.
O’Brien, S. P., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (1998). Fueling the fire:Social and political correlates of citizen militia activity.Social Science Quarterly 79), 456–465.
Pitcavage, M. (2001). Camouflage and conspiracy: The militiamovement from Ruby Ridge to Y2K. American BehavioralScientist 44, 957–981.
Snow, R. L. (1999). The militia threat: Terrorists among us.New York: Plenum Press.
Stern, K. (1996). A force upon the plain: The American militiamovement and the politics of hate. New York: Simon andSchuster.
Van Dyke, N., & Soule, S. A. (2002). Structural social changeand the mobilizing effect of threat: Explaining levels ofpatriot and militia organizing in the United States. SocialProblems, 49, 497–520.
� MOTHERS AGAINSTDRUNK DRIVING
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is thelargest crime victims’ assistance organization in theworld with more than 3 million members and sup-porters. Members of this nonprofit organization arecommitted to stopping drunk driving, to preventing
underage drinking, and to supporting victims ofthese crimes and their families. The organization’sslogan is “Voice of the Victim,” with its primaryfocus on assisting victims through the justiceprocess. MADD members have been instrumentalin the passage of hundreds of federal and state anti-drunk driving laws, with the most recognized beingthe 1984 federal law requiring all states to increasethe legal drinking age to 21.
Since MADD’s inception, alcohol-related trafficfatalities have declined dramatically. Studies havedocumented that the 21 minimum drinking age lawhas saved an average of 1,000 young lives each yearsince its passage. In MADD’s Sanction IssuesCompendium, the organization reported that annualdeaths from drinking and driving have decreasedfrom approximately 28,000 in 1980 to 16,068 in 2000.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) also reports that from 1992 to 2000, thereduction in youth alcohol-related fatalities wassimilar to that for adults (6% and 7%, respectively)despite an increase in the youth population.
MADD was born out of two tragic drunk-drivingfatalities. In 1979, Laura Lamb and her mother,Cindi Lamb, were hit head-on by a repeat drunkdriving offender traveling at 120 mph in Maryland.Laura, who was five years old, became one of theworld’s youngest quadriplegics as a result of thecrash. A few months later, a drunk driver who hadbeen released on bail two days prior to the crashkilled Cari Lightner, the 13-year-old daughter ofCandy Lightner. The offender, with two drunk-driving convictions on his record, was released onbail for a hit-and-run drunk driving crash. The dri-ver was carrying a valid California driver’s licenseat the time of the crash. In 1981, the two mothersjoined forces and created MADD—MothersAgainst Drunk Drivers (later changed to MothersAgainst Drunk Driving). By the end of 1981,MADD had 11 chapters in four states and was therecipient of a $65,000 grant for chapter develop-ment from NHTSA. By the end of 1982, there weremore than 190 MADD chapters operating within 35states. MADD became nationally recognized afterNBC produced a made-for-television movie titled“The Candy Lightner Story.” A national pollrevealed that 84% of Americans had heard about
756—�—Mothers Against Drunk Driving
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 756
MADD and most believed it was accomplishingits mission.
MADD’s influence has extended into the legisla-tive arena. In 1984, the Federal Minimum DrinkingAge Bill was passed. This legislation won accep-tance in all 50 states, making 21 the legal drinkingage throughout the United States. During this sameyear, MADD went international when Canadabecame the first country outside the United Statesto charter a MADD affiliate. Project Red Ribbonwas also introduced, and 1 million red ribbons weredistributed to motorists who pledged to drive safeand sober during the holiday season. Not long after,a national 1-800 hotline was created to supportvictims of drunk driving.
By 1989, MADD had 407 chapters and 32state offices, as well as affiliates in England, NewZealand, and Australia. By the end of 2002, MADDhad more than 620 chapters with offices in all50 states, including its first chapter on a NativeAmerican Indian Reservation. A Gallup poll con-ducted in 1989 revealed that Americans believeddrunk driving was the main problem on the nation’shighways. MADD held its first National Youth Con-ference, cosponsored by the National Association ofBroadcasters and also formed Victim Impact Panelsas a national program. Not long after, MADD filedan amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court overthe constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints, whichwere later upheld. MADD subsequently establishedthe week of July 4 as National Sobriety CheckpointWeek. It also introduced its “20 X 2000” plan toreduce the proportion of alcohol-related trafficfatalities another 20% by 2000 (this goal was metby 1997). Two years later, Gallup polls revealedthat public sentiment was growing less tolerant ofdrunk driving and respondents were in favor ofstiffer penalties for drunk driving.
A rise in national drunk driving fatalities in 1995prompted more aggressive lobbying by MADD,which resulted in the passing of the Federal ZeroTolerance Law, geared at alcohol-related drivingoffenses among persons under the age of 21. Toensure compliance, this law tied federal highwaysfunds to the passage of state-level versions. Toavoid the withholding of funds, states were requiredto comply with the federal guidelines that set .02%
blood alcohol content (BAC) as the legal limit for allpersons under the age of 21, make .02 BAC a per seoffense (without proving intoxication), provide forprimary enforcement, and authorize license suspen-sions and revocations for all violators. By 1998, zerotolerance legislation had been passed in all 50 states.
Kimberly D. Hassell
For Further Reference
Drinking in America: Myths, realities, and prevention policy.(2001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Lord, J. (2000, Spring). Really MADD: Looking Back at 20Years. Driven Magazine. [Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org/aboutus/printable/0,1068,1686,00.html
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. [Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Sanction issues compendium.[Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org/aboutus/printable/0,1068,4077,00.html
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1998). Youthand Generation X planner, promoting zero tolerance:Campaign safe and sober [Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/Safesobr/15qp/web/idpromo.html
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000).Youth fatal crash and alcohol facts. [Online]. Available:http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/2002YFCAF/preface.html
� MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ACT
Congress passed the Motor Vehicle Theft Act of1919, 18 U.S.C.A. Section 2311-2313, on October 28,1919. This act, commonly referred to as the DyerAct, named after Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer(R-MO), made interstate transport of stolen motorvehicles a federal crime and authorized the FederalBureau of Investigation to investigate vehicle theftsthat crossed over state jurisdictional lines. Prior to1919 most states had established comprehensivelaws governing theft in its many forms. However,few states were prepared for the unique theft prob-lems that resulted from the increased production,distribution, and accessibility of the automobilein the United States, which increased dramaticallyduring the early part of the 20th century.
The automobile is particularly well-suited fortheft. Vehicles are easily salable items that also
Motor Vehicle Theft Act—�—757
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 757
provide increased opportunities to commit othercrimes and then allow offenders to quickly escapeor flee the scene. Criminals have developed a dis-tinct relationship with motor vehicles and are oftenknown to both target motor vehicles for theft and touse them for crimes. Before passage of the MotorVehicle Theft Act of 1919, local law enforcement’sability to apprehend motor vehicle thieves wasimpeded by state jurisdictional boundaries, espe-cially in cities and communities near state borders(Dowling v. United States, 1985).
The Motor Vehicle Theft Act of 1919 providesfor harsh sentences, including fines and imprison-ment of up to 10 years, for those who are convictedof transporting stolen vehicles across state lines.As with all legislation that initially dealt with newproblems, defining a number of the provisions ofthe law meant actually defining a motor vehicle andwhat constituted a stolen vehicle.
According to provisions of the Dyer Act, a motorvehicle includes automobiles, automobile trucks,automobile wagons, motorcycles, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land butnot on rails. Transportation of a stolen vehicle ininterstate or foreign commerce requires that theindividual charged with the crime had received, pos-sessed, concealed, stored, bartered, sold, or disposedof any motor vehicle or aircraft, which has crossed astate or U.S. boundary after being stolen, and thatthe individual knew that the vehicle was in factstolen. For the purposes of the law, state was specif-ically defined to include any state of the UnitedStates, the District of Columbia, and any common-wealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTSIN VEHICLE THEFT LEGISLATION
Since the passage of the Motor Vehicle Theft Act of1919 there have been several additional initiativespassed by Congress to further combat motor vehicletheft.
In 1984 the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforce-ment Act was passed to facilitate the tracking andrecovery of stolen vehicles and parts. This was Con-gress’s response to the growing professionalism of
motor vehicle thieves, theft rings, and internationaltrafficking. The act required manufacturers of high-risk theft vehicles to place the vehicle identificationnumber (VIN) on the engine, transmission, and sev-eral additional parts. This effort was designed tothwart the professional chop shops that notoriouslydisassembled vehicles and rebuilt them with indis-cernible stolen parts. The act allowed for the crimi-nal prosecution of individuals responsible foraltering or removing the VIN. In addition, it pro-vided for the forfeiture and seizure of vehicles andparts found to be fraudulently altered.
The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 made it a federalcrime to perpetrate an armed motor vehicle theft,also known as carjacking. Additionally, owning,operating, maintaining, or controlling a chop shopbecame a federal crime. The Motor Vehicle TheftPrevention Act of 1994 required the establishmentof a national voluntary theft prevention programthat would allow law enforcement officers to stopa vehicle based on owner-specified circumstances.Finally, the Anti-Car Theft Information Act of 1996enabled state and federal law enforcement officersto instantly check a vehicle’s title information todetermine if the vehicle has been reported stolen.
Despite these and many other improvements instate and federal motor vehicle theft legislation,motor vehicle theft continues to be a serious prob-lem in the United States and around the world.By the end of the 20th century, more than 1 millionvehicles were stolen annually with a value of morethan $7 billion. Vehicle theft is a leading contribu-tor to the high auto insurance premiums being paidby many motorists throughout the United States.
Jeff Walsh
For Further Reading
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available: http://
www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/historicdates.htmLegal Information Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www4.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/Lowenthal, M. (1950). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.Smart Motorist. [Online]. Available: http://www.smartmotorist
.com/the/leg.htm
758—�—Motor Vehicle Theft Act
M-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:34 PM Page 758
N� NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT
The Narcotics Control Act (NCA) of 1956 wasproposed in order to help eradicate the use and traf-ficking of narcotic drugs and marijuana. At the timeof its proposal, the government estimated that60,000, or 1 in 3,000, people were addicted to drugsand that approximately $219 million was spentannually for drugs obtained through illegal sources.
Prior to the passing of the Narcotics Control Act,the Boggs Act, proposed by Senator Hale Boggs(D-LA) and signed and enacted in 1951, providedminimum mandatory sentences for first-time drugviolators and brought together drug legislation ofnarcotics and marijuana for the first time. After theBoggs Act was passed, the government reportedsignificant declines in drug arrests in the UnitedStates. Prior to the enactment of the Boggs Act,the average sentence for a narcotics violation was18 months, but after the Boggs Act was passed,the average narcotics violator spent approximately43 months in jail. The Narcotics Control Act wasexpected to achieve subsequent success in the erad-ication of illicit drug traffic by further increasingpenalties for narcotic and marijuana law violations.
Specifically, the Narcotics Control Act imposedthe following penalties: 2 to 10 years for a firstoffense of narcotic or marijuana possession; 5 to 20years for a second offense; 10 to 40 years for a third
offense; up to a $20,000 fine for any drug lawviolation; 5 to 25 years on a first time conviction forsales or smuggling; 10 to 40 years thereafter with aseparate penalty of 10 to 40 years for sale by anadult to a minor, and 10 years to life imprisonmentfor heroin sale to a minor, with possible deathsentence at the jury’s discretion.
The Narcotics Control Act also eliminated theopportunity for probation, suspension of sentence,and parole for first-time offenders. Although theBoggs Act had imposed heavier mandatory penaltiesfor repeat offenders, it also assigned lighter punish-ments to first-time offenders. However, proponentsof the NCA believed that in order to prevent peoplewith previous drug violations from recruiting peoplewithout such violations for trafficking, it would benecessary to impose stricter penalties on first-timeoffenders. It was thought that stricter penalties forfirst-time offenders would dissuade citizens frombecoming involved in drug trafficking.
The Narcotics Control Act also, for the first time,included penalties for the use of communicationfacilities, including all public and private instru-ments used in the transmission of writings, signs,pictures, signals, and sounds by mail, telephone,wire, or radio in the violation of narcotic and mari-juana laws under the NCA. Violators are subject toimprisonment for a period of two to five years anda fine of up to $5,000.
759
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 759
Several measures in the act were designed topermit police and other law enforcement agents tooperate more effectively. The NCA authorized moreeffective searches and seizures in narcotics cases. Italso authorized the commissioner, deputy commis-sioner, assistant to the commissioner, and agents ofthe Bureau of Narcotics of the Department of theTreasury and officers of the U.S. Customs Serviceto carry firearms to execute and serve warrants andto make arrests without warrants for narcotic viola-tions in which the violation is committed in thepresence of the person making the arrest or inwhich there are grounds to believe that the personbeing arrested has committed, or is committing,such a violation. This subsection of the NCA alsorelaxed restrictions governing the issuance ofsearch warrants in cases in which violations of thenarcotic and marijuana laws are involved, allowingfor the issuance of search warrants even if there wasno direct evidence that the narcotic drugs soughtwere in the premises to be searched.
The Narcotics Control Act also allowed for a statu-tory method to grant immunity to witnesses in casesinvolving a violation of narcotic or marijuana laws.Furthermore, the NCA proposed that the UnitedStates has the right of appeal from certain court ordersgranting a defendant a motion to suppress evidenceor return seized property. Finally, the NCA sought tostrengthen applicable venue provisions so that thevenue in marijuana cases would lie within the juris-diction in which a trafficker was apprehended, as wellas in the jurisdiction of acquisition.
The Narcotics Control Act also attempted tofacilitate control of the international traffic in nar-cotic drugs. The act included a provision that statesthat a U.S. citizen who uses, or is addicted to, nar-cotic drugs or has been convicted of a narcotic ormarijuana violation be prohibited from entering ordeparting from the United States without register-ing with a customs official, agent, or employee atthe point of entry or a border customs station. Theact also created a new offense by prohibiting theillegal importation of marijuana. Additionally, itpresumes that unexplained possession of marijuanais sufficient evidence for conviction.
The NCA was one of more than 50 drug-useand trafficking laws that were consolidated into the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of 1970.
Dryden Watner
For Further Reading
Control of Marijuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. [Online].Available: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2.htm
Jaffe, J. H. (1995). Anslinger, Harry J., and U.S. drugpolicy. In Encyclopedia of drugs and alcohol (Vol. 1,pp. 124–125). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. [Online]. Available: http://marijuana.bdtzone.com/history/marijuana-control-act.asp
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. (1956). United Sates Code.Congressional and Administrative News, 1, 651–662.
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. (1956). United Sates Code.Congressional and Administrative News, 2, 3274–3286.
� NATIONAL ACADEMY,FEDERAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION
Since its inception in 1935, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s National Academy (FBINA) has pro-vided advanced law enforcement training to policeofficers from around the world. The NationalAcademy, well-known throughout policing by theacronym FBINA, strives to improve professionalism,knowledge, and leadership training for law enforce-ment officers not only in the United States, but fromforeign countries as well. The NA offers courseworkto about 1,000 students annually through four trainingsessions each year on site at the FBI Training Facilityin Quantico, Virginia. More than 36,000 officers,including 2,300 international officers representing149 countries, are FBINA graduates.
Although the FBINA includes physical andskills training such as firearms proficiency in itscoursework, it is best known for its academic andadministrative courses that provide leadership andspecialized technique training on a wide range oftopics and that are recognized for credit by a numberof undergraduate and graduate criminal justice pro-grams around the country. In addition to being atraining facility, the FBINA gives law enforcementofficers the opportunity to share ideas, experiences,and techniques with other officers.
760—�—National Academy, Federal Bureau of Investigation
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 760
Officers wishing to attend the FBI NationalAcademy must be nominated by their departmentand undergo an extensive background check andinterview process. Most applicants are senior-levelpersonnel already in management or recognizedas future managers. Fewer than 1% of all officersare invited to attend the training facility for theFBI National Academy. In order to be eligible foradmission to the FBI National Academy, candidatesmust meet the following criteria: They must be full-time officers of a law enforcement agency with atleast five years of continuous service; must be atleast 25 years of age and in excellent physical con-dition; must be of excellent character and reputationas law enforcement officers; must have shownan interest in continuing education through lawenforcement service and training; must have a highschool diploma or high school equivalency certifi-cate; and must agree to remain in law enforcementfor a minimum of three years after completion ofthe FBI National Academy.
HISTORY
Former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover envisioned theNational Academy as a law enforcement school thatwould “raise the level of professionalism nation-wide by training local police officers.” AlthoughHoover felt that the training of law enforcementofficers was a local matter, he believed that the fed-eral government, and particularly the FBI, had anobligation to provide assistance in training throughmethods of scientific criminal detection and otherlaw enforcement activities.
The National Police Training School began oper-ation on July 29, 1935, in Washington, D.C. Twelveweeks later, 23 graduates completed a course thatfocused on practical training, problem solving, andadministration. In 1941, the renamed FBI NationalAcademy moved to the FBI’s training facility inQuantico, Virginia. The FBI National Academyhas continually modified its curriculum to meetthe changing needs of society and law enforce-ment. In response to World War II, the FBI addedtraining to cover such topics as civil defense,treason, espionage, and sabotage investigation. Inthe 1950s, in response to the cold war, the FBI
National Academy added training centered on theinvestigation of communist sympathizers and com-munist organizations. During this time, the NA alsoadded training centered on civil rights and organizedcrime.
The size and scope of the FBI National Academywas increased greatly in the 1960s and 1970s, duein part to an increase in funding directly relatedto the passage of President Lyndon B. Johnson’sCommission on Law Enforcement and Administrationof Justice and the passage of the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act. With the move to aself-contained training facility at the Marine Basein Quantico, Virginia, in 1972, the FBINA againchanged the curriculum to meet the diverse needs oflaw enforcement agencies in this country. The NAbegan to offer more training that focused on drugs,civil terrorism, money laundering, and internationalcrime. Eleven-week academic courses were addedor modified to cover such topics as criminal law,behavioral sciences, education and communication,physical training, investigation and management,hostage negotiation, terrorism, and forensic sciences.What began with 23 students has grown to a 1,000member per year institution with a curriculum thatcontinues to change to meet the newest challengesin law enforcement.
Stephen E. Ruegger
For Further Reading
Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Academy. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov
Linkins, J. R. (1997, May). FBI academy. FBI Law Enforce-ment Bulletin, pp. 1–12.
� NATIONALADVISORY COMMISSIONON CIVIL DISORDER(KERNER COMMISSION)
The National Advisory Commission on CivilDisorders, known as the Kerner Commission afterits chair, Illinois governor Otto Kerner, was estab-lished by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 28,1967. It was formally constituted by Executive
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder (Kerner Commission)—�—761
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 761
Order No. 11365 dated July 29, 1967. After sevenmonths of investigation, the commission issued its425-page report, popularly known as the KernerReport, on March 1, 1968. The commission foundthat racism was the underlying cause for thenation’s recent riots and that unless reform wasinstituted America was “moving toward twosocieties, one black, one white—separate andunequal.”
SUMMERS OF UNREST
The summer of 1967, like many in its immediatepast, was fraught with civil disorder and rioting.Urban violence in the United States ranged fromfull-scale rioting and looting to a range of minordisturbances in more than 150 cities. The KernerCommission was charged with finding the causes ofthese riots and the factors underlying the explosiveunrest that marred race relations in the UnitedStates. Civil disorders are a form of collective vio-lence that interrupts the peace, security, and normalfunctions of a community. Starting with Birmingham,Alabama, in 1965 and escalating over the summerof 1965, riots marred many inner cities of theUnited States, including Watts (Los Angeles) (1965),Chicago (1966), and Newark, New Jersey (1967).On the date of the Kerner Commission’s establish-ment, rioting was still underway in Detroit.
These urban riots, frequently called race riotsat the time, were a violent counterpoint to thecivil rights movement. The 11-member KernerCommission was called to analyze the specifictriggers of the riots, the underlying causes for theircontagion, the roots of the widening racial discord,and potential solutions. Believing that violence—looting, murder, pillage, and arson—were separatefrom civil rights issues, President Johnson soughtrecommendations for a peaceful solution from thegroup of business, political, and civil rights leaderswho formed the commission. Racism and economicdisparity were found to be the underlying causes ofthe spiraling spasm of civil unrest. The commissionconcluded that the violence of the urban riotsreflected the profound alienation and collectivefrustration of inner-city blacks. For the first time, an
official government report acknowledged the deepscars caused by racism.
In its chapter “Police and the Community,” theKerner Report explored the impact of police vio-lence, misconduct, and brutality on minority-policerelations. Citing contemporary sources, the commis-sion underscored the impact of improper police con-duct. For example, according to a 1965 Gallup pollreferenced by the report, 35% of black men versus7% of whites believed police brutality occurred intheir areas. In Watts, an African American commu-nity at that time, 60% of residents between 15 and19 believed there was police brutality, while halfsaid that they had seen such misconduct.
DEEP ROOTS OF CONFLICT
During the mid-1960s, the civil rights struggleseemingly threatened to shear the United States intwo. Racial conflict—particularly black and whiteconflict—has deep roots in American society. Fearand apprehension of racial unrest further fuels theconflict. The commission issued its report at theheight of conflict, warning that unless conditions inits cities were remedied, the United States faced a“system of ‘apartheid.’” In April 1968, one monthafter the report’s release, rioting broke out in morethan 100 cities immediately following the assassi-nation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The explosive mixture then found in U.S. citiesincluded segregation, pervasive unemployment, edu-cation and housing discrimination, and communityinstability as whites left the inner city and poorblacks moved in. The Kerner Commission noted anumber of deeply held community grievances amongAfrican Americans at the time. These included policepractices and discrimination in the administration ofjustice, unemployment and underemployment, inad-equate housing, and inadequate municipal serviceamong others. Scarce employment, inadequate edu-cation, poverty, and a lack of opportunity—perceivedand actual—combined to fuel resentment of thepolice as a symbol of authority.
The Kerner Report documented that a deep reser-voir of grievances underscored black relationshipswith the police and the broader community at large.
762—�—National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder (Kerner Commission)
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 762
While specifics varied from city to city, commonconcerns were prejudice, discrimination, disadvan-taged living conditions, and a broadly felt senseof frustration about the ability to change theseentrenched conditions. Inaction by government andmunicipal authorities exacerbated this reservoir offrustration, providing the tinder for the riot process.
Similarly, precipitating incidents were foundto exist prior to the outbreak of overt violence andwidespread community disturbances. Specifically,the Kerner Commission identified the existenceof triggering events that immediately preceded theoutbreak of a riot or widespread disorder. Theseprecipitating events generally occurred a few hoursbefore the onset of the riot and within the generalproximity of the riot’s flashpoint. While seeminglyminor in nature, these flashpoint incidents tookplace within the chronic, disturbed social atmos-phere of the ghetto amid the reservoir of grievancesheld by the community. The cumulative mountingof tensions then ignited into violence.
POLICE CONDUCT ANDCOMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS
This experience highlights the importance of policeconduct (or misconduct) as a contributing factor toriot behavior. As the Kerner Commission found, realor perceived police abuse can be the spark or insti-gating event in incidents of unrest or civil disorder.Specifically, the Kerner Report noted that “almostinvariably the incident that ignites disorder arisesfrom police action. Harlem, Watts, Newark andDetroit—all the major outbreaks of recent years—were precipitated by routine arrests of Negros bywhite officers for minor offenses.” Contemporaryblacks viewed police action in the ghetto as beinginfluenced by racist and disparate attitudes. TheKerner Report noted that the police had “come tosymbolize white power, white racism and whiterepression.” According to the report, many police ofthe time did “reflect and express white attitudes.”The cumulative effect was that the “atmosphere ofhostility and cynicism [among police] is reinforcedby a widespread perception among Negroes of theexistence of police brutality and corruption, and of a
‘double standard’ of justice and protection—one forNegroes and one for whites.”
The Kerner Commission made a major contribu-tion to the understanding of police-community ten-sions, riot dynamics and, most important, the impactof racism on black and white relations and relationswith the police. Race still plays a pivotal role inpolice-community relations. Brutality—real orperceived—still triggers unrest as the 1992 LosAngeles riots (which arose from the aftermath of theRodney King beating) and many smaller-scale sub-sequent events attest. Concerns over racial profiling,disparity, brutality, and corruption continue, as doesthe recognition that community viability is animportant factor in limiting violence, crime, and dis-order, both in daily events and in catastrophic riots.The Kerner Report paved the way for this under-standing and opened the debate on how to sustain asociety and its police service across a racial divide.
John P. Sullivan
For Further Reading
Human Rights Watch. (1998). Shielded from justice: Policebrutality and accountability in the United States.New York: Author.
Kerner Commission. (1968). Report of the National AdvisoryCommission on Civil Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
� NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF WOMEN LAWENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES
The National Association of Women Law Enforce-ment Executives (NAWLEE) was formed in early1995 by a small group of women holding seniormanagement ranks in police agencies throughoutthe United States. It was incorporated as a nonprofitorganization less than a year later, in March 1996,with an initial membership of about 150 women.The women represented a variety of types of policeagencies, including federal, state, county, munici-pal, campus, and railroad law enforcement agen-cies. At its first conference in July 1996, AlanaEnnis, then the chief of the Duke University Police
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives—�—763
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 763
Department, Durham, North Carolina, and a foundingmember of the group, was elected the first presi-dent. In 2002, during her term as president, TheresaChambers became the first female chief of the U.S.National Park Police and the first chief to have beenselected from outside the National Park Service.She had been serving as chief of the DurhamCity (North Carolina) Police Department. Also atthe end of 2002, NAWLEE membership includedapproximately 350 voting and about 100 nonvotingmembers.
Although one of a number of associations ofwomen in policing, NAWLEE is the only one cre-ated specifically for women in management ranks.Voting members must be in the rank of lieutenant orabove; associate, or nonvoting, members may be ofany rank. NAWLEE’s mission is to further the inter-ests of women executives and those who aspire toexecutive-level positions. Toward that end, it hasfostered a close relationship with the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police (IACP). AlthoughNAWLEE holds its own conference annually duringthe summer months, members also meet at the fallIACP conference and staff an information booth atthe IACP conference to make attendees aware ofNAWLEE. A number of NAWLEE members serveon IACP committees, including the executive com-mittee, which provides an opportunity to have avoice in the larger agency’s agenda. In 1999, MaryAnn Viverette, chief of police in Gaithersburg,Maryland, a founding member of NAWLEE, waselected sixth vice president of the IACP, the firstwoman vice president in the IACP’s history.Following IACP policy of each vice president mov-ing up one position annually, if Viverette remains achief of police she will become president in 2006.
NAWLEE also joined with the IACP to supporttwo studies of women in policing. The first, con-ducted in 1998 by the Gallup Organization, sur-veyed 800 police chiefs about their attitudes andactions toward women in policing. The findingsindicated that most of the respondents believed theirdepartments should have more female officers tobetter represent the demographics of their commu-nities and that, while they expected the numbers ofwomen in policing to increase in the 21st century,
few had specific recruitment strategies aimed atwomen. Small departments reported difficultiesretaining women officers, primarily due to a combi-nation of family responsibilities or the women seek-ing better job opportunities elsewhere, often withlarger police agencies. Both groups also providedfinancial and logistical support in 2000 for a censusof women police chiefs and a survey of womenchiefs, sheriffs, and chief special agents of federaland state agencies to learn more about the careerpaths of women law enforcement executives.
Based on its focus on management issues andencouraging women to aspire to police managementpositions, NAWLEE’s conferences differ from thegroups that span all ranks. Presentations on mentor-ing, promotion, and leadership predominate, andmembers of the group are frequently called upon toserve on assessment centers and promotion boardsset up by police departments around the country asone way to move from the more traditional pencil-and-paper tests to select personnel for managementranks. In an attempt to better serve members and toattract new members from the increasing numbersof women in higher ranks, NAWLEE appointed anexecutive director in 2003, selecting Diane Skoog,a NAWLEE member who had recently retiredafter serving for 12 years as chief of the Carver(Massachusetts) Police Department.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives.[Online]. Available: http://www.nawlee.com
Schulz, D. M. (2002, March). Law enforcement leaders: Asurvey of women police chiefs in the United States. ThePolice Chief, pp. 25–28.
Women policing: IACP, Gallup assess recruitment, promotion,retention issues. (1998, October). The Police Chief,pp. 36, 38, 40.
� NATIONAL BLACK POLICEOFFICERS ASSOCIATION
The National Black Police Officers Association(NBPA) is a national consortium of African
764—�—National Black Police Officers Association
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 764
American police organizations in the United States.Established in 1972, NBPA provides a nationwidelaw enforcement network to address the needs,issues, and concerns of minority officers and thediverse communities that they serve.
Focusing on education, training, and policyissues in law enforcement and criminal justice, thegoals of the organization are fivefold: improving therelationship between police departments as institu-tions and the minority community; evaluating theeffects of police policies and programs withinthe minority community; serving as a mechanism torecruit minority police officers on a national scale;working toward police reform in order to eliminatepolice corruption, police brutality, and racial dis-crimination; and educating police officers to per-form with professionalism and compassion.
NBPA is organized into five geographicalregions (northeast, eastern, southern, midwest, andwestern) with each region having elected andappointed officers representing the black policeassociations in that jurisdiction. National officers,however, are elected from a board of directors, whoare also responsible for the formulation of policyand the operation of the organization. A nationaloffice, located in Washington, D.C., formulates,coordinates, and monitors nationally funded pro-jects and programs and serves as the administrativearm of the board of directors. NBPA in 2004 hada national membership of approximately 35,000individual members and more than 140 profes-sional and student criminal justice chapters across34 states and the District of Columbia. In additionto its American constituents, NBPA has associatemembers and professional chapters in Bermuda,Canada, and the United Kingdom. Although thetotal membership of these international affiliates isnot readily known, their objectives are identical tothe parent organization, that is, improving the work-ing conditions of black and Asian law enforcementpersonnel and improving law enforcement servicesto diverse communities.
The major activities of NBPA include an annualnational education and training conference that pro-vides workshops and discussion groups on currentlaw enforcement and criminal justice issues and
policies and that serves as a forum for bothrecruitment and the dissemination of pertinentinformation. Training and educational conferences,newsletters, and career fairs are also provided bythe regional and international chapters and organi-zations. As an educator and advocate for minoritypolice officers and the issues that they face, theNBPA has been credited with doubling the numberof minority officers in police organizations andimproving the historically strained relationshipbetween police and the community. Moreover,NBPA has provided publications that inform thepublic how to address issues such as beingstopped by the police and has collaborated with theNational Organization of Black Law EnforcementExecutives to develop a strategy for communityoriented policing.
In its advocacy role, NBPA has taken policypositions on numerous issues including communitypolicing, crime prevention, police residency regula-tions, and women in police work. NBPA, for example,calls for cooperative partnerships between the com-munity and police organizations for safer commu-nities and argues that police officers should haveofficial residency in the city or municipalityin which they are employed. Of specific note areNBPA’s policy statements on police-mediationcenter partnerships and the use of mediation inaddressing complaints against the police. Accordingto NBPA, police department-mediation center part-nerships must allow police officers to empower dis-puting parties because the absence of the transfer ofpower in interpersonal disputes perpetuates raciallydiscriminatory policing. In short, police department-mediation center partnerships must take intoaccount the social justice issue of poor police-people of color relations as well as the problem ofsocial subordination of people of color when policearbitrate or dictate where empowerment is appro-priate. NBPA further argues that complaints ofracial discrimination against police should notgo through the process of mediation. Mediationassumes that all parties are on an equal playing fieldand affords the alleged victim dignity and respect,which are not normally characteristics of casesinvolving complaints of racial discrimination.
National Black Police Officers Association—�—765
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 765
Facilitation, specifically conversations between twoparties aided by a neutral third party, is proposed asa better strategy because it provides the victim withthe opportunity to face the officer and explain howand why he was affected by the victimization andprevents society from ignoring the social responsi-bility of addressing racially discriminatory policing.
Becky L. Tatum
For Further Reading
Cooper, C. (2000). Mediation in black & white: Mediationcenter police partnerships & a dignified response.Bethesda, MD: Pike & Fischer.
Hampton, R. (1998). The National Black Police Associationresource guide to a career in law. Garden Grove, CA:Learning Express.
National Black Police Association Online. [Online]. Available:www.blackpolice.org
� NATIONAL COMMISSION ONLAW OBSERVANCE ANDENFORCEMENT (WICKERSHAMCOMMISSION)
In 1929 President Herbert Hoover created theNational Commission on Law Observance andEnforcement. The commission is often referred to asthe Wickersham Commission, named after GeorgeW. Wickersham, who served as its chairperson. Thecommission comprised several leading experts incriminal justice and law in the United States at thattime. Some of the other members of the WickershamCommission included Roscoe Pound, NewtonD. Baker, Frank Loesch, Paul J. McCormick, Ada L.Comstock, William I. Grubb, William S. Kenyon,Henry W. Anderson, and Monte M. Lemann.
The Wickersham Commission was created inresponse to some of the major crime problems rele-vant to that time period, including organized crimeand Prohibition. To better understand the state ofcrime and criminal justice in the United States, theWickersham Commission conducted the first fed-eral assessment of crime and the criminal justicesystem over a two-year time period (1929-1931).
The commission was composed of several committeesthat examined issues surrounding Prohibition, themajor causes and costs of crime in the United States,the manner in which federal courts functioned, andthe extent of lawlessness in all criminal justice agen-cies (including police, court, and corrections).
In 1931, the commission’s study resulted in afinal report that contained 14 individual volumes onthe following topics: proposals to improve enforce-ment of criminal laws in the United States; report onthe enforcement of Prohibition laws in the UnitedStates; report on U.S. criminal statistics; report onprosecution; report on the enforcement of deporta-tion laws of the United States; report on childoffenders in the federal system of justice; progressreport on the study of federal courts; report on crim-inal procedure; report on penal institutions, proba-tion, and parole; report on crime and the foreignborn; report on the cost of crime; report on the police;and two reports on the causes of crime (labeledVolume 1 and Volume 2). The Wickersham Commis-sion’s final report offers an important historical lookat the state of crime and the criminal justice systemin the United States from 1920 to 1930.
In general, the final report produced by theWickersham Commission revealed that the federalmechanisms for enforcing criminal law in the UnitedStates were insufficient and ineffective. The finalreport also stated that official lawlessness by crimi-nal justice officials in all criminal justice agencies(including the police, courts, and corrections) waswidespread across several jurisdictions in the UnitedStates. Several potential solutions to the identifiedproblems within police, court, and correction agen-cies were also included in the final report. This wasthe first comprehensive study of the criminal justicesystem in America.
Two of the volumes of the final report weredevoted specifically to the police. One, “Lawlessnessof Law Enforcement,” focused on police mis-conduct, whereas the other, “Report on Police,”focused on issues involving police administration.Both of these reports had a significant impact onpolice policy; however, the report “Lawlessness ofLaw Enforcement” uncovered some disturbinginformation on the existence of police corruption
766—�—National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission)
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 766
and some of the coercive techniques used by policeofficers and prosecutors, which in turn promptedsome of the earliest attempts at the implementationof police accountability mechanisms.
“LAWLESSNESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT”
The report “Lawlessness of Law Enforcement”began by detailing the rights by which U.S. citizensare protected in regard to due process of the law underthe Fourteenth Amendment and self-incriminationunder the Fifth Amendment. In general, the reportstated that there was evidence that these two specificrights had been widely disregarded by the police. Asa primary example of the neglect of those rights, thecommission identified the use of the coercive tacticsto extract confessions and information from sus-pects, sometimes referred to as the third degree. Thethird degree is the use of psychological, emotional,or physical coercion to get suspects or witnessesto disclose information that the police could use toclose cases faster or to get suspects to confess toinvolvement in criminal activities.
It was difficult for the commission to study theprevalence of the use of the third degree as thosepeople who would employ such measures (includingpolice officers, detectives, sheriffs, and prosecutors)would not be forthcoming with the information. Toexplore the use of the third degree the commissionrelied mostly on judicial decisions that outlinedthe use of such techniques. The commission alsoused survey and interview data collected during thecourse of members’ fieldwork in 15 cities across theUnited States. Individuals who were interviewedduring fieldwork included judges, prosecutors,police commissioners, city managers, membersof the American Bar Association, affiliates of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, prison associates,social workers, newspaper reporters, law profes-sors, and managers of correctional facilities.
“Lawlessness of Law Enforcement” revealedthat the use of the third degree was widespread andfrequently used by law enforcement officials andprosecutors in both urban and rural areas. Morespecifically, the report noted that incidents involv-ing the use of the third degree had taken place in
more than half of the states in the country in the 10years prior to issuance of the report. It was also dis-covered that the use of the third degree was oftencoupled with other illegal practices includingbribery, illegal arrests, fabrication of evidence andreports, entrapment of suspects, use of brutality bythe police, the use of illegal wiretapping, and denialof the opportunity to have legal counsel presentduring the questioning of suspects.
The commission urged that all police agents andprosecutors abandon the use of the third degree andthat police administrators not tolerate the use ofsuch techniques by employees of their agencies. Tosupport this assertion the commission provided alist of several evils that can result from using coer-cive techniques such as the third degree. First, thecommission stated that the use of the third degreecould create false confessions by suspects andwitnesses. The third degree would also impair policeefficiency as police officers might become lesseager in the investigation for objective evidenceoutside of confessions by suspects and witnesses.This coercive technique would also likely impairthe efficiency of the administration of justice inthe court system because it could deflect the focusaway from the guilt or innocence of the accused andturn the focus toward the legitimacy of confessionsobtained by the police. And finally, the commissionnoted that the use of the third degree would hardenpolice officers and lower public confidence in theintegrity of the police.
“REPORT ON POLICE”
The “Report on Police” focused specifically onissues involving police administration and policy.The ineffectiveness of the police at that time wasbelieved to be the result of a combination of deficitsidentified within police organizations. For example,the commission revealed that chiefs of policelacked the ability to provide strong leadership inmost U.S. police agencies. Low education levels,little experience with, or knowledge of, politics inpolicing, and the inability to earn the support ofsubordinates were identified as key problems inpolice administration. The involvement of politics
National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission)—�—767
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 767
in American policing had proven to be problematic;thus the commission noted that police managementshould be aware of the problems that can resultfrom such involvement. In fact, the final reportstrongly recommended that politics be completelyremoved from police organizations.
The commission’s report also pointed out theneed for hiring better qualified police officers.During the early 1900s there were no formal quali-fications to become a police officer. In addition,there were no mandatory education requirementsfor police recruits. There was also no formalfirearms training, which meant that most policeofficers acquired their marksman skills on the job.The commission believed that raising the standardsof the hiring, recruiting, and training of police offi-cers would result in higher quality police officers.In addition to raising the standards of recruitment,hiring, and training of police officers, the commis-sion’s report also suggested that employment bene-fit packages should be improved to adequatelycompensate police officers for their work. Morespecifically, the report noted that salaries, sickleave, vacation, death benefits, and pension plansshould be adequate to provide police officers withrespectable living standards.
The commission also found that the inefficiencyand ineffectiveness of the police resulted fromthe lack of adequate communication systems andequipment. It foresaw that the deficit in communi-cation systems would cause more problems forAmerican police as cities continued to rapidly growin size. The ability to use several types of commu-nication tools (such as call boxes, teletypes, recallsignal boxes, and radios) would improve policeofficers’ ability to provide a higher quality of policeservice to the community.
Another part of becoming more efficient andeffective would require that police agencies begin tosystematically keep records of official police activi-ties. The efforts of the members of the WickershamCommission contributed to the creation of theUniform Crime Report. The Federal Bureau ofInvestigation would play a key role in record keep-ing, as it would ultimately become the primarydepository of police records. Sufficient record
keeping would allow police administrators tomonitor their progress in crime fighting efforts overtime.
An overload of duties placed upon police officerswas also noted as a factor in the inefficiency ofthe police during the time of the WickershamCommission. The increase in police duties resultedin part from the consistent increase in populationsas people were moving from rural areas into cities.As populations increased in urban areas, the prob-lems that police officers encountered became morecomplex. The combination of inadequate policetraining and an increasingly complex work envi-ronment resulted in police agencies that were noteffective or efficient in any capacity.
And finally, the commission suggested that policeagencies adopt specialized crime prevention units.Since most police officers spend their time identify-ing and detaining criminals, there would be littletime left to create crime prevention strategies. Part ofthe crime prevention strategy would require the col-laboration between police agencies and other socialand community-based agencies including schools,social welfare agencies, probation agencies, andchurches. The suggestion of creating crime preven-tion units within police organizations was one of theearliest attempts to make some police activities moreproactive as opposed to purely reactive in nature.
The efforts of the Wickersham Commissioninitiated serious discussions of police reform in theUnited States. Each volume in the final report pub-lished by the commission identified problematicareas in the criminal justice system and also pro-vided suggestions to make significant changes toAmerican policing. It was not until the formationof the President’s Commission on Law Enforcementand the Administration of Justice in 1965 that thecriminal justice system and the administration ofjustice in the United States were as closely scruti-nized and studied as they were by the WickershamCommission in 1931.
Carol A. Archbold
See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Prohibition LawEnforcement, Uniform Crime Reporting Program,Volstead Act
768—�—National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission)
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 768
For Further Reading
Calder, J. D. (1993). The origins and development of federalcrime control policy: Herbert Hoover’s Initiatives.Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fogelson, R. (1977). Big city police. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Hoff-Wilson, J. (1975). Herbert Hoover: Forgotten progres-sive. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Moser, J. E. (2002). Presidents from Hoover through Truman,1929–1953: Debating the issues in pro and con primarydocuments. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement:Report. (1931). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.
Smith, D. C., Jr. (1991). Wickersham to Sutherland toKatzenbach: Evolving an official definition for organizedcrime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 16, 135–154.
� NATIONAL CRIMEINFORMATION CENTER
The National Crime Information Center (NCIC)is a nationally centralized database that collects,analyzes, and disseminates information on criminalactivity. The information maintained and indexedin the NCIC system is collected from the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI), certain authorizedcourts, and various domestic and foreign criminaljustice agencies and is maintained by the FBI.
By acting as a centralized information system,the NCIC assists law enforcement agencies inperforming their duty to uphold the law and protectthe public. The NCIC’s computerized informationsystem allows agencies to make inquiries and receiveprompt responses regarding crimes and criminals.Examples of inquiries include information onfugitives, stolen property, or missing persons. Thenationwide system houses about 39 million recordsand currently serves approximately 94,000 criminaljustice and law enforcement agencies at all levelsof government in all 50 states, the District ofColumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, theU.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada.
From the time of its inception, NCIC transactionshave multiplied from approximately 2 million a yearto about 2.5 million a day. With the FBI accountingfor only 1% of the transactions, the value of the
NCIC to various criminal justice agencies is clearlyevident. Access to the NCIC is provided 24 hoursa day, 365 days a year. Most state and local policeagencies train their dispatch personnel in the use ofthe system and the computer terminals are usuallymaintained in the communications areas of mostagencies. More recently, as police departments haveplaced computer terminals in patrol cars, immediateaccess can be obtained by police officers in the field.This is particularly important when the check is fora person who might have been stopped by the offi-cer, who is now trying to determine if that person isa fugitive or if the vehicle stopped may be stolen.
A dramatic example of how NCIC informationis transmitted was the capture of Timothy McVeigh,the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bomber, in 1995.The FBI had identified and traced the rented truckthat was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.Employees at the rental location were interviewedand helped the FBI to prepare a composite drawing ofthe individual who rented the truck. The compositedrawing was then locally circulated. The owner of alocal motel remembered a man in a similar truck andlater identified the man as McVeigh. Based on theidentification, the FBI submitted an inquiry to NCICand learned that McVeigh had been arrested on theday of the bombing on a traffic violation and wasbeing held in the Noble County Jail in Oklahoma.
This is exactly the scenario the FBI had in mindwhen it created the NCIC in 1967 as a central crimeclearinghouse for collecting and disseminatingbasic information useful in criminal investigations.One of the original purposes of the NCIC wasto assist law enforcement in tracing and trackingstolen vehicles. Since its inception, however, theNCIC has continuously broadened the scope of thesystem to include information on missing, unidenti-fied, and wanted persons; criminal histories; stolenproperty; and violent gang and terrorist activity.
NCIC 2000
The increasing need of agencies to access immedi-ate and accurate crime information, coupled withthe recent and rapid advancements in technology,has led to upgrades to the NCIC system to take
National Crime Information Center—�—769
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 769
advantage of improvements in computer technologyand software. Generally, the NCIC 2000 system hasexpanded the types of information gathered andmade available to agencies and has added special-ized features, such as photo imaging, that aid crimi-nal investigations. The increased crime-solvingcapabilities of NCIC 2000 assist law enforcement inlocating criminals by increasing the exchange ofinformation among law enforcement and criminaljustice agencies. For example, prior to recentimprovements the database only allowed the entryof stolen or recovered guns, but with the improve-ments in the database, users can now also enter gunsthat are missing. The expansion of the pool of iden-tified guns enhances the crime-solving capabilitiesand ability to aid agencies in gun investigations.
The NCIC 2000 system is capable of providingimage processing (such as mug shots, signatures,and identifying marks such as scars, birthmarks,and tattoos), automated fingerprint matching, andonline validation of records. The system is alsocapable of storing and providing for retrieval digitalimages of records pertaining to persons, vehicles,and articles. Photo images can also be retrieved andattached to the matching text records of the individ-uals or items in question. It also allows multipleinquiries to be submitted collectively on wantedand missing persons, vehicles, boats, or articles andthe collected information to be received online. Oneimmeasurable use of such features is the abilityof patrol officers to have instantaneous access tothe information, helping to ensure officer safety byidentifying potentially dangerous individuals andalso by helping officers to identify wanted and miss-ing persons during traffic stops.
The increase in the volume and type of infor-mation stored in the system has broadened the crime-solving tools available to law enforcement. One newfeature of NCIC 2000 is its ability to logically linkrelated records on crimes and criminals. In addition,new crime databases, including the Convicted SexualOffender Registry and the Convicted Person onSupervised Release databases, assist law enforce-ment in locating potentially dangerous individuals.
The expanded capabilities of the NCIC 2000are numerous. In addition to the specific features
discussed, the system has 17 databases. It canaccommodate searches using variations in namespellings, permits access to online manuals, andprovides data quality checks. There are also severalsecurity measures in place to protect the informa-tion in the system and to prevent unauthorizedaccess to the system.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
Recent updates to the NCIC system were primarilyinitiated so that it would continue to be useful tolaw enforcement agencies. The system itself, andits databases, must be responsive not only to lawenforcement, but also to technological and societalchanges. In order to evaluate and maintain the effec-tiveness of the system, there are built-in evaluationmechanisms that examine both the usage of thesystem and the benefits it provides to the users.
The NCIC 2000 faces challenges in increasingusers’ abilities to access the system to its fullpotential. In order for agencies to fully utilize theenhanced system, they must have the technologicalresources, including computers, monitors, software,printers, scanners, digital cameras, and the computerinfrastructure. It is also imperative that agenciesprovide adequate technical training of employees.
Technology has become an important crime-solving tool for law enforcement agencies. Thetechnological advances provided by NCIC 2000 notonly provide the most up-to-date and technologi-cally advanced crime-solving tools, but also facili-tate cooperation and communication among variousagencies, enhancing the ability of law enforcementto reduce and prevent crime.
Angela S. Maitland
For Further Reading
Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice InformationServices Division. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/about.htm
Hitt, S. L. (2000). NCIC 2000. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,69(7), 12–16.
National Crime Information Center. [Online]. Available:http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm
770—�—National Crime Information Center
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 770
NATIONAL CRIMEVICTIMIZATION SURVEY
The National Crime Survey (NCS) was introducedby the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS; part ofthe Department of Justice) in 1973. In 1993, BJSimplemented a major methodological redesign ofthe NCS and revised the name to the NationalCrime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to reflectthe intent of the survey. Until the introduction of theNCS the primary source of crime information inthe United States was the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR), a summary-based reporting system of crimereported directly to the police. The NCS/NCVS wasdesigned to serve as a complement to the UCR byproviding additional information on many of thesame offenses reported through the UCR. However,the NCS/NCVS provided additional benefits notavailable through the summary-type reports of theUCR. The NCS/NCVS collects previously unavail-able information on crimes suffered by individualsand households, the victims of these crimes, andthe offenders who perpetrate these offenses. Inaddition, and maybe more important for policypurposes, the NCS/NCVS also collects informationon crimes that were not reported to the police.
Twice each year, the U.S. Bureau of the Census,on behalf of BJS, conducts interviews with allhousehold members age 12 or older from a nation-ally representative sample. In 2000, about 45,000households were included in the sample, providingBJS with nearly 160,000 completed surveys for theyear. BJS reported that it received a 93% to 96%response rate for eligible households and justslightly lower (around 90%) for eligible individu-als. Households generally remain in the sample forthree years. The sample selection is staggered toallow new households to be rotated into the sampleon an ongoing basis.
Prior to the introduction of the NCS, the UCRwas the primary source of crime information in thecountry. Although the UCR was beneficial in dis-playing trends and monitoring changes in crimerates between jurisdictions and over time, it offeredlittle information on the victims involved in the
incidents and virtually no characteristics of theincidents. The NCVS collects victim demographicinformation (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status,income, and educational level), offender demo-graphics (sex, race, approximate age, and victim-offender relationship), and incident-related detailson the crimes (time and place of occurrence, useof weapons, nature of injury, and value of propertydestroyed or stolen). Critical to the NCVS are ques-tions directly related to the victims’ experienceswith the criminal justice system and protective mea-sures the victims may have used prior to the crime.
Because the NCVS uses the crime victim as theprimary unit of count, it can collect much greaterdetail on the victims, the offense(s), and the conse-quences of the offense(s) on the victims. The NCVScollects detailed information on the frequency andnature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, per-sonal robbery, aggravated and simple assault,household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft.The NCVS does not address the issue of homicidenor does it attempt to measure commercial crimes(such as burglaries of stores).
COMPARING UCR AND NCVS
Over the years, numerous comparisons have beenmade between the NCVS and the UCR. Someresearchers argue that comparing the two is likecomparing apples and oranges. Together, the twosystems provide a much more informative picture ofcrime in the United States. They were each designedto meet different objectives, and although there issome overlap, methodologically they are as differentas night and day. The UCR was designed to providethe first and—at the time—only set of criminal jus-tice statistics for law enforcement administration,operation, and management. On the other hand, theNCVS was primarily established to provide previ-ously unavailable information about crime victims,offenders, and crimes not reported to police.
Comparisons of the NCVS with the UCR overtime have shown that in the early years of theNCVS the gap between the self-reported data andthe official data was fairly large. However, in morerecent years the gap in the numbers of crimes
National Crime Victimization Survey—�—771
�
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 771
reported between the two systems has narrowedconsiderably. To fully interpret and benefit from acomparison of the two systems, a thorough under-standing is required of how the methodologiesdefine the differences in the reporting. It is alsoimportant to keep in mind that each of the programsis unique and only by understanding the strengthsand weaknesses of each can the UCR and NCVS beused to achieve a greater understanding of crimetrends and the nature of crime in the United States.
Donald Faggiani
See also National Incident-Based Reporting System,Uniform Crime Reporting Program
For Further Reading
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Annually). Crime in theUnited States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A.,Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., & Maston, C.(1998). Violence by intimates (Report NCJ 167237).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics.
Hart, T. C., & Rennison, C. (2003). Reporting crime to thepolice, 1992–2000 (Report NCJ 195710). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.
Rand, M. R., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). Criminal vic-timization, 1973–95 (Report NCJ 163069). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.
� NATIONAL DNAINDEX SYSTEM
DNA typing has been widely implemented over thepast 15 years as a tool for associating human bodyfluids and tissue fragments recovered at a crimescene with the individuals involved in the crime.A person’s DNA typing pattern is the same for allcells and tissues in the person’s body and doesnot change with time. DNA typing can therefore beused not only to determine whether a suspect’sknown DNA typing pattern matches that of semenrecovered from a particular rape victim, but also to
determine whether a convicted rapist’s known DNAtyping pattern matches that of semen recovered inconnection with various unsolved sexual assaults.In the United States, a National DNA Index System(NDIS) has been established, under the auspices ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to facili-tate this broad investigative use of DNA typing.
The development of NDIS is feasible becausetechnical advances in DNA typing methods overthe past decade have yielded testing methods thatare inexpensive, quick, and far more reliable andreproducible than earlier DNA typing methods.The availability of commercially produced testingequipment and commercially produced kits of thetesting materials has contributed to the standardiza-tion of these new methods. Equally important,the National Institute of Standards and Technologyhas developed reference materials whose exactDNA typing patterns are known, which can be usedby individual DNA typing laboratories to calibratetheir testing equipment. The FBI, through its ScientificWorking Group on DNA Analysis Methods, has setstandards in the areas of personnel training, labora-tory organization, and other aspects of laboratoryadministration and security that apply to all labora-tories generating DNA typing patterns used byNDIS.
NDIS has been implemented as a stratified groupof DNA typing databases. DNA typing data origi-nate and are initially analyzed in local testing labo-ratories and jurisdictions, are passed on to statewidedatabases for further analysis, and are finally passedon to a central nationwide database maintained bythe FBI. These DNA typing patterns originate fromcurrent criminal investigations, from typing ofconvicted felons, and from analysis of evidencefrom old, unsolved crimes.
The first source of patterns is DNA typing car-ried out in connection with criminal investigations,for example, the typing pattern for the semen recov-ered from a rape victim or the typing pattern of ablood sample taken from a suspect in a case. DNAtyping patterns for crime victims are not included inNDIS.
Most states have now enacted laws specifying thatsome or all individuals convicted of felonies in their
772—�—National DNA Index System
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 772
courts must submit to DNA typing. Such systematicDNA typing efforts are relatively recent, comparedto the typing of materials associated with specificcrimes, but are now proceeding on a large scale.
Many jurisdictions have embarked on systematicprograms of DNA typing applied to material recov-ered from victims of unsolved sexual assaults. Ifproperly stored, swabs or stained garments collectedfrom a victim within a few hours of the assault typ-ically provide sufficient high-quality DNA forDNA typing, even years later. These typing effortsare likewise recent, but their scale is rapidlyexpanding.
Finally, in missing-person cases, DNA typingpatterns developed from articles used by the person(e.g., from hair roots on a hairbrush or cheek cellson a toothbrush) can be included in NDIS, togetherwith DNA typing patterns of unidentified bodies.
In all of these cases, matches have been reportedbetween, for example, the typing pattern of a knownfelon tested as part of a systematic testing programand material from unsolved crime, and some suc-cesses have been reported in the association of pre-viously unidentified human remains with missingpersons.
IMPLICATIONS OF DNA TYPING
This process of determining the DNA typing pat-terns of large numbers of individuals, storing thisinformation in centralized databases, and systemat-ically analyzing these data for matches raises twonew issues.
First, who should be typed? At present in theUnited States, only typing patterns from some felonsand suspects in current investigations are enteredinto the NDIS system. Here the issues are whetherthe classes of felons who are typed should be madeuniform across jurisdictions, and perhaps broad-ened to include all felons, or even to include allindividuals.
Second, what typing methodology should beused? At present, DNA typing patterns are gener-ated using a single DNA typing technology, so allpatterns in the NDIS system can be directly com-pared. On the one hand, provision must be made for
storage and analysis of patterns developed in theearly days of DNA typing, using technology that isnow obsolete. On the other, basic research in thearea of human molecular biology and DNA typingis advancing rapidly, and DNA typing strategiesthat are cheaper, faster, and more reliable than thosenow in use are likely to come out of this work.There is thus a tension between the need to havea single standard DNA typing strategy, to allow thesystematic comparisons that are the purpose ofNDIS, and the need to generate high-quality, reli-able DNA typing data on an increasing scale andat a reasonable cost. Storing actual DNA samplesfrom individuals, as well as DNA typing results,would address this concern by allowing retesting ofsamples as necessary. This strategy, however, wouldraise practical issues of sample handling and stor-age, as well as concerns about privacy and possiblemisuse of DNA typing in the future.
Peter D’Eustachio
For Further Reading
Quality assurance audits for forensic DNA and convictedoffender DNA databasing laboratories. [Online]. Available:http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/dnaaudit.pdf
Quality assurance standards for convicted offender DNAdatabasing laboratories, DNA Advisory Board April1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/codis1b.htm#1
� NATIONAL DOMESTICPREPAREDNESS OFFICE
The National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO)was created in 1998 to coordinate federal programsand technical assistance efforts related to terrorismpreparedness. The attorney general called for thecreation of the agency following an August 1998meeting of 200 representatives of the national emer-gency response community, which highlighted thefragmented nature of federal assistance efforts tostate and local authorities.
Under the auspices of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), the NDPO was designed to
National Domestic Preparedness Office—�—773
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 773
serve as an information clearinghouse in the areasof weapons of mass destruction (WMD) planning,training, research, and technical assistance. As anumbrella organization, the NDPO’s federal partnersinclude the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), the Department of Defense, the Environ-mental Protection Agency, the Department ofHealth and Human Services, the Department ofEnergy, the Office for Domestic Preparedness(ODP), and the National Guard Bureau.
Despite its origins as a means to coordinatenational efforts and policy related to terrorism, theNDPO never fully achieved its original vision ofproviding a true central clearinghouse in an other-wise fragmented federal bureaucracy. It did,though, represent the first federal effort for such anintegrated approach. A major source of its inabilityto reach this goal was the fact that the NDPO wasprovided virtually no staff or money, nor was itgranted any authority with respect to evaluating ormodifying the federal programs it was created topublicize. It was not until January 2001 that NDPOreceived funds for an operational budget, eventhough it had been charged with coordinating bothNDPO and federal interagency projects.
President George W. Bush created a NationalPreparedness Office under FEMA in 2002, withlittle effort to distinguish its activities from theNDPO, even though it was said to have more coor-dinating authority. Similarly, in addition to theNDPO, the existing attorney general’s Five YearPlan and the National Security Council each soughtto plan and develop national preparedness strate-gies. These apparently overlapping federal agenciescontinued to create confusion among state and localagencies as to where to turn for needed assistance.Despite this, the NDPO’s State and Local AdvisoryGroup (SLAG) has provided a means for federalgovernment input regarding federal programmingeffectiveness and current needs. Following thecreation of the Department of Homeland Securityin the wake of the September 11, 2001, terroristattacks in the United States, the NDPO was movedfrom the Department of Justice’s FBI to theEmergency Preparedness and Response Divisionof the new Department of Homeland Security.
THE CLEARINGHOUSE CONCEPT:SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE NDPO
Even following the move to the Department ofHomeland Security, the core of the NDPO’s func-tioning will continue to be enhanced informationsharing and collaboration to determine agencies’needs related to terrorism preparedness. Addition-ally, the NDPO was envisioned as a one-stop shop,creating not only ease of access to important WMDinformation and resources, but also reducing theredundancy and duplication of similar effortswithin the federal government. In sum, the NDPOwas to provide a central point of contact for all stateand local first responders seeking to enhance theircapacity to respond to the threat of terrorism. TheNDPO has no operational capacity; instead, eachof the various departments and agencies (federal,state, and local) carried out the response activitieswithin their respective jurisdictions. The NDPO’sservices and activities are categorized across sixfunctional areas: training, equipment, exercises,planning, information sharing/outreach, and health/medical services.
Training. Pursuant to its larger focus regarding over-all national domestic preparedness strategy, theNDPO is meant to identify the needs and gaps ofthe emergency response community and to establishtraining standards and curricula to address theseneeds. The ODP then plays a major role in dissemi-nating such federal training or technical assistanceefforts to the state and local communities.
Equipment. The NDPO facilitates national effortsto obtain such needed equipment that mightbe required in a WMD incident, including stayingabreast of current best practices and technologies.As with training, however, the ODP handles thefederal equipment grant matters to aid in the dis-semination process.
Planning. This was the principal reason for thecreation of the NDPO, particularly to overcome thefragmented nature of federal, state, and local antiter-rorism resources and efforts and the general lack ofa cohesive national domestic preparedness strategy.
774—�—National Domestic Preparedness Office
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 774
As such, NDPO is responsible for developing acommon forum for planning and policy. The centralmechanism for such planning efforts is housedwithin the establishment of SLAG. SLAG wasintended to provide the attorney general and NDPOwith advice on strategy, development, and imple-mentation of programs enhancing the capabilitiesof emergency responders to prepare for a terroristact involving WMD. This 32-member group is madeup of representatives of the emergency responsecommunity, including law enforcement, fire/rescue,National Guard, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,medical and public health services, state and localgovernments, and bomb technicians. SLAG is meantto be the linkage between federal agencies and stateand local jurisdictions with respect to domestic pre-paredness and WMD response.
Information Sharing/Outreach. Traditionally, thestate and local emergency response community wasoften confused by the scattered efforts and technicalassistance offered in relation to terrorism. TheNDPO developed several mechanisms to improveinformation sharing and outreach, including thefollowing:
• Securing a common communication link hosted byLaw Enforcement Online
• Creating a monthly official newsletter for theemergency response community called TheBeacon, which offers information regarding bestpractices, existing federal resources/grants, train-ing opportunities, and so forth
• Issuing a variety of bulletins on important andcurrent topics, such as sample guidelines forresponding to WMD threats
• Compiling a census of federal WMD trainingcourses and standardized equipment
• Offering regularly updated counterterrorism andWMD information
• Creating and maintaining an electronic helpline forthe emergency response community
Health/Medical Services. Given the obvious threatof biological and chemical terrorist acts, the NDPOseeks to establish an effective national public healthsurveillance system to improve the identification of
terrorist-induced diseases. Thus, the participation ofthe medical community in the NDPO planning andpolicy activities has always been viewed as crucial.
Heath B. Grant
For Further Reading
Decker, R. (2001). Combating terrorism: Comments oncounterterrorism leadership and national strategy.Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Blueprint for theNational Domestic Preparedness Office. Washington,DC: Author.
National Domestic Preparedness Office. [Online]. Available:http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ndpo/
Principles of a national homeland security program. (2002).IAEM Position Paper No. GAO1: 11042001. [Online].Available: http://www.iaem.com/principles_of_a_national_homel.shtml
Title V–Emergency preparedness and response. [Online].Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/title5.html
� NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFICSAFETY ADMINISTRATION
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion (NHTSA), established by Congress in 1970 asan agency within the Department of Transportation,carries out a variety of motor vehicle and highwaysafety programs. The NHTSA administers a varietyof federal statutes and related grant programs tocarry out its mission of reducing deaths, injuries,and traffic-related economic costs.
The NHTSA succeeded the National HighwaySafety Bureau (NHSB), which Congress had cre-ated in 1966 in response to a rise in traffic fatalities.In 1965, consumer advocate Ralph Nader publishedUnsafe at Any Speed, a book that drew nationalattention to vehicle safety problems. NHSB’s firstadministrator, William Haddon, Jr., an epidemio-logist, sought to implement a balanced, scientificapproach to highway safety that would address thereduction of harm caused by crashes, not merelytheir prevention. This broadened scope has contin-ued in the agency’s mandates and in the terminol-ogy adopted by safety officials. What once were
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—�—775
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 775
regarded as accidents, focusing solely on the drivers’actions, are now viewed as crashes, the causes ofwhich may be far more complex than the role ofindividual drivers.
A major responsibility of the NHTSA is theadministration two federal laws pertaining to motorvehicle and highway safety. The law that coversmotor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) pro-vides for the establishment and enforcement of motorvehicle safety standards, as well as the research nec-essary to promulgate such standards. Additionally,the highway safety law (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) pro-vides for occupant protection and alcohol-impaireddriving initiatives through grant programs carriedout by state and local governments. A third majorlaw administered by the NHTSA is the NationalDriver Register (49 U.S.C. 30301 et seq.), whichfacilitates the interstate exchange of driver’s licenseinformation regarding unsafe drivers.
In addition to its administrative role, the NHTSAoperates a number of data collection and analysis pro-grams for the federal government. One of the majorprograms for which a variety of investigators, scien-tists, and analysts are employed is the CrashOperation Data Evaluation Service program, whichimproves the capability of states to analyze informa-tion on crashes by linking various databases contain-ing crash, driver, and medical outcome information.The Fatality Analysis Reporting System evaluates theeffectiveness of vehicle safety standards and highwaysafety programs. Information from crash investiga-tions is then synthesized by the NHTSA throughthe Crash Injury Research Engineering Network(CIREN). CIREN is a collaboration of physicians,crash investigators, and traffic safety engineers whowork to prevent motor vehicle crashes and to improvethe treatment of crash-related injuries.
The NHTSA’s Special Crash InvestigationsProgram (SCI) conducts in-depth automotive crashinvestigations to develop information used by thesafety community to evaluate and to improve safetysystems. SCI personnel select cases of interestthrough notification by law enforcement agencies,medical personnel, and automotive manufacturers,as well as through the NHTSA’s Auto SafetyHotline. Investigations often focus on issues involving
use of safety belts and air bags and the roles theymay or may not play in mitigating the effects ofcrashes. SCI has provided information on injuriescaused by air bags that has been used to changethe design of air bag safety systems. Another majorinvestigative focus is crashes involving schoolbuses, because the possibilities for multiple deathsor serious injuries is high in such vehicles and candevastate a community in which such a crash occurs.
VEHICLE TESTING AND RECALL
The NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Programprovides consumers with crash-test information toassist in vehicle safety comparisons. The NHTSApurchases vehicles and evaluates their crashworthi-ness to determine which models better protect occu-pants in a crash. The program’s intent is to createmarket incentives for manfacturers to voluntarilydesign safer vehicles. To further facilitate safety, theNHTSA promulgates vehicle safety standards anddirects vehicle manufacturers to recall vehicles withsafety defects. A defect is a problem with a vehicleor its equipment that poses an unreasonable safetyrisk and is common to vehicles of the same design.When a manufacturer becomes aware of a defectit must notify the NHTSA and remedy the defectat no charge to the vehicle owner. The NHTSA isresponsible for ensuring such corrective action.After the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigationdetermines that a safety-related defect exists, theNHTSA administrator issues a recall order, which amanufacturer may challenge in federal court. Theagency then has the burden to prove that a safety-related defect exists.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
In recent years, the NHTSA has conducted exten-sive research on the causes of crashes to developeffective countermeasures and evaluate the effec-tiveness of exisiting programs. Based on its exten-stive research into alcohol-impaired drivinng, theNHTSA was the lead federal agency in implement-ing the national initiative to reduce the legal blood
776—�—National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 776
alcohol content (BAC) for drivers in all states to.08 percent. The NHTSA has published several studieson the effectiveness of .08 percent BAC laws andhas sponsored a study of the accuracy of field sobri-ety tests used by law enforcement officers in makingarrest decisions. This research produced a Standard-ized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery used by lawenforcement agencies nationwide. The three-testbattery consists of the walk and turn test, and theone-leg stand test, and the horizontal gaze nystag-mus test, which is based on the involuntary jerkingof the eyes caused by intoxication. The NHTSAdeveloped a formal training program on the SFSTthat it provides to law enforcement agencies.
Mason Byrd
For Further Reading
Bonnie, R. J., & Guyer, B. (2002). Injury as a field in publichealth: Achievements and controversies. Journal of Law,Medicine & Ethics, 30, 267–280.
Claybrook, J., & Bollier, D. (1985). The hidden benefits ofregulation: Disclosing the auto safety payoff. Yale Journalon Regulation 3, 87–132.
Crandall, R. W. (1986). Regulating the automobile.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.
Haddon, W., Jr. (1968). The changing approach to the epi-demiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: Thetransition to approaches etiologically rather than descrip-tively based. American Journal of Public Health, 58,1431–1438.
Jones, B., Sleet, D., Dellinger, A., Wallace, D., Quinlan, K., &Branch, C. (1999). Reductions in motor vehicle-relateddeaths. Journal of the American Medical Association,282, 2210–2211.
Mashaw, J. L., & Harfst, D. L. (1987). Regulation and legalculture: The case of motor vehicle safety. Yale Journal onRegulation 4, 257–316.
Mashaw, J. L. (1990). Inside the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration: Legal determinates of bureaucraticorganization and performance. University of Chicago LawReview, 57, 443–480.
National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration. [Online].Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
Stuster, J. (2001). Development of a Standardized FieldSobriety Test (SFST) training management system (DOTHS 809 400). Washington, DC: National Highway TrafficSafety Administration.
NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASEDREPORTING SYSTEM
There is a prevailing belief that the advancementof efficient and effective criminal justice policyrequires an accurate picture of crime. The primarytool for assessing crime in America has been theFederal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) UniformCrime Reports (UCR) since its inception during the1930s. Criticism of the UCR began almost as soonas the program began. One of the most frequentconcerns was how crimes were counted. The origi-nal purpose of the UCR was to provide a basis forcomparison. This led to a measure of crime that,while providing an easily comparable set of indices,failed to provide in-depth information about specificincidents of crime that would be extremely useful totheorists, researchers, and the police themselves.
In an effort to bridge some of the gaps in thecrime data, the FBI is attempting to broaden theutility of America’s crime data with the implemen-tation of the National Incident-Based ReportingSystem (NIBRS). The thrust of NIBRS is to replacethe UCR summary system with an incident-basedsystem, which will provide detail about the circum-stances surrounding crimes. While the UCR pro-vided little more than frequency counts, the NIBRSsystem provides many details on each criminalincident. The ability to accurately identify whenand where crime takes place and the characteristicsof its victims and perpetrators is seen by many as aninvaluable weapon in the war on crime. NIBRS datacan easily be summarized to produce the types ofindices available with the UCR, but allows formuch more detailed analyses. Of special interest tosocial scientists and policy makers is the ability toconduct detailed crime analyses within and acrosslaw enforcement jurisdictions. Regional law enforce-ment agencies can share information more easily,and strategic and tactical crime analyses can bemade at the local and regional levels. Such data areessential to understanding the root causes of crimeand to allocating resources to address crime prob-lems. NIBRS data contain information about thelocation of offenses and can be used with innovative
National Incident-Based Reporting System—�—777
�
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 777
crime mapping technologies. Such maps are usefulfor identifying hot spots of crime, evaluating theeffectiveness of strategic decision making, andlooking for interactions between crime and othervariables that have known spatial components.
The transition from summary data collection toincident-based data is not complete at the nationallevel. The FBI began accepting crime data in theNIBRS format in 1989, expecting national compli-ance by 1999. As of 2001, only 21 state reportingprograms were compliant. Although participation inthe NIBRS program has grown steadily, data arestill not pervasive enough to make broad general-izations about crime in the United States. Poorcoverage remains the biggest problem with NIBRS.There have been, however, several studies thatdemonstrate the value of NIBRS data. This growingnumber of research reports provides support for theargument that NIBRS is worth the effort andexpense involved in its full implementation.
INFORMATION COLLECTED IN NIBRS
Incident-based reporting systems involve compre-hensive data collection at the incident level onvarious aspects of reported criminal incidents. Theinformation collected can contain information aboutthe incident location, offenses, offenders, victims,and arrestees. An important advantage of NIBRSover the UCR is that NIBRS records and counts alloffenses, not just the most serious offense as withthe hierarchy rule used with the UCR.
NIBRS provides more categories of offensesthan does the UCR. One of the early criticisms ofNIBRS is that it lacks specific classifications fordomestic violence. Crimes reported in NIBRS aredivided into two categories: Group A offenses,which consist of 22 serious offenses, and Group Boffenses, which consist of 11 lesser offenses. GroupA offenses are arson; assault offenses; bribery;burglary and breaking and entering; counterfeitingand forgery; destruction, damage, and vandalism ofproperty; drug offenses; embezzlement; extortionand blackmail; fraud offenses; gambling offenses;homicide offenses; kidnapping and abduction;larceny and theft offenses; motor vehicle theft;
pornography; prostitution; robbery; forcible sexoffenses; nonforcible sex offenses; stolen prop-erty offenses; and weapon law violations. Group Boffenses, those for which only arrest data arereported, are bad checks; curfew, loitering, andvagrancy violations; disorderly conduct; drivingunder the influence; drunkenness; liquor law viola-tions; nonviolent family offenses; peeping tom;runaway; trespass; and a generic “all other offenses”category.
PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING NIBRS
Because the data for NIBRS are more detailed thanin the traditional UCR system, local agencies mustdo more data entry and processing. State and localagencies must utilize their own incident-basedreporting systems and translate their data into theNIBRS format before submitting it to the FBI.
As with the UCR, the quality of the data pro-vided to the FBI is uneven. Insofar as the FBIis concerned, participation in both the UCR andNIBRS is voluntary. Some states have enactedlegislation that requires agencies to report data tothe FBI or to a state agency that reports aggregatedata for that state to the FBI. These measures, how-ever, are often not well enforced. Other problemsare technical in nature. Software and other problemshave prevented some agencies from sending NIBRSdata to the FBI.
Another critical concern is the lack of humanand technical resources within many departments.Translation of paper-based incident reports intocomputer code is a tedious and time-consumingprocess that is prone to error. A more efficientmethod has been to ensure that local law enforce-ment agencies have the necessary technology andtraining to utilize incident-based systems on thedepartmental level. This has proven to be impossi-ble for many small agencies that cannot spare thefunds or the personnel to develop and maintain sucha program. Many small agency administrators reportthat they do not have the human resources to parti-cipate in the UCR program, which requires much lesstime than does NIBRS. A solution to this dilemma hasbeen to allocate funding on the state and federal level
778—�—National Incident-Based Reporting System
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 778
to provide local agencies with hardware, software,and training to implement NIBRS-compatible datacollection systems. Such a partnership helped SouthCarolina become NIBRS compliant earlier than thevast majority of states.
Adam J. McKee
See also National Crime Victimization Survey, Uniform CrimeReporting Program
For Further Reading
Bibel, D. (2002). Crime mapping using IBR data. [Online].Available: http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/mapping/mapping_ibr.pdf
Dodenhoff, D. (1990). 1989’s people of the year: The studyand redesign team behind the new Uniform CrimeReporting System. Law Enforcement News, 14(307), l.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Justice Research and Statistics Association. IBR ResourceCenter. [Online]. Available: http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc
Mississippi Statistical Analysis Center. Information andTechnology Capabilities of Mississippi Law EnforcementAgencies. [Online]. Available: http://www.usm.edu/mssac/publications/information.7.31.2002.pdf
� NATIONALINSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is a sectionof the U.S. Department of Justice that providesresearch funding and professional staff support forstudies of basic knowledge building, innovation, andprogram evaluation in crime control and criminaljustice. Its official mission is to “advance scientificresearch, development, and evaluation to enhancethe administration of justice and public safety.”In addition to sponsoring research and developmentand technology assistance, NIJ disseminates crimi-nal justice knowledge through conferences and printand electronic media. The NIJ director is appointedby the president and confirmed by the Senate.
NIJ TODAY
NIJ is a division of the Office of Justice Programs,the part of the Department of Justice that has
oversight regarding special programs of justicein the federal jurisdiction and support to programsin the states. The special role of the NIJ is toprovide support, especially grants and contracts,that encourages original social and behavioralscience research regarding crime and justice. It alsosupports studies of the effectiveness of new tech-nologies designed to reduce or control crime. Ineach case, its charge under authority of the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968(amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-3723) and Title II of theHomeland Security Act of 2002 is to provide“objective, independent, evidence-based knowledgeand tools to meet the challenges of crime andjustice, particularly at the State and local levels.”
Currently, The NIJ has two main divisions. TheOffice of Research and Evaluation funds and over-sees an array of studies of crime and criminal justicewith the aim of reducing crime or controlling its neg-ative impact on society. It also manages a substantialprogram of information dissemination, in whichthe results of studies and the profiles of innovativeapproaches to crime and justice are made widelyknown to the field through a series of publications,including periodic reports of particular studies andthe flagship monthly journal, NIJReports. The Officeof Science and Technology “manages technologyresearch and development, development of technicalstandards, testing, forensic sciences capacity build-ing, and technology assistance to state and local lawenforcement and corrections agencies.”
The agency’s official profile lists seven strategicgoals in three categories:
1. Creating relevant knowledge and tools
• Partner with state and local practitionersand policy makers to identify social scienceresearch and technology needs.
• Create scientific, relevant, and reliableknowledge—with a particular emphasis onterrorism, violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness, and community-based efforts—to enhance the administration of justice andpublic safety.
• Develop affordable and effective tools andtechnologies to enhance the administration ofjustice and public safety.
National Institute of Justice—�—779
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 779
2. Dissemination
• Disseminate relevant knowledge and informa-tion to practitioners and policy makers in anunderstandable, timely, and concise manner.
• Act as an honest broker to identify the infor-mation, tools, and technologies that respond tothe needs of stakeholders.
3. Agency management
• Practice fairness and openness in the researchand development process.
• Ensure professionalism, excellence, account-ability, cost-effectiveness, and integrity in themanagement and conduct of NIJ activities andprograms.
HISTORY OF NIJ
Impetus for the National Institute of Justice camefrom the 1967 President’s Commission on Crimeand Administration of Justice, which was highlycritical of the paucity of scientific knowledge toinform crime and justice policy and practice. In1968, partly as a direct result of that report, Congresspassed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct, which created the National Institute of Justiceto support research that would assist state and localgovernments in improving the effectiveness of theirpolice, courts, and corrections agencies. The agencyopened its doors a year later with 35 employees anda budget of $2.9 million. In the early years, grantswere made to support a wide range of research andevaluation efforts, most notably the evaluation ofmethadone maintenance programs, the develop-ment of specialized policing units, the improvementof police communications systems, and the initia-tion of a fellowship program in support of graduatestudy. From its outset and throughout its tenure, theNIJ has been prominently involved in some of themost important criminal justice and crime policyissues of the day.
In the early 1970s, the NIJ played a central rolein improved police communications, fundingcomputer-aided dispatch, management informationsystems, and centralized call collection. It alsoestablished the Law Enforcement Standards
Laboratory to create scientific standards for criminaljustice equipment. Its funds supported the KansasCity Preventive Patrol Experiment, which castdoubt on the value of conventional patrol by uni-formed officers in marked police cars. The initialstudies of the impact of police response timecame from NIJ-supported projects in the 1970s.Throughout that decade, the NIJ supported a rangeof studies of sentencing disparity and the impact ofsentencing reform, and its studies played a signi-ficant role in trial reform. One-day one-trial, inWayne County, Michigan, was an NIJ-sponsoredproject, as was a series of reports on prison popula-tion management strategies for overcrowded prisonsystems.
In the 1980s, NIJ became well established as theprimary source of funds for innovative studies incrime and justice. Among its efforts in that decadewere The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment, theRAND Corporation’s research on selective incapac-itation of career criminals, Varieties of CriminalBehavior by Jan Chaiken and Marsha Chaiken, theMinneapolis domestic violence study, NewportNews tests of problem-oriented policing, and theGeorgia experiments with intensive probationsupervision. Two very important efforts in the1980s were the founding of the executive sessionson community policing in cooperation withHarvard’s Kennedy School of Government (whichfueled the modern-day community policing move-ment) and the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System,which became a major source of informationsupporting later changes in U.S. drug policy.
The 1990s began with one of the most ambitiouspublic–private research partnerships in U.S. history,when the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation joined with NIJ to fund the Project onHuman Development in Chicago Neighborhoods,with Robert Sampson as the lead investigator. Thisstudy examines how neighborhood characteristicsinfluence individual behavior and, ultimately,public safety. That decade also saw NIJ-supportedresearch on the effectiveness of intensive supervi-sion for probationers, the cycle of violence forabused and neglected children more likely to beinvolved in later criminal behavior, a systematic
780—�—National Institute of Justice
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 780
study of violence against women, the Breaking theCycle program for early identification and treat-ment of abuse, the NIJ Crime Mapping ResearchCenter, and the NIJ International Center on cross-national research and policy. This decade, domi-nated by increased attention to drug law and drugcrime, ended for NIJ with the Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring program, which refines and expandsNIJ’s DUF program.
Todd R. Clear
Author’s Note. All quotations are taken from “What Is NIJ?”http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm
See also Department of Justice
For Further Reading
National Institute of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm
� NATIONAL INSTITUTES OFHEALTH, DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) wasfounded in 1887 as the Hygienic Laboratory inStaten Island, New York, and has become the para-mount medical research center for orchestratingfederally sponsored biomedical and behavioralresearch in the United States. As one of eight healthagencies of the Public Health Service, within theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services,the NIH consists of 27 separate institutes andcenters, each of which is geared toward acquiringknowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, andtreat disease and disability. In addition to sponsor-ing and conducting medical research, the NIH ischarged with assisting in the training of researchinvestigators and disseminating medical and healthsciences information around the globe.
In 2003, the NIH had almost 19,000 employeesand managed a budget of $27.2 billion. The vastmajority of the funding (83%) was allocated toextramural research programs. Grants and contracts,
awarded in every state of the country, advance theresearch objectives of the NIH. Approximately 10%of the budget funded the 2,000 projects performedwithin the NIH’s own laboratories. The NIH hassupported ongoing research in cancer, heart disease,genetic birth defects, and AIDS. The most recentresearch sponsored by the NIH includes mappingthe human genome, identifying the virus that causessevere acute respiratory syndrome, and isolatinga gene that predisposes an individual to clinicaldepression or to alcohol abuse.
The findings of NIH-sponsored research guide theformulation and implementation of public policy toimprove human health and secure public safety. TheNIH is not an organization with specific law enforce-ment functions; however, the work of the NIH hassignificant influence on public health, protection, andsecurity and public safety issues. For example, emer-gency preparedness policies emerge from clinicalknowledge regarding the prevention, detection,and control of infectious diseases. Deterrence andtreatment policies for drug and alcohol abusersare directed by NIH research findings. Emergingpolicies and procedures to confront potential acts ofbioterrorism will be influenced by the biomedicalresearch by NIH and its sponsored investigators.
NIH institutes that are frequently involvedin research that may impact criminal justice policy orenforcement include the National Institute on AlcoholAbuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute ofAllergy and Infectious Diseases, and the NationalInstitute of Drug Abuse. In addition, NIH’s Office ofAdministration includes the Office of AcquisitionManagement and Policy, the Office of Logistics andAcquisition Operations, and the Office of Manage-ment Assessment. Each of these offices has oversightand investigative authority over portions of NIH’sresponsibilities. The Office of Acquisition Manage-ment and Policy is particularly involved in providingan audit and investigative capability for NIH in areasof contract and procurement management.
In August 2003, the Institute of Medicinereleased a study suggesting a consolidation ofseveral NIH institutes and centers and expandedauthority of the NIH director over individual institutedirectors to manage overlapping research agendas,
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services—�—781
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 781
as well as the creation of a special projects budgetto address cutting-edge research issues. The missionof the NIH remains constant; however, the multiplevenues requiring research will continue to challengethe NIH to evolve and adapt to ever-increasing healthand security risks to the public.
Pamela A. Gibson
For Further Reading
National Institutes of Health. (2000). NIH Almanac, 2000(NIH Publication No. 00-5). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Depart-ment of Health Education and Welfare, Public HealthService, National Institutes of Health.
National Institutes of Health. [Online]. Available: http://www.nih.gov.
� NATIONAL LAWENFORCEMENT ANDCORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGYCENTER SYSTEM
The National Law Enforcement and CorrectionsTechnology Center (NLECTC) system was createdin 1994 as a component of the National Institute ofJustice’s (NIJ’s) Office of Science and Technology.The National Institute of Justice is the researchand development agency of the U.S. Department ofJustice. The NLECTC system serves as the honestbroker, offering support, research findings, andtechnological expertise to help state and local lawenforcement and corrections personnel performtheir duties more safely and efficiently.
The NLECTC system is assisted in its work bynational and regional advisory councils. Nationalcouncil members are appointed by NLECTC basedon their records of distinguished service andinclude representatives from federal, state, local,and international criminal justice agencies andorganizations. Each regional council is made up ofcriminal justice practitioners who represent a crosssection of law enforcement and corrections agen-cies from each of the states within the centers’constituent regions. The system consists of facili-ties across the country that are colocated with anorganization or agency that specializes in one or
more specific areas of research and development.Although each NLECTC facility has a differenttechnology focus, all facilities work together to forma seamless web of support, providing technologyassistance, support, and information. The NLECTCsystem’s regional centers and specialty offices workdirectly with federal, state, and local governmentagencies; community leaders; and scientists to fostertechnological innovations that result in new prod-ucts, services, systems, and strategies for criminaljustice professionals throughout the United States.These offices are as follows:
The National Center. The National Center is colo-cated with its host, Aspen Systems Corporation, inRockville, Maryland, and serves as the hub of theNLECTC system. As part of its mission, this center
1. Provides information and referral services toanyone with questions about law enforcementand corrections equipment or technology
2. Oversees the equipment standards and testingprogram to ensure that law enforcement andcorrections equipment is safe and reliable
3. Reviews and analyzes testing data and publishestest results and consumer-product reportsdesigned to help justice system officials makeinformed purchasing decisions
4. Publishes TechBeat, a quarterly newsletterthat highlights technology breakthroughs andapplications
5. Operates JUSTNET, a Web site that provideslinks to the entire NLECTC system and serves asa gateway to other technology sites for thoseseeking information about equipment, technol-ogy, or research findings.
NLECTC-Northeast. Located at the Air ForceResearch Laboratory Rome Research Site, on thegrounds of the Griffiss Business and TechnologyPark in Rome, New York, this center leverages tech-nologies designed for the military that can be adaptedto meet law enforcement and corrections needs. It drawson the expertise of Air Force scientists and engineersand focuses on concealed weapons technologies,through-the-wall sensors, audio and image processing,
782—�—National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center System
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 782
timeline analysis, computer forensics, securecommunications, speaker identification, and commu-nications interoperability. NLECTC-Northeast alsooperates the Law Enforcement Analysis Facility andNIJ’s National Law Enforcement CyberScienceLaboratory-Northeast.
NLECTC-Northwest: Law enforcement andcorrections (LE&C) officers in Alaska and othercold, remote areas of the United States face uniquechallenges to crime prevention, investigation, andrehabilitation efforts. This center was established toprovide assistance in defining LE&C’s requirementsfor information and operational technology, withspecific attention directed toward technologies thatsupport law enforcement and corrections under theextreme weather conditions and vast distances foundin remote, rural Alaska and other parts of the UnitedStates. Newly developed technologies will beapplicable for law enforcement and corrections offi-cers in all regions of the country with rural or severeweather challenges. NLECTC-Northwest identifies,evaluates, demonstrates, and assesses technologyapplications for state and local law enforcement andcorrections agencies. Staff also manages joint tech-nology programs applicable to law enforcement andcorrections missions. NLECTC-Northwest wasfounded in 2001 in partnership with ChenegaTechnology Services Corporation, a technology sup-port company experienced in providing informationtechnology support to America’s military organiza-tions and private corporations.
NLECTC-Rocky Mountain. This center, located atthe University of Denver in Colorado, focuses oncommunications interoperability and the difficultiesthat often occur when different agencies and juris-dictions try to communicate with one another. Thisfacility works with law enforcement agencies, pri-vate industry, and national organizations to imple-ment projects that will identify and field testnew technologies to help solve the problem of inter-operability. In addition, NLECTC-Rocky Mountainhouses the Crime Mapping and Analysis Program,which provides technical assistance and capacitybuilding to state and local agencies in the areas ofcrime and intelligence analysis and geographic
information systems. Sandia National Laboratorieshas been designated as a satellite of NLECTC-Rocky Mountain and works in partnership withNLECTC to focus on technologies for detectingand neutralizing explosive devices.
NLECTC-Southeast. This center is colocated withits host, the South Carolina Research Authority inNorth Charleston, South Carolina. Its technologyfocus areas include information technology andtechnologies for corrections and school safety.NLECTC-Southeast helps law enforcement andcorrections agencies acquire and redistribute federalsurplus and excess property. The center also oper-ates an Incident Mapping and Analysis Program thatincludes crime mapping training, spatial informationmanagement, geographic profiling, and data mining.The center’s technology partners include the Spaceand Naval Warfare Systems Center-Charleston, OakRidge National Laboratory, and Savannah RiverTechnology Center.
NLECTC-West. This center is colocated with itshost, the Aerospace Corporation, in El Segundo,California. The nonprofit corporation providestechnical oversight and engineering expertise tothe Air Force and the U.S. government on spacetechnology and space security systems. NLECTC-West draws on Aerospace Corporation’s depth ofknowledge and scientific expertise to offer lawenforcement and corrections personnel the abilityto analyze and enhance audio, video, and photo-graphic evidence. This NLECTC facility also hasan extensive array of analytic instrumentation toaid in criminal investigations, such as a scanningelectron microscope and a mass spectrometer,instruments that can be used to process traceevidence. The center’s other focus areas includecomputer forensics, communications systems, tech-nologies to stop fleeing vehicles, and a HomelandSecurity Project with programs in less-than-lethalweapons and counter-OPFOR (opposing force)activities.
The Border Research and Technology Center.Operated by Sandia National Laboratories andlocated in San Diego, California, this center works
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center System—�—783
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 783
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service,the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs Service,the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the U.S.Attorney offices, and law enforcement agencies tostrengthen technology capabilities and awarenesson U.S. borders. One of its most recognized assis-tance activities has been the implementation of theSecured Electronic Network for Travelers’ RapidInspection. The Border Research and TechnologyCenter (BRTC) also works on joint ventures toidentify technologies that will stop fleeing vehiclesand is currently participating in a project to detectheartbeats of people concealed in vehicles or othercontainers. BRTC’s technology partners includeSandia and the Space and Naval Warfare SystemsCenter–San Diego.
Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commer-cialization. This program of NIJ’s Office of Scienceand Technology was established in 1995. Its missionis to develop and deploy an active, broad-basednational program to assist in the commercializationof innovative technology for use by the law enforce-ment and corrections community. The Office ofLaw Enforcement Technology Commercialization’s(OLETC’s) primary objective is to bring researchand private industry together to put affordable,market-driven technologies into the hands of lawenforcement and corrections personnel. OLETCactively solicits manufacturers to commercialize tech-nologies based on requirements identified by NIJ andits Law Enforcement and Corrections TechnologyAdvisory Council as well as from law enforcementand corrections practitioners.
Office of Law Enforcement Standards. The missionof the Office of Law Enforcement Standards(OLES) is to serve as the principal agent for stan-dards development for the criminal justice andpublic safety communities. OLES has been instru-mental in the development of numerous standardsand the issuance of various technical reports thathave had significant impact on both of these com-munities. Through its programs, OLES helps crim-inal justice and public safety agencies acquire, on acost-effective basis, the high-quality resources they
need to do their jobs. OLES’s programs are organizedinto six areas: Weapons and Protective Systems;Detection, Inspection, and Enforcement Techno-logies; Chemical Systems and Materials; ForensicSciences; Public Safety Communication Standards;and Critical Incident Technologies. Within eachprogram area there are a variety of projects.
The Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center.This center provides technology and technical solu-tions to rural and small criminal justice agencies.The Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center(RULETC) concentrates on information technol-ogy, communications interoperability, and trainingand simulation technologies that will improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of rural law enforce-ment. RULETC provides technology assistance viaa nationwide network of criminal justice subject-matter experts, engineers, academia, and scientists.The center is developing capacity-building pro-grams for dissemination nationwide that will pro-vide rural agencies with the information they needto better equip officers to serve their communities.Hosted by Eastern Kentucky University Justice andSafety Center, RULETC is located in Hazard,Kentucky.
Robert J. Bunker
For Further Reading
Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET).National Law Enforcement and Corrections TechnologyCenter-National. (2002). [Online]. Available: http://www.nlectc.org/justnet.html
TechBeat. (1994–2002). Rockville, MD: National LawEnforcement and Corrections Technology Center-National.
� NATIONAL LAWENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL
The National Law Enforcement Memorial inWashington, D.C., honors police officers killed inthe line of duty and provides a quiet place forsurvivors to mourn and to heal. The memorial alsoserves as a positive image of law enforcement in
784—�—National Law Enforcement Memorial
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 784
America and is meant to ensure that slain lawenforcement officers will never be forgotten in thislasting tribute.
In June 1984, Congressman Mario Biaggi (D-NY),Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), and SuzanneSawyer, then the executive director of Concernsof Police Survivors and president of the FraternalOrder of Police Auxiliary, incorporated theNational Law Enforcement Memorial. Craig Floydwas appointed executive director and a board ofdirectors was created representing 15 national lawenforcement groups. Each group donated $1,000for office supplies to begin fund-raising for whatthe directors estimated would be the $5 millionneeded to build the memorial. Their estimate wasbased on the $4.5 million it had taken to constructthe Vietnam Veterans Memorial that had been dedi-cated on November 13, 1982. The first year theMemorial Fund raised a disappointing $47,000.Jan Scruggs, who was president and founder of theVietnam Veterans Memorial, was asked to join thecorporation. Scruggs, who became the MemorialFund’s first full-time employee, had the ability toraise money. One of his first acts was to hold a pressconference to get public recognition and he soonenlisted corporate sponsors such as Borg WarnerCorporation and Pepsico. The Memorial Fundultimately raised $11 million from 300 companies,thousands of police officers across the country, andmore than 800,000 private citizens.
APPROVAL OF THE MEMORIAL
The directors agreed that the memorial should bebuilt in Washington, D.C., which necessitated con-gressional approval. Representative Biaggi, a 23-yearveteran of the New York Police Department, whohad retired in 1965, strongly supported the memor-ial in 1982. Two years later, on October 19, 1984,President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 98-554, authorizing the National Law EnforcementMemorial to be built. Congress had included threestipulations for the memorial: no federal fundingwould be provided, construction had to begin byOctober 1989, and money had to be raised beforebreaking ground. The law only provided that a site
would be found on federal land in Washington, D.C.All funds, though, had to be from private sources—the American people.
The memorial needed to be constructed in asuitable space that was capable of holding publicevents as well as providing a quiet place to mourn. Thefirst suggestion by the National Parks Service wason Memorial Drive leading to Arlington Cemetery.Military memorials would surround the memorial, asituation that made the site unacceptable to membersof the board, who believed there should be a distinc-tion between the military and law enforcement. Afterthe Capitol Memorial Commission rejected a secondlocation, John Parsons of the National Park Servicesand Charles Atherton of the Fine Arts Commissionsuggested Judiciary Square, then a crumbling parkwith broken benches and litter. Despite its disrepair,the three-acre space was appropriate because it wasnext to the Police Court and near the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) Building, which meant that thememorial would be built surrounded by law enforce-ment buildings. The Capitol Memorial Commissionapproved the site in March 1989.
BUILDING THE MEMORIAL
Davis Buckley was hired as the architect for theproject in January 1987. Buckley realized that thismemorial had to be different from other memorials.This was not to be just a memorial, but a memorialpark. There would be no statue in the middle, likemost memorials have, but a raised bronze medallionwith a shield and rose. Bronze lions, symbolizingstrength and protection, watch over their cubs ateither end of the memorial.
Finding the names to be added to the memorialbecame an arduous task. The original plans for thememorial did not include names for fear of leavingofficers’ names off. The FBI files recorded names ofofficers killed in the line of duty starting in 1961.The research staff of the memorial sent lettersto approximately 15,500 law enforcement agenciesrequesting names of officers who had been killed inthe line of duty. Most departments did not take theletter seriously until U.S. Attorney Dick Thornburghrequested the information in 1990.
National Law Enforcement Memorial—�—785
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 785
Construction began October 17, 1989, just 48 hoursbefore the congressional deadline. The officialgroundbreaking took place on October 30, 1989.The memorial became a reality on October 15, 1991,a date which by Presidential Proclamation 6357 wasdeclared National Law Enforcement MemorialDedication Day. More than 10,000 people are esti-mated to have attended. At the time of the dedication12,561 names were engraved on the 128 panels ofthe memorial. The names are not listed by date sothat names could be added as additional officers’names were submitted by their departments. Thememorial has space for an estimated 29,233 names,which, based on current statistics of officers killed inthe line of duty, should be sufficient until the year2100. A candlelight vigil is held annually at thememorial during National Police Week in May.
Jessica Waterhouse
For Further Reading
Floyd, C. W., & Helms, K. L. (1995) To serve and protect:A tribute to American law enforcement. Paducah, KY:Turner.
National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund. [Online].Available: http://www.nleomf.com
National Police Week. [Online]. Available: http://www.nationalcops.org
� NATIONAL LAWENFORCEMENTTELECOMMUNICATIONSSYSTEM
The National Law Enforcement Telecommunica-tions System (NLETS) is a nationwide network thatenables criminal justice agencies to exchange infor-mation quickly and cost effectively. NLETS pro-vides intrastate as well as interstate transmissionof data such as vehicle registration, driver’s licenseinformation, wanted persons, criminal histories,and Canadian hot files. NLETS is available 24 hoursper day and seven days a week.
NLETS is unique because it is the only nation-wide system that allows state and local criminal
justices agencies to send information interstate andit is managed by the states. State law enforcementagencies are linked together through an interfaceagency. This agency maintains the telecommuni-cations system within its geographical borders.NLETS allows the state systems to connect usinghigh-speed communications. This communicationallows agencies around the country to correspondand share information. The system is accessible tolaw enforcement, prosecutors, probation and paroleoffices, and other local, state, and federal criminaljustice agencies. Although NLETS works closelywith the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s)National Criminal Information System, they are notinterrelated.
Comprised of network servers that support amessage switch and other applications, NLETSguarantees message delivery including but notlimited to terminal-to-terminal communication, broad-cast messages, all points bulletins, and AMBERalerts. NLETS can be accessed from more than500,000 devices in the United States and another145,000 devices in Canada. There are more than35 million transmissions each month. The majorityof the transmissions are for vehicle registration anddriver’s license information. NLETS does not ware-house information but acts only as the conduit toconnect various databases that house information.The principal computer system is headquartered inPhoenix at the Arizona Department of Public Safetyand the disaster recovery site is at the Idaho StatePolice Department.
NLETS was incorporated in 1970 and is a non-profit corporation that is funded by its users via feescollected as membership. Currently, there are fourtypes of members: principal, federal, international,and associate members. Principal members consistof all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Federal membersinclude federal agencies such as the FBI and theImmigration and Naturalization Service. The asso-ciate membership is composed of additional agen-cies that provide vital services to the criminaljustice community such as the National InsuranceCrime Bureau. At present the only internationalmember is Canada, which has access through theFBI. Members of the system are divided into eight
786—�—National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 786
regions. Each region has representatives who electa chairperson annually. The chairpersons chosenfrom each region make up the NLETS board ofdirectors. The board sets policies for the organiza-tion, and a small team of employees headed by anexecutive director is responsible for the day-to-dayoperations.
Communication in law enforcement has been apriority, beginning with the use of Morse codeand advancing to radio communication in the1930s. In 1966, the Law Enforcement TeletypeSystem (LETS) was established. LETS, the firstnationwide interstate communications system, wasan improvement on the previously segmentedregional communications system but it was stillvery slow. The system’s first upgrade occurred in1970. Then, in 1973, LETS concluded a substantialupgrade, which made it more accessible to criminaljustice agencies throughout the United States. In1975, LETS became known as the National LawEnforcement Telecommunications System. In 1973,NLETS averaged 43 transmissions per hour; by2004 it was capable of handling 45,000 messagesper hour.
To keep up with 21st century technology,NLETS is pursuing the expansion of wirelesscommunications, setting national standards, andassisting the Department of Homeland Security inpreventing terrorism. The wireless project willallow local and regional agencies to utilize theexisting NLETS network and will reduce budgets,especially for agencies in remote areas, because itwill decrease the airtime fees while ensuring receiptof the same quality of information. NLETS is alsoat the forefront of defining national standards fordata exchange. Prior to standardization, a request-ing agency in one state would receive state-specificinformation and formats that might not be applica-ble to the request. The use of extensible markuplanguage, a computer programming language, willallow for standardized information to be exchangedbetween various agencies. Likewise, NLETS hasbeen instrumental in providing terrorist threat infor-mation to law enforcement agencies in a timelymanner. NLETS is being employed to provide crit-ical communication to agencies that previously did
not receive information such as fire and emergencymedical service.
Nicolle Y. Parsons-Pollard
For Further Reading
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.[Online]. Available: http://www.nlets.org
U.S. Department of Justice. (1993). Use and management ofcriminal history record information: A comprehensivereport (Report No. NCJ 143501). Sacramento, CA:SEARCH Group, Inc.
� NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIESSERVICE, DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE
The mission of National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), sometimes referred to as the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Fisheries, is to develop and enforce domestic fish-eries regulations as specified by federal law, interna-tional agreements, and treaties. NMFS monitorsboth foreign and domestic compliance with theseregulations inside the 200-mile U.S. ExclusiveEconomic Zone. The NMFS is committed to a sus-tainable use philosophy that attempts to balancecommercial interests and recreational interests whilepreserving the health of U.S. marine resources.
The NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE)protects both commercial and recreational fisheryresources, marine mammals, and other threatenedor endangered species and manages the NOAA’s 13National Marine Sanctuaries. The NMFS receivesan annual budget of approximately $700 million,with more than $50 million earmarked for enforce-ment and surveillance activities.
The OLE is responsible for the enforcement ofmore than 100 legislative acts, the most importantof which include the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation Act; the Marine Protection, Research,and Sanctuaries Act; the Marine Mammal ProtectionAct; the Endangered Species Act; and the LaceyAct. OLE has a presence in 17 states and four U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce—�—787
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 787
territories. In 2004, it was one of only two federallaw enforcement agencies that were accredited bythe Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforce-ment Agencies.
The OLE has a four-pronged prevention andenforcement strategy: investigation and patrol,community-oriented policing and problem solving(COPPS), advanced technologies, and partnerships.This includes investigations of both civil and crim-inal violations, seizures of illegal property andcontraband, and information gathering on criminalactivities. For the bulk of patrol, OLE relies oncooperative agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard,other governmental agencies, and partnerships withfederally deputized state marine enforcementagents to assist them in covering the 3.4 millionsquare miles of water in their jurisdiction.
Since 1995, the OLE has instituted the COPPSinitiative. COPPS is an outreach program thatpromotes voluntary compliance with regulationsthrough public awareness and education targeted atboth recreational and commercial fishing popula-tions. The program allows first-time offenders tocorrect minor violations without threat of penalty.COPPS also maintains a 24-hour enforcementhotline to accept reports of fisheries violations.
OLE efforts in using technology focus on a satel-lite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) whichallows OLE staff to locate fishing vessels and mon-itor compliance with area restrictions while main-taining confidential fishing positions. VMS is alsoused to track violators and gather evidence for pros-ecution and aids federal efforts in homeland securityby identifying marine traffic close to U.S. coasts.As of 2000, there were 541 VMS units in use.
Partnerships and cooperative agreements playa large part in assisting the OLE in fulfilling itsmission. Partners are largely other federal, state,and local agencies; councils; and nongovernmen-tal environmental organizations. These partners areorganized into eight regional fishery managementcouncils that work closely with NMFS and the OLEin the management of the fisheries in their regions.The U.S. Coast Guard is the OLE’s most importantpartner and enables special agents and enforcementofficers to actively respond to calls aboard Coast
Guard vessels. These partnerships allow the OLE tobe more effective than it could possibly be aloneby providing increased patrol personnel to conductopen water boardings and dockside checks.
HISTORY
Federal interest in fish and marine resources beganin 1871, when President Ulysses S. Grant estab-lished a small U.S. Fish Commission and chargedit with investigating decreases in the population offood fish and making recommendations to Congresson protective, prohibitory, and precautionary mea-sures that should be taken.
In 1903, the Fish Commission was expanded andbecame the Bureau of Fisheries. It was placed in thenewly formed Department of Commerce and Labor.As legislation protecting wildlife increased, theresponsibility for enforcing these laws was given tothe Department of Agriculture, Division of BiologicalSurvey (later renamed the Bureau of BiologicalSurvey), which formed the Division of GameManagement to specifically handle wildlife enforce-ment. In 1939, the Bureau of Fisheries (CommerceDepartment) and the Bureau of Biological Survey(Agriculture Department) were merged and trans-ferred to the Department of the Interior to form theFish and Wildlife Service. However, wildlife lawenforcement remained in the Division of GameManagement (Agriculture Department). It was notuntil 1956, with the passage of the Fish and WildlifeAct, that wildlife law enforcement responsibility wasmoved to the Department of the Interior when theFish and Wildlife Service was renamed the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and reorganized into twobureaus: the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlifeand the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Lawenforcement responsibility was placed in the Bureauof Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. The Bureau ofCommercial Fisheries continued to monitor and reg-ulate the quantity of certain species caught domesti-cally but had no enforcement authority.
In 1970, the NOAA was formed within theDepartment of Commerce by merging more thanfive separate agencies including the Bureau of
788—�—National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 788
Commercial Fisheries. The bureau was made abranch of the NOAA and renamed the NationalMarine Fisheries Service. The Magnuson-StevensFisheries Conservation and Management Act of1976 authorized the enforcement authority of theNMFS in federal waters. The act extended the U.S.legal fishing jurisdiction to 200 miles off shore andspecified that this zone be enforced by both theNMFS and the Coast Guard.
ORGANIZATION
Staff members of OLE are dispersed into fiveregional division offices, 54 field offices, and head-quarters in Washington, D.C. The OLE is managedby a chief who reports to the deputy assistant admin-istrator for regulatory programs, who in turn reportsto the assistant administrator for fisheries (morerecently called the director of NOAA Fisheries).
In 2003, the OLE had approximately 200 employ-ees, including 150 special agents, seven enforce-ment officers, and 46 technical and supportpersonnel. Enforcement officers are uniformed andperform routine inspection, patrol, and surveillanceduties. They board and inspect fishing vessels andtheir catches to ensure compliance with laws andregulations. Special agents conduct investigations ofcriminal and civil violations. They carry firearmsand interrogate suspects, interview witnesses, con-duct searches and seizures, make arrests, carry outundercover operations, and develop evidence forprosecution. Applicants for special agents’ positionsmust be U.S. citizens and be between 21 and 36years of age. Candidates must possess a bachelor’sdegree or three years of general law enforcementexperience to be hired at the lowest (GS-5) level.Both enforcement officers and special agentsreceive training at the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.Enforcement officer candidates attend a 17-weekNatural Resources Police Training course that focuseson patrol techniques. Special agent candidatesattend a 10-week Criminal Investigator Trainingprogram focusing on investigative law enforcementskills. Both pools of candidates continue with spe-cialized training after their FLETC basic training.
Due to the lack of personnel and monetaryresources, current NMFS law enforcement effortsfocus only on the most significant offenders, obtain-ing voluntary compliance, and monitoring regula-tory schemes to ensure compliance. To increase itseffectiveness, the NMFS needs an increase in fund-ing to expand investigative resources, make betteruse of technology, modernize and expand the vesselmonitoring system, and regularize funding to sup-port partnerships with state and local agencies thatenforce federal fishing regulations.
Katherine B. Killoran
For Further Reading
Helvarg, D., & Schultz, R. (1997, February). When UncleSam’s “fish cops” reel in a suspect, he’s usually a keeper.Smithsonian, pp. 30–39.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforce-ment. [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/fen.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2003,February 3). FY 2004, budget summary. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available:http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/budget2004/images/fy2004bluebook.pdf
Shea, E. L. (1987). A history of the NOAA: Being a compila-tion of facts and figures regarding the life and times ofthe original Whole Earth Agency. [Online]. Available:http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/noaahistory.html
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService. (2003, July 9). NOAA Fisheries’ strategic planfor FY 2003–FY 2008: Priorities for the 21st century.[Online]. Available: http://www.spo.noaa.gov/pdfs/LO%20Strat%20Plans%202003%20Final/Fisheries-SP-July-9.pdf
Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in lawenforcement (2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
� NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICANLAW ENFORCEMENTASSOCIATION
The National Native American Law EnforcementAssociation (NNALEA) was founded in Washington,D.C., in 1993. The founders were Native Americanmen and women from law enforcement organizations
National Native American Law Enforcement Association—�—789
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 789
across the United States where, except for tribaland Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforcementagencies, they typically comprised fewer than 1%of agency personnel.
NNALEA is headquartered in Washington,D.C., with chapters in New Mexico and Oklahoma.Membership includes Native American and non-Native American men and women who are swornfederal, state, local, or tribal law enforcement officersand local chiefs of police, as well as non-lawenforcement officers. Executive officers must beNative American sworn law enforcement officers. Bymid-2003 NNALEA estimated its membership atmore than 700. NNALEA sponsors an annual train-ing conference and publishes a quarterly newsletter.
NNALEA’s mission is to support and promoteNative American law enforcement officers and agentsin the field; foster cooperation between them andtheir agencies, private industry, tribal entities, and thepublic; provide a national voice for Native Americansin law enforcement; assist Native American commu-nities; and improve the quality of law enforcementunder tribal authority. Its objectives include
• Providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and newtechniques used by both criminals and investigators
• Conducting training seminars, conferences, andresearch on educational methods for the benefit ofNative American law enforcement professionals
• Keeping the membership and public informed ofstatute changes and judicial decisions as they relateto the law enforcement community
• Establishing a network and directory of NativeAmerican law enforcement professionals
• Providing technical and investigative assistance toassociation members
• Promoting positive attitudes toward law enforce-ment in Native American and other communities
• Providing a support group for Native American lawenforcement professionals
NNALEA offers expert testimony at congres-sional and other federal committee hearings thataddress social welfare as well as law enforcementand security concerns of Native Americans. It alsopartners with federal government agencies andprivate organizations to provide services in Indian
Country, that is, reservations, dependent Indiancommunities, and tribal allotments.
The association’s youth programs are developedin partnership with private organizations such as theBoys and Girls Clubs of America; private corpora-tions; federal initiatives such as the National IndianYouth Academy funded by Department of Justice’sCommunity Oriented Police Services (COPS) topromote community policing and careers in lawenforcement, and the Gang Resistance Educationand Training Program funded by the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF)and COPS.
Through partnerships with educational institu-tions such as the University of Tennessee School ofVeterinary Medicine and health care providers suchas the Remote Area Medical Program, the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services’ IndianHealth Service, and the Helen Keller WorldwideChildSight Program, NNALEA helps provide awide range of social services to Native Americancommunities. NNALEA also awards academicscholarships to Native American college studentsand provides grants to the families of NativeAmerican and non-Native American law enforce-ment officers killed in the line of duty in IndianCountry.
NNALEA training activities, publications, andpartnerships support the professional developmentof its members. Newsletters promote recruitment ofNative Americans by federal law enforcement agen-cies such as the Secret Service, BATF, and BIA’sOffice of Law Enforcement Services (OLES). BothBIA and tribal law enforcement agencies operate inIndian Country. NNALEA’s technical assistanceand training conferences promote professionalismin tribal law enforcement and enhancement of tribalagencies’ standing through increased certificationand accreditation. Association scholarships to triballaw enforcement officers from small and remotetribes help increase their participation in NNALEA’sannual conferences. The conferences provide lawenforcement and community policing trainingtracks for college credit.
To raise retention rates of tribal law enforcementofficers and recruits at national training academies,
790—�—National Native American Law Enforcement Association
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 790
NNALEA collaborates with colleges and universitiesin Indian Country, federal law enforcement agen-cies and training centers, volunteer organizations,and tribal authorities to develop training method-ologies and curricula that incorporate both tradi-tional culture and distance learning technology.
Since 2001 NNALEA has led in the developmentof policies and programs to enhance homelandsecurity in Indian Country, 100,000,000 acres thatinclude strategic infrastructure, natural resources,and territories adjacent to U.S. internationalborders. In 2002 NNALEA’s 10th Annual TrainingConference featured a Tribal Lands HomelandSecurity Summit cosponsored by COPS and OLES.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security andother federal, state, and local law enforcement andsecurity agencies and corporate leaders were alsokey summit participants.
Jannette O. Domingo
For Further Reading
National Native American Law Enforcement Association.(2000–2003). Newsletter, 8–10.
National Native American Law Enforcement Association.(2002). Tribal lands homeland security report. Washington,DC: NNALEA.
National Native American Law Enforcement Association.[Online]. Available: http://www.nnalea.org
Reaves, B. A., & Hart, T. C. (2001). Federal law enforcementofficers, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics.
� NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OFBLACK LAW ENFORCEMENTEXECUTIVES
Beginning in the 1960s, the violent crime rate inAmerica began a dramatic proliferation. From themid-1960s to the late 1970s, the homicide rate dou-bled, reaching a record peak at 10.2 homicidesper 100,000 persons. Further, official data indicatedthat African Americans were disproportionatelyrepresented in violent crime, especially as homicideoffenders. Not only were African Americans morelikely to commit homicide, but African American
men were also disproportionately represented ashomicide victims. At the same time, studies weredemonstrating that certain social and structuralcharacteristics in which many African Americansfound themselves (such as being unemployed andheading single-parent households) were influencingcriminal offending.
In September 1976, the Police Foundation andthe Department of Justice’s Law EnforcementAssistance Administration cosponsored a sympo-sium to address the burgeoning crime problemin urban low-income areas. The Joint Center forPolitical Studies coordinated this event in which60 high-ranking black law enforcement executives,representing 24 states and 55 major cities, assem-bled. Reflecting on the high rate of crime in blackurban communities, the 60 black law enforcementexecutives abandoned the original agenda. Forminga unified alliance committed to equity in criminaljustice, they became the creators and first membersof the National Organization of Black LawEnforcement Executives (NOBLE). Hubert Williams,then director of the Newark, New Jersey, PoliceDepartment and the first black police chief of amajor city, was unanimously elected temporarychairman of NOBLE. After his retirement, Williamswent on to head the Police Foundation, one of thelaw enforcement groups that had participated in theoriginal symposium. NOBLE has had both maleand female presidents. One of its presidents, ChiefLeonard Cooke, was named one of Ebony maga-zine’s One Hundred Organizational Leaders in2002 as part of its annual recognition of the “100Most Influential Black Americans.” In May 2002,Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner appointed ChiefCooke the director of the state’s Department ofCriminal Justice Services.
Since its inception in 1976, NOBLE’s member-ship has grown to more than 4,300 law enforcementprofessionals, primarily chief executive officers andcommand level officials of law enforcement agen-cies at the federal, state, county, and municipallevels. There are 53 chapters in the United States. InMay 2002, NOBLE approved a chapter in St. Kittsand Nevis; this expansion into the Caribbean repre-sents its first chapter outside the United States.
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives—�—791
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 791
NOBLE published its first official magazine, TheNoble National, in 1977 at the 17th Annual TrainingConference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the publica-tion has since become a quarterly that highlightscurrent research interests of the association andits members, job prospects, and members’ achieve-ments. It is mailed to all active members of theorganization.
Membership in NOBLE is open to any individualeither involved in, or interested in pursuing, a careerin law enforcement. There are five categories ofmembership, based on status as a sworn law enforce-ment officer and rank at the time of application.Membership classification may be amended later,however, to reflect promotional changes or jobreclassification. Some exclusive benefits for NOBLEmembers include subscriptions to all newslettersand magazines, access to the NOBLE interactiveWeb site, and substantial discounts on conferenceregistration for annual training conferences andother NOBLE events.
NOBLE’s mission is to ensure equitable treat-ment in the administration of justice and to functionas the conscience of law enforcement. The coreoperating philosophy is justice in action. Consistentwith this philosophy, NOBLE is actively involvedin many facets of justice in the United States. Theorganization focuses on relevant issues such asfairness in the administration of justice, police com-munity relations, the hiring and promotion of blackpolice officers, and the unique problems of theblack police executive.
Members of NOBLE conduct substantiveresearch, use the media to discuss pertinent issues,and perform myriad outreach activities. In 1983,NOBLE received funding from the NationalInstitute of Justice to research racial and religiousviolence and to develop model policies and proce-dures for police organizations. As a result of thisresearch, NOBLE published a law enforcementhandbook, which is used by both law enforcementand social service agencies. NOBLE also designeda Victim’s Assistance Program, which was imple-mented in several major cities, including Baltimore,Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts;and Washington, D.C. Funded by the Ford
Foundation, NOBLE’s Victim Assistance Programoutlines tactics to help police agencies form perma-nent relationships with local victim service providers,hospitals, and district attorneys to ensure the protec-tion of victims of violent crime.
NOBLE has also been involved in efforts toassist police departments in the development ofpolicies to respond more appropriately to the needsof domestic violence victims. Under a grant fromthe U.S. Department of Justice, NOBLE has beenconducting policy development training seminarsfor law enforcement executives and managers since2000. NOBLE has supported and published studieson racial and religious violence and harassment,hate crime, and use of deadly force by law enforce-ment officers.
Recognizing that the community must be anintegral part of the criminal justice system, NOBLEviews community outreach as a major guiding prin-ciple of the organization. NOBLE offers particularattention to criminal justice issues affecting theAfrican American community and promotes acommunity-wide approach to the reduction of crimethrough various community outreach programs.The organization offers scholarships to high schooland continuing education students, sponsors eventsto raise funds that provide supplies for financiallydisadvantaged schools, mentors students in variousacademic subjects, and cosponsors clothing drives,holiday food distribution drives, and various eventsto bring resources into disadvantaged communities.A publication, The Law and You, is geared towardadvising minority males on their interactions withthe police in the hope that unnecessary confronta-tion will be avoided.
NOBLE is also a participant in the CommunityPolicing Consortium, along with four other leadingpolicing organizations in the United States. TheCommunity Policing Consortium was created andfunded in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Assistance to deliver communitypolicing training and technical assistance to policeorganizations and sheriff’s offices that havereceived federal funding to implement communitypolicing. As an active member of the consortium,NOBLE has trained more than 480 law enforcement
792—�—National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 792
personnel (representing 165 law enforcementagencies) in cultural diversity and community part-nerships. This training focuses on understanding theobjectives of community policing and offers insightinto the importance of forming collaborations withother agencies and community members.
One of NOBLE’s most ambitious projects is theNOBLE Youth Initiative, which includes the partic-ipation of all U.S. NOBLE chapters. The initiativeis aimed at preparing youth for leadership roles intheir communities and maximizing the opportunityfor youth to reach their full potential. The YouthInitiative, through workshops, focuses on exposingyouths to various educational components; develop-ing life, communication, and leadership skills; andinstilling a sense of community pride.
Kimberly D. Hassell
For Further Reading
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.[Online]. Available: http://www.noblenatl.org
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theoryof race, crime and urban inequality. In J. Hagan &R. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality (pp. 37–54).Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
� NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETYINFORMATION BUREAU
The National Public Safety Information Bureaubegan in 1964 as a source for public safety informa-tion. It works closely with law enforcement agenciesand fire and emergency departments to providethe public with names of chief officers, addresses,phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for the morethan 70,000 contacts it maintains in its database.
One way in which it carries out its mission is bypublishing public safety directories. This role hasexpanded since the terrorist attacks of September11, 2001, and now includes three major publica-tions to assist the public in navigating newly createdfederal agencies such as the Department ofHomeland Security. The National Directory of LawEnforcement Administrators, the National Directoryof Fire Chiefs & EMS Administrators, and the
Safety Source Yellow Pages provide timely contactinformation for the public. The Department ofHomeland Security combines a variety of law enforce-ment bodies into one department, as well as joiningpreviously separate segments of the government.This presents a challenge to the publishers of thevolumes who remain committed to maintainingupdated information. The more than 74,000 listingsin the National Public Safety Information Bureaudatabase are updated annually for its directories,which help to provide accurate lifesaving informa-tion to the public.
The most comprehensive source of informationrelating to the National Safety Information Bureauis its Web site, through which 5,000 public safetylinks can be accessed The site, www.safetysource.com, has A to Z listings titled Public SafetyShopping. There are references to bullet traps, car-diopulmonary resuscitation training, body armor,prison supplies and equipment, and nuclear, biolog-ical, and chemical protection, to name only a few.In addition the main page has featured areas, whichinclude the three major directories, public safetymailing lists, public safety shopping, Web guides,and news and events. The Web guides are dividedinto seven areas—law enforcement, emergencymedical services, associations, products and services,fire service, corrections, and emergency manage-ment. As an example, the law enforcement Webguide leads the user to such diverse agencies asthe Bureau of Indian Affairs and state police andhighway patrols across the country. The news andevents link maintains three sections: police and lawenforcement news, events schedule, and fire news.
Since 2000, the National Safety InformationBureau has been publishing This Week in LawEnforcement, which is intended to provide readerswith up-to-date information affecting the lawenforcement community. The publication is compre-hensive and reports news from all over the country.Some of the issues covered in 2003 included guncontrol laws, court actions on high-profile cases,drug rings, and a section called “crime wire,” whichcovers several states and reports on topics of interestin law enforcement. This publication is availablethrough the Web at www.twile.com. The homepage
National Public Safety Information Bureau—�—793
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 793
leads to the top story of the week, as well as contactand subscription information, a link to feedback forthe public, a connection to an online version of the lastfive issues of the publication, and links to related orga-nizations and associations. The links include a numberof government or quasi-public agencies that are activein law enforcement research and training, includingthe Police Foundation (www.policefoundation.org),the National Law Enforcement Officers MemorialFund (www.nleomf.org), the Police Executive ResearchForum (www.policeforum.org), the Commission onAccreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.(www.calea.org), and the International Association ofChiefs of Police (www.theiacp.org).
Sandra Shoiock Roff
For Further Reading
National Public Safety Information Bureau. [Online].Available: http://www.safetysource.com.
Navigating the red tape of a new federal agency: Newhomeland security segment added to the national direc-tory makes finding the right contact easier. (2003, June 30).PR Newswire.
Safety/security publications adjust to changes in lifestyle,technology. (2002). Simba Report on Directory Publishing12(3).
� NATIONALRIFLE ASSOCIATION
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown bytheir troops, Union veterans Colonel William C.Church and General George Wingate formedthe National Rifle Association (NRA) in 1871.According to Church, the primary goal of the asso-ciation was to promote and encourage rifle shootingon a scientific basis. After receiving a charter fromNew York State, the NRA selected Civil WarGeneral Ambrose Burnside, who was also the for-mer governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, asits first president.
An important facet of the NRA’s creation wasthe development of a practice ground. In 1872, withfinancial help from New York State, a site on LongIsland, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the
purpose of building a rifle range. The range, namedCreedmoor, was opened a year later, and it wasthere that the first annual matches were held. In1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to New YorkState and NRA’s matches moved to Sea Girt,New Jersey.
The NRA’s interest in promoting the shootingsports among America’s youth began in 1903 whenNRA secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establish-ment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities,and military academies. By 1906, NRA’s youth pro-gram was in full swing with more than 200 boyscompeting in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Youthprograms are still a cornerstone of the NRA, withmore than one million youth participating in NRAshooting sports events and affiliated programs withgroups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, theAmerican Legion, U.S. Jaycees, and others.
DEVELOPING A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
The NRA became politically active in 1934 withthe formation of its Legislative Affairs Division.Although it did not begin to lobby directly, theNRA began to mail out legislative facts and analy-ses to members, encouraging them to take actionbased on the information. In 1975, sensing a needfor political defense of the Second Amendment, theNRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action.Today the NRA is widely recognized as the leadinglobbyist group for the broadest possible interpreta-tion of the Second Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. The NRA is in the forefront of issuessupporting the rights of individual citizens to pur-chase and bear firearms.
In addition, the NRA has maintained its empha-sis on training, education, and marksmanship. DuringWorld War II, the association offered its ranges tothe government, developed training materials,encouraged members to serve as plant and homeguard members, and developed training materialsfor industrial security. After the war, the NRA con-centrated its efforts on education and training thehunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunc-tion with the state of New York, established the firsthunter education program. The NRA launched
794—�—National Rifle Association
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 794
a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter,dedicated solely to hunting issues.
The American Hunter and The AmericanRifleman were the mainstays of NRA publicationsuntil the debut of The American Guardian in 1997.The Guardian was created to cater to a more gen-eral audience, with less emphasis on the technicali-ties of firearms and a greater focus on self-defenseand recreational use of firearms.
Law enforcement has remained a major empha-sis of the NRA. Although a special police schoolhad been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRAbecame the only national trainer of law enforce-ment officers with the introduction of its NRAPolice Firearms Instructor certification program in1960. By 2004, there were more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors.Additionally, top law enforcement shooters com-pete each year in eight different pistol and shotgunmatches at the National Police Shooting Champion-ships held in Jackson, Mississippi.
The NRA also continues to promote civilianfirearms education: safety courses are available inbasic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms,personal protection, and ammunition reloading.Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches arespecially trained to work with young competitiveshooters.
Although the NRA is widely recognized today asa major political force and is either staunchly criti-cized or defended depending on individuals’ viewsregarding how narrowly or broadly to interpret theSecond Amendment, the association has retained itsoriginal purpose to encourage shooting as a sportand to train individual shooters in gun safety.
Michelle Beharry
For Further Reading
Davidson, O. G. (2001). Under fire: The NRA and the battlefor gun control. Ames, IA: University of Iowa Press.
Lott, J. (1998). More guns, less crime: Understanding crimeand gun-control laws. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
McClurg, A., Denning, B., & Kopel, D. (2002). Gun controland gun rights: A reader and guide. New York: New YorkUniversity Press.
National Rifle Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.nra.org
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.[Online]. Available: http://www.nra-ila.org
� NATIONALSECURITY AGENCY
The National Security Agency (NSA) coordinates,directs, and performs focused activities to protectU.S. information systems and to produce foreignintelligence information. It is the nation’s primarycryptogic organization and, as such, is a high-technology organization, reaching new frontiers ofcommunications and data processing. The agency isalso one of the most crucial centers of foreign lan-guage analysis and research within the government.
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) is a special programwith a long history. SIGINT’s modern era beganduring World War II, when theUnited States broke theJapanese military code and became aware of plans toinvade Midway Island. This intelligence helped theUnited States win against Japan’s superior fleet. Theutilization of SIGINT is believed to have played a sig-nificant role in shortening the war by at least one year.SIGINT continues as an important force helping theUnited States maintain its superpower status.
Given that the world is more technology oriented,the Information Systems Security (INFOSEC) mis-sion has become challenging. This mission involvessecuring all classified and sensitive information thatis sent or stored by U.S. government equipment.INFOSEC professionals go to great strides to ensurethat government systems remain impenetrable.
NSA operates one of the nation’s most significantresearch and development programs. Some of theagency’s research projects have greatly impacted thestate of the art in the scientific and business worlds.Early interest by the NSA in cryptanalytic researchled to the first large-scale computer and the firstsolid-state computer, forerunners to the moderncomputer. NSA led efforts in flexible storage capa-bilities, which allowed for the development of the tapecassette. NSA also made pioneering developmentsin semiconductor technology and continues to bea world leader in many technological fields.
National Security Agency—�—795
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 795
NSA employs the country’s leading codemakersand codebreakers. It is one of the largest employersof mathematicians in the United States and possiblyin the world. These mathematicians contribute directlyto the two missions of the agency: to design ciphersystems that will protect the integrity of U.S. infor-mation systems and to search for weaknesses in thesystems and codes of adversaries.
Like the NSA, the National Security Council(NSC) plays a vital role in maintaining the safetyof American domestic and international interests.The National Security Act of 1947 authorized theNational Security Council to advise the president ofthe United States in matters pertaining to domestic,foreign, and military policies relating to nationalsecurity. The system is a method to coordinate exec-utive departments and agencies in the effectivedevelopment and implementation of these impor-tant national security policies.
The NSA is chaired by the president. The vicepresident, the secretary of state, the secretary oftreasury, the secretary of defense, and the assistantto the president for National Security Affairs areregular meeting attendees. The statutory militaryadviser to the council is the chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, and the director of central intelli-gence is the intelligence adviser. Also invited toattend the meetings are the chief of staff to the pres-ident, counsel to the president, and the assistant tothe president for economic policy. The attorneygeneral and the director of the Office of Manage-ment and Budget also attend meetings that impacttheir responsibilities. When appropriate, the leadersof other executive departments and agencies areinvited to attend NSC meetings.
The NSC is the president’s primary forum formatters pertaining to national security and foreignpolicy, giving him the opportunity to meet with hissenior national security advisers and cabinet offi-cials. For more than 50 years, 11 presidents havesought to use the NSC system to merge foreign anddefense policies in order to maintain the nation’ssecurity and advance its interests abroad. Recurrentstructural modifications through the years havebeen due to presidential management style, changingrequirements, and personal relationships.
Overall, the nation’s intelligence community (IC)contains a cooperative network of people and organi-zations that work together to inform decision makersand keep the country secure. The director of centralintelligence coordinates and directs the multifacetedactivities of all the U.S. intelligence organizations.The IC has representation from members of manyintelligence agencies, including the Department ofDefense; Departments of Justice, Treasury, Energy,and State; and the Central Intelligence Agency.Although it is not a military organization, NSA is oneof a multitude of elements of the IC administered bythe Department of Defense. As commander-in-chief,the president has the final authority over all intelli-gence collection and analysis.
Sean W. Wheeler
For Further Reading
Bolz, F., Jr., Dudonis, K. J., & Schulz, D. P. (2001). The coun-terterrorism handbook: Tactics, procedures, and tech-niques. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Calabresi, M. (2000). The terror hunters. Time Europe, 156,34–35.
Collins, A. (2002). My jihad: The true story of an Americanmujahid’s amazing journey from Usama Bin Laden’straining camps to counterterrorism with the FBI and CIA.Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.
Establishment of the National Security Council. [Online].Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc
Lebens Nacos, B. (2002). Mass-mediated terrorism: The cen-tral role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism.Lanaham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
National Security Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.nsa.gov/about_nsa/index.html
National Security Presidential Directives. [Online]. Available:http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm
� NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ASSOCIATION
The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) is anonprofit professional organization dedicated toincreasing professionalism in the criminal justicecommunity. Although there is a decided emphasison the office of sheriff, the organization is morediverse than its name suggests. Membership is open
796—�—National Sheriffs’ Association
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 796
to the law enforcement community at large as wellas concerned citizens and corporate entities.
Since its inception in 1940, the NSA has offeredmany services to the criminal justice community.Today, the organization has grown to approximately20,000 members, who participate in a wide varietyof organizational activities ranging from receiving themonthly Sheriff Magazine to obtaining liability insur-ance at a reduced rate. The most valuable of theseservices seems to be the large network of informationsharing. Each year a national conference is held inJune. The purpose of the annual conferences is toprovide members with educational opportunitiesand acquaint them with the latest technologicaladvances in policing and correctional research andproduct development. In addition, peer networking isan important function of the conferences. The 2003national conference was attended by approximately4,600 members with more than 300 companiesexhibiting law enforcement products. In addition tovendors of traditional police products (uniforms,firearms, body armor, training programs, etc.), manyexhibitors reflect the jail-management functions ofsheriffs’ offices and therefore might range from archi-tects specializing in cell construction and maintenanceto food vendors purveying single-serving food packetsto accommodate the dietary needs of detainees.
The most critical element of the NSA’s successis its commitment to partnerships at all levels. NSAworks to establish and maintain cooperative rela-tionships with local, state, and federal criminal jus-tice agencies, as well as relationships with citizens’groups.
The most influential partnerships have been withother professional organizations, bridging the gapbetween professionals working in an often unsys-tematic criminal justice system. For example, theCommission on Accreditation for Law EnforcementAgencies was established in 1979 as an indepen-dent accrediting authority by the NSA in coopera-tion with the International Association of Chiefsof Police, the National Organization of Black LawEnforcement Executives, and the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum. The NSA has several sectionsand committees directed at specific aspects of lawenforcement, such as a traffic safety committee, the
chaplains’ advisory committee, and a research anddevelopment section.
TRAINING
The NSA established the National Sheriffs’Institute (NSI) in 1972 to provide executive man-agement training for law enforcement leaders. TheNSI was established in response to a need by sher-iffs to meet the rapidly changing demands of theoffice during the turbulent 1970s and is regarded asa source of quality training on essential and timelytopics. The institute offers a wide variety of courses,ranging from law-enforcement-specific courseson terrorism and crime prevention to the morebusiness-like aspects of law enforcement manage-ment, such as budget preparation. The institute alsooffers training for new sheriffs. This training istailored to the special concerns of the office’s exec-utive and administrative functions. These executiveleadership skills are learned in a two-week courseof instruction. NSA also offers specialized trainingin jail operations through the jail operations section,offering beginner and more advanced courses in jailoperation and administration.
The association also publishes a wide varietyof training material for use with, and outside of, thesecourses. The rapid shifts in what society demands oflaw enforcement have resulted in shifts in the train-ing opportunities offered by NSA. Since the terroristevents of September 11, 2001, NSA has added aweapons of mass destruction (WMD) training pro-gram to its calendar. The WMD program is intendedto prepare sheriffs to plan and train their office torespond effectively to a WMD incident. WMD train-ing program participants learn the nature and extentof the terrorist threat and the actions that a sheriff’soffice should take to prepare for a WMD incident.
NATIONAL NEIGHBORHOODWATCH PROGRAM
The late 1960s saw a dramatic increase in burglaryrates. In response to a multitude of requests fromsheriffs and police chiefs around the country, NSAdeveloped the National Neighborhood Watch Program
National Sheriffs’ Association—�—797
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 797
as a crime prevention strategy that incorporatedcitizen involvement and addressed the increasingnumber of burglaries taking place at unprecedentedlevels in rural and suburban residential areas. Watchprograms have enjoyed a resurgence in popularitysince the late 1990s due to the increasing adoption ofcommunity policing strategies by the law enforce-ment community. As policing has evolved into amore community-oriented activity, so too haveNeighborhood Watch Programs. Groups are nowincorporating activities that not only address crimeprevention issues, but also restore civic pride andcommunity cohesion. For example, some Neighbor-hood Watch groups participate in neighborhoodcleanups and other activities aimed at improving thequality of life for neighborhood residents.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
The NSA is politically active on the national leveland has been involved in planning with the WhiteHouse and the Department of Justice on many issuesof concern to its membership. The GovernmentAffairs Division of NSA operates as a connection forsheriffs to lawmakers in Washington, D.C., and alsosmoothes the process of communication with presi-dential aides and congressional officials. The divi-sion monitors and analyzes legislative activity for theNSA and works closely with the executive branch todevelop and maintain cooperative relationships thatbenefit the law enforcement community.
Adam J. McKee
For Further Reading
Attorney General Ashcroft announces neighborhood watchcampaign. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/March/02_ag_125.htm
National Sheriffs’ Association. About the NSA. [Online].Available: http://www.sheriffs.org/
� NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIONSAFETY BOARD
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) isan independent agency of the U.S. government,
charged with the investigation of certain transportationaccidents within the United States for the sole pur-pose of issuing safety recommendations to preventfuture accidents. The board is not authorized toestablish liability for civil purposes, but attempts toprevent future accidents by recommending opera-tional, regulatory, and engineering improvements.The board has neither the authority nor the trainingto conduct criminal investigations. Where there isa collateral interest on the part of law enforcement,federal, state, and local law enforcement agenciesconduct all portions of the criminal investigation.The NTSB’s role with law enforcement is solely tomake evidence and technical information availableto enforcement officials.
The NTSB operates under rules established bythe Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, ChapterVIII. It is composed of three members appointed bythe president of the United States, plus a chair anda vice-chair. The members, chair, and vice chair areappointed to fill specific terms (one term expiringeach year, on a rotating basis) and confirmed by theSenate. The board is assisted by a staff of civilservants, some of whom are specialists in a singletransportation mode.
The board receives most of its visibility throughinvolvement in aviation accidents; however, it alsoinvestigates selected accidents on the highways,waterways and marine environments, materialspipelines, and railroads. Not all transportationevents are classified as reportable to regulatory bod-ies, much less to the NTSB. The board also reviews,on appeal, actions taken by the Coast Guard or theFederal Aviation Administration against operatorcertificates.
High-visibility accidents are investigated by GoTeams (usually chaired by a member and staffed bycivil service personnel) based on the mode of trans-portation involved, the relative severity of the acci-dent, and the expected complexity of the accident.Field investigators are frequently accompaniedby family service specialists and public informa-tion officers to assist in timely release of informa-tion to the media as well as to individual familymembers. On-scene, investigative subgroups areformed to look into specific areas, such as power
798—�—National Transportation Safety Board
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 798
plants, structures, weather, and survivability. Thenumber and assignment of groups varies fromaccident to accident. Other regulatory bodies andaffected corporations participate. Accidents withrelatively little public visibility are investigated byfield offices with regulatory and other participation.Public participation is not permitted.
At the conclusion of on-scene activities, theboard staff and the parties to the investigation willcontinue to conduct off-site tests, review evidence,and collect additional data from manufacturersand others. Additional witness interviews may becompiled as well. In events involving aviation, theNTSB protocols mirror those established by theInternational Civil Aviation Organization.
The work product consists of two parts: a factualrecord and an analysis record. The factual recordbecomes a matter of public record, while the analy-sis report is considered a working document ofthe individual staff members and does not becomepart of the public record. For certain large-scaleaccidents, a full report of the board’s activities,including analysis, will be published together withthe board’s conclusions, finding of cause, and rec-ommendations. In developing its analysis, the boardoccasionally convenes public hearings. Withoutregard to accident size, the recommendations andstatement of probable cause are always a matter ofpublic record. Law enforcement bodies should beaware that the board’s use of the term probablecause should not be interpreted in the same contextas used in law enforcement. Further, the NTSBaccident investigation does not establish fault, butserves only to identify potential government orindustry changes to prevent recurrence.
The board staff also supports the transportationindustry by serving as accredited representatives tocertain non-U.S. investigations when invited to do soby the host government. In these cases, the host gov-ernment controls the investigation and the partici-pation of NTSB and Department of Transportationstaff members is limited as technical advisers andobservers. The conclusions drawn and reports issuedare the exclusive province of the host government.
The NTSB has no oversight body. This has led tocriticism from the public and occasionally from the
larger accident investigation community. Becausethe board is an independent organization, it is notaccountable for the length of time taken for thecompletion of its investigations, some of whichhave taken several years.
Accident reports are sold by the U.S. NationalTechnical Information Service. Single copies of spe-cial studies and some statistical reports are availabledirectly from NTSB offices. Law enforcement orga-nizations requesting assistance can contact any oneof the NTSB’s offices through telephone listingsunder the U.S. Government or, for immediate atten-tion (regardless of transportation mode) through thenearest Federal Aviation Administration air trafficcontrol facility, state departments of motor vehicles,or state or local emergency services coordinators.
The NTSB’s principal offices are in Washington,D.C. In addition, the board maintains nine fieldoffices strategically located throughout the country.In 2003, these locations were Gardenia, California;Seattle, Washington; Denver, Colorado; Arlington,Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Miami,Florida; Parsippany, New York; and Anchorage,Alaska.
Frances Sherertz
For Further Reading
Department of Transportation. [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.gov
Federal Aviation Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.faa.gov
International Civil Aviation Organization. [Online]. Available:http://www.icao.int
National Transportation Safety Board. [Online]. Available:http://www.ntsb.gov
Research and Special Programs Administration, Departmentof Transportation. [Online]. Available: www.rspa.dot.gov
� NATIONAL WHITECOLLAR CRIME CENTER
The National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C)was formed in 1992 with the purpose of provid-ing a nationwide support network for agencies andorganizations involved in the prevention, investigation,
National White Collar Crime Center—�—799
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 799
and prosecution of high-tech and economic crime.Federally funded by Congress through grants fromthe U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of JusticeAssistance, NW3C is a nonprofit, membership-affiliated organization comprising law enforcementagencies, state regulatory bodies with criminal inves-tigative authority, and state and local prosecutionoffices.
By 2003, nearly 1,500 local, state, and federalenforcement agencies had joined NW3C. Membersbenefit from several support services with theircost-free affiliation to NW3C, including financialinvestigations and cyber crime training, analyticalservices, case funding, database searches, InternetFraud Complaint Center (IFCC) referrals, andresearch and information resources.
TRAINING
NW3C is a resource for the design, development,and delivery of financial investigations and com-puter forensic and investigation courses. NW3C’sTraining Section includes curriculum developerswho are teachers, instructional designers, publish-ing editors, lawyers, engineers, and degreedcomputer-based training specialists. NW3C trainingprovides investigators, prosecutors, auditors, finan-cial analysts, and regulatory personnel with thespecialized techniques and skills needed to success-fully detect, investigate, and prosecute economicand cyber crimes. Its nationwide training programshave delivered up-to-date economic and cybercrime training to nearly 60,000 investigators.
A blend of on-site classroom and computer-based training is available, including such coursesas financial investigations practical skills, financialrecords examination and analysis, disaster fraudmanagement, basic data recovery and analysis,advanced data recovery and analysis, Internet traceevidence, prosecuting cases that involve computers:basic information and important issues, big money—a financial investigations resource, introduction toInternet investigations, digital evidence for firstresponders, and cyber crime fighting video.
Other training opportunities include electroniclaw enforcement seminars and the Economic Crime
Summit. The electronic law enforcement seminarsare free, one-day seminars that are held severaltimes a year throughout the United States. Theybring law enforcement professionals together tolearn about the latest computer crime trends.Participants get information on some of the no-costresources available to help their agencies combat,investigate, and prosecute electronic crime.
The Economic Crime Summit is a major venueto spotlight current global economic crime with afocus on public and private-sector investigationand prevention initiatives. The Economic CrimeSummit’s exhibit floor, conference program, andworkshops offer attendees an exploratory environ-ment dedicated to education and networking. Theconference features products, services, and tech-nologies to support fraud prevention, investigation,and prosecution initiatives.
OTHER NW3C SERVICES
NW3C’s Investigative Support Section providesanalytical assistance to qualified state and localmembers. NW3C analysts work closely with policeofficers, investigators, and prosecutors in develop-ing economic crime cases. Case products can rangefrom preparing a link chart to be used in court thatconnects suspects with related crimes to in-depthanalysis of bank records and transaction reports thatmay span several years. Once NW3C’s board ofdirectors designates a case for assistance, a vastnumber of technical services are available, rangingfrom financial analyses, link charts, timelines, andgraphs to expert witness testimony.
NW3C also provides limited financial assistanceto investigations that cross state lines. NW3C casefunding is often used to pay for investigative travel,witness travel, document recovery, and expertwitness expenses. To qualify for this assistance, aNW3C member agency must meet certain criteriaand must be unable to obtain funding from othersources. NW3C provides free to its members infor-mational support through public records databasesearches from companies such as LexisNexis,ChoicePoint, and DBT AutoTrak. NW3C publicrecord database searches can potentially provide
800—�—National White Collar Crime Center
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 800
new leads, assist in the investigative focus of a case,identify other parties, or reveal other important infor-mation on a case.
INTERNET FRAUDCOMPLAINT CENTER REFERRALS
The IFCC is a partnership between the FederalBureau of Investigation and NW3C. The IFCC’smission is to address fraud committed over theInternet. The IFCC is a resource established for lawenforcement by law enforcement. A dedicated Website located at www.ifccfbi.gov provides a mecha-nism for consumers nationwide to report Internetfraud. For law enforcement, the IFCC enables thedevelopment of educational programs aimed at pre-venting Internet fraud and allows for the sharing offraud data by all law enforcement and regulatoryauthorities. All viable complaints, even those thatare not specifically Internet fraud related, are takenby the IFCC staff and referred to the appropriatelaw enforcement agencies on behalf of the individ-ual filing a report based on thresholds preestab-lished by the respective agencies.
RESEARCH ANDINFORMATION RESOURCES
NW3C strives to achieve its mission of identifyingthe impact of economic crime in hopes of increas-ing the public’s awareness of the problem and itsability to control it. NW3C researchers are trainedto assist officers by developing and presenting legalcurricula in computer crime and financial crimeinvestigations. They maintain an economic crimelibrary and an annotated electronic database spe-cific to economic and high-tech crime. The data-base includes an extensive listing of books, journalarticles, newspaper articles, and Web sites abouteconomic crime. NW3C responds to requests forinformation on different forms of economic crime,statistical data, and preventative measures. It alsoprovides a wide range of additional informationfrom novel and complex legal issues in high-techcrime to case law and legislative developments andother economic-crime-related legal guidance.
Additional information resources include specialfraud alerts on scams that are distributed via fax ande-mail to members. These alerts cover a wide rangeof topics. Since 1994, the NW3C has also publishedThe Informant, a quarterly that provides regularfeatures on the latest economic and cyber crimetopics and trends. Its coverage of success storiesfrom enforcement agencies across the nationextends ongoing accolades to the professionals whowork daily to combat these new-age crimes. TheInformant also includes articles on specializedinvestigative support services for law enforcement,economic crime research and legal issues, bestpractices, invisible crime spotlights, and a list ofupcoming fraud training sessions and conferences.
Richard Johnston
For Further Reading
National White Collar Crime Center. [Online]. Available:http://www.nw3c.org
� NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK(SMITHSONIAN) PROTECTIVESERVICES
The Smithsonian National Zoological Park Protec-tive Services (also called the National ZoologicalPark Police, NZPP) is a small police departmentthat is responsible for the security and protection ofzoo animals as well as visitors, staff, and volunteersat the National Zoological Park (NZP) in north-western Washington, D.C. The zoo is a bureau ofthe Smithsonian Institution (SI) and houses approx-imately 2,700 animals of 435 species.
Protective Services is responsible for a widerange of law enforcement and security duties on thegrounds of the zoo, which totals 163 acres, includ-ing 25 buildings and six entrances. Duties includepatrol; emergency response; protection of visitors,staff, animals, and facilities; maintenance of publicorder; crowd control; loss prevention; traffic man-agement; and the enforcement of zoo rules.Because a large number of children visit the zoo,police officers must be especially aware of crimes
National Zoological Park (Smithsonian) Protective Services—�—801
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 801
that concern child safety. Admission to the zoo isfree; more than 2 million people visited in 2003.
Officers carry firearms and have arrest authority.They also have concurrent arrest authority with theU.S. Park Police in the National Capital Parks area.In 2001, the NZP Protective Services was one of anumber of federal police agencies that entered intoa cooperative relationship with the Washington,D.C., Metropolitan Police Department to police thecity areas surrounding their jurisdictions. This localenforcement authority was granted under the PoliceCoordination Act that Congress passed in 1997 toaddress rising levels of crime in Washington, D.C.Protective Services officers patrol areas surround-ing the zoo, enforce local laws, and make arrests.
HISTORY
The NZP was created by Congress in 1889 andbecame part of the SI a year later. The SI initiallyappointed two watchmen who performed enforce-ment duties along with a variety of other tasks. TheNZP opened to the public on April 30, 1891, withsix officers from the Washington MetropolitanPolice Department appointed to enforce laws andregulations. These officers were the foundationfor the National Zoological Park Police. In 1951,Congress authorized Title 40 U.S.C. Section 193 n,which authorized the SI to designate its employ-ees as special police officers. In 1984, the NZPPemployed 21 permanent law enforcement person-nel, five seasonal police officers, and seven summertraffic aids. A captain was the commanding officer,assisted by two lieutenants and four sergeants. SI’srequested budget for FY 2004 listed 41 full-time-equivalent employees whose roles are to ensurethe optimal safety and protection of facilities, col-lections, staff, visitors, and the volunteers at theZoological Park. Current enforcement powers arederived from Title 40 U.S.C. Section 193 t.
Funding for the zoo was split between the federalgovernment and the District of Columbia until 1966,when the entire budget was assigned to theSmithsonian Institution. In 1958, the Friends of theNational Zoo was established to support expansionof zoo research programs and facilities; today it
provides additional funds of about $5 millionannually. The federal portion of the zoo’s budget isapproximately $24 million and, of that, $2.7 millionis designated for safety and protection of facilities,collections, staff, visitors, and volunteers.
ORGANIZATION
As part of the Smithsonian Institution, theZoological Park reports to the secretary of theSmithsonian via the undersecretary for science.The zoo employs 350 employees including policeofficers and is organized into six major divisions ordirectorates. Protective Services, in the FacilitiesDivision, is supervised by a chief and a command-ing officer who holds the rank of captain. In addi-tion, the Protective Service works closely with theSmithsonian’s Office of Protection Services (OPS),which oversees the various security units through-out the SI. Plans are for NZP Protective Services tobe placed under the SI’s OPS by 2006.
Police officers are hired based on a combinationof experience and education. An applicant must bea U.S. citizen, possess a driver’s license, be in goodphysical condition, have good vision, have the abil-ity to distinguish colors, and hear the conversationalvoice. Basic hiring is done on the GS-5 level, whichrequires one year of specialized law enforcementexperience or a bachelor’s degree related to lawenforcement, criminal investigation, or criminology.Higher ranks require additional years of specializedexperience.
Successful candidates attend a nine-week basicpolice training program at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.Additional training is provided in park policies andregulations, firearms, defensive tactics, law, and firstaid. Inservice training is conducted by zookeepers toacquaint police officers with security proceduresand devices in place for the animals to better theirunderstanding of emergency plans, particularly asthese relate to confining or moving animals in theevent of an emergency.
The zoo police utilize mountain bikes for patroland emergency response. Bicycles are very maneu-verable and can handle crowded paths and uneven
802—�—National Zoological Park (Smithsonian) Protective Services
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 802
terrain well. They also keep officers close andavailable to the public. Bike unit officers are certi-fied to patrol on mountain bikes by the InternationalPolice Mountain Bike Association. A zoo officer isnow a certified instructor.
The zoo also uses closed circuit television forvideo surveillance of vehicular access gates andsome animal enclosures equipped with motion sen-sors and audible alarms that are monitored aroundthe clock.
The abilities of the police were tested in 2000when the annual African American Family Celebra-tion Day, held at the zoo on Easter Monday for thepast 100 years, turned violent. The event, whichdraws 15,000 to 20,000 visitors, turned violent whena conflict between two groups of teenage boysresulted in shots being fired into the crowd by a17-year-old. Seven children were wounded and theyouth was convicted and sentenced to 25 years inprison for assault with intent to commit murder. Thesubsequent investigation concluded that the zoo wasinadequately staffed to handle the large crowd anddid not have sufficient coordination with surround-ing law enforcement agencies. In response, theNZPP initiated agreements with the U.S. Park Policeand the Metropolitan Police Department to providecrowd control assistance and also the sharing ofintelligence when unusually large crowds wereexpected. The zoo has also involved communityleaders and volunteers from the school securityforces to assist in maintaining order.
Prompted by the terrorist attacks on September11, 2001, a threat assessment and vulnerability studywere conducted. The NZP was given additionalfunding to implement the recommended changes,which included upgrading equipment, revising emer-gency plans, developing redundant emergency com-mand centers, installing access control and alarmsystems in certain buildings, screening vehiclesentering the park, and x-raying mail and packages.
Katherine B. Killoran
For Further Reading
Ackerman, T. H. (1999). Guide to careers in federal lawenforcement. Traverse City, MI: Sage Creek Press.
Bagott, J. (2003, May). It’s all happening at the zoo. SecurityManagement, pp. 45–56.
Gains, P. (2001, April 16). Zoo adds security on anniversary ofshootings. Washington Post, p. BO2.
National Zoological Park. [Online]. Available: http://nationalzoo.si.edu
Smithsonian Institution. (2003). Fiscal year 2004, budgetrequest to Congress. [Online]. Available: http://www.smithsonian.org/about/budget
Torres, D. A. (1985). Handbook of federal police and inves-tigative agencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in lawenforcement (2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
� NAVAL CRIMINALINVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)is the investigative arm of the Department of theNavy. The NCIS is responsible for investigatingcrimes committed on navy or marine corps installa-tions (e.g., ships, naval bases) or by navy personnelor their spouses or dependents. The NCIS furtherprovides security for naval officials and naval prop-erties. The NCIS employs approximately 2,300people, about half of whom are civilian specialagents. NCIS personnel can be found in more than140 locations around the world.
The NCIS began in 1915 when the Office of NavalIntelligence was given the responsibility of investi-gating espionage. After World War II, the Office ofNaval Intelligence changed to a predominantly civil-ian force and its responsibilities were expanded toinclude conducting criminal investigations, counter-intelligence investigations, and background securityinvestigations of naval personnel. In 1966, the NavalInvestigative Service name was adopted to distin-guish criminal investigators and counterintelligenceofficers from the rest of the Office of NavalIntelligence. In 1983, the Naval Investigative Serviceopened the Navy Antiterrorist Alert Center as anoperational intelligence center to track and dissemi-nate information on terrorist activity.
In 1991, the acting navy secretary replaced theNaval Investigative Service’s commander with acivilian director and changed the agency’s name tothe current Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
Naval Criminal Investigative Service—�—803
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 803
The change resulted from a Tailhook Associationconvention in Las Vegas, Nevada. The TailhookAssociation was a private group of retired and active-duty carrier pilots. During this convention, many ofthe pilots became intoxicated and sexually assaultedmore than 20 women. The Naval InvestigativeService was responsible for investigating the allega-tions, but the investigation had stalled and navalcommanders, including the Naval InvestigativeService’s commander, appeared to be protecting theaccused. The civilian director position still existstoday and the director reports to the secretary of thenavy, the highest commander in the navy.
NCIS agents can specialize in any of four careerpaths: general criminal investigations, procurementfraud investigations, foreign counterintelligence, ortechnical services. Agents conduct investigationsagainst those who are either naval employees orthose who commit criminal acts against naval per-sonnel or property. Investigations span a range ofcriminal acts, including homicide, rape, burglary,robbery, child abuse, arson, domestic violence, andtheft of government property. The investigations areconducted in ports, on military bases, and wherevernavy and marine corps personnel are present.Agents work closely with the offices of the navyand marine corps Judge Advocate General and thelocal U.S. attorney for prosecution of these crimes.The accused can thus be prosecuted in either amilitary tribunal or a civilian federal court.
Since the Department of the Navy relies extensivelyon the expertise of contractors who build and servicehighly sophisticated military technological tools andmaintain military property, the economic crimes divi-sion oversees fraud, arson, and property theft againstthe navy. Procurement fraud is the major cause of eco-nomic loss and takes the form of bribery, kickbacks,product substitution, cost mischarging, and environ-mental crimes. In 1997, NCIS fraud agents wereinvolved in the investigation of 811 procurement fraudcases. Of the approximately 111 agents who workeconomic crime cases, the majority are assigned to theNorfolk, Virginia, and San Diego, California, navalbases where the navy does the bulk of its contracting.
In the area of counterintelligence, the NCIS col-lects and analyzes information about possible
threats and advises military commanders. Thecounterintelligence mission is focused on protect-ing naval forces both on- and off-shore and protect-ing sensitive technologies, such as computers, fromforeign intelligence services and terrorist organi-zations. Agents collect intelligence from criminaldatabases, surveillance, local and federal law enforce-ment, and law enforcement agencies overseas.NCIS personnel also train military personnel, civil-ian employees, and dependents living on navalbases on terrorism awareness, crime prevention,and violence in the workplace.
Finally, the NCIS provides technical support toits field offices, such as polygraph examinations,secure communications, and hidden surveillancecameras. The NCIS maintains two forensic labora-tories, again in Norfolk and San Diego, wherecrime scene evidence is analyzed. Technical andsupport staff may find careers in chemistry, forensicscience, computers, polygraph administration, andadministrative support.
A candidate interested in becoming a specialagent must possess a four-year college degree, applyto the NCIS, and allow an intensive backgroundinvestigation due to handling highly sensitive infor-mation. Agents train for 15 weeks at the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center in Glynco,Georgia. Once assigned to their field offices, newagents learn additional investigative tools, includinginterviewing techniques, crime scene processing,search and seizure procedures, and victim sensitivityissues. Agents may spend their assignments in theUnited States or overseas, including afloat tours andtours in isolated locations.
Paula Gormley
For Further Reading
Cary, P. (1992, November 9). Navy justice. U.S. News & WorldReport, p. 46.
Golembieski, K. (2002, September 20). Naval CriminalInvestigative Service serving sailors in D.C., around theworld. The Waterline. [Online]. Available: http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/seaservices/7_37/local_news/1928-1.html
Naval Criminal Investigative Service. [Online]. Available:http://www.ncis.navy.mil/
804—�—Naval Criminal Investigative Service
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 804
� NUCLEAR SECURITY,DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The security of nuclear materials in the UnitedStates is assigned to the Office of Security in theDepartment of Energy (DOE), which protects facil-ities, personnel, and classified and sensitive materialsfrom threats from criminals, dissidents, terrorists,and security breaches via foreign intelligence. Theplants and laboratories managed by DOE are locatedthroughout the United States, including facilitiesin Nevada, New Mexico, California, and Tennesseeand the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The Office of Security is divided into a number ofareas, including identification of classified and con-trolled information; executive and dignitary protec-tion; infrastructure security to protect critical assets,including nuclear materials; and an emergency man-agement center located at the Forrestal EmergencyOperations Center at the Washington, D.C., head-quarters, from which analytical support is providedduring all security-related incidents and all emer-gency management drills and practice exercises.
The security policy staff is responsible for design-ing policies to protect the physical securityof facilities and the assets entrusted to DOE. Staff alsomanages the DOE Safeguards and Security Techno-logy Development Program and the integration ofcyber security, classification and control policy, andsafeguards and security. The security policy staff mustalso provide an independent adversary team that hasthe capabilities pointed out in the DOE Design BasisThreat. The team, known as the Composite AdversaryTeam, provides realistic training and emergency man-agement opportunities for staff through realisticperformances of security breaches.
An Office of Security Training and Educationmanages the Nonproliferation and National SecurityInstitute (NNSI), located at Kirkland Air ForceBase, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and providessecurity training and services (e.g., nuclear safe-guards and security, protection of the infrastructure,and homeland security counterterrorism measures).Between 1984 and 1998, the NNSI was known asthe Safeguards and Security Central Training
Academy. It provided the training necessary tocounter threats directed at U.S. nuclear facilities.In those years, programs grew to more than 100courses in five major areas: information security,materials control and accountability, personnelsecurity, program and planning management alongwith curriculum development and instructionaltechniques, and protection program operations.
The NNSI, which is operated by WackenhutSecurity Services for the DOE, is comprised of theSafeguards and Security Central Training Academy,the Counterintelligence Training Academy (CITA),the Foreign Interaction Training Academy, and theProfessional Development Program. Each performssomewhat different functions.
The CITA, which was established on May 1,2000, provides counterintelligence training andawareness courses and informs the students of thecurrent structure and responsibilities of the Officeof Counterintelligence and the Office of DefenseNuclear Counterintelligence. Students, who includeDOE/NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administra-tion) federal and contractor managers and supervi-sors, are trained to recognize the dangers of theforeign intelligence services threat, the risks andvulnerabilities, and methods of protection for per-sonnel and technology and how to recognize,deflect, and report to DOE/NNSA counterintelli-gence any attempts by foreign intelligence servicepersonnel to extract information from DOE/NNSAattendees at scientific conferences and businessmeetings. The practice of economic espionage(types of intellectual property threats and counter-measures) is discussed and analyzed using cases,examples, and the 1996 Economic Espionage Act,as well as the risks involved in scientific collabora-tive projects. Students are trained in how to spothuman behavior and weaknesses that could causea trusted insider to be recruited by corporate ornational intelligence spies. The foreign technicalcollection documents how threats or how technicalespionage (bugging conversations, voice, fax, anddata communication, theft of materials, luggage,computer, etc.), technical surveillance, covertsearches, and efforts to elicit information can beused against a DOE/NNSA traveler.
Nuclear Security, Department of Energy—�—805
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 805
The Foreign Interaction Training Academy,which was established in March 2001, develops andprovides training for DOE staff and all contractors’personnel who are assigned to activities involv-ing visits by non-U.S. citizens to DOE facilities.Training centers on technology and legal issuessurrounding transfer of data may influence nationalsecurity. The Professional Development Programwas established to offset any loss of expertise thatmay be experienced by staff retirements. Thisprogram has not only provided training for currentstaff, but also maintains an intern program to encour-age recent college graduates to pursue careers withthe DOE.
Since its inception, the DOE has relied on armed,private security officers to patrol its facilities, butamid concerns over terrorist threats, particularly tothe nuclear weapons program, discussions were initi-ated in 2004 to create a police force within the depart-ment. In addition to replacing its network of privatesecurity firms that now guard nuclear weapons mate-rial, DOE is considering creation of a mission focusedgroup of specialist officers who would resemble theArmy’s Delta Force or the Navy’s Seals. DOE has
also indicated it will reduce the number of placeswhere weapons fuel is stored and will minimize theftsof classified information by moving to what it termeddiskless computing by 2010.
Marvie Brooks
For Further Reading
Fialka, J. J. (2004, May 10). Energy Department may set plansfor new nuclear-material security. The Wall StreetJournal, p. A4.
Nonproliferation and Security Institute. [Online]. Available:http://www.nnsi.doe.gov/GenInfo.
Office of Headquarters Security Operations (SO-20). (2003).Washington, DC: Office of Security, U.S. Departmentof Energy. [Online]. Available: http://www.so.doe.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction+home.so20
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Security Affairs, Officeof Safeguards and Security. (1994, July 15). Manual ofsecurity requirements for the classified automated infor-mation security program (DOE M5639. 6A-1, DOE 471.2-1, Executive Order 12958 and 12968). [Online].Available: http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/Securitydoesec.html7
Wald, M. L. (2004, May 8). Nuclear weapons program couldget own police force. The New York Times, p. A13.
806—�—Nuclear Security, Department of Energy
N-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 806
O� OFFICE OF NATIONAL
DRUG CONTROL POLICYThe Office of National Drug Control Policy(ONDCP) was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Actof 1988. It is the most recent organization estab-lished to oversee and plan for the funding, coordi-nation, and evaluation of federal governmentantidrug activities. The concept of designating acentral person or agency as the leading authorityon drugs in the federal government dates back toDr. Hamilton Wright, the State Department’s opiumcommissioner from 1906 to 1914. Wright coordi-nated efforts in the private and public sectors thateventually, in 1914, led to the Harrison NarcoticAct, the basic antiopiate and anticocaine law of theUnited States until the Comprehensive Drug AbusePrevention and Control Act of 1970.
In 1920, Levi G. Nutt was given responsibilityfor enforcement of the Harrison Act. He was appoin-ted head of the Treasury Department’s NarcoticField Force, a division of the Prohibition Bureau. In1930, after some scandals, Congress created theFederal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) in the TreasuryDepartment. President Herbert Hoover appointedHarry J. Anslinger, a Foreign Service officer, as itsfirst head. Anslinger remained atop the FBN for 32years. Although the U.S. Public Health Service wasalso deeply involved with narcotics and operated
two prison-like institutions for the treatment ofaddicts, drug policy leadership remained withAnslinger, whose criminal justice approach harmo-nized with popular revulsion toward addicts. Hemaintained a strong hand on the legal controls overdrug abuse and could easily have been called thefirst drug czar. By the 1950s, he had obtained manda-tory minimum sentences and even the death penaltyfor some drug offenders.
During the 1960s when expert opinion shiftedtoward the medicalization of drug abuse, a newapproach and new leaders were sought. The treat-ment side of addiction was greatly expandedduring the administration of President RichardM. Nixon, which created the Special Action Officefor Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP). Its direc-tor, Dr. Jerome Jaffe, was often referred to as thedrug czar. The activities of SAODAP balancedtreatment and prevention with the government’scriminal justice agency that had evolved in 1968from the FBN to become the Bureau of Narcoticsand Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). Federal support ofdrug treatment programs grew enormously underSAODAP before it closed its doors in 1974. Out ofSAODAP in 1973 came two permanent agenciesto deal with the medical and legal aspects of thefight against drugs, The National Institute on DrugAbuse and the Drug Enforcement Administration,successor to the BNDD. They joined the U.S.
807
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 807
Customs Service as the three major institutionsdealing with drug misuse.
To coordinate the broad spectrum of federalactivities—and to control bitter infighting amongthe agencies—succeeding administrations trieddifferent schemes. In broad terms, the two basic stylesof antidrug governance were centralization—keeping leadership clearly in the White House witha designated chief—and the alternative, spreadingresponsibility among the agencies. In general,Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan pre-ferred the latter, which diffused responsibility forlack of success. Congress favored the former, whichfocused on one responsible person’s results.
In the Reagan administration (1981-1989) con-cern over the drug problem intensified and led toa competition between the two major parties as towhich one would more severely confront the issueof drug use. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 rein-troduced mandatory minimum sentences amongother features, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of1988 created the ONDCP, which was not to takeeffect until the end of the Reagan administration.
Creation of the ONDCP was intended to showthe government’s resolute determination, with theimplication that great authority had been given thedirector to see that drug abuse would be effec-tively countered. In the 1988 act, the director wascharged with preparation of a national drug controlstrategy. In September 1989, during a peak of pop-ular concern, President George H. W. Bush intro-duced the first of these in an address to the nation.The director was also required to report toCongress on the subsequent fate of the strategy, toestablish long-range goals, and to report each yearon its progress.
The director’s greatest power rested in the abilityto provide leadership, to capture the public’s imag-ination, and to persuade Congress to take action.The statute actually gave the director less powerthan the popular term drug czar would suggest. Thedirector had the right to analyze the budget andactions of all relevant agencies and to report anynoncompliance with the national strategy to thePresident. This aspect of the director’s authorityemphasized that the support of the President was
crucial to the success of the ONDCP. Withoutpresidential backing, the director and his staff wouldconfront the powerful and proud governmentaldepartments with little hope of effective coordination.
The first director was William Bennett, a formersecretary of education, who pursued an extremelyactive public role strongly advocating user account-ability and for a policy of zero toleration. After lessthan two years of service, Bennett resigned. Thesecond director was the former governor of Florida,Robert Martinez, who served quietly until PresidentWilliam J. Clinton took office.
President Clinton’s first action regarding drugswas to cut the ONDCP staff by 83%. This appearedto be part of a new policy to deemphasize theWar on Drugs. Lee Brown, police commissionerof New York City, accepted the directorship andserved until late 1995. In the spring of 1996 GeneralBarry McCaffrey succeeded Brown and broughtthe office to a higher public awareness. Servinguntil the end of the Clinton administration, McCaffreytransformed the national strategy from a shortperspective to a much longer view, 5 to 10 years,which conveyed more realistically the rate ofchange in drug use. John Walters was appointeddirector in 2001 by President George W. Bush, andhas emphasized a broadening of drug testing anda media campaign attacking drug use. He has alsotaken an active role in opposing liberalization ofdrug policies at the state level. Because the public’sconcern over drugs tends to ebb and flow withother social and political forces, it is difficult topredict the future direction of an agency such as theONDCP.
David F. Musto
For Further Reading
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690(November 18, 1988).
Musto, D. F. (1999). The American disease: Origins of nar-cotic control (3rd ed.), New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Musto, D. F., & Korsmeyer, P. (2002). The quest for drugcontrol: Politics and federal policy in a period of increas-ing substance abuse, 1963–1981. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.
808—�—Office of National Drug Control Policy
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 808
OFFICE OF PROTECTIVESERVICES, NATIONALGALLERY OF ART
The Office of Protective Services is a primarilyuniformed force of almost 200 officers who providesecurity services at the National Gallery of Art, afederally administered art gallery that was estab-lished in March 1941 and has since grown to twobuildings and an outdoor sculpture garden. Thefacilities, located in downtown Washington, D.C.,are open 363 days a year and are free to the public,but entry points are staffed by members of theprotective services staff.
Officers, who are federal employees and must beU.S. citizens to be hired, are primarily responsible forsecurity for the physical facilities, including entranceand key control and building pass policies. The forcehas grown considerably from its original staffing ofa captain, a senior lieutenant, two additional lieu-tenants, a senior sergeant, and an additional sergeant.Under the provisions of Administrative OrderNumber 1, which created the service, initial plansincluded a force of 79 officers. Since then, the forcehas grown to several hundred officers who, althoughthey are hired directly by the National Gallery ofArt, are considered to be under the jurisdiction of theU.S. Department of the Interior.
As the staff and responsibilities have grown, sohas the administration of the force, which is nowheaded by a chief, assisted by a deputy for opera-tions and a number of majors, to whom captains andvarious lower ranking officers report. Uniformedofficers may be either armed or unarmed. Unarmedgallery guards are primarily assigned to patrol orfixed posts throughout the art galleries, garden,library, and administrative areas. Armed officers,who are special police officers, have powers ofarrest and have duties and responsibilities similarto all police officers. Like many uniformed federalpolice forces, the jurisdiction of the Office ofProtective Services is limited to the physical area ofthe National Gallery. To assist in providing seam-less coverage for the many jurisdictions within theDistrict of Columbia, the Office of Protective
Services is one of more than 30 agencies covered bythe police coordination act and various cooperativeagreements with the Washington, D.C., MetropolitanPolice.
National Gallery of Art officers are trainedlargely in conjunction with the Veterans Admini-stration security officers; they undergo an initialfour weeks of training at a facility in Little Rock,Arkansas. For unarmed gallery officers, the initialphase of training lasts for two weeks and is con-ducted by the force’s own trainers. The training thatfollows varies in duration and continuing educationis required. The actual hiring of officers and theircertification to provide National Gallery protectionis also administered through the National Gallery ofArt itself.
Camille Gibson
For Further Reading
About the National Gallery of Art. [Online]. Available:http://www.nga.gov/ginfo/aboutnga/htm
Employment Opportunities at the National Gallery. [Online].Available: http://www.nga.gov/resources/employ.htm
Police Coordination Act. [Online]. Available: http://mpdc.dc.gov/serv/programs/covered_leagencies.shtm
� OFFICE OF SECURITY, CENTRALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY
The Office of Security is the investigative and uni-formed police force of the Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA). It has responsibility for security ofpersonnel, technical and computer data and equip-ment security, and physical security of CIA facili-ties. Staff members are responsible for investigatingapplicants for employment and contractors and forperiodic investigations of incumbent employees,investigating personnel suspected of misusing clas-sified information in their possession, and protectingdefectors from foreign governments. Additionally,all individuals who need clearance in order to workin secret or covert operations are investigated by theOffice of Security.
The Office of Security, which was created in1950, predates creation of the present-day CIA,
Office of Security, Central Intelligence Agency—�—809
�
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 809
which was established as part of the 1974 NationalSecurity Act. The Office of Security interacts withall four of the CIA directorates: Intelligence,Science and Technology, Operations, and Adminis-tration. Its personnel are considered staff of theadministration directorate. As such, its activities areexempt from the search and review requirementsof the Freedom of Information Act, which requiresonly that the director review once every 10 yearsany exemptions then in force to determine whetherthe exemptions may be removed from exemptedfiles or a portion of the exempted files.
ORGANIZATION ANDCAREER OPPORTUNITIES
The Directorate of Administration was reorganizedas of June 4, 2001, and separated into five areas:information technology, finance, security, globalsupport, and human resources. Each area chief sitson the CIA’s executive board and has equal staturewith the directorate administrators. This restructuringwas undertaken to allow support personnel to workmore closely with the CIA operatives (Directorateof Operations), the CIA analysts (Directorate ofIntelligence), and the CIA scientists (Directorate ofScience and Technology). The changes have playeda role in each of the career paths within the Officeof Security, which is divided into a number of lawenforcement positions.
All Office of Security employees and their spousesmust be U.S. citizens. Applicants must undergo anumber of medical and security clearances, must bepsychologically tested and evaluated, and must passa polygraph examination. Applicants need not have alaw enforcement background; current areas of spe-cialization that are sought include business, com-puter science, computer security, criminal justice,economics, English, finance, human resources, journal-ism, languages, psychology, sociology, and systemsanalysis.
The Office of Security has professional and para-professional positions. Professional personnel, whomust have a four-year college degree for considera-tion, may be assigned within the United States oroverseas. CIA policy emphasizes rotation of job
assignments, requiring employees to move frequentlyduring the course of their careers. Professional posi-tions include security officer generalist, polygraphexaminer, electrical engineer, and computer secu-rity specialist. Requirements for each position differ.Many applicants for the security officer generalistpositions have previous military or investigative expe-rience in addition to education in the social sciences.
Polygraph examiner applicants must have at leasttwo years of experience and certification from theAmerican Polygraph Association or an accreditedpolygraph school in addition to a bachelor degree.Electrical engineer applicants must have a BSEEdegree. Both experienced electrical engineers andrecent graduates may apply; however, the beginningsalary will match the applicant’s ability and experi-ence. The position involves developing technicalsolutions in the areas of technical surveillancecountermeasures, communications, and computersecurity.
Paraprofessional positions include security pro-tective officers and electronic technicians. The edu-cational criteria range from a high school diplomato a two-year associate degree. Applicants shouldhave at least one of the following skills in theirbackground: bachelor or an associate collegedegree (criminal justice or a related field), militaryexperience (military police or Marine securityguard is preferred), or police or significant securityjob experience. Security protective officers must beat least 21 years old, have a valid driver’s license,and qualify for top secret security clearance.Security protective officers attend the Mixed BasicPolice Training Program at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.
Security protective officers are the Office ofSecurity’s closest equivalent to police officers.All work in uniform, are armed, and exercise arrestpowers only on CIA owned or leased properties.Officers are primarily assigned to protection of per-sonnel, property, and resources and maintain accesscontrol at fixed posts at building entrances andexits, process visitors, and perform security checksof offices and buildings and related duties. Thosewho work at least 36 months in the position are eli-gible to apply to a variety of other positions in the
810—�—Office of Security, Central Intelligence Agency
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 810
CIA, including higher ranks in uniform, with thesupervisory ranks of sergeant, lieutenant, captain,and major, and such special duty assignments asexplosive ordinance disposal, K-9, security opera-tions center, or visitors control center.
Electronic technicians are primarily assigned tomaintain technical security and countermeasuresequipment to prevent unauthorized penetration ofthe agency’s computer systems and to block anyattempts to steal documents, deposit listening devices,or use other types of technology for espionage. Theyinstall mechanical, electromechanical, and electronicsystems; work with the electronic engineers onassignments; and perform troubleshooting duties.
Marvie Brooks
For Further Reading
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). Challenges for a changingworld. Security Protective Officers. Washington, DC:Author.
CIA careers: Professional. [Online]. Available: http:www.cia.gov/employment/professional.html
Leary, W. M. (1984). The Central Intelligence Agency: Historyand documents. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of AlabamaPress.
Loeb, V. (2001, May 1). Tenet, Krongard alter CIA powerstructure. The Washington Post. [Online]. Available:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25386-2001Apr30?l
Rositzke, H. (1977). The CIA’s secret operations: Espionage,counterespionage, and covert action. New York: Reader’sDigest Press.
United States government manual, The. (2000/2001). CentralIntelligence Agency. Washington, DC: Office of theFederal Register.
� OFFICE OF SURFACEMINING RECLAMATION ANDENFORCEMENT
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Actof 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of SurfaceMining Reclamation and Enforcement—usuallyabbreviated OSM, though sometimes abbreviatedOSMRE in government publications. Operating aspart of the Department of the Interior, the office has
two missions. One is overseeing coal mining activityto ensure that both people and the environment areprotected during mining activity and that land isrestored to beneficial use when mining operationsare completed. The second mission, through theAbandoned Mine Land program, is to protectpublic health, safety, and general welfare by cor-recting problems associated with past mining prac-tices such as underground fires, acid mine drainage,subsidences, landslides, highwalls, and open shafts.
With fewer than 525 employees across thecountry, the office partners with 31 states and anumber of Native American tribes that exerciseresponsibility for enforcing, permitting, and bond-ing. OSM assumes direct responsibility for thesefunctions on federal lands and in states that have notestablished regulatory programs of their own,including Tennessee and Washington. On occasion,OSM steps in where states fail to act. This occurredin August 2003, for example, when the office tookover in Missouri when the state legislature failed toadequately fund inspection, enforcement, and otheraspects of Missouri’s mining regulatory program.Federal funding finances about half of each state’sprogram and in Missouri, the state failed to matchthe federal funds as required so federal enforcementwas implemented. Alternatively, OSM could havewithdrawn its approval of the Missouri program, amore drastic step, but declined to do so because thestate said it would take steps to address its fundingand staffing responsibilities.
OSM investigators can order a cessation of sur-face coal mining or reclamation operation if theydetermine that there is an imminent danger to thehealth or safety of the public; if the activity is caus-ing or could reasonably be expected to causesignificant, imminent environmental harm to land,air, or water resources; or if the operation is beingundertaken without a valid permit. Depending onthe type of violation and whether there has been apattern of violations by the operator, enforcementprocedures include informal or formal public hear-ings and an on-site compliance conference beforetaking a case to court if necessary. Federal author-ity may also be exercised when state permits areissued improvidently.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement—�—811
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 811
In actuality, most enforcement is done at the statelevel by state authorities, with policies and proce-dures varying slightly among the states. In instanceswhen federal authorities assume enforcement respon-sibilities, such as when the OSM issues violations inWashington or Tennessee, the cases are handled byadministrative law judges.
In the first 25 years after SMCRA was enacted,OSM gave more than $1 billion in grants to statesand Indian tribes to fund regulation of active coalmines and more than $3 billion to clean up mine sitesabandoned prior to 1977. In the Abandoned MinesProgram, fees paid by active coal mining companiesfund the restoration of abandoned mine lands. Morethan 8,109 acres of pre-1977 abandoned mine wastepiles have been restored to productive use, whilemore than 2.8 million linear feet (or in excess of 530miles) of cliff-like highwalls left by contour mininghave been eliminated. In addition, more than 25,307dangerous portals and hazardous vertical openingshave been sealed. Yet, as recently as June 2003, therewere an estimated 6,000 abandoned coal mines inthis country, 1,700 of which were in the state ofPennsylvania alone, with 3.5 million people livingwithin a mile of a hazardous abandoned mine. Firesin slag heaps and in underground mines were com-mon in coalfields before SMCRA took effect, andthough less common today, they still pose threats.One of the largest and longest out-of-control minefires has been burning since 1962 under the townof Centralia, Pennsylvania; it is estimated to haveenough fuel to burn for more than two more centuries.Because cost estimates to extinguish the blaze exceed$600 million, authorities in Washington, D.C., haveopted to evacuate people from Centralia permanently,compensating them for their homes and businesses.
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission,which does not possess regulatory or enforcementpower, and which also concerns itself with othermineral mining besides coal, represents states onregulatory implementation including such issuesas primacy, federal oversight, enforcement, theapplicant–violator system, bonding, citizen partici-pation, and environmental protection standards.
David P. Schulz
For Further Reading
Capital Reports Environmental Newslink. [Online]. Available:www.caprep.com
Fialka, J. J. (2003, June 4). As threat of old mines grows, alegislative fix isn’t working. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Myers, S. (1999, May 7). Mining’s toll on land was heavy,Charleston Daily Mail, n.p.
� OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROLAND SAFE STREETS ACT
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct, signed into law on June 19, 1968, by PresidentLyndon B. Johnson, was intended to assist state andlocal governments in improving the coordinationand effectiveness of criminal justice systemsthroughout the United States. Reflecting the viewsof the president, Congress, and others that crimewas an issue best handled by state and local gov-ernments, the law nonetheless brought the federalgovernment into local crime control in ways thecountry had not seen since Prohibition.
A large portion of the Safe Streets Act dealt withproviding federal funds to local police. Title I estab-lished a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,which authorized the U.S. attorney general to estab-lish and fund state law enforcement planning agen-cies, which were responsible for developing plans toimprove law enforcement at the state and local leveland for awarding grants intended to improve lawenforcement providing funds for the recruitment andtraining of law enforcement personnel. Funds werealso provided for the construction of buildings andother physical facilities, for special training to combatorganized crime, and for riot control.
Title I also established the National Institute ofLaw Enforcement and Criminal Justice, whose mis-sion was to encourage research and development toimprove and strengthen law enforcement. The insti-tute granted funds to public agencies, private orga-nizations, and institutions of higher learning todiscover new or improved approaches, techniques,systems, equipment, and devices for law enforce-ment. It represented the first time that the federalgovernment had encouraged and paid for researchinto police systems and methods.
812—�—Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 812
The other portions of the act, titles II to IV, dealtwith more traditional law enforcement areas. TitleII was concerned with the admissibility of confes-sions, evidence, and eyewitness testimony in stateprosecutions and with procedures for obtainingwrits of habeas corpus. It limited the federal court’sability to reverse state criminal convictions andalso limited the federal courts from ruling againsteyewitness admissibility at both the state and thefederal levels.
Title III standardized the use of wiretaps andelectronic surveillance by requiring law enforce-ment officials to obtain a court order prior to thesurveillance of a particular subject and by limit-ing to 30 days the length of time a particular sur-veillance could take place without obtaining anextension from the court. Two exceptions permit-ted surveillance without a court order under theauthority of the president when the subject involvednational security and also allowed more generallyfor a law enforcement official in an emergency sit-uation to conduct surveillance without a court order,although the latter exception required court approvalwithin 48 hours.
Title IV prohibited the sale of handguns, pistols,and revolvers by interstate mail to anyone who wasnot a dealer and limited the counter sales to resi-dents of the state in which the sale took place.Although rifles and shotguns were exempted, thelaw was an attempt to keep firearms out of thehands of people who are not legally entitled to pos-sess them, such as juveniles, criminals, and thosewho had been determined mentally incompetent.
MOTIVATION FOR THE ACT
The federalization of crime had become a majorissue by the 1964 presidential campaign. TheFederal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) UniformCrime Reports showed a 13% increase in the levelsof crime in the preceding years. It was also reportedthat since 1958 the crime rate had increased six timesfaster than the nation’s population growth. Arizonasenator Barry Goldwater, the Republican running forpresident against incumbent Johnson, made streetcrime a major political issue, and although Johnson
won the presidential race by an overwhelmingmargin, the crime issue remained important enoughto him to raise it in his State of the Union speech in1965 and to promise that crime control wouldremain on the national agenda. In September 1965,President Johnson’s Commission on Law Enforce-ment and the Administration of Justice met forthe first time to discuss how to address the crimeproblem. The commission, which consisted of 19members headed by then attorney general NicholasKatzenbach, attempted to assess the crime problemby studying the police, courts, and correctional sys-tems. Its 1967 report, The Challenge of Crime ina Free Society, explored the commission’s researchand offered explanations for criminal behavior andalternative methods to prevent crime. The reportclearly indicated the need for a greater commitmentto be given to a largely overworked and misunder-stood criminal justice system. The findings of thereport formed the basis of the legislation Johnsonsent to Congress the same year.
The continuing rise in crime did not ensure pas-sage of the act, parts of which were originally voteddown in Senate subcommittee hearings. However,on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wasassassinated and riots broke out in cities across thenation, including Washington, D.C. Two days lateron April 6, 1968, title IV was passed, and inOctober, after the assassination of New York sena-tor Robert Kennedy (brother of slain President JohnF. Kennedy who was running for president atthe time), Congress passed the Gun Control Act of1968. Many, including President Johnson, consid-ered that title IV was a half measured step towardfirearms control. Title IV only addressed handgunsand ignored rifles and shotguns. The Gun ControlAct of 1968 proved to be a comprehensive legislativeapproach to firearms control.
Almost immediately after passage of theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, thehigh level of federal involvement that it brought tolocal crime fighting was criticized. Critics com-plained about reliance on the FBI’s Uniform CrimeReports, citing a number of flaws in the reportingsystem. This led some observers to questionwhether crime had really increased or if it was the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act—�—813
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 813
method of recording criminal incidents that hadchanged.
Others questioned whether crime was really outof control all over America or whether it was pri-marily an urban problem. The president’s commis-sion had reported that most crimes were committedin cities by boys and young men and that the causeswere rooted in social and economic conditions. Toaddress these issues would require a national com-mitment to all levels of our society. Some havesuggested that this law had hidden racial over-tones. Title I provided funds to state and local policeagencies for training and equipment. However, titleI also exempted law enforcement agencies fromtitle VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which allowedthe federal government to withhold funds from anyagency that practiced discrimination.
The legislative challenge to the Supreme Courtdecisions had many people concerned about thebalance of power at the federal level and the legiti-macy of the law itself. Last, a number of criticsquestioned the 48-hour rule that was embedded intotitle III, believing it would empower low-level pros-ecutors to snoop into the affairs of everyday citizenswithout any judicial oversight. At the same timethat some people felt title III gave the governmenttoo much powers, others complained that althoughtitle IV was a first step to control firearm sales, itdid not go far enough.
Despite these criticisms, the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is a watershed
in the federal government’s attempt to reduce crimeat the local level and to respond to the public’s per-ception of rising crime rates. The public’s fear ofcrime played an important role in the passing of thelaw and created a situation that forced politicians toact in what had previously been viewed as strictlylocal areas of concern, specifically combating localcrime.
John D. Beckmann
See also Gun Control Act, Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration, President’s Commission on LawEnforcement and the Administration of Justice
For Further Reading
Anti-Crime Bill’s crimes, The. (1968, June 5). The New YorkTimes, p. 46.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports.[Online]. Available: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Frankel, M. (1967, February 7). Johnson outlines $350 millionplan to aid crime fight. The New York Times, p. 1.
Gest, T. (2001). Crime & politics: Big government’s erraticcampaign for law and order. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Harris, R. (1969). The fear of crime. New York: Praeger.Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: A partnership
for crime control, The. (1976). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, LEAA.
National panel on crime holds first session today. (1965,September 8). The New York Times, p. 8.
President forms panel to study crime problems. (1965, July27). The New York Times, pp. 1, 14.
814—�—Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
O-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 814
P� PENTAGON POLICE
Located in Washington, D.C., the Pentagon is theheadquarters of the Department of Defense (DoD)and is one of the world’s largest office buildings.Renowned as a national monument and architec-tural marvel, the building was constructed in 16months beginning on September 11, 1941, and wascompleted on January 15, 1943. The cost of thebuilding was about $40 million and the project’stotal cost was almost $83 million. About 23,000employees, both military and civilian, work in thePentagon, including the more than 500 officers ofthe Pentagon Police Department (PPD; whoseformal name is the Pentagon Force ProtectionAgency). The mission of the PPD is to promote ahigh level of law enforcement and security servicesto provide a safe and orderly work environmentfor the Department of Defense community locatedwithin the Pentagon and in the larger NationalCapitol Region.
Providing security for the Pentagon has remaineda constant problem throughout its history. As therepository of war plans and technical secrets andthe site of communications and operations centersof the U.S. military establishment, secure and con-trolled access were required in many areas withinthe building. Still, the large number of visitors otherthan Department of Defense employees, including
contractors, consultants, officials from otheragencies, and foreign dignitaries, had to be accom-modated expeditiously.
Prior to 1971, the General Service Administration’s(GSA) U.S. Special Police conducted all law enforce-ment and security functions at the Pentagon. Inresponse to a growing number of incidents affectingfederal facilities throughout the country, attention tothe security program was reexamined. As a result ofmass demonstrations, bombings, and bomb threatswithin the country, the Federal Protective Service wasestablished and became responsible for the protectionof the Pentagon and its personnel, as well as theUnited States assets housed therein.
In 1987, the GSA administrator delegated author-ity for protecting the Pentagon to the DoD. To carryout the new mission, the DoD established theDefense Protective Service as a new organizationwithin the Washington Headquarters Service. Withinthis organization it became necessary to contract foradditional guards from civilian security companies.The regular force became more professional as aresult of higher levels of initial and ongoing training.A criminal investigation unit was added to facilitateinquiries into crime in and around the building, andspecial weapons and tactics teams were also formedfor use in emergency situations.
The present police force is a direct result of theterrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11,
815
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 815
2001, in which 125 people at the Pentagon werekilled or unaccounted for and 46 passengers andcrew of American Airlines Flight 77 were alsokilled when the plane crashed into the building. Atthe time of the attack, the existing force numberedfewer than 200 officers; in late 2004, the newPentagon Police, which officially came into exis-tence in 2002, was composed of more than 500 offi-cers responsible for patrol and physical security ofthe building and its grounds. Although the forcemight seem large for only one building, its grounds,and a few miscellaneous military locations withinthe Capitol region, the Pentagon’s land area isalmost 600 acres. There are 150 stairways, almost300 restrooms, more than 4,000 clocks, and a 5.5-acre center courtyard, in addition to 17.5 miles ofcorridors that are patrolled regularly. The Pentagonalso features a shopping corridor, medical and den-tal offices, a post office, and financial institutions,all of which receive police services from thePentagon Police. Officers are also closely involvedin crime prevention through environmental designprojects and in terrorism prevention activities sur-rounding visual and electronic checks of all mailand packages that are received at the building.
Plans to increase the size and scope of the forceand to improve Pentagon security had begun beforeSeptember 11, 2001, but were speeded up in itsaftermath. Active and National Guard Army mili-tary police units worked with Pentagon police offi-cers from September 12, 2001, until May 17, 2004,to augment security until the new Pentagon Policeforce was considered at full strength. Today thePentagon Police has a wider range of career oppor-tunities that it did in the past. The motorized, bicycle,and motorcycle patrols, Emergency Response Team,K-9, Protective Service, Criminal Investigations,Training Division, Court Liaison, and RecruitingDivision are all units that allow for officer careerenhancement. Pentagon Police K-9 explosive detec-tion teams provide their expertise to the entrie DoDcommunity in the Washington, D.C., area. They con-duct security sweeps of vehicles and packages andarea sweeps for dignitary protection, respond to bombthreats, and also provide security at official cere-monies. An officer trains with his or her assigned dog,
which lives with the officer and the officer’s familywhen the team is not on duty. Motorcycle patrol,which includes traffic enforcement within thePentagon’s grounds, was instituted in 2002.Applicants for positions in the Pentagon Police mustbe U.S. citizens who possess a high school diplomaor equivalent and are able to obtain secret securityclearance. Each must possess a driver’s license,have a clean driving record, and have not been con-victed of a felony or certain misdemeanor offenses.An applicant must also undergo an oral interview,a medical examination that includes drug testing,a physical fitness evaluation, and a backgroundcheck. Applicants with military service must havebeen honorably discharged.
Pentagon Police officers receive their 10-weekbasic police training program at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center (FLETC) located inGlynco, Georgia, although some officers are alsotrained at the FLETC center at Artesian Springs,New Mexico. This course is followed by an in-house12-week training and evaluation program after theofficers return to the Pentagon.
Recent evaluations of the Pentagon PoliceDepartment’s plan to deal with civil disturbances andterrorist acts have been highly rated. It was also notedthat the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identifiedthe plan as a model for all federal agencies to follow.
Kelly Renee Webb
For Further Reading
Golberg, A. (1992). Pentagon: The first fifty years.Washington, DC: Historical Office of the Secretary ofDefense.
Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Employment Opportunities.[Online.] Available: http://www.dtic.mil/dps/employment.html
Torres, D. A. (1986). Handbook of federal police and inves-tigative agencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
� PINKERTON NATIONALDETECTIVE AGENCY
Allan Pinkerton established his National DetectiveAgency in 1850, a time when public policing was
816—�—Pinkerton National Detective Agency
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 816
only beginning to resemble the organized policedepartments that are common today and well beforethe federal government played a role in policing.Based on his experiences in public law enforcement,he was able to establish a business that, like the BurnsDetective Agency, crossed public and private bound-aries in its investigative work for private companiesand for the fledgling federal government. When theBureau of Investigation, the forerunner of the modernFederal Bureau of Investigation, was formed in 1908it relied on the investigative methods employed byboth the Pinkerton National Detective Agency and theBurns Detective Agency as its model.
Pinkerton, a native of Scotland, came to theUnited States in 1842, in part fleeing from arrestin Glasgow for his membership in the Chartists, arevolutionary group that was demanding a greatervoice in government for those at the bottom of theeconomic ladder. He settled in Chicago and workedas a barrelmaker, but soon moved to Dundee, asmall community 40 miles from Chicago that washeavily populated by Scots. After observing evi-dence of a number of crimes and reporting thisto the Kane County sheriff, he was named a deputyby the sheriff and eventually paid to work on a localcounterfeiting case. The successful resolution of thematter is said to have led the Cook County sheriff in1846 to offer him a full-time job as an investigator,which resulted in his return to Chicago. By 1848, hehad amassed an impressive number of arrests forburglaries and homicides, which led to the U.S.Post Office hiring him in Chicago as a special agentto investigate mail fraud and theft.
Chicago was growing rapidly and crime grewwith it. Pinkerton’s reputation as a skilled investiga-tor continued to grow when he was employed bythe Chicago Police Department, which had not yetformed into the recognizable 24-hour police forcethat it would become in 1855. Chicago had alreadybecome a hub of industry, and officials of a numberof companies of one of the leading industries, therailroads, were plagued by theft and vandalism.They approached Pinkerton to form the nucleus ofwhat would become his life’s work. On February 1,1855, he signed a contract with the Illinois CentralRailroad, Rock Island, the Burlington, the Galena,
and Chicago Union (later to be incorporated intothe Chicago & North Western) and other roads thateventually became part of the New York Centraland Milwaukee Road systems to form the NorthWest Police Agency. Operating initially withnothing more than a citizen’s power to arrest,agents quickly made their first arrest of a trespassercharged with derailing trains. At a time whenpolice departments were disorganized and stateand federal policing were virtually nonexistent,Pinkerton understood the need for systematicinvestigations of crimes and was able to prosper byproviding a service that the government was unableto provide.
Pinkerton operatives were also assigned as spot-ters to catch conductors who were not chargingsome travelers or who were stealing fare receipts.Among these were some of the first womenemployed in investigative roles. Pinkerton also usedwomen spies during the Civil War, including KateWarner, who began working for Pinkerton inChicago in 1856 after walking in and asking fora job. When Pinkerton offered a clerical position,she said she wanted to be an agent. Eventually shebecame the supervisor of all Pinkerton’s womenagents. After the agency had changed its name toreflect its famous president, it also developed themotto “We Never Sleep” and the logo of an openeye. These graphics are believed to have resulted inthe term private eye to describe private investigatorsand detectives.
A WIDE VARIETY OF CLIENTS
Through his work for the Illinois Central, Pinkertonhad befriended its president, George B. McClellan,and one of its attorneys, Abraham Lincoln. WhenLincoln became president, Pinkerton was asked topersonally guard him at his inauguration, and whenMcClellan, a West Point graduate who had been aMexican War hero, was selected by Lincoln to leadthe Union Army, the former railroad presidentasked Pinkerton to set up the army’s counterintelli-gence task force. The small number of employeesof the federal government in all areas, but particu-larly in law enforcement, resulted in these tasks
Pinkerton National Detective Agency—�—817
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 817
being assigned to private individuals, rather thanemployees of the government. When McClellan wasrelieved of command in 1862, Pinkerton changed hisfocus to investigating suppliers who had been over-charging the government.
The agency continued to grow in the post-CivilWar years and by the 1870s was said to haveamassed the largest collection of photos of knowncriminals (mug shots) in the world. Although thePinkerton Detective Agency had been closelylinked to the railroads, when Allan Pinkerton turnedthe agency over to his sons, William and Robert,after his near-fatal stroke in 1869, the agencychanged its focus, becoming involved in industrialespionage and property protection during laborstrife. By that time, many of the railroads had alsoformed their own police departments, which by1861 had begun to receive legal recognition.
Despite Pinkerton’s own efforts on behalf ofworkers in Scotland, and his vocal opposition toslavery in the United States, the National DetectiveAgency came to be vilified by labor organizers forits role in labor espionage and policing of labor dis-putes. From 1872 until 1876, James McPartland, aPinkerton operative, infiltrated the Molly Maguires,a violent group that was causing problems in thePennsylvania coal mining regions. McPartland’stestimony against the group destroyed it, andbrought both publicity and criticism to Pinkerton.Between 1866 and 1892, Pinkerton agents pro-tected property in more than 70 strikes around thecountry. The company received particular criticismfor its handling of a labor dispute at the CarnegieCompany’s Homestead, Pennsylvania, steel plant in1892 that resulted in the deaths of a number of pick-eters and some of its own agents. The firm becameso closely associated with this type of activity thatCongress in 1893 enacted the Pinkerton Law, whichbarred private security agents from working for theU.S. government, a law that was revised in 1966.Today a number of private firms provide securityservices to local, state, and federal governmentagencies.
After World War I, and especially after World WarII, the private policing system that Pinkerton estab-lished had been replaced by growth in federal law
enforcement. The company eventually separateditself from both quasi-public work and labor polic-ing to concentrate on more traditional private secu-rity assignments, providing advice and preventiveadvice to banks, mail services, and other businessesthat dealt primarily with the handling and movementof money and securities. In 2000, the PinkertonNational Detective Agency celebrated 150 years ofits existence by donating much of its archival mate-rial to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.Included were files, photographs, and documents onsome of the nation’s best-known criminals, includ-ing Jesse James and Butch Cassidy and theSundance Kid. The company continues to exist aspart of Securitas AB, a Stockholm company that isone of the world’s largest security businesses.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
See also Burns Detective Agency, Railroad Policing
For Further Reading
Bzovy, M. (2004, January). Kate Warner: First female Pinkertondetective. American Western Magazine. [Online]. Available:http://www.readthewest/com/margebee2004-01.html
Cook, F. J. (1974). The Pinkertons. Garden City, NY:Doubleday.
Horan, J. D. (1967). The Pinkertons: The detective dynastythat made history. New York: Crown Publishers.
Morn, F. T. (1977). Allan Pinkerton: Private police influenceon police development. In P. J. Stead (Ed.), Pioneers onpolicing (pp. 96–120). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
Siringo, C. A. (1912) A cowboy detective: A true story of thetwenty-two years with a world-famous detective agency.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. (Reprinted,1988)
� POLICE EXECUTIVERESEARCH FORUM
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) wasformally established in 1977 by a group of a dozenlarge city police chiefs who saw the need for anorganization that would explore issues and establisha research agenda for municipal policing.
PERF’s main goals are to enhance the capabilitiesof the police, to improve crime control nationwide,
818—�—Police Executive Research Forum
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 818
to encourage debate in the law enforcementcommunity about police issues, to promote the useof law enforcement research, and finally, to provideleadership, assistance, and management services topolice agencies nationwide. In order to satisfy thesegoals, PERF employs a staff comprised of formerpolice executives, criminal justice experts, and pro-fessionals with expertise in research, training, andpolicy analysis. Continuity has been maintained bya long-serving executive director, Chuck Wexler,who was appointed in 1993 and has continued inthat role for more than a decade.
Since its inception, PERF has partnered withprivate foundations and has received governmentalsupport through research grants and consultingcontracts. This has resulted in a national member-ship that is no longer limited to just large city policechiefs and that also includes executives from smallercities and from county and state law enforcementagencies. Membership requirements are stringentand differ substantially from other police organiza-tions. PERF members must hold a four-year degreefrom an accredited institution and they also must beapproved by current members. To be eligible forgeneral membership, an applicant must be a policeexecutive who heads a department of at least 100full-time employees or oversees a jurisdiction of atleast 50,000 people. To broaden the membershipbase and achieve a diversity of law enforcementviewpoints, PERF has two additional membershipcategories. Sustaining or subscribing members aretypically academicians, law enforcement personnelfrom smaller jurisdictions, police professionalsbelow the rank of chief executive, and former generalmembers who have retired from police executivepositions.
PRINCIPLES GUIDINGTHE RESEARCH AGENDA
PERF’s principles are based on fostering researchand an exchange of ideas through public discussionand debate, the idea that academic study is a neces-sity for adding to and understanding police man-agement, maintenance of the highest standards of
integrity and ethics is fundamental in improvingpolicing, the police are responsible and accountableto the citizens, and finally, the principles within theConstitution are the foundation of policing. Theseprinciples are put into practice by PERF’s activeresearch agenda, which since 2000 has included 39projects ranging from workplace violence reductionto local law enforcement and the terrorist threat,both of which were funded by the National Instituteof Justice and the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention. The workplace violence study investi-gated the impact of police practices on the rates atwhich officers are killed or assaulted, while thelocal law enforcement study was geared to develop-ing a detailed research agenda for law enforcementon terrorism responses. Other, past research hasbeen toward direct application to urban crime prob-lems, the police response to people with mentalillness, and the police response to the homeless.Research is aimed at police professionals, policymakers, students, and the research communityitself.
PERF has expanded since its original handful ofpolice chiefs that started the group and has contin-ued to sponsor conferences that promote researchand a full exchange of ideas among police execu-tives and between the police and the academiccommunities. It also offers problem-solving train-ing for police and communities and holds a three-week training course for senior police executives.PERF believes that through its training, research,and membership requirements, the organization isfulfilling its main objectives of improving policingand ultimately reducing crime.
Christopher Morse
For Further Reading
Community policing blueprint seminars offer executives inno-vative management tools. (2002, January/February).Sheriff, p. 28.
Fraser, C. B. (1998). Challenge to change: The 21st centurypolicing project. Washington, DC: PERF.
Police Executive Research Forum. [Online]. Available:http://www.policeforum.org.
Police Executive Research Forum meeting draws recordnumbers. (1999, August). Police, p. 11.
Police Executive Research Forum—�—819
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 819
POLICE FOUNDATION
The Police Foundation is a private, nonpartisan,nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting inno-vation and improvement in policing through itsresearch, technical assistance, training, and com-munications programs. Established in 1970 througha grant from the Ford Foundation, the PoliceFoundation has conducted seminal research in policebehavior, policy, and procedure and works to transferto local agencies the best new information about prac-tices for dealing effectively with a range of importantpolice operational and administrative concerns.
One of the guiding principles of the PoliceFoundation is that thorough, unbiased, empiricalresearch is necessary to advance and improve thefield of policing. Furthermore, the connection to thelaw enforcement and the academic and scientificcommunities will provide the impetus for new ideasthat will help stimulate the field and provide solu-tions to the complex problems facing policing.
The Police Foundation’s focus and perspective isthe whole of American policing, rather than any sin-gle facet. Motivating all of the foundation’s effortsis the goal of efficient, effective, humane policingthat operates within the framework of democraticprinciples and standards including openness, impar-tiality, freedom, responsibility, and accountability.
Sometimes foundation research findings have chal-lenged police traditions and beliefs. When police agen-cies employed routine preventive patrol as a principalanticrime strategy, a foundation experiment in KansasCity showed that routine patrol in marked patrol carsdid not significantly affect crime rates. When policeofficials expressed reservations about using womenon patrol, foundation research in Washington, D.C.,showed that gender was not a barrier to performingpatrol work. Foundation research on the use of deadlyforce was cited at length in a landmark 1985 U.S.Supreme Court decision, Tennessee v. Garner. Thecourt ruled that the police may use deadly force onlyagainst persons whose actions constitute a threat to life.
The Police Foundation has done much of theresearch that led to questioning the traditional modelof professional law enforcement and to a new view
of policing—one emphasizing a communityorientation—that is widely embraced today. Forexample, research on foot patrol and on fear ofcrime demonstrated the importance to crime controlefforts of frequent police–citizen contacts made in apositive, nonthreatening way.
The Police Foundation is a partner in theCommunity Policing Consortium, along with fourother leading national law enforcement organiza-tions including the International Association ofChiefs of Police, Police Executive Research Forum,National Organization of Black Law EnforcementExecutives, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.In that capacity, the Police Foundation plays a prin-cipal role in the development of community polic-ing research, training, and technical assistance.
The Police Foundation’s Crime Mapping andProblem Analysis Laboratory works to advancethe understanding of computer mapping, to supportproblem analysis in policing, to pioneer new appli-cations of mapping, and to explore the spatialelement of all Police Foundation research.
The Police Foundation has completed significantwork in the areas of accountability and ethics, perfor-mance, abuse of authority, use of force, domestic vio-lence, community-oriented policing, organizationalculture, racial profiling, and civil disorders. Seminalresearch includes (chronologically) the Kansas Citypreventive patrol experiment; the big six report onChicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York,and Philadelphia; the Los Angeles civil disorderreport; the national study of use of force; and thenational survey of abuse of authority. The PoliceFoundation frequently invites scholars to present theirideas in a publication series known as Ideas inAmerican Policing. The Police Foundation is headedby a president who serves under the direction of theboard of directors, composed of leaders and scholarsfrom public service, education, and private industry.
Karen L. Amendola
For Further Reading
Kelling, G. L., Pate, A., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1975).Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technicalreport. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
820—�—Police Foundation
�
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 820
Pate, A., Fridell, L. A., & Hamilton, E. E. (1993). Police use offorce: Official reports, citizen complaints, and legal con-sequences. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. E. (1991). The big six: PolicingAmerica’s largest cities.Washington, DC: PoliceFoundation.
Police Foundation. [Online]. Available: http://www.policefoundation.org
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985).Webster, W., & Williams, H. (1992). The city in crisis: A report
by the special advisor to the board of police commission-ers on the civil disorder in Los Angeles. Washington, DC:Police Foundation.
Weisburd, D. L., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E. E., Bryant,K. A., & Williams, H. (2001). The abuse of police authority:A national study of police officers’ attitudes. Washington,DC: Police Foundation.
� POLICE AND SECURITYSERVICE, DEPARTMENTOF VETERANS AFFAIRS
The Veterans Administration (VA) Police andSecurity Service is responsible for protectingpatients (former military personnel), visitors,employees, and property at department facilities,which include 172 medical centers, 551 clinics, and115 national cemeteries in all 50 states, the Districtof Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,and the Philippines.
The Police and Security Service is one of threesections under the Office of Security and LawEnforcement (OS&LE). The OS&LE provides guid-ance, consultation, investigative, and direct opera-tional support to the VA. A deputy assistant secretaryfor security and law enforcement heads the unit andoversees and develops policy and procedures relatedto VA security as well as officer training. More than2,000 officers are assigned specifically to medicalfacilities. Officers are empowered under Title 38,Chapter 9, United States Code, and are authorized todetain and to arrest individuals committing violationsof any federal laws on department property. Theservice was created to meet the special needs of theveterans seeking medical treatments at its facilities. Itprescribes a training program that provides specialemphasis on dealing with or involving patients.
In addition to the legislation, VA policy itselfspells out the specific protective duties that enableVA officers to render courteous assistance topatients, visitors, and employees at all times and toavoid the use of arrest powers unless unable to doso. Officers are trained to use a minimum of forcein cases involving mental and emotional illnesseswhile awaiting medical assistance. This nontradi-tional training involves the officers as part of atreatment team; in many cases they are in a standbyor take charge mode until patients can be safelyreturned to medical staff.
Because most people at VA facilities are there toreceive medical services, the majority of the activi-ties of VA police officers’ time is spent on crimeprevention rather than on arrest-related activities.Relying on physical security and a policy of visible,uniformed deterrence, officers are trained toemphasize correcting improper behavior insteadof enforcing action for minor offenses. Policies aregeared to minimize arrests for violations of law orregulations, although this policy does not extendto felonies or serious misdemeanors committed bymentally unimpaired individuals in which normallaw enforcement action would be used.
When first employed by the VA, security person-nel were hired as guards without police authority,but in 1971 the Office of Personnel Managementupgraded officers to police officer status. At the time,the Federal Bureau of Investigation was instructedto hold one-week orientations in Washington, D.C.In late 1971, the site training was moved to historicFort Roots in Little Rock, Arkansas, an Army postsince 1880.
Because officers must often handle extremelyvolatile situations involving patients who may besuffering from military-related physical or mentalproblems, the VA in 1972 created its own special-ized training facility, the Law Enforcement TrainingCenter (LETC). The LETC administers training ofofficers on a national level for the VA. Its missionincludes handling patients and others with dimin-ished capacity. This unique service-orientedenforcement training is consistent with similartraining needs of other federal law enforcementagencies. Additional changes resulted in increased
Police and Security Service, Department of Veterans Affairs—�—821
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 821
training in 1987. The LETC has set the standard forlaw enforcement training in a health care environ-ment and is a highly successful fee-for-service pilot.The pilot project concept gives the LETC the capa-bility to extend its training to other governmentagencies in the enforcement arena and thereforethese agencies lower their own training costs.
Vincent A. Munch
For Further Reading
Hopson, G. E. (1988). The Veterans Administration.New York: Chelsea House.
Kennedy, R. C. (2001, June). Veterans Affairs Police andSecurity Service. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,pp. 18–24.
Rivenbark, L. (1995, October 10). Hospital police get guns.Federal Times, p. 6.
� POSSE COMITATUS ACT
The American presidential election of 1876 wasmarred by allegations of violence, intimidation, andstuffed ballot boxes and resulted in one of the clos-est and most controversial elections to the nation’shighest office. Republican president Ulysses S.Grant dispatched federal troops to polling places inseveral Southern states ostensibly to maintain order,but Democrats contended that he was trying to fixthe election for Rutherford B. Hayes. By the time aspecial panel that was established to oversee thecount voted 8 to 7 to award one more electoral voteto Hayes than his Democratic opponent SamuelTilden, the nation was torn and the validity of theelection was to be forever in doubt.
In 1878, congressional Democrats enacted, overthe veto of President Hayes, the Posse ComitatusAct (PCA), which banned the use of the Army fordomestic law enforcement unless specificallyauthorized by the Constitution or an act ofCongress. Use of troops to enforce the law had longbeen a source of friction, especially in the southernUnited States, where local sheriffs and U.S.Marshals and their deputies frequently organizedposses (posse comitatus is Latin for “force of thecounty”) to arrest wrongdoers and slaves under the
Fugitive Slave Act. It was common practice forlocal military commanders to make their troopsavailable to the lawmen for use in these operations.
The PCA provided, “Whoever, except in cases andcircumstances expressly authorized by the Constitutionor Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of theArmy as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute thelaws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or impris-oned not more than two years, or both.”
The statute, 18 U.S.C. 1835, has been construedas a near total ban on the use of service members indomestic law enforcement activities. Today, the actcovers not only Army troops, but members of theAir Force (a department spun off from the Army in1947) and members of the Navy and Marine Corpswho have been included by executive fiat. TheCoast Guard, a civilian law enforcement agency,is not restricted by the PCA nor are peacetimeNational Guard soldiers whose units ordinarilyreport to state governors. Department of Defenseoperations conducted outside of the United Statesare also outside the reach of the PCA.
The act specifically empowers Congress tocarve out exceptions to the prohibitions containedin 18 U.S.C. 1835, and Congress has authorized theDepartment of Defense to play a role in narrowlycircumscribed situations. For example, the StaffordAct of 1984 provides for military assistance ren-dered during times of natural disasters such asfloods or earthquakes. Congress has also designatedthe military to play a significant role in preventingand responding to domestic nuclear, biological,high-yield explosive, or chemical weapons attacks.Perhaps the most significant and controversialmodern era congressional action in this area was the1981 decision to direct the use of military resourcesin domestic antidrug efforts.
The PCA notwithstanding, the military may becalled in during times of insurrection or invasionunder doctrines of martial law, to execute federallaws, or to protect federal property. Federal troopshave been used to replace striking coal minersand postal workers and to take over the air trafficcontrol system after the dismissal of striking con-trollers. The military maintained a massive pres-ence at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah in case of
822—�—Posse Comitatus Act
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 822
a terrorist attack, but left at the conclusion of thegames without having played any direct role inthe event. The military has also been deployedin a number of southern states to assist in federaldesegregation efforts in the 1950s and to aid inpolice enforcement during the Los Angeles riots of1992.
The Posse Comitatus statute is criminal in natureand provides for imprisonment, a fine, or both forthose in violation. There has never been a criminalprosecution of anyone for its breach. In interpretingthe law, courts have devised several tests to deter-mine whether assistance can permissibly be providedto law enforcement agencies. For the most part, theformulation has allowed the military to provide pas-sive assistance and support, but forbids more directand active involvement in law enforcement. TheDepartment of Defense has promulgated extensiveregulations that set forth what types of assistanceit will provide to local law enforcement, includingtechnical assistance, training, and equipment.
In the period after the events of September 11,2001, there has been a renewed debate in Congress,in the administration, and among legal scholarsabout whether some of the restrictions imposed bythe PCA should be reconsidered. Some have sug-gested that the modern-day threat of mass casualtyterrorism provides the impetus for a fresh look atthe traditional American preference for separatingthe military from civilian law enforcement.
The PCA was in the news in the fall of 2002,when police officials requested that the Pentagonmake available sophisticated RC-7 surveillanceaircraft to fly over the region. Defense SecretaryDonald Rumsfeld authorized use of the planes,renewing debate about the extent of military inser-tion into police matters. In an arrangement thattypifies the operational restraints of the PCA, thePentagon agreed to provide military aircraft andpilots with the proviso that local police would bethe observers.
Some critics of the federal government have com-plained that the PCA is being eroded and havewarned of a threat to the nation’s civil liberties.Several commentators have called the act a myth,and an insufficient check on the power of the national
government. Some harsh critics of the act haveoperated Web sites that warn of excessive federalintervention in the lives of citizens. At least one ofthese groups, Posse Comitatus, has been identified bythe Federal Bureau of Investigation as a hate groupthat it has acknowledged investigating for years.
For the immediate future, it does not appear thatpolitical leaders of either major party have anyinterest in drastically changing the Posse ComitatusAct. Indeed, military leaders are on record as sayingthat the act works fine and they are not anxiousto become local law enforcers.
Eugene J. O’Donnell
For Further Reading
Bolgano, D. G. (2001, December). Support of domestic lawenforcement operations: Working with Posse Comitatus.FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 16–23.
Cooper, J. (1999). The Posse Comitatus Act (1878). In J. W.Chambers II (Ed.), The Oxford companion to Americanmilitary history (pp. 555–556). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Davies, K. L. (2000). The imposition of martial law in theUnited States. The Air Force Law Review 49, 67–103.
Hammond, M. C. (1997). The Posse Comitatus Act: A principlein need of renewal. Washington University Law Quarterly75, 953–987.
Naval War College. [Online]. Available: www.nav.mil/library/3Orders to preserve confidentiality. 18 U.S.C. 1835
� PRESIDENT’S COMMISSIONON LAW ENFORCEMENTAND THE ADMINISTRATIONOF JUSTICE
In the 1960s a police crisis was sparked by a seriesof events including several Supreme Court deci-sions that impacted due process and standard policeprocedures, the civil rights movement, antiwarprotests during the time of the Vietnam War, and anincrease in violent crime rates across the UnitedStates. In response to the social unrest, PresidentLyndon B. Johnson created the President’s Commis-sion on Law Enforcement and the Administration ofJustice (also referred to as the President’s Crime
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice—�—823
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 823
Commission) in 1965. More than three decadesafter the Wickersham Commission (1931), thePresident’s Crime Commission would once againexamine the state of crime and the administrationof justice in the United States.
Research was conducted by some of the leadingexperts in criminal justice and law on behalf of thecrime commission. There were several areas ofresearch examined by consultants, including crimeand its impact on American society, narcotics anddrug abuse, drunkenness, science and technologyused by agencies within the criminal justice system,juvenile delinquency and youth crime, and anin-depth look at the organization and managementof the police, courts, and corrections.
The results of the President’s Crime Commissionstudies were published in 1967 in a general reporttitled The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Thisreport outlined more than 200 recommendations forimproving the administration of justice in the UnitedStates. Some of the most notable recommendationsfrom the crime commission’s final report include thefollowing: The crime commission recognized theimportance of exploring crimes that are not reportedto the police. The efforts of the crime commissionwould later result in the creation of the NationalCrime Victimization Survey, which has become amajor source of data and information on crimes notreported to the police. The report also popularizedthe idea of criminal justice being a system. The inter-play between the police, courts, and correctionsbecame important as research consultants pointedout how decisions or actions taken by one agencywould impact the actions of the other two criminaljustice agencies.
In regard to the police, the crime commissionreport noted concern over the quality of police per-sonnel, police management, use of science andtechnology by the police, and police-communityrelations.
RECOMMENDATIONSFOR PERSONNEL ISSUES
The crime commission made several recommenda-tions to increase the quality of police personnel
in American police agencies. In general, therecommendations involved changes to policerecruitment and training standards, improvement ofpolice salaries and benefits, and the establishmentof police standards commissions. The crime com-mission suggested that police recruitment focuson surrounding colleges and universities to increasethe education level of police officers and that policeofficers promoted to supervisory positions shouldbe required to have at least a bachelor’s degree. Thecommission also suggested increased standardizedpolice training (such as a minimum of 400 traininghours in police academies) and that new police offi-cers should be placed on probation for 12-18months after they were hired by police agencies.Members of the commission believed that thislonger probationary period would permit agenciesto terminate officers more easily if they were foundto be inadequate to meets the demands of a policecareer.
Changes were also suggested for improvingresidency, physical agility, and age requirementsfor police personnel Similar to the WickershamCommission, the crime commission suggested thatthe salaries and benefit packages offered to policeofficers be enough to provide a quality standard ofliving. In addition, the crime commission suggestedthat police standard commissions be created toensure that police administrators nationwide weretaking steps to improve the quality of personnelin their agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS FORPOLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Because of the social unrest that took place duringthe late 1960s, the crime commission suggested thatpolice agencies become more concerned with com-munity relations, specifically with minority pop-ulations within their communities. The creationof community relations units and citizen advisorycommittees, the inclusion of a community relationscourse in police academy training, and the imple-mentation of adequate procedures for processingcitizen complaints were among the 200 recom-mendations outlined in the final report. It was also
824—�—President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 824
recommended that police agencies recruit and hiremore minority officers so the police agencies couldbetter reflect the communities they served. Theserecommendations came at a time when the relation-ships between the police and minority groups werein severe need of repair.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOROPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
The improvement of police operations, police useof technology, and police integrity were also keyissues in several of the recommendations made bythe crime commission. For example, the commis-sion suggested that police administrators createdepartment policies to serve as guidelines for policeofficers’ use of discretion (specifically for use offirearms and questioning of suspects). It was alsosuggested that police agencies should employpolice legal advisers to keep all police personnelabreast of any changes to criminal law that couldimpact their jobs. In an effort to advance police useof technology and science, the crime commissionalso suggested that police agencies pool resourcesto provide wider access to crime laboratories, toprovide additional police support to small policeagencies that become involved in large scale inves-tigations, and to create communication and infor-mation exchange systems that would allow policeagencies to communicate more effectively. Thecommission’s final report also noted that the policeshould become more active in community planningstrategies and that they should experiment withteam policing to further strengthen police-commu-nity relations. And finally, the crime commissionsuggested that police agencies establish stronginternal affairs units to maintain a high level ofpolice integrity. All of these recommendations camefrom the President’s Crime Commission during atime in American policing when change and inno-vation were necessary.
Carol A. Archbold
See also National Commission on Law Observance andEnforcement (Wickersham Commission), NationalCrime Victimization Survey
For Further Reading
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1967). Goalsand recommendations: A response to “The challenge ofcrime in a free society,” the report of the President’sCommission on Law Enforcement and Administration ofJustice. New York: Author.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and theAdministration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crimein a free society. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
Vorenberg, J. (1967). The crime commission’s report. FederalProbation, 31, 3–6.
Walker, S. (1998). Popular justice: A history of Americancriminal justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
� PRIVACY ACT
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) is a fed-eral law that requires each federal agency to followprivacy and records management rules for mostcompilations of personal information maintainedby the agency. Changes in information technologyhave made significant parts of the act outdated.
The Privacy Act of 1974 has sometimes beencalled a Watergate reform because it became lawat the end of the Congress that served during theresignation of President Richard Nixon. However,concerns about privacy and computers were wide-spread by the early 1970s, and the law’s intellectualorigins are deeper than a response to political events.Congressional hearings on privacy and computersdate back to the mid-1960s.
In 1972, Elliot Richardson, then secretary of theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare,established the Advisory Committee on AutomatedPersonal Data Systems. Richardson worried thatautomated personal data systems presented a seri-ous potential for harmful consequences, includinginfringement of basic liberties. The committeeissued its report in July 1973. The report was influ-ential in two major ways. First, the committee pro-posed for the first time the notion of a Code of FairInformation Practices as a redefinition of the some-what confused concept of personal privacy. Later inthe decade, European policy makers refined andadopted fair information practices as an organizing
Privacy Act—�—825
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 825
principle for privacy (or data protection) laws. Fairinformation practices remain a core internationalprivacy concept into the 21st century, with the 1980restatement by the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development being the mostimportant document. The committee also recom-mended the enactment of a federal law to establisha code of fair information practices to govern fed-eral agency record keeping. The law that emerged isdirectly based on the committee’s recommenda-tions. Congress adopted many of the committee’sideas verbatim.
The Privacy Act of 1974 applies to federal agen-cies and can be applied to federal contractors main-taining systems of records on behalf of agencies.The act does not apply to recipients of federalfunds, to tax-exempt organizations, or to compo-nents of the Executive Office of the President thatadvise the president.
An important term in the act is system of records.The law mostly applies to systems of records thatcontain identifiable information about individualsthat is retrieved by identifier. The test for whetherpersonal records are a system is a factual test.Federal agencies maintain most, but not all, per-sonal information in systems of records. Eachagency must publish in the Federal Registerdescriptive notices for all systems of records. Noagency or system is exempt from the publicationrequirement. The policy is that there should be nosecret government record keeping.
Other general requirements include limitationson the maintenance and collection of personal data;notice requirements for personal information col-lection instruments; standards for accuracy, rele-vance, timeliness, and completeness; rules ofconduct for agency personnel; and administrative,technical, and physical safeguards to ensure secu-rity and confidentiality of records.
The act limits disclosure, but it gives agenciesbroad authority to define for each system of recordsroutine uses that authorize specific types of disclo-sure. The routine use provision offers considerableflexibility for applying a policy of limited disclo-sure to the wide range of federal record-keepingactivities. However, agencies have been regularly
criticized for abusing the authority to establishroutine uses. The act’s disclosure limits do not con-flict with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.552). Each act recognizes and accommodatespolicies of openness and privacy.
The Privacy Act gives individuals the right to seeand to amend their records. Individuals can enforcethese and some other privacy rights through civilactions, but recovery of damages has been verydifficult to achieve. The government can enforcethe act through criminal penalties, but prosecutionshave been rare. Some systems of record can beexempted from some of the act’s requirements.Records of the Central Intelligence Agency andsome law enforcement agencies or componentscan be exempted from many requirements, and somefederal employment testing and investigationssystems can be exempted from some requirements.
The Privacy Act’s approach to privacy largelyreflects the technology in use at the time of itspassage in 1974. However, the law’s mainframecomputer model has been long since outdatedby personal computers, database technology, theInternet, and electronic government. Technologynow allows agencies to create, change, or mergedatabases without the difficulty or planning requiredfor mainframe computers. The system of recordsconcept at the heart of the act is partially obsolete.
The only major amendment to the act came in1988 with the Computer Matching and PrivacyProtection Act. The amendment establishes require-ments for agencies that seek to share or use data toestablish or verify eligibility for benefit programsor for similar purposes. The matching restrictionsare wholly procedural. They regulate but do notauthorize or restrict matching activities allowedby other laws. The matching amendments weremarginally effective, and they too are out of date.
Congress assigned the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) responsibility for guiding andoverseeing agency implementation of the act.OMB’s initial work on the act in 1975 was gener-ally well received. However, OMB generallyshowed diminished interest in subsequent years,with only occasional spikes of activity and subsequentinterpretative guidance. The computer matching
826—�—Privacy Act
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 826
amendments required some agencies to establishdata integrity boards to oversee matching activities,but the boards have not been significant influencesfor privacy protection.
Robert Gellman
For Further Reading
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Secretary’sAdvisory Committee on Automated Personal DataSystems. (1972). Records, computers, and the rights ofcitizens. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.[Online]. Available: http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm
Gellman, R. (1997). Does privacy law work? In P. E. Agre &M. Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The newlandscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hammitt, H. A., Sobel, D. L., & Zaid, M. S. (Eds.). (2002).Litigation under the federal open government laws 2002.Washington, DC: Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. (1977). The PrivacyAct of 1974: An assessment, and technology and privacy.In Personal privacy in an information society (Appendix4). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. Overview of the Privacy Act of1974. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/oip.html
� PROHIBITIONLAW ENFORCEMENT
Although the term prohibition can refer to a varietyof legally banned activities including narcoticsmanufacture, sale, and possession, it is commonlyunderstood to mean the period between 1920 and1933 during which the Eighteenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution was in effect. Prohibition wasintended to reduce the consumption of alcohol, seenby prohibition advocates as a major cause of crime,poverty, high death rates, a weakening economy,and declining quality of life. It is interesting to note,however, that the first state laws prohibiting themanufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages wereenacted as early as 1838 in Tennessee and in 1846in Maine. By 1900, 18 states had enacted prohibi-tion laws and many states maintained laws banningthe manufacture and sale of liquor after the repeal
of the Eighteenth Amendment until 1959 whenOklahoma, the last dry state, repealed its prohibi-tion laws. The terms wet and dry were commonlyused to identify states and groups that were, respec-tively, in favor of or against prohibition.
PASSAGE OF THE VOLSTEAD ACT
Shortly after the ratification of the EighteenthAmendment, Congress, overriding a veto ofPresident Woodrow Wilson, passed the NationalProhibition Act (commonly known as the VolsteadAct, named after its author, Congressman AndrewJ. Volstead (R-MN), who was chairman of theJudiciary Committee at the time of the law’s enact-ment and who, indicating how quickly the lawbecame unpopular, was defeated in 1922 when heran for reelection). This act prohibited the import-ing, exporting, transporting, selling, and manufac-turing of intoxicating liquor. Intoxicating liquorwas defined as anything having an alcoholic contentof more than 0.5%. Exceptions were made for alco-hol used for religious purposes as well as for liquorthat had been purchased for home use prior to July1919 and alcohol prescribed for medicinal use.However, in 1921, because of abuses by manyphysicians, Congress enacted a law that establishedlimits on how much liquor a doctor could prescribefor a patient; no more than one pint per patientduring a 10-day period.
The first year of prohibition witnessed a substan-tial decline in the consumption of alcoholic bever-ages; however, this was not the result of a reductionin demand but because legitimate sources of alco-hol were terminated. During the Prohibition Era thedemand for alcohol actually increased. Conse-quently, a number of illegal supply channels werecreated to satisfy that demand.
PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT
The Volstead Act also set up guidelines for enforce-ment. In 1920, Congress appropriated $2 millionfor enforcement of the Volstead Act and another$6.5 million in 1921. Federal responsibility forenforcement of the Volstead Act was assigned to the
Prohibition Law Enforcement—�—827
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 827
Prohibition Unit of the Treasury Department. Thisexisting unit had been created to enforce theHarrison Act of 1914 that prohibited the sale anduse of narcotics. A Narcotics Division was createdwithin the Prohibition Unit to separate the enforce-ment of narcotic and liquor laws. In 1927 the officeof Commissioner of Prohibition, consisting of 27administrative districts, was created. Each districtwas headed by a chief administrator and containedan enforcement office that was divided into threesections: General Enforcement, Major Investiga-tions, and Case Reports. Almost 18,000 agents wereappointed during the Prohibition Era. Of thatnumber more than 13,000 were either terminated forcause or resigned, leaving an annual staffing ofbetween 1,500 and 2,300 agents. These agents wereauthorized to enforce all violations of the VolsteadAct. They focused primarily on illicit distilleries(stills), smuggling, and bootlegging; however,because of limited resources they relied on local lawenforcement for support. They were ill prepared todo their jobs, however. There were no standard qual-ifications; training was optional and a large numberwere political patronage appointments.
Illegal distilleries had always operated in wooded,rural areas of the country. They were relatively inex-pensive to construct and the raw materials, primarilycorn and other grains, were readily available, thusproviding the farmers with additional income. Afterthe passage of Prohibition, the increasing demandfor illegal alcohol resulted in a proliferation of stillsthroughout the country. With an initial investment ofabout $500, a still could pay for itself within a fewweeks. However, the smoke and odor emanatingfrom stills made them relatively easy to locate.Federal agents routinely located and destroyedillegal stills. Yet, because of relatively light fines,short jail sentences, and the appeal of an enormouspotential for profits, the stills soon reappeared.
Although illegal stills provided most of the liquorfor American consumption, substantial amounts ofsuperior quality liquor were smuggled over land andsea. Large-scale smuggling, primarily from Canada,supplied the major markets in New York, Illinois,and other northern states. Entrepreneurial criminalsalso smuggled alcohol into Canada for processing
into liquor that was eventually smuggled back intothe United States. U.S. Customs agents, statepolice, and the newly established U.S. ImmigrationBorder Patrol patrolled these borders. Smugglinghad been successful on a large scale for a number ofreasons, particularly the thousands of miles border-ing Canada and Mexico and the thousands of milesof ocean coastline. Also, Canada and Mexico didnot have laws banning the manufacture or exportof alcoholic beverages. The liquor brought acrossthe line at the north or at the south found its wayhundreds of miles into the interior of the UnitedStates. Bootleggers maintained large fleets of trucksand automobiles running on regular schedulesbetween Mexican and Canadian points and citiessuch as St. Louis, Kansas City, and Denver.
In addition to the Canadian and Mexican borders,federal enforcement had to deal with smugglersbringing liquor into the country by ship. Under theVolstead Act, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S.Customs Marine Patrol had primary responsibilityfor patrolling the coastline for smugglers. Althoughthe U.S. Navy was also considered for use in thiseffort, the attorney general of the United States ruledthat such enforcement would be unconstitutional.
The island of Nassau in the Bahamas becamea major source of supply for the eastern coast ofthe United States. During Prohibition, imports toNassau from Europe increased from 50,000 quartsto 10 million quarts annually. Fleets consisting ofships with liquor from Bermuda, Nassau, and evenEurope remained anchored outside the 12-milelimit (the limit of U.S. jurisdiction) off theNew York and New Jersey coasts awaiting theircontacts from the mainland. Smugglers, using high-speed motorboats, would make their runs to theliquor ships after nightfall to ferry the illegal cargoto waiting outlets throughout the northeasternstates. Although many were caught by either theCoast Guard or other enforcement officers, suffi-cient numbers were able to get through, therebyproviding a constant supply of liquor.
Urban production of alcohol was also used tosupplement the major suppliers. Small, portablestills could be purchased for about $7. Their useas well as the operation of larger stills was quite
828—�—Prohibition Law Enforcement
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 828
common in cities and residential areas; thousandsof inner city residents were organized to form intomicrobreweries. Outlets for most of the suppliesof illegal liquor were referred to as speakeasies.These businesses, which were hidden in basements,behind legitimate storefronts, and anywhere thatcould accommodate them, admitted only those whowere known to the proprietors. They had modernalarm systems to avoid being shut down. By 1925,there were more than 100,000 speakeasies operat-ing in New York City alone. When such establish-ments were located, the Volstead Act providedprocedures for locking-up any building or partthereof where alcoholic beverages were manufac-tured, stored, or sold. This procedure, commonlyreferred to as padlocking, required a court orderfrom a federal judge declaring the premises a com-mon nuisance under the National Prohibition Act.From 1921 through 1925 more than 11,000 padlockinjunctions were issued nationwide.
The Prohibition Era also witnessed the first useof wiretaps in the nation. The U.S. Supreme Court(Olmstead v. US, 1928) ruled that wiretaps on tele-phones did not violate either the Fourth or the FifthAmendments to the U.S. Constitution regardingsearch and seizure.
ENFORCEMENT,POLITICS, AND CORRUPTION
To simply state that prohibition was a controversialissue would be an understatement. Because lawenforcement relies to a great degree on voluntarycompliance and because prohibition was so unpop-ular with a significant proportion of Americans,federal enforcement efforts were constantly beingfrustrated. There were complaints that local lawenforcement was reluctant to identify and stop ille-gal liquor operations because of collusion betweenlocal officials and criminals. Opposition came fromthe state level as well. The New York StateLegislature, for example, passed a law in 1920authorizing the sale of beer with 2.75% alcohol(substantially higher than the Volstead Act allowed)and in 1923, the legislature repealed the state’s onlyprohibition law.
Fiorella H. LaGuardia, a prominent New Yorkpolitician who served several terms in the Houseof Representatives and later became mayor ofNew York, testified on the National ProhibitionLaw hearings before the Committee on theJudiciary. He stated, “It is impossible to tellwhether prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing.It has never been enforced in this country. . . . Atleast 1,000,000 quarts of liquor is consumed eachday in the United States. In my opinion such anenormous traffic in liquor could not be carried onwithout the knowledge, if not the connivance of theofficials entrusted with the enforcement of the law.”
Instances of corruption by federal agents, stateand local law enforcement, and political figureswere voluminous. Because of the enormous profitsinvolved in the illegal liquor trade, bootleggers andsmugglers were able to offer substantial bribes tofederal and local law enforcement for their cooper-ation. The relatively low salaries of those officerstogether with the public’s general indifference toalcohol consumption made those bribes even moreattractive. For example, William Dwyer, one of themost successful smugglers in the New York Cityarea, had bribed a large number of police and CoastGuard personnel in order to conduct his smugglingenterprise. Also, in Chicago, a sheriff was prose-cuted for coordinating the activities of a largenumber of bootleggers and allowing prisoners to dobusiness from jail. Corruption even reached thehighest offices of the federal government with aconspiracy to sell liquor permits from the TreasuryDepartment in exchange for political contributions.
In addition to the effects of corruption on theoverall enforcement effort, there were regularlyoccurring conflicts between federal and local lawenforcement officers. Local enforcement, particu-larly during the 1920s, relied on cooperationbetween local, small town law enforcement officersand their communities. Sheriffs often recruited vol-unteers and deputized them as needed for short-term enforcement objectives. These relationshipswere complicated and compromised when federalagents called upon local authorities for their coop-eration in raids on illegal stills in their jurisdic-tion. Because of the unpopularity of prohibition in
Prohibition Law Enforcement—�—829
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 829
many of these communities, the illegal stills usuallyoperated with the tacit approval of local law enforce-ment. This situation was further complicated whenfederal agents enforced the law violently leavinglocal enforcement with the resulting communityoutrage.
ORGANIZED CRIME
The Prohibition Era opened opportunities for ille-gal profits for those who could meet the public’sdemands for alcoholic beverages. Local gangsfound that enormous profits could be made fromthe bootlegging and sale of beer and liquor. Thesegangs, particularly in the larger cities, used violentmethods including bombings, arson, and murder tointimidate speakeasy owners into purchasing fromthem. Gang violence also included the waging ofturf wars against rival gangs who attempted to dobusiness in disputed territories. These armed con-flicts often resulted in the loss of innocent life andthe terrorizing of neighborhoods. Estimates are that,in Chicago alone, more than 400 murders a yearwere reported.
Although gangs operated in many of the largerurban areas, Chicago gangs under the leadershipof such notorious criminals as Al Capone, “Bugsy”Moran, the O’Banions and others established amodel for organizing their criminal behavior. Whilegangs in other cities were competing violently forterritory, the Chicago gangs coordinated their effortsby dividing the city along agreed upon boundaries.Thus, they were free to operate with little or nointerference from rival gangs.
Al Capone had a particularly strong hold onChicago government. With an estimated 30% ofhis profits going to graft and protection, Caponebecame so powerful that he could control localpolice and politicians and even influence local elec-tions. Because he was virtually immune from locallaw enforcement, Capone became a target for theteam of nine Federal Bureau of Investigation agentssupervised by Eliot Ness. Capone attempted tobribe Ness and two members of his team with$2,000 per week (agents at that time earnedbetween $2,000 and $3,000 per year). After publicly
announcing their rejection of the attempted bribes,the team of agents became known in the press asthe “Untouchables.” Although Capone was neverconvicted of his infamous crimes, in 1931 he wasconvicted on several counts of tax evasion and sen-tenced to 11 years in Leavenworth prison. The gov-ernment decided to postpone prosecution forProhibition violations in the event that Capone wasable to overturn his tax evasion conviction. Caponedied in prison before completing his sentence.
Prohibition organized crime continued to providea model structure that influenced criminal activityeven after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.Modern organized crime operations still providelegally prohibited goods and services to meet publicdemands.
Vincent DelCastillo
See also Volstead Act
For Further Reading
Behr, E. (1996). Prohibition: Thirteen years that changedAmerica. New York: Arcade.
Bloomfield, H. V. L. (1966). The compact history of the U.S.Coast Guard. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Bowen, C. D. (1966). Miracle at Philadelphia: The story of theConstitutional Convention, May to September 1787.Boston: Little, Brown.
Greenberg, M. A. (1999). Prohibition enforcement: Charting anew mission. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Haskin, F. J. (1923) The American government (2nd ed.).Washington, DC: Author.
Kobler, J. (1973). Ardent spirits: The rise and fall ofProhibition. New York: Putnam.
National Prohibition Law hearings before the Committee onthe Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 69th Cong., 1st Session, 649(1926) (testimony of Fiorella H. LaGuardia).
Olmstead v. United States, 226 U.S. 438 (1928).Poholek, C. H. (1998). Prohibition in the 1920s: Thirteen
years that damaged America. [Online]. Available: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4399/
Potter, C. B. (1998). War on crime: Bandits G-men and thepolitics of mass culture. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.
Schmeckebier, L. F. (1929) The Bureau of Prohibition: Itshistory, activities and organization. Washington, DC: TheBrookings Institution.
Warburton, C. (1932). The economic results of Prohibition.New York: Columbia University Press.
830—�—Prohibition Law Enforcement
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 830
� PURE FOOD,DRINK, AND DRUG ACT
As late as the closing decades of the 19th century, noeffective government legislation existed to protectthe consumer against hazardous foods, drinks, anddrugs. Contamination and adulteration and fraudu-lent advertising and labeling were so widespread thatconsumers could not determine which products weresafe to use. Drug addiction was reaching alarmingproportions. These conditions were undermining thephysical, mental, and moral health of the nation andno one seemed able or willing to do anything con-structive to remedy the situation. The few existingnational laws dealt mostly with protecting busi-ness interests. Local statutes could not prevent thetrafficking of undesirable products between states.
The Pure Food, Drink, and Drug Act, officiallytitled “An Act for Preventing the Manufacture, Saleor Transportation of Adulterated or Misbranded orPoisonous or Deleterious Foods, Drugs, Medicines,and Liquors, for Regulating Traffic Therein, and forOther Purposes,” and its companion legislation, theMeat Inspection Act, also enacted in 1906, weredesigned to ensure the purity, safety, and truthfullabeling of food, drink, and drugs and to regulatetheir interstate commerce and importation. Originallyadministration of the law fell under the jurisdictionof the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau ofChemistry, but during the presidency of William H.Taft a combination of mismanagement and politicalin-fighting led to the transfer of most of its regula-tory functions to an arbitration board and later toother federal divisions.
Federal agencies now administrating the actinclude the Food and Drug Administration; U.S.Postal Service; Environmental Protection Agency; Con-sumer Product Safety Commission; Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; OccupationalSafety and Health Administration; Federal TradeCommission; and Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA). State boards regulate medical practice andpharmacies. Local and state health departments over-see restaurant food and sanitation. Each agency setsits own requirements for employees.
For example the DEA trains its special agents,diversion investigators, intelligence research special-ists, forensic chemists, and other personnel at theDEA Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia.Trainees are required to have a bachelor’s degree andsome postgraduate educational experience. A largepercentage of trainees have prior law enforcement ormilitary experience. Basic courses include training inuse of firearms, physical defensive tactics, defensivedriving, leadership, ethics, and practical applications.Specialized courses concentrate on specific lawenforcement areas such as forensic chemistry labora-tory operations and asset forfeiture. Students mustmaintain an academic average of 80% on academicstudies, pass firearms qualification and strenuousphysical ability tests, and demonstrate leadership andsound decision making in practical situations. Upongraduation the trainees are sworn in as special agentsand assigned to various field offices.
Until the late 1990s, passage of the Pure Food,Drink, and Drug Law of 1906 had been attributed tothe efforts of Harvey Washington Wiley (at that timechief of the Bureau of Chemistry), the support ofTheodore Roosevelt, the publicity created by nationalmagazines and publication of Upton Sinclair’s TheJungle, or the efforts of large business interests tolimit competition. Despite the influence of each of theabove, and although some authorities still disagree,recent scholarship and more extensive research haverevealed that the law was enacted more as a responseby American consumers, particularly women but alsosome reform-oriented men, to the threats that danger-ous substances imposed upon themselves, theirfamilies, their neighbors, and their society.
To fight these conditions, millions of concernedAmerican women organized themselves into local,state, and national departments within the GeneralFederation of Women’s Clubs, the National Con-sumers’ League, the Woman’s Christian TemperanceUnion (WCTU), reform leagues, and other organi-zations. It was these women who initiated the cru-sade for pure food, drink, and drugs; defined itsobjectives; took the lead in influencing public opin-ion; nourished the issue through discouraging times;forged the necessary connecting links betweenconsumer, professional, media, and legislative forces
Pure Food, Drink, and Drug Act—�—831
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 831
to consolidate support for general, nondiscriminatorylegislation; aided enforcement once the law passed;and endured in their commitment. The most notableleaders who emerged from their ranks were HelenMcNabb Miller, Alice Lakey, and a succession ofWCTU leaders, including Ella Kellogg, Mary H.Hunt, Martha Allen, and Louise C. Purington.
They encountered powerful opposition both fromthe industries that stood to be regulated and frommembers of Congress who feared that pure food,drink, and drug legislation might discriminateagainst certain industries or who opposed passingany social legislation on the premise that it violatedstates’ rights. When it became clear that public opin-ion demanded a pure food, drink, and drug law, rep-resentatives of each industry tried to exempt theirindustries from the law’s regulations and amend itsprovisions to benefit their specific interests. Afterthe law passed, they found ways to circumvent itsconditions or bend them to their advantage.
Although it was the type of omnibus legislationfor which consumers had hoped, the 1906 law fellshort of meeting many of their expectations. Itemerged from committee partly as a compromisebrokered between Harvey W. Wiley and the busi-ness interests involved. It did not protect consumersagainst products that were marketed in the samestate as their manufacture. Congress made inade-quate provisions for its funding and determining itsstandards. Its enforcement was hampered by cum-bersome boards under the direction of the secre-taries of agriculture, treasury, and commerce andlabor who formulated regulations for prosecution. Itdid not require dangerous substances to be listed onthe labels of whiskey, restrict the sale of addictiveor dangerous drugs, or address issues of sanitationin dairies, bakeries, and food handling. Regardlessof its inadequacies, organized women supported itspassage in anticipation that it would be strength-ened and expanded through amendments theyintended to sponsor. Many of their expectationswere realized, and in some cases exceeded, but onlyafter a span of almost an entire century. From thebeginning the law generated certain noticeableimprovements and over the years shortcomings ofthe 1906 law were remedied by numerous amend-ments and acts, among which the most important
were the Harrison Narcotic Act (1914), the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938), the Kefaver-Harris Amendments and the Drug Abuse ControlAmendments (1962,1965), the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse and Control Act (1970), and the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts (1986, 1988).
In addition to providing the public considerableprotection against adulterated, dangerous, andfraudulent foodstuffs and dangerous drugs, the PureFood, Drink, and Drug Act of 1906 holds particularsignificance because (a) it promoted the passage ofmore uniform and effective pure food, drink, anddrug laws in the states; (b) it set a precedence forother federal social legislation that in the past hadbeen considered the sole jurisdiction of states, suchas the Mann Act (1910), which prohibited the trans-port of women across state lines for the purposes ofprostitution, the Eighteenth (Prohibition) Amendment(1919), and Nineteenth Amendment (1920), whichgave women the right to vote; (c) it was the firstmajor federal legislation successfully sponsored byorganized women; and (d) it was a prime example ofparticipatory democracy that arose at the grassrootslevel.
Lorine Swainston Goodwin
See also Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention andControl Act, Drug Enforcement Administration, Foodand Drug Administration, Harrison Act, Mann Act
For Further Reading
Anderson, O. E., Jr. (1958). Health of a nation: HarveyW. Wiley and the fight for pure food. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Coppin, C. A., & High, J. (1999). The politics of purity, HarveyWashington Wiley and the origins of federal food policy.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Goodwin, L. S. (1999). The pure food, drink, and drugcrusaders, 1879-1914. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Sullivan, M. (1927). Our times: The United States, 1900–1925(Vol. II). New York: Scribner’s.
U.S. Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Pub. L. No. 59–384.34 Stat. 768 (1906).
Young, J. H. (1961). The toadstool millionaires: A socialhistory of patent medicines in America before federal reg-ulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Young, J. H. (1967). The medical messiahs: A social history ofhealth quackery in twentieth-century America. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.
832—�—Pure Food, Drink, and Drug Act
P-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 832
R� RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPTORGANIZATIONS ACT
The criminal justice system was historicallydesigned to prosecute an individual for committinga crime at a particular place and time and against asingle victim. The system was not well equipped todeal with crimes committed by structured, layered,organized groups of individuals who engaged incrimes for profit.
In 1970, to address this shortcoming in thelaw, Congress passed the Racketeer Influencedand Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This act isfound in Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I,Chapter 96, Sections 1961 through 1968, and is partof the Organized Crime Control Act. The act is com-posed of eight sections dealing with definitions, pro-hibited activities, criminal penalties, civil remedies,venue and process, expedition of actions, evidence,and civil investigative demand. The act provides forthe criminal prosecution and punishment of viola-tors and for civil forfeiture and recovery of propertyand assets resulting from RICO activities.
The act defines covered violations of the lawin great detail. Under the act, racketeering activityincludes involvement in the behaviors of murder,kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,extortion, dealing in obscene matter, dealing in a
controlled substance, bribery, sports bribery,counterfeiting, theft of interstate shipments, andembezzlement from pension and welfare funds. Alsoincluded are credit card extortions, identificationfraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, unlawful procurementor sale of citizenship, obstruction of criminal inves-tigations, witness tampering, misuse of passports orvisas, money laundering, interstate transportationof stolen motor vehicles and other stolen property,trafficking in counterfeit computer programs andmotion pictures, copyright infringement, traffickingin contraband cigarettes, embezzlement of unionfunds, and improper securities dealings.
Prohibited activities under this law include (1)receiving any income derived, directly or indirectly,from a pattern of racketeering activity or throughcollection of an unlawful debt or using such incometo acquire any interest in a criminal enterprise;(2) acquiring or maintaining any interest or control ofan enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign com-merce; and (3) conspiring to violate the RICO Act.An enterprise is defined as any individual, partner-ship, corporation, association, or other entity andany union or group of individuals associated in factalthough not a legal entity.
For the law to be successfully applied to a criminalviolation, certain specifics must be met. The majorlegal issues are the existence of an enterprise that wasengaged in interstate or foreign commerce; a pattern
833
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 833
of racketeering activity; a connection between theindividuals involved in the racketeering activity andthe enterprise; and in civil cases, proof that the harmsuffered was directly caused by the racketeering acts.An important requirement of the act is the necessitythat a pattern of racketeering activity be proven.Within the act, pattern is defined as at least two rack-eteering instances occurring within 10 years of eachother. As cases passed through the courts over theyears, it became important to distinctly prove thatthere was an actual connection between the individu-als involved in the allegations of racketeering and thecriminal enterprise. The mere existence of one doesnot infer the presence of the other.
The original motivation for the design of the actwas to provide a means for combating the problemof traditional organized crime; specifically theMafia. Thus, the law addresses the bulk of the activ-ities that the Mafia has been active in for severaldecades. Initially, use of the law by authorities metwith limited success because of its complexity andnewness within the criminal justice system. As lawenforcement became more experienced in the useof the provisions of the statute, prosecutors becamemore adept at presenting their cases and judgesbecame more proficient at interpreting the intent ofthe statute, RICO evolved into a highly effective toolin dismantling the leadership of the traditional Mafiafamilies. In particular, the RICO Act has been usedto prosecute money laundering cases to severelyimpact the ability of organized crime families toconduct much of their common business. Today,RICO continues to be used against the Mafia aswell as other organizations such as Chinese Triads,Columbian Cartels, and Russian organized crime.
Because the act was written in rather broadterms, over the years it has been effectively usedto address other criminal behaviors and, morerecently, civil violations. In 1985, the U.S. SupremeCourt, in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., con-cluded the use of RICO is not restricted to organizedcrime and may be applied to legitimate businesses.RICO has been used in successful prosecutions oflabor racketeering, narcotics organizations, abortionclinic protestors, mail fraud, terrorist organizations,medical fraud, securities fraud, political corruption,pension fraud, and white collar and economic crimes.
In the 1980s, civil attorneys began to use the broadwording of the RICO Act to bring civil claims, sincethe law provides for judgments in the amount ofthree times the actual damages sustained, plus costsand attorneys’ fees. In the late 1990s, several stateattorneys and a number of private insurance compa-nies used RICO claims against major U.S. tobaccocompanies to recover increased health insurance andwelfare system costs. And, in 1995, a New York Cityattorney successfully interpreted and used the RICOAct against slumlords who had allowed their feder-ally subsidized buildings to deteriorate.
One commonly used allowable defense in RICOcases is withdrawal from the conspiracy. To applythis defense, the defendant must prove that affirma-tive steps were taken to disavow or defeat the objec-tives of the enterprise.
RICO has withstood many constitutional chal-lenges and continues to be an effective law enforce-ment tool. The provisions of the act allow for broaduse to prosecute individuals who conspire to profitthrough a variety of means. When the governmentcan show that these individuals worked in consortfor at least two actions within 10 years of eachother, severe penalties can be imposed and gains orassets used to further the criminal activity can beseized and forfeited.
Joseph P. Linskey
For Further Reading
Bryan, T., Cohen, K., Eaton, C. J., and Love, S. (2003).Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.American Criminal Law Review, 40, 987–1010.
Friedrichs, D. O. (1996). Trusted criminals: White collar crimein contemporary society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Neese, W. (2003). An analysis of the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as a control mecha-nism for business activity. Journal of American Business,Sept., pp. 367–375.
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 472 U.S. 479 (1985).Title 18, U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 96, Sections 1961–1968.
� RAILROAD POLICING
Private railroad companies established their ownpolice forces as early as 1847. The construction ofrailroads contributed to trespassing and thievery and
834—�—Railroad Policing
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 834
the layouts of rail yards and storage material led toplacing value goods distant from established com-munities, many of which lacked organized policeforces. Even in cities that had begun to develop theirown police forces after the 1850s and 1860s, rail-roads were concerned with the safety of passengersand their luggage. After the Civil War, hobos tookto rail facilities, setting up squatter camps, travelingat no cost, and often taking whatever they couldalong the way, and although train robberies occurredthroughout the nation, in the years after the 1880suntil the turn of the century they became closelyassociated with banditry in the American West.Railroad police, who were recognized as commis-sioned police officers in the states and territories inwhich they worked, cooperated with the few localpolice, sheriffs, and U.S. Marshals to prevent rob-beries and then track those who perpetrated them.
In 1847, when the Baltimore & Ohio appointed arailroad police officer to keep order at its Pratt StreetDepot in Baltimore, the city had been faced withnumerous mob disturbances but did not establish aviable day police force until 1857. In the Midwest,where city building lagged behind the East Coast,railroads traveling out of Chicago were frequent tar-gets of thieves and vandals and almost immediatelybecame the preferred mode of travel for tramps andhobos. Within a year of running its first train in 1854,the Milwaukee Road employed policemen, and in1855 the president of the Illinois Central Railroad,whose railroad had been in existence only four years,complained about vandals tampering with equipmentand noted the need for daily protection. Respondingto this need, on February 1, 1855, a number of rail-roads signed a contract with Allan Pinkerton, whohad earned an enviable reputation as a public policeofficer, a private detective, and a special agent for theChicago Post Office. Pinkerton established a policeagency in Chicago that was devoted to the IC, theRock Island, the Burlington, the Galena and ChicagoUnion (later to be incorporated into the Chicago &North Western), and others that eventually becamepart of the New York Central and Milwaukee Roadsystems.
The contract establishing the North West PoliceAgency called for its work to be to the exclusion ofother business by Pinkerton. Operating initially
with nothing more than citizen’s power to arrest, theNorth West Police Agency was in full swing threemonths before the Chicago Police Department com-bined its day and night forces into a 24-hour policeoperation. Even the development of municipalpolicing did not help the railroads, because thelocalized nature of policing prevented city policefrom protecting the railroads as soon as they left thecity’s jurisdiction. At a time when local police werefairly new, state police nonexistent, and the federalgovernment weak, railroads were on their own inprotecting themselves. Pinkerton understood thisand prospered, devoting his personal attention tothe railroads until 1860.
The Pinkerton Detective Agency remainedclosely associated with the railroads until 1869, butmany railroads also formed their own departments,which quickly received legal recognition. In 1861,Nevada territory passed the first law recognizingrailroad police, granting county sheriffs the author-ity to appoint deputies for the railroad. Pennsylvaniain 1865 became the first state to sanction railroadpolice when it passed the Railroad Police Act, whichauthorized the governor to grant police power to anyindividual for whom the employing railroad peti-tioned. Officers were given the same powers asPhiladelphia police officers in regard to detainingsuspects and making arrests. Because the railroadtraveled beyond Philadelphia, railroad police hadmore extensive powers than city police; they wereauthorized to arrest not only on company propertybut anywhere in the county where their commissionswere recorded. In many states, the legislation wassimilar, permitting officers to carry weapons, effectarrests, and enforce laws anywhere the railroadowned property. This situation continues to exist tothe present time.
Railroad police are the largest group of survivingprivate police, but they were not the first. As earlyas 1838, Boston had conveyed police powers onofficers employed by local merchants. In someparts of the country, the coal and iron industry alsoestablished private police, in the West many cattleassociations employed their own police officersto prevent livestock thefts, and Wells Fargoemployed special agents whose duties were similarto railroad police. Multiple deputizations by states,
Railroad Policing—�—835
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 835
county sheriffs, and sometimes by U.S. Marshals,who swore in the officers as deputy marshals,allowed railroad police to cross state lines with ease,which encouraged them to concentrate on after-the-fact investigation of serious crimes, rather than ondeveloping uniformed forces. This was particularlytrue in the West, where most railroad police continueto work in plainclothes and to be called specialagents, as they originally were. In the East, whereuniformed police were a common sight by the1880s, the tradition of uniformed railroad forcesdeveloped, and officers were called police ratherthan special agents, with detective reserved for thosewho did investigative work out of uniform.
Although their existence has often been attrib-uted to labor unrest, the origins of railroad policeare similar to municipal police and are centered onconcerns by the railroads about public order andtheft. While some railroad police were assigned tolabor disputes during major depressions, including1873, 1877, 1893, and 1922, their portrayal as spiesand strikebreakers is exaggerated; much of thiswork was done by outside undercover agents whowere less likely to be known to other railroademployees. In addition to having many of the sameconcerns as all police, railroad officials were alsoworried about hobos, and many East Coast railroadsbegan employing guards and watchmen in the1870s to work in rail yards, on bridges, and to walkthe tracks to minimize theft and vandalism and todissuade trespassers from riding trains or setting upcampsites along the tracks. Charity workers, busi-ness leaders, and legislators in a number of stateshad discovered what came to be called the trampproblem and the development of railroad policecoincides with the adoption of tramp acts in manystates in the 1870s and 1880s. These laws outlawedtravel without visible means of support. Becausemany of the laws placed burdens on local police,passing tramp control onto the railroads was acost-savings measure for many communities.
WESTERN RAILROADS
As the railroads moved west, the major concern wasthat they were entering areas that were sparselypopulated and lacked police departments. Except
for Nebraska and Colorado, railroad service wasavailable in the territories at least a decade beforethey became states, and in the case of the last fivecontiguous states (Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma,New Mexico, and Arizona) railroads precededstatehood by more than 20 years. Often railroadpolice (generally called secret service) departmentswere the best organized and best equipped, andsometimes the only, officers in the territories.Companies such as the Union Pacific, Denver andRio Grande, Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, and theSt. Louis and San Francisco had special agents oper-ating in the west by the 1870s. The best known ofthe Western chief special agents was Bat Masterson,who claimed that in 1878 he had received a monthlysalary of $10,000 from the Santa Fe to serve as itsfirst chief special agent. This was about the timehe was the sheriff of Ford County, Kansas, whichincluded the notorious Dodge City.
Less well-known was William T. Canada, theUnion Pacific’s first chief and the creator of the UnionPacific’s force of Rangers. Developed in response toa number of well-publicized train robberies, theywere probably America’s first Special Weapons andTactics team. The Rangers, men and horses skilled athard riding and difficult tracking, were transported byboxcars to locations of major train robberies for thepurpose of finding and returning, often alive butsometimes dead, train robbers. Although Pinkertonagents worked on some of the robbery cases, theirefforts were in conjunction with and under the direc-tion of the railroads’ chief special agents, but theyoften captured the spotlight and claimed credit for theresolution of many cases. By 1896, chief specialagents had formed the International Association ofRailway Special Agents and Police and met annually todiscuss problems, just as the International Associationof Chiefs of Police does currently. Cooperation wasvital, since a special agent of a western railroad mighthave been responsible for policing thousands of milesof track. Cooperation extended to local sheriffs’departments, U.S. Marshals, special agents of WellFargo, and the federal government’s Postal InspectionService, whose agents worked on cases of mail theftor pilfering from trains.
The agents’ association, under the leadership ofMissouri Pacific Lines chief special agent Robert
836—�—Railroad Policing
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 836
S. Mitchell, also lobbied actively for passage ofthe Carlin Act, which became law on February 13,1913. The act (formally known as the Interact TheftAct, 18 U.S.C. 660) made it a federal felony tobreak into railcars containing interstate shipments.It allowed for prosecution of an individual placedunder arrest in any jurisdiction in which the indi-vidual may have been in possession of the stolenproperty, which aided prosecutions for such thefts.
HOBOS IN HISTORY
Despite the attention given to train robberies, themore prevalent concerns were with hobos, a prob-lem that led many to conclude that large numbers ofpetty thefts, track obstructions, and fires could beattributed to this group. Hobos, trains, and railroadpolice have been inextricably linked. Tramping viathe rails became an established institution immedi-ately after the Civil War, emerging once again in theyears following the Great Depression. Some esti-mates were that the railroad tramp population wasas high as 60,000 in the 1890s. There also existed agroup of lawyers who sought out tramps injuredon railroad property so that they might bring suitsagainst the railroads. Thus, another impetus to creat-ing police forces was to minimize the litigation fac-ing the railroads due to a variety of injury, damage,and trespass suits. One of the attorneys who workedon retainer for the Illinois Central and theMississippi & Missouri Railroad in the 1850s wasAbraham Lincoln, who as president of the UnitedStates signed the law authorizing creation of thetranscontinental network created by the UnionPacific and the Central Pacific. Another well-knownlawyer-politician who took a negative view of trampswas Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette. Concerns abouttramps centered on the dangers to themselves andto railroad employees, but there were also instancesof groups of tramps actually stealing entire trainsfrom crew members. More common, though, wereinjuries and deaths as a result of trespassing. In the1860s, Massachusetts reported an average of almost90 people a year killed by trains in the state; bythe 1870s the number had risen to 143, and by the1880s it passed the 200 mark. National estimateswere that almost 24,000 trespassers were killed and
more than 25,000 injured on the railroads between1901 and 1905.
Wrecks were another concern for the railroads,not only because of the liability claims they werepaying to injured passengers or consignees whosefreight deliveries never arrived, but also because ofbad publicity. In the belief that many of the obstruc-tions were caused by tramps and trespassers, rail-road police were encouraged to deal harshly withthose found on the tracks or in yards. Yet becauseof the vast amount of territory they covered andthe relatively small number of special agents, thechance of a hobo actually running into an officerwas rare. Tramp literature often mentions how easyit was to ride the rails for free and mentions specificfreight yards and even specific special agents toavoid.
NATIONALIZATIONAND CURRENT ISSUES
The railroads were nationalized during World War Iand the railroad police were placed under the con-trol of the U.S. Railroad Administration’s SecretService and Police Section, making them, for allpractical purposes, a federalized force of uniformedand plainclothes officers. A number of railroad chiefspecial agents were loaned to the federal govern-ment during this period, and although a few had hopedthat the government would retain control for rail-road policing, this did not occur and the officerswere returned to the employ of their individualdepartments, where they have remained since then.
No industry before or since the railroads (withthe possible exception of today’s Internet-relatedcrime) has spawned such distinctive forms of crime.Despite the disappearance of many of the privatepolice who once traversed the country, the railroadpolice are the largest surviving group, numberingabout 5,000 officers across the country. Collectivelythey police almost 200,000 miles of railroad, equip-ment, and cargo shipments exceeding a net invest-ment of $55 billion. Mail theft has been replaced bytheft of high-value goods; hobos have been replacedby fugitive criminals. Smuggling, including narcotics,and crime prevention through environmental designto harden targets are also major concerns.
Railroad Policing—�—837
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 837
Although for the past few decades they haveworked in obscurity in comparison to their earlierhistory, concern about terrorist activity sinceSeptember 11, 2001, has brought renewed interestin possible sabotage to railroad facilities and thenumbers of illegal entrants into the countrythrough trains running from Mexico into the Westand Southwest and via a train tunnel that runsunder the river separating Canada from PortHuron, Michigan, which has been a point of entryfor large numbers of Asian migrants. Railroadshave become less visible to many Americans, par-ticularly for passenger travel, but they continue toprovide a network for goods to be transported andto represent a vital link for government, the mili-tary, and commerce, ensuring that even if theyare out of the limelight, railroad police will con-tinue to be actively involved in American policinginitiatives.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Allsop, K. (1967). Hard travellin’: The hobo and his history.New York: New American Library.
Flynt, J. (Willard). (1969). Tramping with tramps: Studies andsketches of vagabond life. New York: McGrath.
Harring, S. I. (1977). Class conflict and the suppression of trampsin Buffalo, 1892–1894. Law & Society Review 11, 873–911.
Meredith, R. (2000, February 27). Illegal immigrants find dangerand appeal in northern route. The New York Times, p. 22.
Prassel, F. R. (1972). The western peace officer: A legacy of lawand rder. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Schulz, D. M. (1987). Holdups, hobos, and the homeless:A brief history of railroad police in North America. PoliceStudies 10, 90–95.
Schulz, D. M. (2002). On the track of—and with—railroadpolice: Separating the real cops and special agents from thefictional bulls and cinder dicks, The St. Louis MercantileLibrary Report to Members, 2001-2002, pp. 19–23.
Schulz, D. M. (2003). Robert S. Mitchell brought law andorder to Missouri’s railroads. The St. Louis MercantileLibrary Report to Members, 2002-2003, pp. 31–44.
Shalloo, J. P. (1929, November). The private police ofPennsylvania. The Annals of the American Academy ofPolice and Social Science, pp. 55–62.
838—�—Railroad Policing
R-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 838
S� SECRET SERVICE
The Secret Service was instituted as a bureau underthe Treasury Department on July 5, 1865. At thetime of its creation, the Secret Service bore soleresponsibility for investigating the counterfeiting ofAmerican paper currency, which had steadily beenon the rise since the beginning of the Civil War.Gradually throughout the late 19th and early 20thcenturies, the authority of the service expandedto include investigations of the Teapot Dome oilscandal (1921–1922), the Ku Klux Klan, and gov-ernment land frauds. The service was also activein the area of counterespionage during the Spanish-American War and World War I.
The modern Secret Service continues to investi-gate counterfeiting of American currency, as well asfraud and forgery of U.S. checks, bonds, and otherfinancial obligations. The Secret Service also hasjurisdiction to investigate fraud relating to creditand debit cards, as well as computers and electronicfunds transfers. In addition, it has assumed dutiesin the area of protection of public officials and isauthorized by legislation to protect the presidentand vice president of the United States and theirimmediate families, the president and vice presi-dent elect and their immediate families, formerpresidents and their spouses, visiting foreign headsof state, major presidential and vice presidential
candidates, and any individual at the direction ofthe president.
Through its Uniform Division, the Secret Serviceis also responsible for providing security at theWhite House, the vice presidential residence, allfederal buildings in which presidential offices arelocated, the U.S. Treasury, and the Treasury Annex.These security duties began in 1922, during thepresidency of Warren G. Harding; however, theSecret Service was not officially given these secu-rity functions until 1930, when it absorbed theWhite House Police Force. Since then, the role ofthe Uniformed Division, as it came to be known,has remained central to presidential protection atthe Executive Mansion and the White HouseComplex.
Since the terrorist attacks on New York City, onthe Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania on September11, 2001, the role of the Secret Service has contin-ued to expand based on the enactment of new coun-terterrorism legislation. Specifically, the role ofthe Secret Service in investigating financial fraudrelated to computer activity has been significantlyextended. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 directedthe Secret Service to take enforcement action inprotection of the United States’s financial paymentsystems and against transnational financial crimesdirected by terrorists or other criminals, bothdomestically and internationally. In 2002, the
839
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 839
Secret Service was transferred, via legislation, fromthe Treasury Department to the Department ofHomeland Security, where its resources will con-tinue to be used in targeting financial crimes insti-gated by terrorist organizations. The Secret Serviceofficially began operating under the Department ofHomeland Security on March 1, 2003.
HISTORY OF THE SECRET SERVICE
When the Civil War ended in 1865, it was estimatedthat between one third and one half of all U.S. papercurrency in circulation was counterfeit. To combatthis growing problem, Congress authorized theestablishment of an investigative branch to operateunder the Treasury Department. The Secret Servicewas officially born on July 5, 1865. Chief WilliamP. Wood was sworn in as the head of the new bureauthat same year. In 1883, the Secret Service officiallybecame an independent and distinct organizationunder the Treasury Department.
In 1867, the Secret Service’s authority was broad-ened to include investigation of any persons perpe-trating frauds against the government. Given theSecret Service’s record of proficiency and its statusas the only general law enforcement investigativebody in the federal government, Congress invested itwith broad authority to pursue all manner of federalcrimes. As a result, it became responsible for investi-gations into the operations of the Ku Klux Klan,smuggling, the illegal distilling of alcohol, mail rob-bery, land fraud, and other breaches of federal law. In1915, this investigative role grew even further whenPresident Woodrow Wilson directed the secretary ofthe treasury to authorize the Secret Service to inves-tigate domestic espionage in the United States. Dueto the lack of a counterespionage division within thefederal government, the Secret Service assumed thisduty, as well. As the federal government graduallyexpanded to include a broader variety of investigativeand law enforcement agencies, the Secret Service’sinvestigative focus was once again returned to coun-terfeiting and financial crimes.
The Secret Service’s protection duties beganinformally in 1894, when it assumed responsibilityfor the part-time protection of President Grover
Cleveland. This service was provided largely atCleveland’s request, due to a number of personalthreats against him and his family, and not as an offi-cial duty mandated by legislation. It was not untilthe assassination of President William McKinleyin 1901 that the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for guarding the president onan unofficial basis. The following year, the Serviceofficially assumed this duty, assigning two agents tothe White House detail.
Prior to Cleveland’s presidency, personal secu-rity for the president was provided either throughprivate sources or the Washington, D.C., Metro-politan Police Force. Franklin Pierce was the firstpresident to employ a personal bodyguard from1853 to 1857, and Abraham Lincoln was providedpersonal security at the White House throughouthis presidency (1860–1865). In 1864, Lincoln’spersonal security detail expanded to include fourMetropolitan police officers who accompaniedhim in public, making him the first president to beprotected by more than one individual simultane-ously. Following Lincoln’s assassination in 1865,presidential security was no longer a major prior-ity, despite the successful attempt upon the lifeof President James A. Garfield in 1881. It was notuntil the beginning of the Spanish American War in1898, when President McKinley’s life was threat-ened by groups opposed to the war, that presidentialsecurity once again became a focus.
Following McKinley’s assassination in 1901,concerns for presidential security continued togrow, and in 1913 Congress made the Secret Servicepermanently responsible for protection of the pres-ident and president elect. The protection mandategrew even further in 1917 to include the president’simmediate family. That same year, federal legisla-tion made threats against the president a criminaloffense, the investigation of which was placedunder Secret Service authority. During the presi-dency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945), theSecret Service’s involvement in presidential pro-tection grew dramatically. The demands of war-time security, in addition to Roosevelt’s frequentdomestic and foreign travel, made protection of theFirst Family the service’s primary mandate. In 1962,
840—�—Secret Service
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 840
the service’s protection mandate expanded againto include the vice president and vice presidentelect. Following the assassination of New York’sDemocratic senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968while he was campaigning for his party’s presiden-tial nomination, Congress extended this role evenfurther to include all major presidential and vicepresidential candidates. Since the Secret Serviceassumed the duty of presidential protection in 1901,there has been only one successful assassinationattempt of an individual under its protection,President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
In addition to these protective functions, theSecret Service also provides security to several fed-eral buildings and offices through its UniformedDivision. The inception of the Secret ServiceUniform Division occurred in 1922, when, at therequest of President Warren G. Harding, the WhiteHouse Police Force was formed for purposes ofguarding the presidential residence. Harding requestedthe formation of the force at the urging of his wife,Florence K. Harding, following an incident in whicha stranger wandered into the White House diningroom. Mrs. Harding was instrumental in organizingthe force, going so far as to help design the uniform,which was based upon naval regalia of the day.Initially, the White House Police Force operated asan independent security force, giving the presidentand the Secret Service very little control over itsmovements. To better synchronize presidential secu-rity, the Secret Service was granted authority overthe White House Police Force in 1930.
Prior to the creation of the White House PoliceForce, security at the Executive Mansion was ofminimal concern. President James Monroe (1817–1825) was the first president to employ privatesecurity following the War of 1812. As with thepresident himself, protection of the ExecutiveMansion was at that time left primarily to theWashington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Force.Many of Monroe’s successors continued to utilizethe Metropolitan Police Force, but refused toexpand the presence of a security detail at the WhiteHouse, fearing that a uniformed brigade mightlend the Executive Mansion a military feel that sepa-rated the president from the public. The growing
necessity of presidential security eventually supressedthese fears, and White House security has grownsteadily since 1922.
In 1962, the White House Police Force assumedresponsibility for protecting any building in whichWhite House offices are located. By 1970, its dutieswere broadened to include the vice presidential res-idence, and its name was changed to the ExecutiveProtection Service (EPS) in order to reflect this newstatus. In 1974, Congress vested the EPS with pro-tection of all foreign diplomatic missions in theUnited States in cities other than Washington, D.C.The EPS acquired its current name, the SecretService Uniformed Division, in 1977 and wasdivided into three distinct branches: the WhiteHouse Protection Branch, the Foreign MissionsBranch, and the Administrative Program SupportBranch. In 1985, a fourth section, the EmergencyResponse Team, was added to provide a specializedunit for immediate reaction to emergencies at theWhite House Complex. By 1986, there was anincreasing need for organized, uniform securitywithin the Treasury Department. To help streamlineoperations, the Treasury Police Force was mergedinto the Uniformed Division that year, and theSecret Service became responsible for security atthe Treasury Building and the Treasury Annex.
In 1994, the Uniformed Division came underheavy congressional scrutiny following three breachesof security at the White House in as many months.Between September and December 1994, threeseparate individuals managed to breach the perime-ter of the White House Complex, one by crashinga plane onto the South Lawn and two by gainingaccess to the White House grounds or ExecutiveResidence with firearms. As a result of an inquiry,the Secret Service made several recommendationsto increase security at the White House Complex.These included constructing barricades to certainportions of the property, closing traffic on city streetsrunning adjacent to the Executive Mansion, andincreasing the number of uniformed officers on dutyat the complex.
Despite its important role in presidential protec-tion and the investigation of financial crimes, fraud,counterfeiting, and espionage, the Secret Service
Secret Service—�—841
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 841
operated very informally for the first 100 years ofits existence. The first agents were recruited at thedirector’s discretion and had little, if any, formaltraining. Agents were not even issued officialbadges until 1873. Prior to that time, agents pur-chased badges of their choice using their ownfunds. In 1875, the first badge featuring the ServiceStar was issued, and it has been the official agencybadge since that time.
The first formal training offered to Secret Serviceoperatives consisted of a security course for theWhite House Police Force, which was implementedin 1941. Originally meant as a crash course in fieldsecurity during wartime, this training has evolvedsubstantially since then. Likewise, training for spe-cial agents was implemented relatively late in theSecret Service’s history. The first training course forfield agents was held from October 19 to November6, 1953. In the 1970s, specialized training courses inprotection, fraud investigation, emergency response,and other areas were offered for the first time.
THE SECRET SERVICE TODAY
In 2003, the Secret Service employed more than5,000 people, including approximately 2,100 specialagents, operating throughout the United States. Theservice also operated liaison offices in France,England, Germany, Italy, China, Canada, Cyprus,Colombia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Itemployed specialists in the areas of electronics engi-neering, communications technology, research psy-chology, computers, intelligence analysis, polygraphexamination, and forensic analysis. Its primary mis-sions remain protection and fraud investigation.
The Secret Service’s investigative jurisdictionincludes the counterfeiting of U.S. currency; theforgery of U.S. checks, bonds, and other financialobligations, including food stamps; the forging ofidentification documents; and fraud related to creditcards, debit cards, computers, and electronic fundstransfers. In 1990, Congress granted the SecretService jurisdiction to investigate savings and loaninstitutions.
The Secret Service still maintains its protectionduties through the assignment of both officers fromthe Uniformed Division and nonuniformed agents
to those individuals entitled to its services. SpecialAgents are rotated between investigative and per-manent protection assignments. In addition, inves-tigative agents serve on protection details on anas-needed basis, such as at special events involvingcandidates or visiting foreign dignitaries.
An applicant for the position of special agent mustbe a U.S. citizen between the ages of 21 and 37 whopossesses both a bachelor’s degree and three years ofexperience in law enforcement or investigationswork. In addition, applicants must be in good physicalcondition, have uncorrected vision of 20/60 or better,and must pass the Treasury Enforcement AgentExam. A complete background check, including in-depth interviews, drug screening, medical examina-tions, and a polygraph examination, are conducted asa condition of employment. Second language profi-ciency, although not required as a term of employ-ment, is highly encouraged and may result insubstantial hiring bonuses and on-the-job cashawards.
Once cleared, all special agent candidates mustcomplete 11 weeks of training at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center (FLETC) at Glynco,Georgia, or Artesia, New Mexico. When traininghas been completed at FLETC, each candidate mustundergo 11 more weeks of specialized instruction atthe James J. Rowley Training Center in Laurel,Maryland. After graduating from training, all newspecial agents must complete a one-year probation-ary period in a field office. At the end of this year,the special agent in charge of the field office deter-mines if the service should retain the agent.
A person seeking employment in the UniformedDivision must be a U.S. citizen between the ages of18 and 37 who is in possession of a high schooldiploma or general education degree. In addition,he or she must be able to pass a written test andsubmit to a background investigation that includesdriving record, drug screening, and medical andpolygraph examinations. Candidates should be ingood physical condition and have uncorrectedvision of at least 20/60. Unlike special agents’assignments, positions with the Uniformed Divisionare available only in the Washington, D.C., area.The service is willing to relocate those individualswho qualify and successfully complete the required
842—�—Secret Service
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 842
training, which consists of 8 weeks of instructionat FLETC, followed by 11 weeks of instruction atthe James J. Rowley Training Center in Laurel,Maryland.
In addition to investigative and protective func-tions, the Secret Service also partners with state andlocal law enforcement, as well as public and privateorganizations, in efforts to combat stalking, work-place violence, and school-based violence. Theseefforts are directed through the National ThreatAssessment Center (NTAC). In conjunction withCarnegie Mellon University, the NTAC is develop-ing the Critical Systems Protection Initiative, whichis designed to detect breeches in cyber security. Asthe war on terrorism continues, the Secret Service’srole in spearheading new electronic and cyber secu-rity measures is expected to expand.
On March 2, 2003, the Secret Service beganoperating under the supervision of the Departmentof Homeland Security, where its role continued tobe redefined. Its investigative function continuesto focus upon computer-related crime, forgery, andfinancial fraud, especially in cases with a direct andobvious connection to domestic or foreign terror-ism, cases that pose a threat to the nation’s criticalinfrastructure, and transnational cases. Since itstransfer into the Department of Homeland Security,the Secret Service has not announced any plans toalter the employment qualifications for specialagent positions or the Uniformed Division, nor tochange training for either group of employees.
Deanna L. Diamond
For Further Reading
Department of Homeland Security. [Online]. Available:http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
Department of Homeland Security, United States SecretService. (2003). Interim strategic plan FY 2003-FY 2008.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Department of the Treasury. (1955, May). Public report ofthe White House security review. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
Roberts, M. (1990). Moments in history, 1865-1990.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Secret Service. (2003). United States Secret Service:History. [Online]. Available: http:/www.secretservice.gov/hisotry.shtml/history.shtml
� SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,consists of five commissioners serving five-yearterms, appointed by the president. One of the com-missioners is designated chair, and no more thanthree commissioners can be from the same politicalparty at any given time. The commission’s dutiesinclude interpreting federal securities law, amend-ing existing rules, proposing new rules to addresschanging market conditions, and enforcing rulesand laws. The day-to-day activities of the SEC areunder the supervision of the executive director, whooversees four divisions, 18 offices within those divi-sions, and approximately 3,100 employees at head-quarters in Washington, D.C., and 11 regional anddistrict offices around the country.
The SEC’s primary mission is to protect theinvesting public by regulating the securities businessand certain financial practices including accountingprocedures and the buying and selling of stocks,bonds, and other investment instruments. The SECregulates stock exchanges, broker-dealers, invest-ment advisers, mutual funds, and public utility hold-ing companies as well as corporations that issuesecurities held by public investors. The scope of theSEC’s regulatory activities broadened greatly in theearly years of the 21st century to include greateroversight of mutual funds; auditing activities ofmajor accounting firms; investment activities ofhedge funds, which are private entities similar tomutual funds; and the obligations and responsibili-ties of public companies vis-à-vis their shareholders.
It was during this period that the SEC becameinvolved in a number of high-profile cases, mostof which involved civil actions, but some of whichresulted in criminal charges. Among these werethe ImClone Systems insider trading case whichinvolved chair and founder Sam Waksal as well asinvestor Martha Stewart. The SEC also investigatedactivities leading to the bankruptcies of Enron andWorldCom, the latter of which resulted in the com-mission collecting $500 million, the single largestpenalty in SEC history. Accounting issues included
Securities and Exchange Commission—�—843
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 843
fraud at such businesses as Tyco International andRite Aid drugstores and abrogation of duties bysuch accounting firms as Arthur Andersen, KPMG,and Ernst & Young involving publicly held corpo-rate clients. In 2003, the SEC received its highestbudget appropriation ever, including funds forthe newly created Public Company AccountingOversight Board and the authorization to hire morethan 800 new staff.
Not all cases involve activities and individuals at thehighest levels of corporate management. In May 2003,the SEC successfully concluded an insider tradingcase involving individuals who obtained informationfrom employees of a plant where a weekly businessmagazine was printed. The information involved stockmarket tips from a column in the magazine, which wasrelayed by the employees to the individuals who wereable to buy stocks that were written about before themagazine was available to the public. They then soldthe shares after the prices rose once readers reacted tothe magazine’s tips. SEC investigators in New Yorkuncovered the scheme while reviewing trading recordsin another, unrelated, case. The insider trading basedon the magazine information went on for 18 monthsand involved stock trading profits of more than $1.4million on 160 different securities.
The Division of Enforcement, which reportsdirectly to the executive director of the SEC, wascreated in 1972 by consolidating enforcement activ-ities that had previously been scattered among thecommission’s various offices and operating divi-sions. The enforcement division investigates possi-ble violations of federal laws and SEC regulations,prosecuting civil suits in federal court and inadministrative proceedings. Approximately 500 to600 civil enforcement actions are brought each yearagainst individuals and companies violating laws ornot in compliance with regulations. Typical infrac-tions include insider trading, misrepresenting oromitting significant information regarding securi-ties, manipulating market prices of securities, vio-lating broker-dealers’ responsibilities to treat clientsfairly, stealing customers’ funds or securities, andselling securities without proper registration. Thedivision may also respond to complaints from
investors and the public and on occasion has madeunannounced inspections of brokers and dealers toensure compliance. Large or unexpected fluctua-tions in the price of a particular security may alsotrigger an investigation to determine the reason forthe sudden rise, drop, or erratic trading pattern.
There are four primary enforcement actions theSEC makes: (1) civil lawsuits brought in federalcourt, (2) orders and related materials that are madepublic when administrative proceedings are insti-tuted or settled or both, (3) opinions issued byadministrative law judges in contested administra-tive proceedings, and (4) opinions issued by thecommission on appeal of initial decisions or disci-plinary decisions issued by such self-regulatoryorganizations as the New York Stock Exchange orthe National Association of Securities Dealers.Decisions rendered by the SEC may be appealed tothe U.S. courts of appeals.
SEC Division of Enforcement investigatorsinclude lawyers, accountants, economists, andcompliance examiners with accounting or auditingexperience, and many traditionally have performedinvestigative work in other government agencies.Personnel in the Division of Enforcement, whichhas civil enforcement authority only, do work witha variety of criminal law enforcement agenciesthroughout the country, both federal and local, inorder to develop and bring criminal cases when thelaw- or rule-breaking activities warrant more severeaction. SEC investigators do not make arrests, donot execute search and seizure warrants, and do notcarry firearms, activities for which the Departmentof Justice is relied upon.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
Berenson, A. (2003, November 10). Policing the unpoliceable.New York Times, sect. 4, p. 4.
Gores, P., & Gallagher, K. (2003, May 28). Factory workersmade $1.4 million in insider-trading scheme, SEC says.Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. [Online]. Available: www.jsonline.com/bym/news/may03/144042.asp
Securities and Exchange Commission. [Online]. Available:http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforcement
844—�—Securities and Exchange Commission
S-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 844
T� TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY POLICE
The Tennessee Valley Authority Police (TVAP) isa federally commissioned, internationally accreditedlaw enforcement agency that provides protectionfor the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proper-ties and employees as well as the 100 millionannual users of TVA recreation facilities. The TVAis the largest public power company in the UnitedStates, with 30,365 megawatts of dependable gen-erating capacity. TVA’s power facilities include 11fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclearplants, a pumped-storage facility, and 17,000 milesof transmission lines. Through 158 locally owneddistributors, TVA provides power to nearly 8.3million residents in the Tennessee Valley. TVA alsomanages the Tennessee River, the nation’s fifth-largest river, to control floods, make rivers easier totravel, provide recreation, and keep the water clean.
Since 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority hasemployed public safety officers who have lawenforcement responsibilities. Agency officers haveprovided security during times of war. They alsoprovided emergency medical and firefightingservices during the agency’s construction phases andhave staffed visitors’ centers throughout the TVAsystem. The TVAP are responsible for covering an
80,000-square-mile service area in parts of sevenstates, which includes 29 hydroelectric dams, 11coal plants, three nuclear plants, and a pump storagesite at Raccoon Mountain, Tennessee. TVAP is orga-nized into four districts that encompass the seven-state area. It has motor, marine, and bicycle patrols,as well as investigative personnel and victim/witnessrepresentatives. TVAP deals with the same kinds ofissues other law enforcement agencies deal with,except sometimes they must respond on water.TVAP are routinely called to respond to drowningsand disturbances at area campgrounds and some-times respond to an occasional call from a fishermanstranded on a sandbar in the middle of the lakeat night. Another service provided by TVAP is theenforcement of the Archaeological ResourcesProtection Act. Examples of violations include theexcavation and removal of arrowheads, potteryshards, or other artifacts. Unauthorized digging orcollecting can result in fines up to $100,000 and jailterms of up to five years. As part of its communitypolicing program, TVAP coordinates and assists inproviding training to TVA employees and commu-nity groups. This training includes: first aid, car-diopulmonary resuscitation, and automated externaldefibrillation; defensive driving; gang awareness;rape aggression defense; workplace violence pre-vention; and an overview of methamphetamine labs.
845
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 845
QUALIFICATIONS
Prospective TVAP officers must meet a number ofstandards to qualify for the force. Applicants must beat least 21 years of age, must be U.S. citizens withoutany prior criminal convictions, may not have beendishonorably discharged from military service, musthave either an associate’s degree (or a minimum of 65semester hours) and two years of related law enforce-ment experience or a bachelor’s degree, must havebasic computer skills, and must be able to pass a back-ground investigation and successfully complete allrequired tests. When hired, all potential officers mustsuccessfully complete the 16-week officer trainingprogram at the Federal Law Enforcement TrainingCenter in Glynco, Georgia, as well as a 10-week field-training program at their assigned TVA location and aone-year probationary period from the date they areplaced in the police officer position. By the mid-1990s, the agency employed 500 public safety offi-cers. That number was reduced to 150, however, after1994 when Congress passed legislation creating theTVAP. Officers are now required to complete a 16-week federal training program at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, inaddition to a 10-week field-training program.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacksand the subsequent creation of the Department ofHomeland Security, TVA security has been intensi-fied. Measures taken to increase security includeestablishing direct links to the National Guard,closing some of the visitors’ centers, increasing thenumber of security guards at the nuclear plants,increasing the number of patrols, and extending theboundaries at the nuclear sites.
Although it is one of the federal government’srelatively unknown police forces, TVAP is the leadagency in providing safety and security at TVApublic-use areas and campgrounds and they workclosely with civilian members of the TVA to keepthe public parks, lakes, and other public areas of theTVA safe and crime-free.
Aviva Twersky-Glasner
For Further Reading
Elizabethton Star, The. [Online]. Available: http://www.starhq.com/html/localnews/0902/091902TVA.html
Federal police agencies. [Online]. Available: http://eiconline.org/anewnormal/federal.html
Tennessee Valley Authority. [Online]. Available: http://www.tva.gov
� TRANSPORTATION SECURITYADMINISTRATION
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act(ATSA), signed into law by President George W.Bush on November 19, 200l (Pub. L. No. 107-01),established the Transportation Security Administra-tion (TSA) within the Department of Transportation.The TSA, the creation of which was a direct result ofthe terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and thesubsequent demands for a higher level of securityat domestic airports, is responsible for securingthe movement of people and commerce in all modesof transportation—aviation, maritime, and land—aswell as for leading research and development intosecurity technology to aid in safeguarding thenation’s transportation facilities and infrastructure. InMarch 2003, the TSA was moved to the Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) as part of the Borderand Security Directorate, which was intended to inte-grate into one agency all government operations forsecuring U.S. borders and transportation systems.
The ATSA transferred responsibility for civilaviation security from the Federal Aviation Adminis-tration (FAA) to TSA personnel. The FAA had per-mitted individual airlines to determine the level ofsecurity screening of passengers and baggage and,in the aftermath of September 11, this system, whichrelied overwhelmingly on private sector security offi-cers who earned minimum pay levels, was deemedinadequate. Working under very tight deadlines, thefederalization of screeners of baggage and passengersat 429 commercial airports in the United States wasaccomplished within 60 days by the TSA, becomingeffective in December 2002. This included the hiringand training of employees to perform the screening ofbaggage and passengers, raising the employee selec-tion and training criteria, and elevating the standard to100% checked baggage screening.
In addition to federalizing the workforce of air-port screeners, the TSA was mandated to radically
846—�—Transportation Security Administration
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 846
change the preemployment policies surroundingthese employees, who, during the time they wereemployed by private security firms, were often hiredwith virtually no prescreening or training. In con-trast, TSA employees undergo extensive backgroundinvestigations similar to those performed on otherfederal law enforcement personnel. Additionally, ananalysis is done to determine whether the candidateposes a potential terrorist threat or may have beenassociated with anyone who poses such a threat.
Educational requirements for screeners wereupgraded to include a minimum of a high schooldiploma, a general education degree, or the equiva-lent. Applicants were also required to be U.S. citi-zens and to be fluent in English. Preference is givento those with law enforcement backgrounds. Federalscreeners at all airports were also required to receivea minimum of 40 hours of classroom training and60 hours of on-the-job training before they are per-mitted to work alone at a screening station.
NEW AIRPORT SECURITY POSITIONS
Although the initial focus of the TSA was on hiring,training, and assigning screeners, the enabling leg-islation created a number of additional new lawenforcement positions, including federal securitydirectors and law enforcement officers (known asLEOs). The Office of Intelligence, located in theFAA Office of Civil Aviation Security, was trans-ferred to the TSA and renamed the TransportationSecurity Intelligence Service (TSIS). It is responsi-ble for receiving, evaluating, and disseminatinginformation on threats to a wide segment of thetransportation industry.
The ATSA specified that all airports larger than acertain size have an on-site federal security director.As of November 2002, almost 175 security directorshad been appointed, and many large airports alsoappointed deputy directors. These security directorsare responsible for protecting passengers and employ-ees and for securing the reliability and integrityof the air transportation system. Although a TSAemployee, the director is expected to interact regu-larly with airport stakeholders, including passen-gers, airport and airline employees, concessionoperators, and local government representatives.
Security directors, many of whom have prior lawenforcement experience, are expected to establisha system to identify threats, to secure the airportfacility and the aircraft, and to ensure employeeaccountability by communicating with the airportoperator and the aviation operations administratorregarding risks and the costs of preventing, mitigat-ing, and recovering from potential recognizedthreats. The security director is also responsible forall TSA resources at the facility, including budgetingfor personnel and equipment.
Security directors are mandated to share infor-mation with federal, state, and local law enforce-ment agencies; direct LEOs on transportationsecurity activities; serve as a liaison between TSAand the local law enforcement agencies; maintaincoordination between TSA personnel and local lawenforcement agencies; work with law enforcementagencies to implement security countermeasures;and take charge of federal law enforcement activi-ties within the purview of the TSA. In addition,directors have oversight responsibility for thescreening of passengers, baggage, and air cargo;for the implementation, performance, and enhance-ment of the standards for security and screeningfor airport employees and passengers; and for train-ing all airport employees in security awareness.Security directors must also organize and implementfederal security crisis management response plansand coordinate these activities with the other rele-vant federal, state, and local law enforcement andother government agencies and with airport and air-line carrier managers. The security director is con-sidered the lead employee for assessing the airportsecurity risk level and for the protection and recov-ery of the communications network
The ATSA also created LEOs, who work at fixedposts at baggage and passenger screening check-points. They enforce the federal aviation securitylaws and regulations at the checkpoints and perime-ter areas of the airports. The law permits LEOs toundertake various types of surveillance work andto respond to incidents at the checkpoints, althoughuntil mid-2004 their work outside the screeningareas was limited.
Because the TSA was unable to meet a November2002 deadline for hiring, training, and deploying
Transportation Security Administration—�—847
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 847
LEOs at each checkpoint area, many of thoseworking in the positions were contract employeesfrom a variety of federal, state, and local law enforce-ment agencies. TSA is permitted to deputize state orlocal law enforcement officers as federal officers sothat they may carry out federal security duties at theairports and to reimburse agencies for the costs of thedeputized officers. Although it is not considered partof their regular duties, LEOs may fly armed if thereis a need. They are required to comply with preexist-ing rules pertaining to armed law enforcement offi-cers, although the regulations surrounding lawenforcement officers flying with their firearms havebeen tightened from the old FAA regulations.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITYINTELLIGENCE SERVICE
The TSIS includes a central command center whereemployees collect and synthesize information fromvarious transportation entities. Although originallyplanned solely to meet the needs of TSA, since itstransfer into the DHS the central command centerserves the entire DHS by identifying and forward-ing to agencies that make up the intelligence com-munity the kinds of information needed to securethe nation’s transportation network.
The TSIS keeps liaison officers at the FederalBureau of Investigation headquarters, the CentralIntelligence Agency Counterterrorism Center, andDiplomatic Security’s Office of Intelligence andThreat Analysis. Its analysts have been assigned tovarious terrorism task forces. Liaison officers mustmeet the same professional and personal criteria as theemployees at the agency to which they are sent. Theyare integrated into the agency and have the sameaccess and restrictions as the regular employees ofthe agencies with which they share information.
The TSA sends intelligence information on avia-tion security to law enforcement agencies at local,state, and federal levels and to affected private sec-tor entities. The TSA may also send strategic assess-ments and overviews of the threat environment. TSAmaintains a 24-hour intelligence watch that alertsthe industry to events of potential interest. The infor-mation is designed to assist transportation industry
leaders to better understand the threat and contextfor the mandated security procedures.
ARMING AIRLINE PILOTS
A controversial section of the ATSA has been theissue of arming pilots as a way to prevent air piracyor other disturbances on in-flight aircraft. The lawwas written to permit members of a the flight crewto carry less-than-lethal weapons to be used todefend the aircraft against terrorism and to authorizethe pilots of commercial aircraft to carry approvedfirearms into the cockpit if they have received TSA-mandated training and have received the approval ofthe TSA and their employing agencies.
The volunteer pilots were to be designated as fed-eral flight deck officers (FFDOs) and the legislationremoved air carriers from liability in federal or statecourts arising out any officer’s use or failure to use afirearm, unless gross negligence or willful conductcan be shown. The law specified that if legal actionsare brought against the United States, the FFDOswill be treated as an employee of the federal gov-ernment. The first group was trained at the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) inGlynco, Georgia. The new training site is now at theFLETC in Artesia, New Mexico, which has beencontroversial due to its somewhat remote and inac-cessible location. Despite this, the TSA has main-tained that the site can accommodate a largernumber of pilots and allows them to be trained at thesame location where federal air marshals are trainedand where facilities exist that permit simulating tac-tical maneuvers in jet planes. The program requiresFFDOs to transport firearms in locked boxes whenthey are traveling to and from the cockpit of the air-craft and forbids taking firearms out except behindthe closed doors of cockpits. After a series of leg-islative changes, the law was determined to also per-mit the arming of cargo pilots, who had previouslybeen extended this privilege in 1993, through theCentury of Aviation Reauthorization Act.
AIR CARGO SECURITY
Although initial efforts by the TSA concentrated onpassenger air safety, the arming of cargo pilots is
848—�—Transportation Security Administration
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 848
not the only freight-transportation initiative undertakenby the agency.
A report by the Aviation Security AdvisoryCommittee’s air cargo working group, which wasestablished in 1989 in the wake of the crash of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in October2003 recommended a number of changes to bettersafeguard air cargo security. Recommendations thathave been enacted include screening all cargo trans-ported in cargo-only aircraft and broadening secu-rity related to general aviation, which includes avast range of aircraft such as business planes, sportsaircraft, crop-dusting aircraft, and air carriers usedby police and firefighters. The size of these aircraftmay vary from helicopters and single-person planesto large jets. New security measures included manda-tory photo identification cards for all crew and passen-gers, indication of type of baggage and cargo, andsecurity checks, including criminal history, of allstaff involved in cargo handling.
Although the TSA determined that inspection ofall cargo traveling within the country was not feasi-ble, rules were tightened surrounding shippers orfreight forwarders. Names of known shippers willcheck against appropriate government watch listsand will be electronically linked to a variety of gov-ernment and commercial databases. In conjunctionwith this effort, at the end of 2003, Customs andBorder Protection agents began identifying high-risk shipments before they reached the UnitedStates. Agents must have prior notice, through elec-tronic means, of all information on ground, aircargo, and food shipments entering and leaving thecountry and all may be stopped and searched priorto arrival.
Additional general aviation security measurespertained to instructors, flight students, and aircraftrentals. The recommendations generally tightenedaccess to ground areas and the aircraft and requiredphoto identification of those with access to groundareas and aircraft.
STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS
Due in part to its large mandate and the speed withwhich it was created, TSA faced a number of
unresolved issues that impact air safety. One areaof the law that remained untested was the so-calledopt-out provision that at the end of 2004 wasintended to permit a number of airports to discon-tinue use of LEOs and return to using private secu-rity screeners for preflight security. A major changeunder this provision from pre-TSA procedures wasthat the private screeners would not be paid by theindividual air carriers, but would be paid by TSAand would be expected to adhere to the higherlevels of preemployment screening and work proce-dures established by the TSA for its own employ-ees. Previously, private screeners did not meet thepersonnel requirements that they be high school orequivalent graduates, fluent English speakers, andU.S. citizens. Five airports were selected to parti-cipate in the pilot program: San Francisco,California; Kansas City, Missouri; Rochester,New York; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and Tupelo,Mississippi. Although the private screeners aresupervised by the federal security directors, someairport managers believe the contract employeeswill shorten the time of the security screeningprocess, thereby saving travelers’ waiting times andmaking air travel more customer friendly.
Another issue that generated controversy wasthe Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-ScreeningSystem (CAPPS II), which would allow airlines todetermine a passenger’s identity and threat riskprior to boarding the aircraft. Numerous groups thatare concerned with government intrusions intopersonal privacy, including the American CivilLiberties Union, have voiced concern over this pro-gram and its absence of safeguards to limit abuse.Similar concerns have been raised over the TrustedTraveler Program, which was designed to permitthose who might travel frequently to register toavoid random screening. Individuals who agreed tothis prescreening and who successfully passed thevarious background checks would be given aunique identifier that would speed them throughsecurity check lines.
The TSA also responded to complaints that itsfocus on air transportation had ignored the vulnera-bilities of train travel. The agency began testing amodified version of its passenger search procedures
Transportation Security Administration—�—849
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 849
at a train station in New Carrollton, Maryland, in anattempt to determine whether the higher volume oftravelers permitted this type of screening or wouldcreate such intense scheduling problems as to makeit impossible to implement. The program, calledTransit and Rail Inspection Pilot, involved Amtrakand the Maryland Rail Commuter line to evaluatewhether it was feasible to screen rail passengers andtheir carry-on items for explosives. The programdoes not screen travelers as closely as airport screen-ing and will not result in a prohibition on such itemsas scissors and pocketknives, nor will commutersbe expected to remove items of clothing such asouterwear, belts, and shoes.
Marvie Brooks
For Further Reading
Bolkcom, C., & Bartholomew, E. (2003, February 12).Homeland security: Protecting airliners from terroristmissiles (CRS No. RL 31741). Congressional ResearchService. [Online]. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/crs/rl-31741.pdf
Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System faces sig-nificant implementation challenges. (2004). Washington,DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. [Online]. Available:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04385.pdf
Elias, B. (2003, September 11). Air cargo security (CRS No.RL 32022). Congressional Research Service. [Online].Available: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32022.pdf
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation on theTransportation Security Administration’s Perspective onAviation Security (2003, October 16). [Online]. Available:http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/10-16-03/10-16-03memo.html
Hirshberg, C., & Sweetman, B. (2003, March). Are airlinersflying targets? Popular Science, pp. 45–48.
Levine, S. (2003, April 28). Unfriendly skies. U.S. News &World Report, pp. 48–50.
Savino, D. (2003). CDI terrorism project factsheet: The skymarshal program. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/sky-marshals.cfm
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TransportationSecurity Adminstration. (2003). Air cargo strategic plan.[Online]. Available: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/press_release/press_release_0371.xml
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TransportationSecurity Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.tsa.gov
Wald, M. L. (2004, April 11). Privacy issues slow updatedairline security. The New York Times, sect. 5, pp. 3: 1–2.
Wald, M. L. (2004, May 5). Screening begins at Marylandtrain station. The New York Times, p. A24: 5.
Withington, T. (2003). Terrorism: Stung by stingers. Bulletinof the Atomic Scientists, 59(3), 16-17. [Online]. Available:http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2003/mj03/mj03withington.html
� TREASURY INSPECTORGENERAL FOR TAXADMINISTRATION
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Adminis-tration (TIGTA) is an independent office of inspec-tor general within the Department of the Treasury.TIGTA focuses on tax administration and exercisesall duties and responsibilities on matters relating tothe Internal Revenue Service (IRS). TIGTA is underthe supervision of the secretary of treasury, withcertain additional responsibilities left to the IRSOversight Board and Congress.
TIGTA was established in January 1999, inaccordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978,as amended (Section 2 and Section 8D), and theInternal Revenue Service Restructuring and ReformAct of 1998 signed by President William J. Clintonon July 22, 1998. The act made structural changesin the management and oversight of IRS activities,with the intent of achieving a more efficient andresponsive IRS. Sections 1102(a) and 1103 of theact explain the establishment of a new, independentTIGTA. As mandated by the act, the IRS Office ofthe Chief Inspector transferred all of its powers andresponsibilities to TIGTA. TIGTA has the powersand responsibilities granted to inspectors generalunder the Inspector General Act of 1978, but with-out the limitations that apply to the Treasury Officeof the Inspector General. The existing TreasuryDepartment’s Office of the Inspector General exer-cises all duties and responsibilities other than theduties and responsibilities exercised by TIGTA.
In order to promote economic, efficient, andeffective administration of the nation’s tax laws,TIGTA has sole authority under the act to conductaudits, investigations, and evaluations of IRS pro-grams and operations. TIGTA is responsible forenforcing criminal provisions under section 7608(b)
850—�—Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 850
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to detect anddeter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and opera-tions. TIGTA is committed to resolving systemicweaknesses and deficiencies in the operations of theIRS. In addition, TIGTA is responsible for protect-ing the IRS against external attempts to corrupt orthreaten its employees. TIGTA reports to the secre-tary of the treasury and Congress on serious prob-lems facing the IRS and the IRS’s progress inresolving them. There are no restrictions onTIGTA’s reporting to the Department of Justice.Thus, TIGTA is able to report to the attorney generalwhenever it has any reasonable grounds to believethat there has been a violation of federal criminallaw. The act also requires TIGTA to make congres-sional reports, including semiannual and annualreports to Congress regarding IRS compliance withrestrictions and regulations.
The inspector general of TIGTA is appointed bythe president, with the advice and approval of theSenate. TIGTA, its deputy inspector general, andthe assistant inspectors general of audit and investi-gations may not be employed by the IRS within thetwo years preceding and the five years followingtheir appointments. The staff consists of approxi-mately 960 auditors, investigators, attorneys, andsupport personnel.
The missions of TIGTA are completed throughproactive and reactive investigations. TIGTA con-ducts comprehensive, independent, and objectiveaudits and investigations to ensure the highestdegree of integrity and ethics in the IRS workforceand its operations. The TIGTA Office of Audit con-ducts comprehensive statutory reviews to identify
opportunities to improve the administration of thenation’s tax laws and to ensure compliance withapplicable laws and regulations. It also undertakesfinancial reviews and performance audits of IRSprograms, operations, and other activities to ensurethat resources are distributed to the areas of highestvulnerability to the nation’s tax system. TIGTApresents its program in the Annual Audit Plan, whichis published at the beginning of each fiscal year.
The TIGTA Office of Investigation is concernedwith activities related to fraud, waste, abuse, andmismanagement concerning activities of the IRSand related entities such as the IRS Oversight Boardand chief counsel. It investigates threats, assaults, andcorrupt interference in the work of IRS employees,its facilities, and data infrastructure. TIGTA staffmembers also investigate allegations of administrativeand criminal misconduct of IRS employees (Section1203) and provide training for IRS employees onethics and integrity. Each of these tasks aids TIGTA inits mandate to safeguard the nation’s tax system byprotecting the ability of IRS and the treasury to collectrevenues and to ensure fair tax administration.
Yi Sheng
For Further Reading
Inspector General Act of 1978. 5 U.S.C.A., Appendixes III.(West 2003).
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructureand reform the Internal Revenue Service, and for otherpurposes. H.R. 2676, 105th Cong. (1998). [Online].Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d105query.html.
Treasury inspector general for tax administration. [Online].Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration—�—851
T-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:35 PM Page 851
U� UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS
The term undercover operations includes variousproactive investigative techniques that require lawenforcement officers to assume false identities toobserve crime or to create an opportunity for crimi-nal activity to take place. There are many kinds ofundercover operations, but all have in common thatofficers mask their true identities in an effort touncover criminal activity. Generally, the phrasedecoy unit is used when an officer assumes the iden-tity of a victim and the phrase undercover operationis used when an officer assumes the identity of acriminal. A distinct type of undercover operation thatinvolves some surprise deception is termed a sting.
Decoy units are more closely associated withstreet crimes enforcement than with white collarcrime and are, therefore, less likely to be usedby federal law enforcement officers than by localpolice. A classic decoy ploy is for an officer to actdrunk or incapacitated in a public place while dis-playing a wallet or other potentially valuable itemand waiting to see if someone attempts to takethe item. If the potential offender takes the bait,backup officers move in and make the arrest. Indrug enforcement, these activities, particularly atthe street level, have come to be termed buy andbust operations, because the sellers are arrested(busted) after the illegal item is purchased.
Various kinds of stings are also classified asundercover operations. Many are of short-termduration, but some stings can be quite elaborate andrun for years. Short-term stings include officersposing as customers of drug dealers, of illegalfirearms dealers, or of prostitutes or other sexworkers. When an offender offers the service to theundercover officer, the offender is arrested, usuallyby backup officers to maintain the hidden identityof the undercover officer. Sometimes, particularlyin vice investigations, these roles are reversed. Hereofficers pose not as customers, but as purveyors ofthe illegal activity. An example of this would beofficers posing as drug dealers, as illegal firearmsmerchants, or as prostitutes or other sex workerswith the aim of attracting customers to their illegalwares.
Longer term stings might involve police settingup a business to purchase stolen goods or settingup a business with the aim of seeing whether bribesare offered by related businesses, whether organizedcrime attempts to take over or influence operationof the business, or whether bribes are solicited bypoliticians or government employees who may bein a position to aid the business. Another type ofsting has involved tricking fugitives into appearingat a particular location so that law enforcement offi-cers can arrest them without having to go into thefield to locate each one separately. An example of
853
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 853
this type of sting occurred in the District ofColumbia, when a number of wanted individualswere advised that tickets to a Washington Redskinsfootball game were being held for them at a certainaddress. All those who responded to pick up ticketswere then placed under arrest.
Even more elaborate undercover operations arein many ways logical outgrowths of sting operations.While sting operations use a moderate amount ofdeception over a brief period of time to achieve lawenforcement objectives, undercover operations maybe conducted over a period of years, with elaborateand expensive levels of support. Such support is usu-ally referred to as backstopping and may include thecreation of one or more false identities, with appro-priate education, credit, and vocational histories; therental, lease, or purchase of vehicles, properties, air-planes, or boats; the use of state-of-the-art electronicrecording and tracking devices; the support of otherU.S. or foreign governmental and law enforcementagencies; extensive preoperational review by superi-ors and prosecutors, and periodic status review bysuperiors and prosecutors during the operationalphase. One of the key decisions superiors and pros-ecutors must make at the outset of such operationsis if there is adequate predication to undertake theoperation. For reasons of length and complexity,cost, danger, and legal issues surrounding entrap-ment, undercover operations should not be “fishingexpeditions;” they should have a target and a pur-pose from the outset.
Undercover operations are also likely to raiseissues of sensitivity. The target of the operationmay be a politician, judge, attorney, clergyperson,law enforcement officer, member of the media, orprominent business or public figure. Likewise, ele-ments of danger may be anticipated from the outsetif the operation’s target is a drug cartel, organizedcrime group, street or motorcycle gang, or domesticor foreign terrorist organization. Some undercoveroperations are expensive from the beginning,whereas others may become very expensive duringthe course of the operation as it moves to higher andhigher levels of criminal enterprise.
Expense is only one of a number of factors thatmay change during the course of an undercoveroperation. In fact, change is one of the most
frequent characteristics of many operations. Aspenetration is made into the underworld or targetgroup, it is not unusual to discover that the targetis engaged in other criminal enterprises unknown atthe outset or that other associates are also involved.Also, the level of activity may pick up quite sud-denly, either as a target of opportunity for the crim-inal group (e.g., a mid-level fence may happen uponan opportunity to unload a hundred million dollarsof stolen securities) or as a test of the authenticityof the undercover operative(s) (e.g., an undercoveroperative posing as a fence may be asked to beat upa loan shark victim to prove a willingness to partic-ipate in criminal activity or to prove loyalty to thecriminal group).
Because of the length, danger, and sensitivity ofundercover operations, considerable time goes intoassessing and training personnel for such assign-ments. Not only are ethnic, gender, and languageconsiderations important, but the ability of the oper-ative to handle the stress of such an assignment overa period of many months or many years is crucial.Usually, good undercover operatives are personswith substantial amounts of law enforcement expe-rience and prior experience in sting operations ormore simple undercover operations.
Due to the demands of the undercover role, oneof the key decisions in planning an undercoveroperation is selecting the contact for the undercoveroperative. This person is often the operative’s onlylink to the real world for an extended period oftime, and the viability of this relationship is crucialto both the operation’s success and the operative’shealth and safety. Most contacts perform a varietyof duties in supporting an operative. These might beacting as the initial contact point in the event ofan emergency; debriefing the operative; informingthe operative of changes in the operation’s direc-tion, objectives, or backstopping; being a counselorand coach for the operative; assessing the opera-tive’s health, effectiveness, and degree of exposureto danger; being a conduit between the operativeand his or her family; performing gofer chores forthe operative; and providing technical and financialsupport. In extremely long or dangerous operations,there is often an alternate contact for the operativein case the primary contact is unavailable.
854—�—Undercover Operations
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 854
Just as considerable time and effort is spent whenstarting an undercover operation, completed opera-tions may be followed by many years of trials andappeals. In some instances the safety of the under-cover operative(s) may be an issue. Plans for pro-tection or relocation of the operative are oftencomplicated by family considerations. Likewise,the psyche of the operative(s) must be carefullyassessed by professionals, since coming out of anoperational environment after many months oryears is not like discarding a suit of clothes. Manyundercover operatives unconsciously assume partsof their role’s persona during their time in it andwill need time and guidance to readjust to theirnormal lives and routines.
Undercover operations may start with a lawenforcement objective, but oftentimes that objectiveis supplemented by an intelligence function. Often anundercover operation will develop intelligence, if notactual criminal cases, on other persons and organiza-tions. At that point, superiors and prosecutors mustdecide whether to redirect the operation toward thenew, possibly more important, targets; save the infor-mation for future enforcement action; or attempt tolaunch a new, collateral, undercover operation directedat the new targets. One of the best-known examples ofhow an undercover operation can change directionswas the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s ABSCAMcase in the 1980s, which resulted in the conviction ofseveral members of Congress for accepting bribes.ABSCAM was a classic undercover operation in thatit was initially targeted at fencing activities on LongIsland, shifted its focus, ran for several years, washighly sensitive, was expensive (a rented townhousein an exclusive area of Washington, D.C., amongother things), used a lot of high-tech equipment, andinvolved numerous undercover and contact agents.
Joseph W. Koletar
For Further Reading
Caplan, G. M. (Ed.). (1983). ABSCAM ethics: Moral issues anddeception in law enforcement. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Conconi, C., & House, T. (1979). Washington sting.New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.
Crockett, J. R. (2003). Operation pretense: The FBI’s sting oncounty corruption in Mississippi. Jackson: UniversityPress of Mississippi.
Frazier, S. K. (1994). The sting book: A guide to setting up andrunning a clandestine storefront sting operation.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shaffer, R. (1977). Surprise! Surprise! How the lawmanconned the thieves. New York: Viking Press.
� UNIFORM CRIMEREPORTING PROGRAM
Introduced in 1930 as the first nationwide systemfor reporting crime information, the Uniform CrimeReporting Program (UCR) was established toprovide a standardized crime reporting system toaid law enforcement administration, operation, andmanagement. State, city, county, and other lawenforcement agencies throughout the United Statesvoluntarily submit summary-level reports of crimesknown to the police and arrests made by the policeto the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The UCR is divided into two groups of offenses:Part I and Part II. Part I offenses include bothreported incidents and arrests and serve as theprimary source for reporting crime rates and moni-toring crime trends. The offenses are structured on ascale of presumptive seriousness and represent thenational Crime Index. The index includes the violentcrimes of murder and manslaughter, rape, robbery,aggravated assault, and property-related offensesof burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.Part II offenses include 21 additional crimes forwhich only arrests made by the police are submitted.In addition to the number of arrests for each of the21 offenses, demographic information such as theage, gender, and race of the arrestee is reported.
Each year the FBI publishes Crime in the UnitedStates (CIUS), a summary report of all collectedUCR data. CIUS is a widely used source of crimeinformation and provides the information for moni-toring trends and fluctuations in crime nationwideand within states, counties, and cities. In 2001, CIUSreported data on considerably more than 17,000 lawenforcement agencies covering about 94% of thepopulation. In addition to crime counts and trends,this report includes data on crimes cleared, personsarrested (age, sex, and race), law enforcement per-sonnel (including the number of sworn officers killed
Uniform Crime Reporting Program—�—855
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 855
or assaulted), and the characteristics of homicides(including age, sex, and race of victims and offend-ers, victim-offender relationships, weapons used, andcircumstances surrounding the homicides).
HISTORY OF THE UCR
The International Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP) is credited with developing the original UCRstructure. In January 1930, the IACP published thefirst Uniform Crime Bulletin with information from400 cities in 23 states covering a population of morethan 20 million. The basic structure of the originalIACP design has remained intact for more than70 years. Also in 1930, Congress enacted legislationauthorizing the attorney general of the United Statesto collect and report national crime information. TheFBI was designated to serve as the national clear-inghouse for the crime information. In September1930, the FBI assumed responsibility for the UCRand has maintained that responsibility since.
In an attempt to improve the structure for agencyreporting, a system of state-level UCRs was estab-lished in the late 1960s. The change in the reportingmethodology generated renewed interest in the pro-gram. Within a period of 10 years the program grewfrom slightly more than 4,000 agencies reporting datadirectly to the FBI to considerably more than 16,000agencies reporting data through their states’ UCRs.There have been relatively few changes in the originaldesign as it was developed by the IACP in the late1920s. Statutory rape, included as one of the originalPart I offenses, was removed from the list and in 1979arson was added. Traffic offenses and parking viola-tions were removed from the list of Part II offenses,and narcotics offenses, vandalism, and curfew viola-tions were added to the list of Part II offenses.
In 1960 the FBI introduced the SupplementalHomicide Reports (SHR). With the introduction ofthe SHR the FBI broke away from summary-levelreports and ventured into the collection of incident-specific details. As the name implies, the SHR is asupplement to the original UCR. The SHR collectsincident details on all homicides reported by thepolice. Included are victim demographics, incidentcircumstances, and offender demographics.
CRITICISMS OF THE UCR
As data collection for the UCR grew so did the usesand users of the data. In addition to serving lawenforcement, the UCR has become a primary datasource for academic researchers, news media, urbanplanners, and many others. With the increased inter-est in the UCR many people began to raise questionsas to the overall reliability, accuracy, and coverageof the UCR. One criticism of the UCR focuses onthe state and local interpretations of certain offensessuch as aggravated assault. The FBI has a definitionit uses to define the crime of aggravated assault.Unfortunately, many state statutes differ from theFBI’s definition. Researchers have tested the differ-ences in the various definitions and found significantdiscrepancies in the way aggravated assaults arereported. These types of reliability issues with theUCR raise serious questions as to its utility formeasuring crime between jurisdictions.
Other criticisms focused on reporting consis-tency. There can be large variations between thenumbers of agencies reporting UCR data from yearto year. In addition, individual jurisdictions mayreport only partial data for the year. To compensatefor the variations in reporting between years andgaps in coverage due to partial reporting, the FBIimplemented a process to estimate the missinginformation. Thus, the total number of crimesreported or arrests made in any given year is animputed estimate of the total, not an actual total.The main criticism of the imputation process is thatthe reliability of the estimates is dependent uponthe total number of crimes reported. Thus at thenational level, with large numbers of crimereported, the estimation is fairly reliable. At thestate and county level, where considerably fewercrimes may be reported, the estimation may not bequite so reliable. This can have a significant impacton research and funding decisions dependant uponthe crimes reported through the UCR.
FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE UCR
In September 1982 a special Bureau of JusticeStatistics (BJS)-FBI task force undertook a study to
856—�—Uniform Crime Reporting Program
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 856
review the crime reporting system and if possiblemake suggestions for improvement. After nearlythree years of planning, meetings, and conferencesthe BJS-FBI task force released the Blueprint for theFuture of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program—the blueprint for the National Incident-BasedReporting System (NIBRS). The UCR is currentlybeing converted to the more comprehensive anddetailed NIBRS, which will provide informationabout each criminal incident for 46 offenses.
The FBI began collecting data through theNIBRS program in 1991. As of May 2003 approxi-mately 4,500 law enforcement agencies werereporting NIBRS data through their state UCRsinstead of the summary-level UCR. The transitionprocess to NIBRS will take many years, as did theoriginal UCR. Consequently, the original summary-level UCR data will remain the primary source formeasuring crime patterns and trends in the UnitedStates for the near future.
Donald Faggiani
See also International Association of Chiefs of Police,National Crime Victimization Survey, NationalIncident-Based Reporting System
For Further Reading
Maltz, M. D. (1977). Crime statistics: A historical perspective.Crime and Delinquency 23, 32–40.
Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics.
Poggio, E. C., Kennedy, S. D., Chaiken, J. M., & Carlson, K. E.(1985). Blueprint for the future of the Uniform CrimeReporting Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
� U.S. AIR FORCE OFFICE OFSPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations(AFOSI) is the investigative field operating agencyof the U.S. Air Force. Its primary responsibilitiesare criminal investigative and counterintelligenceservices. AFOSI performs as a federal law enforcementagency with security functions concerned primarily
with defensive and protective activities for nationalsecurity. AFOSI seeks to detect, investigate, andneutralize allegations of espionage, sabotage, fraud,sedition, terrorism, and other criminal activities thatendanger the Air Force and Department of Defenseresources.
The four major priorities of the AFOSI commandare to detect and provide early warning of globalthreats to the air force, identify and resolve crimeimpacting air force readiness or good order and disci-pline, combat threats to air force information systemsand technologies, and defeat and deter acquisitionfraud of Air Force prioritized weapons systems.
HISTORY
AFOSI was founded on August 1, 1948, at thesuggestion of Congress to consolidate investigativeactivities in the U.S. Air Force. AFOSI was thecreation of Secretary of the Air Force W. StuartSymington. Secretary Symington appointed SpecialAgent Joseph Carroll, an assistant to FederalBureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover,as the first AFOSI commander, who was chargedwith providing independent and unbiased investiga-tions of criminal activity in the Air Force. Wartimeconditions contributed to and hastened AFOSI’sevolution as an investigative agency.
In May 1949, Chief of Staff Hoyt S. Vandenbergissued a directive requiring overseas commands toestablish AFOSI offices under their inspectors gen-eral. AFOSI commanders report to the secretary ofthe Air Force, inspector general. AFOSI comman-ders remain vested with the authority to initiateand conduct independent criminal investigations, aswell as exercise authority over assigned personnel,facilities, and funds of the agency. Throughout the1950s, AFOSI’s expansion overseas helped trans-form the counterintelligence mission into an effec-tive network. The initial mission of AFOSI’scounterintelligence activities is still the essentialelement of today’s AFOSI focus. Major CatherineMoran, class of 1949, who broke down many of thegender barriers that existed, was one of the firstfemale graduates of the academy and became thefirst female operational division chief.
U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations—�—857
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 857
AFOSI ACTIVITIES
Criminal investigations are the focus of most ofthe AFOSI investigative activities. These includefelony offenses such as arson, assault, rape, rob-bery, major burglaries, drug use, drug trafficking,black market activities, and other criminal offenses.Like any investigative agency, AFOSI relies on behav-ioral scientists, forensic specialists, polygraphers,technical specialists, and computer experts for theresolution of complex crimes. AFOSI investiga-tions also include economic crime, technology andinformation security, cyber defense, and personnelsecurity.
AFOSI command’s counterintelligence capabili-ties have evolved with the times. The objective ofcounterintelligence activities is to counter threatsto air force security. AFOSI uses offensive anddefensive strategies to identify, counter, and eliminateterrorist groups and foreign intelligence activities.Counterintelligence activities include investigatingcrimes of espionage, terrorism, technology sabo-tage, computer infiltration, and other specializedcounterintelligence operations. Providing personalprotective services for senior U.S. Department ofDefense, Air Force, and allied officials is also acounterintelligence activity. AFOSI’s antiterrorismand counterintelligence activities have increased asterrorism has become more prevalent. Antiterrorismteams have been created, including a group ofhighly trained and specialized agents who may bedeployed globally at a moment’s notice to provideantiterrorism, counterintelligence data, and inves-tigative services to air force personnel and units.Another recent antiterrorism program, The EagleEyes, was named to echo AFOSI’s own motto,“Eyes of the Eagle.” This program enlists the eyesand ears of air force members and citizens in thewar against terrorism and provides individuals with24-hour phone numbers to call to report suspiciousactivity.
TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS
All AFOSI recruits receive their entry-level inves-tigative training at the U.S. Air Force SpecialInvestigations Academy. The academy is located on
the grounds of the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.AFOSI special agent recruits begin a 10-weekcourse called the Criminal Investigator TrainingProgram at FLETC. The coursework includes basicinvestigative training in law, interviewing, defen-sive tactics, protective services, emergency driving,evidence collection, weapons training, firearms,search and seizure, arrest techniques, report writ-ing, testifying, and surveillance. That training is fol-lowed by six and a half weeks of AFOSI-specificcoursework.
Depending upon AFOSI career choices, someagents go on to receive additional specialized andtechnical training after graduation and completionof the 12-month probationary period. Those fieldsof specialized training include economic crime,antiterrorism, counterintelligence, computer crimesand other criminal investigative operations. Qualifiedspecial agents interested in polygraph, photography,and electronics receive additional technical trainingto support those skills.
In 2004, AFOSI was comprised of approximately2,600 active-duty personnel, including officer,enlisted, reserve, and civilian candidates. AFOSIpersonnel are assigned to work at any of the eightfield investigations regions, seven field investiga-tion squadrons, or 160-plus detachments and oper-ating locations throughout the world.
Active-duty air force officers are eligible forreassignments into AFOSI from most air forcecareer fields. Each year approximately 20 AFOSIofficer-agent positions are available to ReserveOfficers’ Training Corps cadets. Enlisted mastersergeants, staff sergeants, and technical sergeantswith fewer than 12 years of military service andsenior airmen with less than 6 years of service cancross-train for AFOSI after they have served inanother career field. Reservists with the rank ofsenior airman, staff sergeant, technical sergeant,captain, second lieutenant, or first lieutenant havingserved fewer than 12 years are also eligible. Civilianapplicants with law-enforcement experience andcollege graduates are also allowed to apply forspecial agent, entry-level positions.
Michon Moon
858—�—U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 858
For Further Reading
Air Force Office of Special Investigations. [Online]. Available:http://www.dtic.mil/afosi/gov
Hagerty, E. J. (1997). The OSI story: A 50-year retrospective.Washington, DC: Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
� U.S. AIR FORCESECURITY FORCES
The U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF), from whichthe modern U.S. Air Force (USAF) is derived,formed its own law enforcement organization inNovember 1941, only months after the USAAFwas created as a semiautonomous organizationwithin the U.S. Army. In 1942, the organizationwas placed under the new office of the Air ProvostMarshal and its units were designated as either mil-itary police companies or air base security battal-ions. After a number of changes in its name and thescope of its responsibilities, on July 1, 1997, airforce police were officially redesignated the AirForce Security Forces Directorate.
HISTORY
The Air Base Security (ABS) Battalions have what iseasily the most unusual history of all military policeunits. In 1941, when the U.S. armed forces were stillsegregated on the basis of race, the first troops toserve in the battalions were black enlisted men whoreported to an all white officer corps. The ABSBattalion units were comprised of the first blackAmericans to be assigned to air force units. Theiroriginal training was at Fort Rucker, Alabama, andthey eventually served in North Africa, Italy, andthroughout the Pacific. In addition, base law enforce-ment was also performed by USAAF Military Policeunits; overseas they were designated as MilitaryPolice Companies, Aviation, and within the nation’sborders they were called Guard companies.
By 1948, a year after official separation of theU.S. Air Force from the Army, the Military Policename was changed to Air Police. In 1966, it waschanged to Security Police, and in 1997 it waschanged again to its present designation. Whatever
their titles, the men and now women have been anintegral part of air force deployments. They wereusually the only armed fighting force on air forcebases during the Korean War and were heavilyinvolved in protection of bases around the worldduring the Cold War. During the Vietnam War, asbase protection requirements escalated, speciallytrained and equipped units became known as theBlue Berets in recognition of their distinctive head-gear. In recognition of the almost 2,000 members ofthe 7th Air Force’s Air Police and Security PoliceSquadrons who died in Vietnam and the almost3,500 who were wounded, the Vietnam SecurityPolice Association (USAF) was formed in 1995 tohonor those who served in Vietnam and Thailand.
CHANGING RESPONSIBILITIES
Each of the name changes has been based on chang-ing duties, but the most recent change, in 1997,especially reflects the new responsibilities that aremuch broader than traditional policing. Since thismost recent name change, the security forces repre-sent the merger of the combat arms training, main-tenance, law enforcement, and security career fieldsin the air force. The aim is to create a cadre ofhighly skilled ground weapons experts who willretain their military policing missions but will alsobe capable of securing bases and other facilitiesin the event of outside attacks. Rationales for thechanges were developed in the aftermath of the1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in SaudiArabia. New tactics, which are geared more to thepossibility that lethal force may be required to dis-pel an attack, have resulted in changes in trainingthat place a higher priority on responding to inci-dents that were once viewed solely as crimes butnow might be viewed as terrorist-related incidents.
Current responsibilities of USAF security per-sonnel include protecting critical weapon systemsand securing the three operational wings ofMinuteman III and Peacekeeper missiles. Bothground vehicles and a small fleet of helicopterscarry security teams to field sites in response toalarms. In recent years, forces have responded to anaverage of 21,000 launch facility alarms, often infull body armor and with the possibility that they
U.S. Air Force Security Forces—�—859
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 859
could become involved in a “covered wagon”(siege) situation instantly. In security vernacular,a covered wagon scenario would involve troopspinned down by an enemy force.
Since 1997, security forces, all of whom are mil-itary personnel, have also participated in the AirMobility Command’s (AMC’s) Phoenix Raven pro-gram, which provides security for aircraft travelingin high terrorist or criminal threat areas. Trainingfor this highly specialized assignment takes place atthe Air Mobility Warfare Center at Fort Dix, NewJersey. Since its inception, more than 700 officershave graduated from the program and have accom-panied close to 2,000 AMC missions to interna-tional hot spots around the world. The PhoenixRaven program is the latest example of how the AirForce Security Forces have kept abreast of changesin the air force and in world events as each namechange has reflected new and more complexresponsibilities for members of the force.
The security forces also continue to enhance theoverall security training of its officers. In 2004, theforces’ director announced an agreement with ASISInternational for more than 1,000 officers, seniornoncommissioned officers, and civilian personnelto begin study for ASIS’s Certified ProtectionProfessional designation, which requires applicants totake a course of training and pass an exam that isbased on best practices in the security industry in suchareas as security management, investigations, legalissues, personnel and physical security, protection ofsensitive information, and emergency management.The training and certification, which will be opento air force officers with at least 10 years of securityexperience, an advanced degree, and completion ofother military training courses, are the latest elementin the security forces’ attempts to upgrade and profes-sionalize its personnel and to ensure that its level ofexpertise is comparable to the best trained privatesector management-level personnel.
Vincent A. Munch
For Further Reading
Air Force History Pages. [Online]. Available: http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/AirPoliceHistory
Air Force Security Forces—Phoenix Raven. U.S. MilitaryNewsletter. [Online]. Available: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/blraven.htm
Lambeth, B. J. (2000). The transformation of American airpower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
U.S. Air Force aims for CPP. (2004, March/April). ASIS—International Dynamics, pp. 1, 24.
Vietnam Security Police Association. [Online]. Available:http://www.vspa.com/history.htm
� U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) traces its historyto John Golding, a watchman who was hired atan annual salary of $371.75 in 1801, a few monthsafter the seat of government had moved fromPhiladelphia to Washington, D.C. Golding had nospecified legal authority or arrest powers other thana citizen’s right to temporarily detain a suspect untilassistance was provided by the marshal of theDistrict of Columbia. In 1823, a detachment of U.S.Marines supplemented the watchman during recon-struction of the Capitol, which was completed in1827, the year that President John Quincy Adamsexpanded the watch staff to four: James Knotts, J. A.French, Samuel Goldsmith, and Ignatius Wheatley.
Their primary duties were to protect members ofCongress and to separate vagrants, thieves, andpersons of ill reputation from other visitors to theCapitol building. Their duties were subsequentlyexpanded to include protection of the grounds ofthe Capitol and control of the traffic through andaround Capitol Square, particularly after local resi-dents had breached a fence to allow cattle to grazeon the grounds. When President Adams’s son wasbeaten in the Capitol rotunda, Washington’s munic-ipal statutes were extended to the Capitol and thefederally owned grounds around it. This occurred in1828, the year the USCP cites as its founding, eventhough personnel were not yet referred to as theCapitol police.
The first use of the phrase Capitol police wasin an appropriations act for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1852. A few months later, RepresentativeGeorge Washington Jones (D-TN) recounted on thefloor of the House that the Capitol Police consisted
860—�—U.S. Capitol Police
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 860
of a chief making $1,450 a year, four assistantpolice officers, each with annual salaries of $1,100,and two individuals hired to patrol the grounds andgardens at a rate of $3 per day. While pay for theforce was included in appropriations bills, operat-ing funds came out of contingent expenses for theHouse of Representatives and, later, the Senate. Theofficers of this period paid for their own uniformsand were armed with only hickory canes. Badgeswere not issued until the Civil War.
After the Civil War, in the Appropriations Act ofMarch 2, 1867, the size and annual compensation ofthe Capitol police was spelled out: $2,088 for onecaptain; $1,800 for a lieutenant; $1,584 each for 29privates, and $1,150 for a watchman. The impeach-ment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 increasedawareness of the Capitol police, who provided secu-rity throughout the tumultuous proceedings. In 1873,administration of the Capitol police was assigned tothe sergeant-at-arms of each house of Congress andthe architect of the Capitol Extension, a panel that iscalled the Capitol Police Board today. The autho-rized strength of the force fluctuated between 32 and49 until 1898, when Congress, after declaring war onSpain, increased it to 67.
Legislation passed in the mid-1870s gave theCapitol police powers to arrest and detain violators,but they were still obligated to pay for their ownuniforms, although they were provided arms atgovernment’s expense. It was also at this time thatspecial monies were provided to the police for extrawork when the House of Representatives becameinvolved in the controversy over popular votes andelectoral votes in the presidential election of 1876between Samuel J. Tilden of New York andRutherford B. Hayes of Ohio. Two decades later,funds were appropriated for Capitol police protec-tion involving the 1897 inauguration ceremoniesof President William McKinley and Vice PresidentGarret A. Hobart, setting a precedent for futureinaugurations.
As the nation’s population continued to grow,and additional states joined the Union, Congressexpanded accordingly. The House reached 435members and the Senate 96 members following theadmission of New Mexico and Arizona to the Union
in 1912. The Capitol police strength was increasedto 109, in part to provide protection in new officebuildings housing the legislators. While the forcewas still the Capitol police, for the first time somepersonnel were assigned to the Senate police forceand others to the police force for the House ofRepresentatives. Prior to World War I, the strengthof the force dipped below 100 and stayed there untilthe 1930s. During the Depression, physical require-ments were established by the Capitol Police Boardand uniform allowances were extended. Fundingfor motor vehicles, in this instance motorcycles,was appropriated in 1926. There was anothergrowth spurt in the size of the force during WorldWar II, reaching 144 in 1946. Twenty years laterwhen there was a growing threat of domestic terror-ism from the likes of the Weather Underground andother radicals, the force grew to 297. After attackson the Capitol, the USCP force grew to more than1,000 in the early 1970s.
The Capitol building was the target of bombattacks in 1915, 1971, and 1983. In 1954 the galleryof the House of Representatives was the site ofassassination attempts by Puerto Rican nationalists,who were able to wound individuals on the floor ofthe House.
Today, the Capitol police number approximately1,250, more than 200 of whom are women. Theyare responsible for 190 acres of congressional build-ings, parks, and thoroughfares, as well as protectingmembers and officers of Congress and their families,which by statute can extend to the entire country, aswell as its territories and possessions. The profes-sionalism of the USCP has progressively improvedsince the 1970s, when Congress ended the patronagesystem and officers no longer had to rely on politi-cal contacts to join the force. Training, includingphysical conditioning at the USCP facility inWashington, is followed by 10 additional weeks atthe Federal Law Enforcement Training Center inGlynco, Georgia. Assignment areas include digni-tary protection, criminal investigations, intelligence,threats, emergency response and containment, K-9,communications, motorized and mountain bicyclepatrol, hazardous devices, and electronic counter-measures. In 2002, the starting salary was $39,427
U.S. Capitol Police—�—861
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 861
($40,808 after training), and after 30 months, it was$44,682 for a private first class.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
A Statutory History of the United States Capitol Police Force:Committee on House Administration, 99th Congress, FirstSession. (1985). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
Byrd, R. C. (1991). Capitol police. In The Senate, 1789-1989(vol. 2, pp. 327–345). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
� U.S. CRIMINALINVESTIGATION COMMAND,DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command(USACIDC) houses all major U.S. Army investi-gative operations. The Criminal InvestigationCommand (CID) is the major component of theUSACIDC and is its primary criminal investigativeorganization. The creation of USACIDC and CIDcan be traced back to the mid-1800s with the cre-ation of the Continental Army and the creation ofthe Office of the Provost Marshal in 1776, followedtwo years later by the organization of the ProvostCorps. This was followed by passage of theEnrollment Act in March 1863, the first draft law,which forced Secretary of War Edwin Stanton tocreate a police force to enforce the unpopular lawand to arrest those who attempted to desert.
During the Civil War the newly created ArmyPolice Force only investigated criminal acts basedon the Enrollment Act. All other criminal acts, suchas theft or murder, were investigated by variousprivate detective agencies, including the PinkertonDetective Agency. The army soon commissionedAlan Pinkerton, owner and operator of the PinkertonDetective Agency, a major. He utilized his militaryand law enforcement background to create thearmy’s first criminal division. This newly createdinvestigative branch not only investigated draftissues but also all criminal acts within the army,including payroll theft and violent crimes.
The Criminal Division of the army remainedunchanged until 1917. When the United Statesentered into World War I, the demand for Americansoldiers to fight in France increased dramatically,causing a need for a larger military police force. InOctober 1917 the Military Police Corps was estab-lished. The Military Police Corps functioned wellas a law enforcement body during that time; how-ever, an increase in the crime rate also establisheda need for an investigative component of the policecorps. In November 1918, General John Pershing,provost marshal general of the American Expedi-tionary Forces, organized the first official CriminalInvestigation Division of the Military Police Corps.The CID’s original purpose was to detect and pre-vent crimes within the territory occupied by theAmerican Expeditionary Forces. It was intended tobring order to the investigations conducted withinthe army, which had previously been inconsistent,due in part to the discretionary powers of theprovost marshals, who had wide latitude in themanagement of their units.
Originally the division chief reported directly tothe provost marshal general and directed the CID.However, operational control of the CriminalInvestigation Division remained with the variousprovost marshals. This allowed for no centralizedcontrol of investigative efforts within the CID; norwas there any centralized training or equipment.CID was relatively successful; however, the lack ofcentralization and training prevented the agencyfrom accomplishing its full mission. Despite theseorganizational improvements, the unit was rela-tively inactive in the years between World War I andWorld War II.
As the army expanded, though, military installa-tions faced new criminal challenges, and in 1964, asa result of Project Security Shield, the Departmentof Defense realized the need for increased trainingwithin CID as well as a more centralized focusfor the army’s criminal intelligence. It was not until1969, however, that most centralizing activitiestook place. The agency was placed directly underthe supervision of the provost marshal, who wascharged with supervising and guiding all investigativeelements of the CID. In March 1971 the secretary
862—�—U.S. Criminal Investigation Command, Department of the Army, Department of Defense
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 862
of defense directed the secretary of the armyto officially centralize a CID command that hadauthority and control over all army CID assets.
On September 17, 1971, the U.S. Army CriminalInvestigation Command was established as a majorarmy command. It was from this command that thecurrent Criminal Investigation Command was devel-oped. The modern Criminal Investigation Commandis responsible for conducting all criminal investiga-tions in which the U.S. Army may have an interest.The mission of the command is the same for both theinstallation and the battlefield environment, namely,to support the army through deployment, in peace andconflict, with highly trained soldier and governmentservice special agents and support personnel whofocus on the investigation of serious crimes; conduct-ing sensitive and serious investigations; collecting,analyzing, and disseminating criminal intelligence;conducting protective service operations; providingforensic laboratory support and logistical security;and maintaining U.S. Army criminal records.
Headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, CID isdirected by a major general. CID operates through-out the United States and abroad and employeesmore than 2,000 people, 514 civilian and 1,056 activeduty, 49 National Guard, and 408 Army Reserve,in six major divisions: Procurement and Fraud,Protective Services, Field Investigative, ComputerCrime Investigative, Criminal Records, and the Crim-inal Investigative Laboratory. Additional responsibili-ties include logistical security for the transportation ofequipment to the battlefield, criminal intelligence,and criminal investigations of war crimes. Specializedtraining of personnel has led to advances in investiga-tions of procurement fraud and computer crimes.
Throughout its history the Criminal InvestigationDivision of the U.S. Army has gone through signif-icant changes in its organizational structure andits abilities to detect and prevent crime. However,throughout these changes, the common purpose andprinciple of CID has remained steady. It is in thestability of its motto, “Do what has to be done,” thatthe CID detectives of the past can be linked with theagents of the future.
Robyn Diehl Lacks and Brian Kessler Lacks
See also Military Police, Department of the Army,Department of Defense; Military Policing; PinkertonNational Detective Agency
For Further Reading
Nelson, H., Jacobs, B., & Bluhm, R. K. (2001). The army.New York: Levin and Associates.
United States Army. [Online]. Available: http://www.army.milUnited States Army Criminal Investigation Command.
[Online]. Available: http://www.cid.army.mil Wright, R. K. (Ed.). (1992). Military police. Washington, DC:
U.S. Army Center of Military History.
� U.S. COAST GUARD
The modern-day U.S. Coast Guard, created by anact of Congress in 1915, represents the combinationof the Revenue Marine Service (later the RescueCutter Service), the Lifesaving Service, and theLighthouse Service, which was added in 1939.The coast guard, which until 2003 was within theDepartment of Transportation, is both a law enforce-ment agency and one of the nation’s five militaryservices. In 2003, the coast guard was transferred tothe Department of Homeland Security. In time ofwar, the coast guard reports to the Department of theNavy. Its members have served in every war sinceratification of the Constitution.
The mission of the coast guard was altereddramatically by the events of September 11, 2001.In the immediate wake of the attacks on New YorkCity and Washington, D.C., the service, whichtraditionally expended about 1% of its budget onport security, increased that expenditure 50-fold.Operation Noble Eagle redeployed active duty per-sonnel and about 3,000 reserve personnel to securethe nation’s ports as the service struggled to adaptto the new challenges of sophisticated foreignterrorists operating within the United States.
The coast guard is currently undertaking a majorexamination of its capabilities to secure Americanseaborne commerce. Approximately 95% of alltrade is conducted by ship, and almost $1 trillionworth of goods is shipped into the United States.annually. It has been estimated that only about 2%of shipping containers entering the United States
U.S. Coast Guard—�—863
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 863
each year is inspected. The coast guard has createda sea marshal program so that armed personnel areon board larger ships, or vessels transporting haz-ardous materials, and can deter potential terroristactions. The bombing in 2000 of the U.S.S. Cole inYemen heightened awareness about the vulnerabil-ity of marine traffic to terrorist sabotage.
In addition to its signature search and rescueservices, the coast guard performs an ever-expandinglist of missions, including maritime safety and secu-rity, protection of fisheries and natural resources,pollution detection and response, aids to naviga-tion, vessel traffic control, polar ice breaking, andnational defense. As a military service, the coastguard must maintain an adequate level of militaryreadiness.
HISTORY
The coast guard, the nation’s oldest seagoingservice, older even than the navy, was founded asthe Revenue Marine Service in 1790 by TreasurySecretary Alexander Hamilton at a cost of $10,000.Its first mission was to deter smuggling, whichthreatened to deprive the fledgling, cash-starvednation of import duties. While the coast guard’sroots are traceable to the Revenue Cutter Serviceand the Lifesaving Service, the latter service wasactually established much later and consisted of 137lifeboat stations staffed by volunteers. The first paidlifesaving crews were commissioned in 1871.
The early coast guard performed much of itssearch and rescue service from shoreline andbeaches. The service employed surfmen who wereresponsible, according to a 1916 manual, for keep-ing “a record of all passing vessels and the numberand each class” and for undertaking rescues fromshore using specially created equipment.
Coast guardsmen played key roles in both worldwars. In World War I, the service lost a larger per-centage of its men than either the navy or the armyas a whole. The high seas provided routes for thebootlegging of liquor and the coast guard swelled insize during Prohibition as it struggled to interceptthousands of rumrunners. A crucial World War IIfunction was antisubmarine patrols performed on
beaches, either on foot or on horseback. The coastguard operated under the navy for almost five yearsin the 1940s, and coast guard ships sank 11 enemysubmarines. Coast guard personnel landed duringthe invasions in North Africa, Italy, France, and thePacific. In World War II, one third of those killed inthese invasions were “Coasties.” At home, morethan 10,000 women, known as SPARS (from theU.S. Coast Guard motto “Semper Paratus,” oralways ready), served in functions that permittedfreeing up men for combat-related duties. Coastguard personnel were also deployed during theKorean conflict and the coast guard commenced itsinvolvement in Vietnam in 1965.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ROLES
Peacetime activities have involved the coast guard ina number of law enforcement functions. During the1980s the coast guard struggled with interdictingundocumented individuals and narcotics. In 1980,the service deployed personnel to respond to a mas-sive exodus of refugees from Fidel Castro’s Cuba.The resultant Mariel Boatlift consisted of a flotillaof more than 100,000 Cubans entering the FloridaStraits. Later in the decade, the service was facedwith similar mass migrations of undocumentedrefugees from Haiti and other Caribbean nations. InMarch 1989, the coast guard was confronted with anunprecedented environmental disaster when the oiltanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling thousandsof gallons of crude oil over a huge area in and nearPrince William Sound, Alaska.
The 1990s coast guard mission seemed broaderthan ever. Members of the coast guard continued todeal with drug smugglers and undocumented aliens,while providing fisheries patrols, aiding recre-ational boaters in distress, performing numerousregulatory and inspection functions, and providingbridge administration for waterways under U.S.jurisdiction, as well as aiding military and intelli-gence operations. In addition, coast guard units andreservists were activated during the first PersianGulf War of 1990-1991.
Today, the coast guard enforces all federal lawson, under, and over the high seas and waters subject
864—�—U.S. Coast Guard
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 864
to the jurisdiction of the United States. The serviceis responsible for the safety and security of inlandwaterways, ports and harbors, and more than95,000 miles of U.S. coastlines, U.S. territorialseas, 3.4 miles of ocean defining the exclusive eco-nomic zones, and international waters and maritimeregions with strategic interest to the United States.Although the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the navyfrom engaging in civilian law enforcement opera-tions inside the United States or within its territor-ial waters, the coast guard operates free of thoserestrictions. Because its ships are designated warships, the service is permitted under various inter-national conventions and practices to approach anyvessel to ascertain its identity and country of origin.Coast guard ships operate under sovereign immu-nity with respect to the laws of other nations. Thecoast guard maintains a close relationship with theDepartment of Defense and coast guard personnelfrequently train in, or deploy to, navy programs.
In the wake of the 2001 attacks, coast guard shipshave been deployed to Europe and the Arabian Gulfand some security functions are being performedby coast guard reservists at the U.S. Navy base atGuantanamo, Cuba, where terrorist suspects werebeing housed.
The head of the coast guard is an admiral whois designated commandant and serves a four-yearterm. The service is headquartered in Washington,D.C. Coast guard ranks parallel those of the navyand uniforms and insignia are similar. The coastguard also consists of a reserve component and anauxiliary made up of volunteers who augment suchcoast guard duties as boating safety and registra-tion. The coast guard academy, which is set up andoperates much like other military academies, islocated in New London, Connecticut. Unlike thearmy, navy and air force academies, which requirea congressional nomination for admission, admis-sion to the New London program is based onSAT and ACT scores, with eligibility limited tounmarried men and women between the ages of17 and 22. In 1975, the coast guard became thefirst service to admit women into its academy.Members of the coast guard are subject to theUniform Code of Military Justice and are protected
by and required to follow the dictates of the GenevaConvention.
To accomplish its mission, the coast guard isdivided into 17 districts that are spread across theUnited States. Coast guard personnel are stationedworldwide, from Europe to the Pacific and fromthe Caribbean to Antarctica. The coast guard fleetincludes helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, smallboats, and cutters.
Coast guard law enforcement functions aredescribed in 14 U.S.C. 2. The coast guard is autho-rized to make inquiries, examinations, inspections,searches, seizures, and arrests on the high seas andwaters over which the United States has jurisdic-tion, for the prevention, detection, and suppressionof violations of U.S. law. Authorized coast guardstaff have broad latitude to board vessels andinspect documents and conduct searches. A princi-pal responsibility of the coast guard is enforcementof boating safety and regulations.
Like other law enforcement organizations, theagency has attempted to find nonlethal methods toconduct routine law enforcement. Instead of open-ing fire on vessels that refuse to stop on the highseas, the coast guard has developed the capacity fordisabling suspect-boat rudders.
Coast guard leaders have complained for yearsabout underfunding and have pointed out that some ofthe service’s ships are more than 50 years old. Inrecent years, Congress has responded by providingadditional budget allocations and the 2003 coast guardbudget is almost double what it was six years earlier.Still, with 40,000 members, it has only slightly moreenforcement personnel than the New York City PoliceDepartment had at the beginning of the 21st century, anumber many believe is inadequate considering thecomplexities of its roles, its responsibility to protect avast nation, and its global reach.
Eugene J. O’Donnell
For Further Reading
Bell, K. (1943). Always ready: The story of the United StatesCoast Guard. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Brief sketch of the naval history of the United States CoastGuard, with citation of statutes defining its military status
U.S. Coast Guard—�—865
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 865
from 1790 to 1922. (1922). Washington, DC: Press ofB. S. Adams.
Scheina, R. (n.d.). U.S. Coast Guard: A historical overview.[Online]. Available: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history
Stubbs, B., Truver, S., & Feege, E. (2000). America’s coastguard, safeguarding U.S. maritime safety and security inthe 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard.
U.S. Coast Guard. [Online]. Available: http://www.uscg.milU.S. Coast Guard: America’s maritime guardians. (2002).
Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard.
� U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE
The U.S. Customs Service is one of the oldest federalagencies in existence, predating the Constitution.The first Congress created the customs service bypassing the Tariff Act on July 4, 1789. This legisla-tion, the brainchild of James Madison in response tothe needs of the new nation for revenue, establisheda series of tariffs on imported goods and a design forcollection of these duties. This new system wouldreplace the customs scheme under the Articles ofConfederation, which relied upon the states for col-lection of duties and funding of the national treasury.This state scheme, inherited from the British duringthe colonial period, was clearly ineffective to fundthe newly created federal government. To allowfor the operation of these new tariffs, enabling legis-lation was passed on July 31, 1789, that established59 customs districts in 11 states and authorizedPresident George Washington to nominate 59collectors of customs. The new service was placedunder the Treasury Department and the managementof Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of thetreasury and a pillar of the Federalist Party.
Within days of its creation the new service wasbusy assisting in funding the new government. Thefirst duties on imported goods collected by the U.S.Customs Service was $774.71, on August 5, 1789,at the Port of New York from the brigantine Persisarriving from Livorno, Italy. This process of fund-ing the federal government and protection of U.S.borders was to be the principal duty of the service.Until 1913, with the creation of the federal incometax, duties collected by Customs were virtually theonly source of revenue to the federal government.
As one of the first federal law enforcementagencies, Customs had the distinction of being thefirst on many fronts. The new central governmentturned to it on numerous occasions to fund and man-age the necessary programs and responsibilities ofgovernment even though many of these tasks wereunrelated to tariff collection. Customs became thefirst Lighthouse Service in 1791 when Congress sawthe need for these navigational aids. Until 1850, whena separate service was formed, Customs funded andsupervised more than 300 lighthouses. To honor thepromises made to soldiers in the Revolutionary War,Customs was authorized to fund and administer a sys-tem of pensions to these veterans, the precursor oftoday’s Veterans Administration. Likewise, whenCongress realized a need to provide care for sick anddisabled seamen, it authorized Customs to fund andadminister this function, which has evolved into theU.S. Public Health Service. During the various wavesof immigration to U.S. shores, Congress turned toCustoms to fund and administer a system to manageand monitor these immigrants and in effect createdthe Immigration Service.
One of the principal duties, since its inception, ofthe customs service was the protection of the bordersand the prevention of smuggling. Congress autho-rized the funding and administration of a CutterService, later to become the U.S. Coast Guard, toprotect the marine borders. The often-told story ofone of the first federal executions was for the murderof officers of this division. In 1808, in an effort tosuppress smuggling along the Canadian border, aU.S. cutter, the Fly, was sent to Lake Champlain tointercept a boat, the Black Snake. This vessel hadbeen painted with tar to hide it in moonlit night asit sailed across the border. On August 2, 1808, theU.S. vessel, under the command of a LieutenantFarrington, intercepted and boarded the Black Snake.Three of the U.S. officers were killed and Farringtonwas severely wounded. However, government forcesprevailed and the ship and all its crew were arrested.In a subsequent trial for the murder of the threefederal officers, Cyrus B. Dean, the leader of thesmuggling gang, was found guilty and hanged.
Responding to the territory and the needs ofenforcement, Customs was authorized, in 1853, to
866—�—U.S. Customs Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 866
appoint a force of mounted customs inspectors forthe Mexican border. This force was the only lawenforcement present in many areas of the country.Its members went on to serve in both the Texas andthe Arizona Rangers and in Teddy Roosevelt’sRough Riders. It was the foundation on which thepresent day U.S. Border Patrol is based.
U.S. Customs has been in the forefront of federalpolicies since its founding. In the Embargo Crisis of1807, President Thomas Jefferson used the customsservice to enforce this widely unpopular measure toblock all trade with the United Kingdom, includingCanada (which was not yet an independent nationand was still part of Great Britain). Because of thehuge land border with Canada, the law was impos-sible to police and the embargoes failed. The largeamount of maritime traffic also hampered enforce-ment. Indeed, the Port of Sag Harbor, Long Island,was a center for trade with the United Kingdom,through the use of a mother ship (a large vessel thatstays offshore and feeds the smuggled merchandiseto small vessels, a concept still used by Colombiandrug operations today). Jefferson’s attempts to keepthe United States from war with England were toprove unsuccessful. However, Customs had shownitself to be a valuable instrument of national policy.
The Nullification Crisis during President AndrewJackson’s administration was another example ofthe service acting as a cornerstone of the federalgovernment. In an early example of states’ rights,South Carolina had refused to comply with theTariff Act of 1828, which had raised import tariffsto an extraordinarily high level. The state authori-ties refused to comply with, assist, or protect thecustoms authorities in enforcing these measures.Indeed in 1832, South Carolina issued a statementthat an act “authorizing the employment of . . .force against the State of South Carolina . . . orobstructing the free [access] of vessels to or from[its] ports . . . [is] null and void.” President Jacksonresponding by authorizing the military to assist andprotect the customs service in South Carolina andordered federal forces in South Carolina on fullalert. Faced with the threat of military force, thestate authorities relented and the federal govern-ment prevailed.
U.S. Customs continued to have a vital role in thecollection of revenue and funding of governmentoperations. In fact, the position of collector of cus-toms was a highly sought after political appoint-ment for the party in power. Huge amounts ofmoney would flow through the officer’s control. Inthe period from 1830 to 1850 the Port of New Yorkwas the scene of a series of corruption practices andinquiries. As part of the patronage system, PresidentJackson appointed Samuel Swartout to the positionof collector of customs for the Port of New York.Within a few years of his appointment, Swartoutacquired a reputation for ineptness and corruption.By 1838, he fled to London, after amassing a hugefortune from his corrupt practices. High-level cor-ruption continued for some time; a number of offi-cers who succeeded Swartout in the position alsofollowed his corruption practices, regardless of thepolitical party in power. Jesse Hoyt, a Democrat andSwartout’s successor, fled his office after corruptioninquiries, as did his successor, Edward Curtis, aWhig, and his successor, Cornelius Van Ness, aDemocrat. The corruption in just the Port ofNew York amounted to millions of dollars lost tothe public coffers.
In an attempt to control corruption and protect thepublic funds, the secretary of the treasury, in 1846,appointed two special agents to examine both viola-tions of the Tariff Act and the operation of the col-lectors. These officers were to prove invaluable bothin frauds against the revenue and in rooting out cor-ruption in the customs service. During the Civil War,the officers proved an important arm of the Unionin surpressing smuggling to the Confederacy. Theseagents were the beginning of law enforcement in theservice. Based on their successes, in 1870 the posi-tion of special agent was made a permanent part ofthe customs service, as it is today. Congress autho-rized the secretary of the treasury to appoint 53special agents to examine the service’s records anddetect and prevent frauds against the revenue.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
The appointment of special agents led to a newemphasis on the enforcement of federal laws within
U.S. Customs Service—�—867
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 867
the service. Customs special agents moved quicklyto enforce the many laws and regulations thatCongress had passed. One of the principal areasof concern was the enforcement of the ChineseExclusion Act and the suppression of the sex slavetrade in Chinese women. Special agents in SanFrancisco were so successful in the investigationand prosecution of these crimes that the smugglerswere forced to move their operations to Mexicoand later to Canada, a practice still common today.Customs was to have its authority expandedthrough a variety of legislation to face the social illsof narcotics and alcohol.
Customs was given primary jurisdiction to regu-late and investigate any and all controlled substancesand was the mainstay in the “noble experiment”of Prohibition. Prior to the creation of the Bureauof Prohibition, which later become the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in 1927, Customsattempted to defend U.S. borders from bootleggersand rumrunners and undertook investigations ofthese criminal gangs. Legislation passed in March1927 reorganized Customs and created the Bureau ofCustoms, which consolidated the agency under acommissioner, appointed by the secretary of tthe rea-sury. It also established a Special Agency Service,headed by an assistant commissioner. This organiza-tion remained basically unchanged until 1965.
During this 38-year period, the United States andthe rest of the world changed. Narcotics traffickingchanged from the smuggling of opium by Asiangangs to the wholesale trafficking in heroin andcocaine by the myriad criminal gangs and politicalgroups of today. U.S. Customs moved to investigatethese groups and, as it had early in its existence,became again an agency of firsts. It was the firstfederal law enforcement agency to use airplanesto patrol the borders and for surveillance in thesevarious investigations. During World War II, itenforced the Neutrality Laws, interning enemyaliens and identifying enemy assets for seizure andforfeiture. Following the war, the service returnedto the general enforcement of the more than 400federal laws that it is charged with in the Tariff Actof 1930. This act outlined a threefold mission forthe service:
• To assess and collect customs duties on importedmerchandise
• To prevent fraud and smuggling• To control carriers, persons, and articles entering
and departing the United States.
This mission is a huge task with more than 96,000miles of land, sea, and air borders and more than 300ports of entry to patrol.
Customs’ primacy in the field of narcoticsenforcement was diminished in 1930 by the creationof the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The agencieswere, at times, fierce rivals. Responding to stories ofworking against each other, spiking cases, stealinginformers, and so on, President Lyndon B. Johnsonin 1965 reorganized the customs service. All presi-dential appointees were removed, the service wasrestructured into four divisions, and the overseas lawenforcement operations were expanded. In a furtherconsolidation in 1968, several agencies with nar-cotics jurisdiction were merged to create the Bureauof Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) andtransferred to the Department of Justice. This con-solidation and the expansion of BNDD’s overseasoperations led to highly counterproductive competi-tion and infighting. Despite several very successfulinvestigations, for example, the French Connectionand August Ricord, the South American ingpin, con-tinued calls from the administration for a unitedfront on the War on Drugs and consolidation ofpolicing functions in the Justice Department led tothe Reorganization Plan of 1973, which created theDrug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Thissuper agency took over all the staff of the BNDD,509 Customs special agents and 200 support andintelligence staff positions from the customs service.It also took all investigation of narcotics violationsfrom Customs. Customs was relegated to searchesand seizure of narcotics in connection with regularinspections at the ports of entry. The CustomsService was not happy with its position in this reor-ganization. In response to this, the service completedan internal reorganization of its law enforcementoperations.
The Customs Agency Service was renamedthe Office of Investigations and divided into two
868—�—U.S. Customs Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 868
sections. The Patrol Division was established as auniformed force to patrol the unguarded sectionsof the border. The remaining section, composed ofthe special agents, was to investigate all the lawsenforced by U.S. Customs, except narcotics. Overthe next 10 years, the Patrol Division was expandedto include marine and air units for patrol and inter-ception. Many agreed that this was a strategy to tryand outmaneuver the DEA reorganization. If it was,it worked. The customs service continued to moveinto a more aggressive role in both the investigationand the interception of drugs. A second prong inthis strategy was the expansion of the customsservice’s efforts to investigate money launderingunder the Bank Secrecy Act.
This legislation gave the customs service and itssister treasury agency, the Internal Revenue Service(IRS), the foundation to move against the drug car-tels and their support operations both in the UnitedStates and overseas. Over the next several years,Customs continued to reclaim its place in narcoticsenforcement. Customs special agents were cross-designated to investigate a variety of narcotics laws.This and friction with the U.S. Border Patrol led tothe abolition of the Patrol Division and the center-ing of all law enforcement in the Office ofInvestigations, which has a number of investigativeresponsibilities that are unrelated to narcoticsenforcement.
Customs has also been the primary enforcerof the Arms Export Control Act and the ExportAdministration Act, which put the agency in theforefront of the Cold War effort to control weaponsand technology and weapons of mass destruction.Customs special agents, through various sting oper-ations, were able in 1986 to arrest and prosecute 17individuals for attempts to sell $2 billion in variousweapons to the Islamic fundamentalist regime ofIran. These individuals were described, by thencommissioner William von Rabb, as “brokers ofdeath who operated a terrorist flea market.”
AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The events of September 11, 2001, have affectedall federal law enforcement agencies. The most
immediate effect on U.S. Customs was the destructionof its New York headquarters, the U.S. Custom-house, which was located at 6 World Trade Center.Other changes followed almost immediately. Passageof the USA PATRIOT Act brought Customs intocounterterrorist enforcement, leading to the creationof Operation Green Quest. This operation is meantto augment existing counterterrorist efforts throughthe identification of systems, individuals, and orga-nizations that serve as sources of terrorist funding.The initiative relies on Customs’ expertise to iden-tify and prosecute underground financial systems,illicit charities, and corrupt financial institutionsthat may be assisting terrorist activities.
Faced with these events and these new initiatives,Customs has moved forward on several fronts,including hiring 900 new inspectors and specialagents, raising the total number of its armed federalofficers to 11,400. While special agents have beenstationed overseas for most of the 20th century, forthe first time customs inspectors are now stationedin European and Asian ports as part of theContainer Security Initiative to inspect and identifydangerous or suspicious cargo before arrival in theUnited States. Customs has also developed otherinspection-based initiatives for control of passengersand cargo.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS),signed into law by President George W. Bush onSeptember 25, 2002, absorbed the functions ofand personnel from many existing federal agencies,including Customs. As part of this plan, theTreasury Department was stripped of almost all ofits law enforcement functions. Along with Customs,the U.S. Secret Service and its former sisterTreasury agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, weremoved into the new department. The Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was renamed andtransferred to the Department of Justice, leaving theIRS Criminal Division as the only law enforcementcomponent in the Treasury Department.
The DHS has been characterized as the widestand largest change in federal law enforcement sincethe creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.On January 31, 2003, the newly appointed under-secretary for Border and Transportation Security,
U.S. Customs Service—�—869
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 869
Asa Hutchinson, issued the official plans for thereorganization of the law enforcement entities thatwere INS and U.S. Customs. Effective on March 1,2003, the inspectional units of INS and Customs,along with the border patrol, were unified under a newBureau of Customs and Border Protection and reorga-nized to report to the commissioner of Customs.
The investigative arms of both INS and Customswere merged, along with the Federal ProtectiveService (formerly know as the General ServicesAdministration Police), into a new Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),which is primarily charged with the investigationand enforcement of all Customs and INS laws andduties. An assistant secretary heads this bureau.
Many of these changes will have long-termeffects on federal law enforcement. These newbureaus will continue under DHS to be responsiblefor preventing attacks by terrorists within theUnited States, for reducing America’s vulnerabilityto terrorism, and for minimizing the damage frompotential attacks.
Joseph F. King
For Further Reading
Prince, C. E., & Keller, M. (1989). The U.S. Customs Service:A bicentennial history. Washington, DC: U.S. CustomsService.
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1202-1527, 46 Stat. 741 (1930).U.S. Customs Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.customs
.ustreas.gov
� U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
The U.S. Marshals Service is the oldest federallaw enforcement agency in the United States.Established on September 24, 1789, under provi-sions of the Judiciary Act that created the federalcourt system (Senate Bill 1), the service was createdwith a mandate to provide marshals and deputymarshals to support the federal courts within theirjudicial districts and to carry out all lawful ordersissued by judges, Congress, or the president.
The first 13 U.S. marshals, one for each of theoriginal states, were appointed by President George
Washington. This set in motion a precedent that hascontinued for more than 200 years; U.S. marshalsare political appointees of the president of the UnitedStates confirmed by the U.S. Senate, althoughdeputy marshals, also once political appointees,have worked under some federal civil serviceprotections since 1941. Although marshals mayrecruit deputies directly, the deputies retain jobprotection beyond the term of the individualmarshal who selected them. Selection of deputymarshals is based on the results of a written exam;an oral interview; and physical, medical, andbackground examinations. Applicants must haveprior law enforcement experience or a four-yearcollege degree and must complete training at theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center, inGlynco, Georgia, and an additional course specificto the service. They are subject to be assigned toany office and to be transferred based on the needsof the service.
Historically, U.S. marshals were empowered tohire as many deputies as needed, including deputiz-ing citizens to assist in crime control. This powerhas been immortalized in books and films aboutthe American West, where a posse (a group of dep-utized citizens) was created to search for criminals.Initially, U.S. marshals reported to the secretary ofthe Treasury, but in 1861 the attorney general wasgiven supervisory powers over them, a change thatwas recognized legislatively on June 22, 1870,when the Department of Justice was created. Aspresidential appointees, marshals are appointed forfour-year terms and can be removed only by thepresident. Because they are appointees, they haveretained a high degree of independence, althoughattempts at centralization resulted in creation of theMarshals Service and the appointment of a director,who reports to the attorney general, and establishmentof a headquarters operation in 1969. Additional cen-tralization was achieved with creation of a SpecialOperations Group (SOG) in 1971 and a Fugitive TaskForce in 1983. In 1997, Senator Strom Thurmond(R-SC) was unable to convince his Senate colleaguesto vote for legislation strengthening the power ofthe director despite similar legislation havingpassed in the House of Representatives. Even if the
870—�—U.S. Marshals Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 870
Senate were to pass the legislation, the changecould not be effective until 2005, the year that anew presidential term would begin.
By 2002, there were 95 U.S. marshals. Theysupervised the activities of more than 4,200deputies and other employees assigned to 94 dis-trict offices with more than 350 locations through-out the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam,the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, andthe U.S. Virgin Islands. Each of the 94 districts,plus the District of Columbia, is headed by amarshal. Marshals enforce edicts for the federaldistrict courts and the U.S. Supreme Court; trans-port defendants from federal corrections centersand other places of incarceration or detention; pro-vide security to federal judges, prosecutors, andjurors; arrest defendants indicted by federal grandjuries; manage the witness protection program,police insurrections or riots on federal land andreservations; and perform additional functionsspecified by federal statutes or requested by theattorney general.
EARLY DIVERSIFICATION
The responsibilities of early U.S. marshals wereeven more diverse than they are today. Beginning in1790 and continuing until 1870, marshals actedas the nation’s census takers, traveling around thecountry every 10 years to count the number of freecitizens and slaves. They also distributed presiden-tial proclamations, collected statistical informationon commerce and manufacturing, and kept track ofthe names of government employees. They fulfilleda number of these tasks until 1880, when Congresscreated a civilian census office that in 1902 becamethe Bureau of the Census, part of the Department ofthe Interior until it was moved into the Departmentof Commerce in 1913.
In addition to these non-law enforcement duties,during the first half of the 19th century marshalsenforced federal laws on counterfeiting, theft ofmail and other government property, and fugitiveslave laws. But despite all these activities, marshalsand their deputies are probably best known for theirexploits in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
during settlement of the American West, in IndianTerritory (the current state of Oklahoma), and laterin the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, where theywere for many years the only visible symbols offederal control. Their tasks included court adminis-tration; payment of court-related fees includingwitness fees, salaries of attorneys, court clerks, andbailiffs; and protection of judges and officers of thecourt. Many of these duties were federal versions ofthe tasks that sheriffs performed for counties, asimilarity that persists into modern times.
It is ironic that some of the best-known westernmarshals, including Virgil and Wyatt Earp and BatMasterson, spent at least part of their careers on thewrong side of the law. Most marshals labored inrelative obscurity; they spent less time chasing out-laws and engaging in close-draw shootouts thanserving federal court documents and lodging pris-oners. Because they received no fixed salaries andrelied on fees to make their living, it was these lessdramatic activities that paid their wages and thoseof their deputies. These more mundane tasks alsoled to confusion of their roles with many localpeace officers, because the local police officers inmany western towns were also called marshals.
Marshals were authorized to execute all federallaws, which often brought them into conflict withlocal authorities. Deputies arrested individuals whomlocal police refused to take into custody. Groupswith local support were violators of unpopular laws(such as liquor and tax laws), fugitive slaves in non-slave states, and abolitionists who aided the fleeingslaves. Deputies were sometimes arrested by localpolice and, despite rulings by district courts in theirfavor, the battle of federal supremacy over state lawremained unresolved until 1890, when the SupremeCourt established the primacy of federal policepowers over local law.
In that case, David Neagle, a deputy appointedby J. C. Franks, marshal for the Northern District ofCalifornia, was assigned to protect Supreme CourtJustice Stephen J. Field, who, in the course of hisduties as circuit court judge for the district, hadbeen threatened by a husband and wife whose casehe had adjudicated. On August 14, 1889, Neagle,who traveled with Justice Field as he heard cases
U.S. Marshals Service—�—871
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 871
throughout the district, shot and killed David S.Terry, who had made threats and attacked JusticeField while he and Neagle were dining while trav-eling by train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.Neagle was arrested by San Joaquin County SheriffThomas Cunningham and indicted for murder.While lodged in the county jail, Neagle filed a writof habeas corpus. In deciding to release him, theSupreme Court ruled that Neagle’s defense ofJustice Field was within his duty as an officer of theUnited States and that, as such, he could not beguilty of murder under the laws of California orheld to answer in a state court for an act he wasauthorized to perform under law. Justice Field didnot participate in the decision of his Supreme Courtcolleagues, and despite the dissent of two justices,Neagle was freed and the precedent was estab-lished that states could not charge federal officersfor actions based on their duties under federal law(In re Neagle).
In part because the marshals were able to selectemployees without regard to civil service, the mar-shals service is the only federal law enforcementagency that has employed women and AfricanAmericans throughout its history. F. M. Miller,commissioned out of the federal court at Paris, Texas,was reported in late 1891 to have been the onlyfemale deputy working in the Indian Territory andto have aided in transporting prisoners. Also inOklahoma Territory, Ada Curnutt, who in 1893served as a deputy to Marshal William Grimes (inoffice from 1889 to 1893), was reputed to haveboarded a train in Norman with arrest warrants fortwo men located in Oklahoma City, placed themunder arrest shortly after her arrival, and broughtthem back to Norman. Women have also served inthe position of U.S. marshal since the 19th century.Phoebe Wilson Couzins, the third woman allowed topractice law in the United States, was appointed theU.S. marshal for Missouri in 1887 by PresidentGrover Cleveland. Succeeding her late father, sheheld the position for only two months. Recently,other women have served much longer, some for thefull two terms of the president who appointed them.
The first African American marshal was betterknown than any of these women. Frederick
Douglass, the abolitionist leader who served as anadviser to President Abraham Lincoln during theCivil War, was appointed U.S. marshal forWashington, D.C., in 1877 by President RutherfordHayes. Even earlier, Bass Reeves, a slave whoescaped to Indian Territory after beating his master,became the first black deputy west of theMississippi River. He was appointed in 1875 byJudge Isaac C. Parker of the Western District Courtat Fort Smith, Arkansas. Reeves served until 1907,retiring at the age of 83.
TODAY’S MARSHALS SERVICE
Modern marshals and their deputies still perform avast array of tasks and the primacy of federal lawover state statutes remained as controversial in the1960s as it had been in 1899 when deputy Neaglewas arrested. In 1965, when Martin Luther King, Jr.marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, topublicize resistance to registering black voters, 100deputy marshals, other federal agents, and 4,000troops marched with him and his followers to ensuretheir safety. On September 26, 1962, when stateofficials attempted to prevent James Meredith frombecoming the first black man to enroll at theUniversity of Mississippi at Oxford, a U.S. marshalwas at Meredith’s side when he was refused entry tothe school. After protests that involved attacks on thedeputy marshals by citizens and their response withteargas canisters, Meredith registered on October 1.Deputies remained with him through the schoolyear. One hundred years earlier deputy marshals hadalso been attacked while enforcing federal laws per-taining to race, except then they were taking slavesand their abolitionist supporters into custody.
Marshals were the pioneer officers in the SkyMarshal Program, which was managed by theservice from 1969 until 1973. The program, whichbegan amid considerable publicity and then fadedinto oblivion only to be resurrected in the wake ofterrorist activities on September 11, 2001, placedarmed marshals on commercial aircraft after a series ofhijackings of American aircraft raised concerns aboutthe safety of air travel. By the time the program wastransferred to the Federal Aviation Administration in
872—�—U.S. Marshals Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 872
1973, deputies had made a total of 3,457 arrests, ofwhich 348 were of passengers attempting to concealfirearms when boarding flights.
Marshals’ court-related functions continue toinvolve security at U.S. federal courts, protectingcourt personnel, protecting federal witnesses, pro-viding custody of federal prisoners, apprehendingfederal fugitives, and ensuring that federal laws areenforced throughout the country. Marshals and theirstaffs continue to occupy a central role in courtsecurity and the protection of judicial officials,including judges, attorneys, and jurors. Relying oncourt security officers, specialized deputized offi-cers with full law enforcement authority, marshalsprovided security at almost 800 court facilities in2002. To help ensure that courthouses are kept freeof such prohibited items as guns, knives, and otherdangerous weapons, marshals are involved in court-house construction projects from design throughcompletion, relying on principles of crime preven-tion through environmental design to minimize risk.
Marshals have primary responsibility for appre-hension of federal fugitives. In 2001, more than50% of all such fugitives were apprehended by theMarshals Service, whose officers execute morearrests warrants than all other federal law enforce-ment officers combined. Formal memoranda ofunderstanding with local, state, federal, and inter-national police agencies facilitate these arrests.International cooperation is vital because theDepartment of Justice has designated the MarshalsService to apprehend fugitives wanted by othercountries and to track fugitives from Americanjustice who are apprehended anywhere in the world.
Two other responsibilities of the Marshals Servicehave resulted in the creation and maintenance of itsown air service. One of these is the Witness SecurityProgram. This program, authorized by the OrganizedCrime Control Act of 1970 and amended by theComprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, assignsto deputy marshals the safety of witnesses who tes-tify for the government in cases involving organizedcrime or other criminal endeavors that might placetheir lives in danger. In addition to moving thesepeople around the United States, the MarshalsService has given new identities to more than 7,000
witnesses and, in some cases, their families andothers dependent on those witnesses. The secondresponsibility, to oversee care and custody of federalprisoners and detainees, requires that the service alsolodge as many as 35,000 persons each day in federal,state, and local jails. Because only about 30% ofthese individuals are housed by the Federal Bureauof Prisons, the others must be moved from state,local, or private jails for security or space-relatedreasons. This need to transport prisoners and criminalaliens resulted in 1995 in the merger of the air fleetsof the Marshals Service and the Immigration andNaturalization Service to create the Justice Prisonerand Alien Transportation Service (JPATS). JPATS,known colloquially among those in law enforcementas “Con Air,” maintains a fleet of jets and turbopropairplanes and is the equivalent of a small U.S. airline.By 2002, it served 40 cities and was responsible formoving more than 250,000 people annually betweenjudicial districts and correctional institutions and intoand out of countries with which the United States hasextradition agreements. The service also relies onJPATS to move prisoners who require medical carethat cannot be provided at prison facilities. TheMissile Escort Program is another highly specializedand highly mobilized group of deputies who assist theDepartment of Defense and the U.S. Air Force duringthe movement of nuclear warheads between militaryfacilities.
Marshals have primary jurisdiction in investiga-tions involving federal fugitives, including escapedprisoners; probation, parole, and bond default vio-lators; warrants generated for drug investigations;and certain other related felony cases. In 1983, inconjunction with the creation of its Fugitive TaskForce, the service instituted its own 15 MostWanted fugitives list. This is separate from theFederal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) better-known 10 Most Wanted list instituted in 1950. Ofthe 143 individuals whose names appeared on thelist between 1982 and 2002, 128 have been cap-tured. They represent only a small portion of theapproximately 30,000 fugitives apprehended eachyear from 1997 to 2002 by deputy marshals, oftenworking as part of multiagency task forces involv-ing federal, state, and local agency personnel.
U.S. Marshals Service—�—873
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 873
There are a number of other highly mobile unitswithin the service. The oldest of these is the SOG,created in 1971 as an emergency response, tacticalunit. One of its first assignments was evictingmembers of the American Indian Movement (AIM)in late 1971 after a 19-month occupation of AlcatrazIsland in San Francisco Bay to publicize demandsfor better treatment of Native Americans. The SOG,additional deputy marshals, and members of theFBI and the national guard clashed with AIMmembers again in spring 1973 at Wounded Knee,South Dakota. On March 12, 1973, members ofAIM declared Wounded Knee a sovereign territoryof the Oglala Sioux Nation. The 71-day siege wasended by negotiation on May 8, but not before twopeople were killed, 12 wounded (including twodeputies), and 1,200 people arrested. Ultimately,185 people were indicted by federal grand juries,with only 15 convicted.
Since passage by Congress in 1984 of theComprehensive Crime Control Act, the marshalsservice has also played a large role in the federalgovernment’s assets forfeiture programs. TheDepartment of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund isthe product of the sale of cars, real estate, jewelry,and other forms of property that have been deter-mined to be of criminal origin. Tainted cash, as wellas cash obtained by the sale of real property, isdeposited into the fund and reinvested into lawenforcement activities. Although many facets of thefund and uses of its assets by law enforcement agen-cies have created controversy, the Marshals Servicehas relied on the forfeiture funds primarily to paythe costs incurred while maintaining the propertiesthat are eventually sold. Since the program’s incep-tion, the service has had custody of more than $8.6billion in assets, some of which were costly to keepuntil their disposition could be determined. In addi-tion to cars, boats, jewelry, and houses, some of themore difficult items to maintain have included air-craft, fine art, livestock, apartment buildings, andrestaurants. One reason for the high value of thegoods is that the Marshals Service maintains theproperty service for a number of federal agencies.
Although their exploits are less publicized thanpreviously, U.S. marshals and the deputies continue
to fulfill a vast array of assignments for a varietyof federal agencies and to have greater freedomof staff selection and assignment than most otherfederal law enforcement employees.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Calhoun, F. S. (1989). The lawmen: United States marshalsand their deputies 1789-1989. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Press.
First black U.S. marshal left an American legacy. (2002,January). The Marshals Monitor. [Online]. Available:http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/monitor/jan.2002
First female U.S. marshal, The. [Online]. Available:http://www.sameshield.com
In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).Outline of U.S. Marshals Service activities. (1986).
Washington, DC: Department of Justice.Prassel, F. R. (1972). The western peace officer: A legacy of law
and order. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Samuelson, N. (1998). Some notes on Oklahoma’s federal
marshals. Quarterly of the National Association forOutlaw and Lawman History 22(3), 5-8.
United States Marshals Service Then . . . and Now. . . . (1981).McLean, VA: Department of Justice.
U.S. Marshals Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals
Williams, N. B. (n.d.). Bass Reeves. In The handbook of Texasonline. [Online]. Available: http://tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/fre47.html
� U.S. MINT POLICE
The U.S. Mint, created by Congress on April 2,1792, is responsible for keeping enough coinage incirculation to allow the nation to conduct day-to-daybusiness. The Mint, headquartered in Washington,D.C., engraves and produces coins and medals atfacilities in Philadelphia, Denver, San Francisco,and West Point, New York, and is responsible forstoring and protecting silver, gold, and platinumbullion at West Point and Fort Knox, Kentucky.
The Mint Police force was created by the Mintin 1792, making it one of the oldest federal lawenforcement agencies. The force, credited with cre-ating the standard “as safe as Fort Knox,” is respon-sible for enforcing federal and local laws at the
874—�—U.S. Mint Police
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 874
Mint’s six locations. The Mint Police use as arecruiting slogan the fact that the force protectsmore than $100 billion worth of Treasury Depart-ment and other government assets, the bulk of whichis stored at Fort Knox, where “no visitors arepermitted and no exceptions are made.”
As recently as 1999, the Mint Police force wasdescribed by its chief as a “boutique police depart-ment,” which was staffed largely by officers retiredfrom local police departments. In addition, theagency used contract police at its Washington facil-ities through 1999. This resulted in a force dispro-portionately older, white, and male. Since then, thenumber of minority and female applicants and offi-cers has increased significantly. Recruitment of allapplicants had to be stepped up in 2002, whennearly half the Mint Police officers transferred outof the force to join the Federal Air Marshal Serviceand other agencies that had been enlarged, or cre-ated, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror-ist attacks.
Authorized strength of the force is approximately400 sworn personnel, including officers, sergeants,lieutenants, deputy chiefs, and field chiefs. At theend of the 2002 federal fiscal year, 52 of the MintPolice’s officers were stationed in Washington. Eachfield location has a detective at lieutenant’s pay,while headquarters in Washington has three lieu-tenants assigned to the Economic Crimes Unit(ECU). The ECU investigates financial crimesagainst the Mint; handles internal affairs investiga-tions, and functions as a liaison with other lawenforcement agencies. In addition, a training lieu-tenant is assigned to the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia, andeach field location in order to coordinate all requiredtraining for that duty station. The departmentreceived the National Law Enforcement OfficersMemorial’s Distinguished Service Award in 2001.
The U.S. Mint field offices have special responseteams consisting of officers who volunteer for spe-cial weapons and tactics training and then train on aregular and recurring basis, often with other lawenforcement agencies.
Among the types of incidents Mint Police rou-tinely handle are credit card fraud, check fraud,
internal theft, security threats, and computercrimes. The Mint Police assist other agenciesduring major events, such as presidential inaugura-tions. During the 2002 Winter Olympics in SaltLake City, 60 to 70 Mint Police personnel assistedthe U.S. Secret Service in securing the venue.Unlike most other federal police agencies, the MintPolice do not divulge the annual number of inci-dents its personnel handle or the number of investi-gations they conduct.
Mint Police officers must have a bachelor’sdegree in police science, criminal justice, or acomparable discipline or three years of creditablelaw enforcement experience. The sworn officersreceive 10 weeks of training at FLETC, followed byfive weeks of additional training at their field facili-ties. Assignments include bike patrol, specialresponse team, instructional training, and firearms.In 2003, entry level officers’ pay averaged $38,862annually. The agency can also provide performance-based cash awards, quality step increases, honoraryand informal recognition awards, time-off awards,and tuition assistance for continuing education.
David Schulz
For Further Reading
Federal uniformed police: Selected data on pay, recruitment,and retention at 13 police forces in the Washington, D.C.,Metropolitan Area (GAO-03-658). Washington, DC: U.S.General Accounting Office.
Muoio, A. (1999). His people are as good as gold.FastCompany, 30, 338.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. [Online]. Available: http://www.TomPaine.com
U.S. Mint. [Online]. Available: http://www.usmint.gov
� U.S. PARK POLICE
The U.S. Park Police (USPP) is an urban, uni-formed law enforcement agency that is part of theNational Park Service (NPS) under the Departmentof the Interior (DOI). Although the USPP has juris-diction throughout the NPS and certain otherfederal and state lands, it primarily provides lawenforcement services in the Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Park Police—�—875
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 875
metropolitan area, Gateway National RecreationArea, Ellis Island, and the Statue of Liberty inNew York and New Jersey and the Presidio TrustArea and Golden Gate National Recreation Area inSan Francisco. In the District of Columbia, USPPofficers provide protective services for manynational monuments, memorials, park areas, theMall, historic residences, and highways. Althoughconcentrated in the above areas, park police person-nel can be detailed elsewhere in the national parksystem if required.
The mission of the USPP is to maintain publicorder and safety; prevent and investigate crime; pro-tect both property and visitors; provide crowd con-trol for special events and demonstrations; providepresidential and dignitary protection; enforce trafficlaw; and handle traffic accidents, violations, and soforth. Their duties also include the investigation anddetention of persons suspected of committingoffenses against the United States. The USPP uti-lizes several methods of patrol to protect visitorsincluding undercover, foot, bicycle, cruiser, horse-mounted, motorcycle, and motor-scooter. In addi-tion, the USPP has a canine unit, marine resources(in New York), and three helicopters for aerialobservation, rescue, and emergency responseservices. The USPP budget request for fiscal year2005 of $79 million represents a $4 million increasefor additional security of monuments and the 2005presidential inaugural.
HISTORY
The U.S. Park Police claims to be America’s oldestfederal uniformed law enforcement agency. Its originshearken back to 1791 when President GeorgeWashington appointed park watchmen to patrol andprotect Washington’s evolving parklands and fed-eral buildings. Police authority created for the cap-ital city did not extend to federal property until1834 when the city was given full responsibility forprotecting federal grounds. By 1854, however,Congress was not satisfied with the attention paidto federal grounds by the city and so it began hiringadditional federal watchmen to protect the areassurrounding the Capitol and the White House. These
watchmen were civilians under the administrativesupervision of the army’s commissioner of publicbuildings.
In the next 30 years, public monuments andfederal park areas grew rapidly, as did their usage.In 1880, Congress appointed an additional dozenwatchmen to expand the numbers of the emergingfederal park grounds police force. Park watchmenwere given the same powers and duties asWashington’s Metropolitan Police Force by con-gressional legislation in 1882. Their activities atthis time were overseen by the chief of the ArmyCorps of Engineers, with direct supervision fromthe public gardener, since in addition to their pro-tection duties, they also performed landscaping andgardening activities. By 1903, the force had grownto 30 watchmen and their duties increasinglyfocused on enforcement of laws and regulations.
In 1919, Congress officially named the 60 parkwatchmen the U.S. Park Police. In the next 11years, Congress expanded park police jurisdictionbeyond Washington to encompass the MountVernon and George Washington Memorial park-ways. In 1933, the USPP was assigned to be part ofthe NPS under the Department of the Interior. Thenext year, a horse-mounted unit was established toaid in large crowd-control situations, making it oneof the oldest police equestrian organizations in thecountry. The USPP again increased its jurisdictionin 1948 to cover federal lands within six counties inVirginia, the city of Alexandria, and four countiesin Maryland. For the next 20 years the USPP sharedresponsibility for general policing around theWashington, D.C., area with particular emphasis onthe public parks and monuments.
The late 1960s brought a period of increasingcivil unrest in the country and, in 1970, YosemiteNational Park experienced riots and crowd controlproblems with a large gathering of youth thatresulted in 170 arrests. Because the park police hadsignificant experience in handling civil disobedi-ence at the Capitol Mall and the White House, offi-cers were sent to aid in stabilizing Yosemite and toevaluate the National Park Service’s handling of theincident. Subsequently, the park police receivedeight new law enforcement specialist assignments
876—�—U.S. Park Police
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 876
located in each of the NPS regional offices to adviseregional directors on crowd control issues. Theselaw enforcement specialist positions were filled bypark police sergeants, lieutenants, and later captainsbut were not part of the Ranger Force and were notresponsible in the NPS law enforcement chain ofcommand.
Since the USPP has always been interested inexpanding its area of influence, in 1974 the USPPsecured two additional areas of jurisdiction outsideof the metropolitan Washington area. Park policeofficers were assigned to provide law enforcementservices for the newly established Gateway NationalRecreation Area, Ellis Island, and the Statue ofLiberty in the New York and New Jersey area andthe Golden Gate National Recreation Area in SanFrancisco.
ORGANIZATION
As a result of an increased need for homeland secu-rity and a 2002 study by the inspector general, thesecretary of the Department of the Interior establisheda new deputy assistant secretary with responsibilityfor law enforcement and security to coordinate andimprove training and supervision of its five bureauswith law enforcement personnel. Each bureau wasthen directed to appoint a director of law enforcementwho would establish a separate law enforcementchain of command. The NPS altered its reportingstructure so that the chief of the park police reporteddirectly to the NPS deputy director rather thanthrough the national capital regional director.
USPP headquarters is located in Washington,D.C., with field offices in New York and SanFrancisco. A chief, assisted by an assistant chiefand two deputy chiefs, and a manager responsiblefor fiscal management and development lead theforce. One deputy chief oversees the Field OfficesDivision and the other supervises the OperationsDivision, which is responsible for park police activ-ities in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.The latter has three branches: the CriminalInvestigations Branch, the Special Forces Branch,and the Patrol Branch. Its largest branch is thePatrol Branch, which manages three geographic
patrol districts and supervises the civilian guardforce. The Criminal Investigations Branch is theinvestigative arm for crime in all three districts andincludes a vice and narcotics unit. The SpecialForces Branch includes specialized units such asaviation and motorcycle units, and the SWAT teams,and is the liaison with the U.S. Secret Service ondignitary protection duties. The Operations Branchalso includes the Support Services Group, whichincludes the horse-mounted and canine units.
Although authorized for a force of 793 officers, in2002 the USPP had 598 sworn officers in the ranksof major, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, detective, andprivate, 90% of whom were men and 20% withorigins in minority groups with African Americansrepresenting the largest portion at 13%. In addition,99 civilian employees and 27 civilian uniformedguards were employed. Approximately 110 officersserved out of the New York field office and 66 offi-cers were assigned to the San Francisco field office.In 2004, the force consisted of 620 officers.
QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING
Candidates for USPP officers must be U.S. citizensbetween the ages of 21 and 31 years old, have goodvision, and hold a valid driver’s license. Entry-levelcandidates must pass written and physical examina-tions and an oral interview and possess two years ofexperience or postsecondary education or a combi-nation of the two.
Training for new officers takes place at the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center in Glynco,Georgia, for 19 weeks. The program includes 8 weeksof basic law enforcement training and 11 weeks ofspecialized training by USPP staff. New officers thenenter a 12-week field-training program in which theypartner with instructors and conduct supervised patroloperations. New officers are initially assigned to theWashington, D.C., area, where the largest contingentof park police officers is needed.
Guards serve at fixed posts or patrol assignedareas to prevent theft, damage, or trespass aroundnational monuments in Washington, D.C. These arecivil service positions that are primarily permanentpart-time, although a few full-time positions exist.
U.S. Park Police—�—877
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 877
Guards do not have law enforcement authority anddo not carry weapons but do carry radios in orderto contact patrolling park police officers. Guardsreceive one week of classroom training followed byon-the-job training.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In recent years, Congress has become increasinglydissatisfied with the state of law enforcement inthe Department of the Interior—especially with theU.S. Park Police—due to escalating budgetary needsrequired to meet their specified missions. In responseto these rising costs, Congress directed the NPS, aspart of the Department of the Interior’s appropria-tions act for the 2001 fiscal year, to contract with theNational Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)for an independent review of USPP missions,accountability, staffing needs, and spending. Thereview panel found that the USPP is well-respectedas a professional law enforcement agency with qual-ified and dedicated personnel.
However, NAPA recommended narrowing theUSPP’s mission to focus exclusively on the federallands in the Washington, D.C., area; called for areexamination of park police participation in digni-tary protection, drug prevention, and drug investi-gation activities; and suggested contracting out thepolicing of area highways to state and local lawenforcement entities. Neither the NPS nor theUSPP reacted willingly to these recommendations.After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,increasing pressure was placed on the park policeby the Department of Homeland Security toincrease security at major national monuments bydoubling the number of park police officersassigned to them. This mandate exacerbated analready weak staffing situation, which required ashift to the monument area at the expense of otherareas in the USPP jurisdictions and increased over-spending for overtime.
To increase accountability, NAPA recommendedstreamlining the chain of command so the USPPchief is directly responsible to the chief of the NPS,which has been accomplished with a reorganizationof DOI, NPS, and USPP law enforcement reporting
structures. In addition, the USPP hired its firstfemale chief in 1992, Teresa Chambers.
Recommendations were also made regarding theneed for a unified USPP budget in which the chiefhad control over the allotment of resources and fieldpersonnel are accountable for operating within theirdesignated budgets. Significant shortfalls existed inpatrol staffing that had gone unaddressed due tofinancial constraints and the USPP was $12 millionover budget in 2003. The USPP is a top-heavyorganization with a ratio in 2001 of one higher-levelofficer to every two lower-level officers rather thana typical law enforcement staff ratio of 1:4 or 1:6.The report also recommended civilianizing posi-tions that did not require specific law enforcementtraining and expertise. As of 2004, 11 staff positionshad been civilianized and the agency was workingon increasing its staffing ratio. The report alsorecommended hiring armed contract guard personnelwho would primarily operate detection equipmentat national monuments and increase security pres-ence. These armed guards, a small number of whomwere hired in the New York field office, were notintended to replace park police officers.
Continuing tension existed between theDepartment of the Interior, the NPS, and the USPPover its mission priorities, staffing levels, andfunding. Congress called for a status report on theimplementation of the recommendations made byNAPA. In 2003, Chief Chambers publicly aired, ina Washington Post interview, her frustration withthe lack of adequate budget and staffing resourcesher agency was receiving and expressed her con-cern that some areas were being underserved. Shebelieved the park police needed at least double thenumber of officers and an additional $8 million infunding to carry out its current missions. Shortlyafter the interview’s publication, she was suspendedand notified she would be dismissed for violatingfederal rules forbidding public statements on bud-get and staffing issues. She was subsequently dis-missed, but Chambers and supporters continuedto fight for her reinstatement. In early 2004, theprogress report by NAPA was issued and reportedlimited progress in most areas addressed by the2001 study. Congress continued to resist increasing
878—�—U.S. Park Police
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 878
funding for the USPP as the involved governmentalagencies continued to resist change.
Katherine B. Killoran
For Further Reading
Ackerman, T. H. (1999). Guide to careers in federal lawenforcement: Profiles of 225 high-powered positions andsurefire tactics for getting hired. Traverse City, MI: SageCreek Press.
Budget of the United States government, FY 2005. [Online].Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
Fahrenthold, D. A. (2003, December 2). Park police dutiesexceed staffing: Anti-terror demands have led chief tocurtail patrols away from Mall. Washington Post, p. B1.
Implementation of recommendations: Academy panel 2001report on the U.S. Park Police. (2004, February).Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Adminis-tration. [Online]. Available: http://www.napawash.org/Pubs/ParkPoliceFeb2004.pdf
National Park Service, fiscal year 2004 greenbook. [Online].Available: http://data2.itc.nps.gov/budget2/fy04gbk.htm
Reaves, B. A., & Bauer, L. M. (2003, August). Federal lawenforcement officers, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureauof Justice Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fleo02.htm
Testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the District of Columbia (June 24,1998) (testimony of Robert E. Langston, Chief, UnitedStates Park Police). [Online]. Available: http://www.dcwatch.com/police/980624-3.htm
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.(2002, January). Disquieting state of disorder: An assess-ment of Department of the Interior law enforcement.[Online]. Available: http://www.indianz.com/docs/oig/2002-I-014.pdf
U.S. Park Police. [Online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/ uspp/U.S. Park Police: Focusing priorities, capabilities, and
resources for the future, The. (2001, August). Washington,DC: National Academy of Public Administration. [Online].Available: http://www.napawash.org/publications.html
Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in lawenforcement (2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
� U.S. POLICE CANINEASSOCIATION, INC.
The U.S. Police Canine Association (USPCA) wasfounded in 1971 in Washington, D.C., when twoexisting organizations with similar values, the
Police K-9 Association and the United States K-9Association, united. The Police K-9 Associationwas originally known as the Florida Police K-9Association but was renamed in 1968 in order toinclude other southeastern states. The United StatesK-9 Association, which was founded a few yearsafter the Police K-9 Association’s name-change,drew its membership from residents of the northeast-ern states. A short time after the inauguration of theUnited States K-9 Association, both organizationsrealized that strength would be gained by uniting.
The USPCA established its National ExecutiveCommittee at the time of its creation. The commit-tee is comprised of a national president andvice president, past national presidents, a secretary,a treasurer, and a board of trustees. NationalExecutive Committee members are elected to two-year terms of office by the general membership.Additionally, each region elects its own officers andoversees its own activities. The presidents of eachregion become members of the National ExecutiveCommittee. Both full members and associatemembers possess voting privileges, but associatemembers may not run in national or regional elec-tions. Full membership in the USPCA is open toany active, full-time, paid law enforcement officerat the federal, state, county, or municipal level, whois a canine handler, trainer, or administrator.Associate membership, which is contingent uponthe approval of regional officers, is open to thosewho train canines for established law enforcementagencies and to retired law enforcement officerswho formerly were full-time, paid canine handlers,trainers, or administrators. Membership is also opento members of the armed forces who work withcanines when approved by the regional elected offi-cers. As of early 2003, national membership wasapproximately 4,000. The association is comprisedof regions representing distinct geographical areasthroughout the United States and Canada. As ofearly 2003, the organization was comprised of26 areas: 25 located within the United States andone in Canada.
The USPCA, as a whole, holds two week-longmeetings per year. In the spring, the organizationmeets during the National Detector Dog Trial and
U.S. Police Canine Association, Inc.—�—879
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 879
Seminar, and in the fall, it meets during theNational Police Dog Field Trial and Seminar.During the USPCA’s meetings, the NationalExecutive Committee convenes to determine orga-nizational policies, and members from all regionsdiscuss innovative training approaches andexchange information to better prepare themselvesto meet modern law enforcement challenges. Theorganization is dedicated to promoting a sense ofcamaraderie among those who train and use caninesto prevent and detect crime and it endeavors topromote a minimum working standard for caninesin police work in order to better serve the commu-nity and maintain a positive public image for theworking police canine. The USPCA publishes anewspaper, The Canine Courier, throughout theyear and provides information to law enforcementagencies interested in establishing canine units. Theassociation provides death benefits for both humanmembers and canines killed in the line of duty andhas a legal defense fund to support members whoface canine-related litigation.
The USPCA offers three main certifications forofficers and their canine partners: the Police DogI Certification, the Police Dog II/Tracking Certifi-cation, and the Detection Certification. The test forthe Police Dog I Certification evaluates canines andtheir handlers in the areas of obedience, agility, evi-dence and suspect search, and criminal apprehen-sion. The Police Dog II/Tracking Certification iscomposed of a three-part track that is 150 to 300yards in length and 30 to 60 minutes old. TheUSPCA offers Detection Certifications in fourareas: narcotics, explosives, liquid accelerants, andhuman and animal cadavers. The organization’sDetection Certifications for narcotics and explo-sives are the most commonly sought, and the testsfor both require that canine and handler success-fully locate the substances indoors and out.
USPCA certifications employ strict testingstandards. All tests use multiple evaluators so thatboth the officer’s and the canine’s performancesare being fairly evaluated at any given instant. Theassociation prides itself on its utilization of mea-sured evaluations (i.e., precise scores), rather thanthe pass-fail standards used by other canine certifying
bodies, and, unlike other organizations offeringcanine certifications, it does not permit the use ofelectric or pinch collars during testing. Additionally,all USPCA certifications must be renewed annually.
The USPCA also offers certifications for caninetrainers. Among the certifications it offers areCertified Trainer-Level I (Patrol), Certified Trainer-Level II (Detector), Certified Trainer-Level III,Certified Regional Trainer (Patrol), and CertifiedDetector Dog Trainer. USPCA trainer certificationsrequire that applicants be members in good stand-ing of the organization and that, among other crite-ria, depending on the particular certification, theyhave from 5 to 15 years of full-time canine handlingexperience.
In recent years, several court decisions fromaround the country have ruled that the use of prop-erly trained police canines is a less-lethal forcealternative (i.e., it does not carry the risk of causingdeath or serious bodily harm). In one of the hall-mark cases, Robinette v. Barnes, a federal courtrecognized the USPCA’s training standards. InRobinette, the court considered the defendant’sreceipt of the USPCA’s Police Dog I Certificationevidence that the canine in question was properlytrained.
Nicole R. Green
For Further Reading
Robinett v. Barnes, 854 F2d 909 (1988).Smith, B. (2000, January). Police service dogs: the unheralded
training tool. Police, pp. 36–39.U.S.P.C.A. history. [Online]. Available: www.uspcak-9.com/
html/history.shtml
� U.S. POSTALINSPECTION SERVICE
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service traces its historyto 1772, when Postmaster General BenjaminFranklin created the position of surveyor to assisthim in regulating and auditing postal functions. In1801 the title was changed to special agent and in1830 the investigative functions of the agents werecentralized as the Office of Instructions and Mail
880—�—U.S. Postal Inspection Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 880
Depredations even though the agents continuedto be assigned to specific geographic areas of thecountry. They worked closely with stagecoach,steamboat, express, and railroad companies respon-sible for transporting the mail and also visited maildistributing centers and examined postal accountsfor theft and fraud.
From this small, decentralized force of agents,the U.S. Postal Inspection Service has grown toapproximately 2,000 postal inspectors stationedthroughout the country who enforce more than 200federal laws covering investigations of crimesinvolving use of the U.S. mail and the postalsystem. They were assisted in 2002 by a security forceof about 1,500 uniformed postal police officers whoprovided perimeter security, escorted high-valuemail shipments, and performed a variety of otherprotective functions at major postal facilitiesthroughout the United States.
HISTORY
The origins of the Postal Inspection Service can betraced to colonial times. Some who question theclaim of the U.S. marshals to be the first federal lawenforcement agency argue that when BenjaminFranklin was appointed postmaster at Philadelphiain 1737, part of his duties involved regulating theseveral post offices and bringing the postmasters toaccount. By 1753, Franklin had been promoted bythe British monarch to deputy postmaster generalof the American colonies. That year, his additionalduties took him on inspection tours of the coloniesto visit every post office except Charleston, SouthCarolina. Because such periodic inspections of postoffices to ensure compliance with rules and regula-tions and to ferret out theft or corruption are nowassociated with police and inspectors’ general roles,some have made the claim that Franklin himselfwas the first postal inspector and that his appoint-ment of a surveyor in 1772 was merely recognitionof the fact that he could no longer single-handedlyregulate and audit postal functions. Hugh Finley,the first surveyor, had previously worked for theCanadian postal system. He investigated thefts ofmail or postal funds and audited the accounts of
postmasters to ensure that revenues were properlycollected and reported.
When the colonial postal system became the U.S.Postal Service on July 26, 1775, Benjamin Franklinwas elected postmaster general and William Goddard,a former colonial postmaster, was named the firstsurveyor. By 1801, when the title was changed tospecial agent, the number of laws pertaining to use ofthe mail had increased and so had the responsibili-ties of the agents. The Office of Instructions andMail Depredations, formed in 1830, defined thedual investigative and inspectional roles of the agents.Investigation of internal theft in those early years mayhave been even more difficult than today, for internaldid not mean only individuals employed directly bythe post office, but applied to the many contractorswho carried the mails across a rapidly expandingnation.
In 1849, the supervisor of special agents, WilliamH. Dundas, and one of his agents, Thomas P.Shallcross, determined that Otho Hinton, the generalmanager of the Ohio Stage Company, which had amonopoly on Ohio mail routes, was involved in aseries of thefts throughout the state. Arrested butreleased on $10,000 bail, Hinton failed to appear fortrial. Although it took years, Shallcross tracedHinton to Cuba, from whence he could not be trans-ported because no extradition treaty existed betweenthe United States and Cuba. Hinton returned to theUnited States, but before Shallcross could catch upwith him, he again fled, this time to the SandwichIslands, as Hawaii was known before the UnitedStates took jurisdiction in the 1890s. The UnitedStates had no extradition treaty with the islands,which seemed to ensure Hinton’s safety, although heeventually fled further to Australia, where he died.Though this case was more far flung than mostothers, it is indicative of the vast jurisdiction of thepostal agents. By 1853, the number of agents hadbeen increased to 18 and they were assigned geo-graphically throughout the United States. They wereresponsible for reporting on the conditions of stage-coaches, steamboats, railroads, and horses used totransport the mail, for visiting all mail distributingoffices within their territories, and for examiningpostal accounts for fraud or mismanagement.
U.S. Postal Inspection Service—�—881
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 881
The job was difficult; the nation was expandingwest, and as stagecoaches began to carry mail in1849, followed shortly thereafter by the railroads,special agents found themselves in parts of thecountry that lacked visible symbols of governmentand where the mails were known to carry cash andother valuables. By 1866 the number of special agentsincreased to 36; less than a decade later, in 1873,the number reached 63. On June 11, 1880, Congressestablished the title of chief post office inspector andchanged the title special agent, a title that was usedcommonly in the West by railroads, express compa-nies, and cattle associations to describe their policeofficers. Other major changes occurred in the years1887 and 1888, when the service was reorganizedinto 12 divisions and the number of inspectors wasincreased to 75. In conjunction with this growth instaffing, the postal inspectors were placed underthe civil service system, providing far greater employ-ment stability than the previous 12-month appoint-ments with annual reappointments.
After the Civil War, when train robberies becamecommon, postal inspectors worked closely withWells Fargo and railroad company special agents toprotect the mails from the external threats of armedrobbers and from internal frauds. Fraud was soprevalent after the Civil War that in 1872 Congressspecifically enacted a statute to combat the outbreakof swindles that relied on using the mails to perpe-trate various frauds. An even greater fraudulent useof the mails occurred in the 1920s, with largenumbers of fake lotteries, medical advertisements,and get-rich-quick schemes that relied on the mailsto shield tricksters from police and to reach thelargest possible number of potential victims.
One of the best-known, longest running, andcostliest cases that involved the postal inspectorswas the 1923 Great Gold Holdup, when SouthernPacific Train No. 13 was held up near Siskiyou,Oregon, on October 11 on its way to San Franciscoand one postal worker and three railroad employeeswere killed. The case lasted more than three anda half years and cost more than $500,000 to solve,but in 1927 the De Autremont brothers, who hadstopped and dynamited the train because theybelieved it had been carrying $500,000 in gold,
were apprehended. Prior to their arrests, convictions,and sentences to life imprisonment, the three broth-ers, Roy, Ray, and Hugh, had been followed bypostal inspectors and Southern Pacific Railroadspecial agents to Canada, Mexico, South America,and western Europe. Hugh was arrested in thePhilippines, the other two in Ohio.
The agents’ close connection with railroads con-tinued until routine handling of first-class mail wastransferred to the airlines beginning in the 1950s. Theassignment did not always involve theft. In 1937,Fort Knox, located in Tennessee, became the nation’sgold depository, and between 1937 and 1941, postalinspectors were involved with the movement andprotection of more than 500 railroad cars that trans-ported more than $15.5 billion in gold betweenNew York and Fort Knox.
THE MODERN INSPECTION SERVICE
A major reorganization of the post office in 1970—the Postal Reorganization Act—resulted in therenaming in 1971 of the Bureau of the Chief PostalInspector to the current Postal Inspection Service. Itwas at this time that the uniformed Security Forcewas added to what until then had been composedsolely of plainclothes investigative personnel.Members of this uniformed force are responsiblefor patrolling major postal facilities and escortingshipments of valuable mail between postal facilitiesand airports. Another change was the opening of theranks to women officers, making the inspectionservice among the first federal law enforcementagencies to employ women as sworn officers.
By 2000, the Postal Inspector Service employedapproximately 3,600 individuals who were autho-rized to carry firearms and make arrests, about 2,200of whom were postal inspectors and another 1,400of whom were uniformed postal police officers.
Postal inspectors receive their law enforcementauthority under Title 18 of the United States Code.They are authorized to service warrants and subpoe-nas and make arrests without warrants for any fed-eral offense committed in their presence or based onprobable cause. Applicants must be between the agesof 21 and 36 and must pass written tests, an interview,
882—�—U.S. Postal Inspection Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 882
a polygraph, a physical exam, and drug screening.A four-year college degree is required; sinceJanuary 2003, no work experience is required,although previously various types of experience,in addition to college training, was required. Thosewho are hired and complete training are assigned toany one of the 18 field divisions across the country,but may also expect to travel frequently for investi-gations and to be transferred between regions atany time. Postal police officers who are a part ofthe Postal Inspection Service are uniformed offi-cers assigned to major facilities around the country.Although they are generally assigned to a particularpostal installation to provide perimeter security anduniformed patrol and may expect to travel less thanpostal inspectors, they may escort high-value mailshipments between or among regions and performother protective functions outside their regularlyassigned locations.
Postal inspectors are trained at the PostalService’s William F. Bolger Center for LeadershipDevelopment located in Potomac, Maryland, a full-service training center that contains classrooms, fit-ness and firearms training facilities, dining rooms,and dormitories. The 14-week program coversinvestigative techniques, legal studies, the laws ofsearch and seizure, arrest techniques, court testi-mony procedures, defensive tactics, and study ofthe many federal laws the service is empoweredto enforce. The uniformed postal police officersundergo the basic law enforcement officers’ courseat the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center atGlynco, Georgia.
The jurisdiction of the postal inspectors is vast,not only in the number of laws they enforce, but inthe range of activities in which they participate. Inaddition to such obvious areas as crimes by andagainst Postal Service employees and federal lawson burglary, robbery, and mailbox destruction,inspectors also enforce laws against child porno-graphy; obscene advertising or other mailings; con-trolled substances transported through the mails; mailbombs; drugs or other illegal substances; counter-feit stamps and money orders; identity fraud (whichoften begins with stolen mail); theft, delay, or destruc-tion of mail; money laundering; embezzlement or
use of the mails to send extortion demands forransoms or rewards; and many other offenses thatrely on use of the mail to perpetrate.
Because of the wide range of their responsibili-ties, postal inspectors often share jurisdiction withother federal, state, or local law enforcement agen-cies and their involvement in many cases is oftenbehind the scenes. Cases may be solely domestic ormay involve law enforcement agencies of manycountries and the frauds are often limited only bythe imaginations of the criminals. Between 1995and 1997 a small investment firm known as theOstrich Group used the mail to defraud more than80 investors of more than $800,000 by claiming tosell and care for income-producing ostriches andtheir eggs. More recently, one individual who cre-ated phony Internet auction sites was able to useother people’s credit cards to order hundreds ofcomputer-related items and printers that wereshipped from the United States to at least four othercountries. By failing to deliver items that buyershad purchased, the schemer committed mail fraud.Resolution of the case eventually involved not onlythe Postal Inspection Service, but the U.S. CustomsService, security and loss prevention managers of anumber of U.S. companies, and police and consularofficials in Singapore, Pakistan, Dubai, and theUnited Arab Emirates.
Inspectors have been responsible for investigat-ing the rash of shootings by disgruntled postalemployees that occurred in the 1990s. The preva-lence of these violent confrontations in a number ofpostal facilities around the nation led to the coiningof the phrase to go postal to describe a violentemployee who attacks coworkers or supervisors at ajob site.
Mail theft, while less dramatic than train rob-beries, continues to be a focus of the inspectionservice. In 2003, the postal service handled an aver-age of 668 million pieces of mail daily. Thievesmay attempt to steal a portion of this mail from col-lection boxes and home mailboxes. Although theyreceive little attention nationally, there also con-tinue to be periodic robberies from postal trucksand even from individual mail carriers on theirroutes. One way in which thefts from home mailboxes
U.S. Postal Inspection Service—�—883
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 883
have been minimized is by direct deposit ofgovernment checks and payments from many largecorporations, which minimizes the probability thatresidential mailboxes in apartment buildings or infront of person’s homes will contain checks.
Some thieves are also interested in mail leavingpeople’s homes. By hunting for envelopes that mightcontain personal checks, thieves hope to wash thechecks with cleaning products so that they can erasethe name and amount and rewrite the checks tothemselves. Theft of credit cards, credit card infor-mation, or communications from banks or finan-cial institutions also aid identity theft, encouragingthieves to look for mail that might contain names,addresses, and social security numbers. The PostalInspection Service estimated that in 2002, almost10 million Americans were victims of identitytheft, at a cost of $5 billion. In 2003, there wereestimates that more than 2,000 people a week werevictimized by identity theft, much of it facilitatedby mail theft.
An extension of the first inspection service crimelab that was established in 1946, the Forensic andTechnical Services Division has grown to includeunits specializing in questioned documents, finger-prints, controlled substances, digital evidence (recov-ered from computers and other electronic media),polygraphs, and technical services. Employing morethan 100 inspectors and about 900 nonpolice forensicspecialists, financial analysts, and others, this unitprovides scientific and technical support to agents inthe field. Its main laboratory is located in Virginiawith satellite labs in New York, Chicago, Memphis,and San Francisco in addition to five technicalservice field offices located around the country. Twoof its busiest sections are the questioned documentsand chemistry units. Inspectors in the questioneddocument unit determine the authenticity of disputeddocuments, including comparing handwriting, type-writing, and commercial printing; analyzing paperand ink types; and restoring altered impressions.Forensic chemists analyze materials sent throughthe mail that are suspected of being controlled sub-stances. They have positively identified virtually alltypes of illegal drugs as having been transportedthrough the mail.
Bombs, whether sent through the mail or used inattempts to deter the mail, are also a major concernof the postal service. The need for postal inspectorsto become trained in bomb investigations was firstrecognized in 1955, when a bomb exploded on anaircraft that was transporting mail. In recent years,though, concerns about explosives have centered ondomestic and foreign terrorists sending eitherbombs, or such lethal bacteria as anthrax, throughthe mail. Letter bombs and other explosives beingsent through the mails have a long history. But thistype of crime received public attention during thecase of Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whowas responsible for a string of bombings from 1978to 1996. During those years, Kaczynski mailed ordelivered 16 bombs to various targets, many of whichappeared to have no connection with one another.Three people were killed and 23 injured. The firstbomb, on May 25, 1978, injured one person at North-western University in Chicago; the last one killedGilbert Murray, a timber industry lobbyist who onApril 25, 1995, opened a package that had beenmailed to his Sacramento, California, office fromOakland, California. Kaczynski was captured bypostal inspectors and Federal Bureau of Investigationagents only after he insisted that a 35,000-word mani-festo be published by the news media, resulting inhis brother recognizing his writing style andinforming the federal government. He was trackeddown and arrested on April 3, 1966, at a mountaincabin where he lived without running water or elec-tricity. In January 1998, after being declared com-petent to stand trial, Kaczynski agreed to a pleabargain that sent him to prison for life.
Although the public often perceives mailbombers to be driven by politics, postal inspectorshave also investigated cases involving jilted spousesor lovers seeking revenge or business associates oremployees getting even after business failures orsetbacks. Although anthrax attacks and scaresgained attention in the wake of the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks, about 175 such threats hadbeen investigated during 1999 and 2000, mostinvolving threats to courthouses, abortion clinics,churches, and post offices. Threats to spread deathor disease via the mail are more numerous than mail
884—�—U.S. Postal Inspection Service
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 884
bomb threats, which have averaged fewer than 20annually for the past few years compared to about170 billion pieces of mail.
Reflecting the vast jurisdiction of the postalinspectors, in the years between 1988 and 2002,they made between 10,000 and 12,000 arrests annu-ally, with between 1,400 and 2,000 of these for mailfraud. Conviction rates for mail fraud and for allother crimes are more than 80%. An employee mag-azine, The Bulletin, describes many of the service’smore unusual cases and is available for review onthe service’s Web site.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
About U.S. Postal Inspection Service. [Online]. Available:http://www.consumer.gov/postalinspectors/aboutus.htm
Chipman, A. (1977). Tunnel 13. Medford, OR: Pine Cone.Denniston, E. (1964). America’s silent investigators: The story
of the postal inspectors who protect the United Statesmail. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.
Green, D. (2003, February 2). Mail theft a common practice.The Miami Herald. [Online]. Available: http://www.Herald.com
Hanser, R. (2002, July/August). Domestic terrorism and theUnited States mail system. Crime & Justice International,pp. 7–8.
History of the postal inspection service. (1982). Washington,DC: Postal Inspection Service.
U.S. Postal Inspection Service. [Online]. Available:http://www.usps.com
Winnie, M. (1995). Priority mail: The investigation and trialof a mail bomber obsessed with destroying our justicesystem. New York: Scribner.
� U.S. SUPREME COURT POLICE
The U.S. Supreme Court Police (USSCP) has pri-mary responsibility for protecting the chief justice,associate justices, and any official guests of theSupreme Court. The USSCP monitors the SupremeCourt Building and grounds and adjacent streets toprotect the employees and visitors of the Court aswell as its property. Additional responsibilitiesinclude courtroom security and emergency response.
Despite the overwhelming majesty and complex-ity that the Supreme Court Building imposes on its
visitors, it houses fewer than 400 employees, withthe 121 USSCP officers being the largest organizedgroup among them. Although the U.S. Supreme Court(established in 1789) is more than 200 years old, itdid not get its own police force until 1935, when itoccupied a separate building located at One FirstStreet, N.E., Washington, D.C., across from the U.S.Congress. Before that, from 1800 until 1935, theU.S. Capitol Police provided some security for theSupreme Court justices when they were meeting inthe Capitol. Initially, the USSCP had only 33 officerson force. This small federal police agency was estab-lished by statute on August 18, 1949.
In 1981, Congress passed legislation authorizingthe USSCP to protect justices and other designatedpersons outside the Court premises, granting them anationwide jurisdiction for this responsibility andgiving them clear authority to carry firearms andmake arrests for any violation of federal or state lawand any regulation under federal or state law. Withthese broader powers given to the USCCP, theCourt is able to determine its protective require-ments away from its building and grounds, createits own rules and criteria, and initiate its own deci-sions. The Supreme Court reports annually to theCongress about the cost of its security.
The USSCP chief has a captain’s rank and isresponsible to the marshal of the Supreme Court.The marshal of the Court is its general manager, itschief financial officer, and the supervisor of itspolice force. The Supreme Court marshal has noofficial connection with the U.S. Marshals Servicein the Justice Department, which provides securityfor lower federal courts. Under 40 U.S.C. 6122,the marshal of the Supreme Court may designateemployees of the Supreme Court as members of theUSSCP, without additional compensation. In July2001, Pamela Talkin assumed responsibilities as thefirst female marshal of the Supreme Court.
In the early 1980s, an increased level of terroristthreats, assassination attempts, and street crimearound Washington, D.C., prompted new securitymeasures in the Court. The police officers started toinspect purses and briefcases carried by people,including staff, into the building. Those entering thebuilding must now walk through an airport-type
U.S. Supreme Court Police—�—885
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 885
metal detector. The marshal of the Court has issuedregulations governing the Supreme Court Buildingand grounds, including reasons for denying entry,expulsion, and arrest. Federal law prohibits demon-strations on the steps of the Supreme CourtBuilding (18 U.S.C. 1507), although the Court maygrant permission for the use of the perimeter side-walks on its grounds for picketing or parading. Anyviolator may be subject to a fine or imprisonment.
In 1999, USSCP was given 36 additional officersin order to provide an adequate level of securityto the building. The force has a plan for emergencysituations but does not make it public. Under emer-gency circumstances, justices are escorted to oneof several secure locations along with leaders ofCongress and cabinet members. Although securityprotection of the Supreme Court justices includes aprovision that all nine judges are escorted by theUSSCP to and from work, several judges drive them-selves and a few use a small pool of government-owned cars with drivers. The judges also refused aplan of the USSCP to protect the building withboards that would impede an attack from a truckbomb. They were concerned that the boards wouldconvey an image of inaccessibility. As a result of theanthrax contamination of the building in October2001, all court mail is now irradiated in Ohio.
The budget of the Supreme Court is modest rela-tive to that of other government offices. In fiscalyear 1998, the Congress approved $37.5 million topay for the salaries and expenses, including care ofthe Supreme Court building and grounds. After theSeptember 11 attacks, the marshal received an addi-tional $1.25 million to install protective film on thewindows and $10 million for the protection of thebuilding and its grounds.
As of 2003, the USSCP required that candidatesbe mature and responsible individuals with a highschool diploma and have other law enforcementexperience or a bachelor’s degree. Prospective can-didates undergo a medical and psychological exam-ination, background investigation, and interview.New police officers complete an eight-week BasicPolice Training Program at the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia,and then agency-specific training conducted by
senior USSCP officers. The entry-level salary wasin the low $ 40,000s.
Maria Kiriakova
For Further Reading
Biskupic, J., & Witt, E. (1997). Guide to the U.S. SupremeCourt. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Kaiser, F. M. (1988). The U.S. Capitol Police and SupremeCourt Police: Expanding their protective mandates andjurisdiction. Police Studies, 11, 81–91.
Torres, D. A. (1985). Handbook of federal police and inves-tigative agencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Williams, R. L. (1997). Supreme Court of the United States:The staff that keeps it operating. Smithsonian, 7, 39–48.
� USA PATRIOT ACT
The USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) is the shorthandterm for Public Law 107-56, federal legislation thatis also known by its complete name, the Uniting andStrengthening America by Providing AppropriateTools Required to Intercept and Obstruct TerrorismAct. This legislation was signed into law byPresident George W. Bush on October 26, 2001,less than two months after the U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ) proposed an initial version days afterSeptember 11, 2001. The 342-page bill was meant,according to the legislation, to provide the presidentand DOJ with the “tools and resources necessary todisrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infra-structure of terrorist organizations, to prevent orthwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetratorsof terrorist acts.”
The original proposal, crafted by DOJ with repre-sentatives of a number of federal agencies, sought toexpand the investigative and surveillance techniquesavailable to law enforcement. It was presented to theHouse Judiciary Committee by Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft on September 24, 2001, and to theSenate Committee on the Judiciary on the nextday. The Senate approved its version, Senate Bill1510, on October 11, 2001, and the House ofRepresentatives approved H.R. 2975 two days laterafter incorporating pending money launderingprovisions. On October 25, 2001, the final version
886—�—USA PATRIOT Act
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 886
of the act, which incorporated provisions of thepending Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, waspassed by Congress and became law the next day.
The USAPA consists of 10 separate sections,each of which addresses a distinct topic, includingdomestic security, surveillance procedures, moneylaundering and currency crimes, border protection,information sharing, and intelligence collection, aswell as providing funding for victims of terrorism,first responders, and other public safety officers;training for certain agencies; limiting hazardousmaterials licenses; and establishing a grant programfor domestic preparedness support. Rather than set-ting out a comprehensive statement of applicablelaw, the USAPA amended a number of existing fed-eral laws; thus its terms are found throughout theUnited States Code. The laws amended includethose that deal with federal crimes, immigrationand naturalization, banks and banking, money andfinance, educational institutions, public health andwelfare, communications, transportation, war,national defense and espionage—including theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—andprovisions relating to the Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA). The wide-ranging application ofthe USAPA to federal law reflects the broad rangeof topics that are addressed under the rubric of aresponse to terrorism. This act has not been the onlyfederal legislative response to modern terrorism;rather, it joins the Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act of 1996 and the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act of 1968, and their amendments,which also contain provisions directed to bothdomestic and international terrorism.
ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
The USAPA is most known for its significantexpansion of the information it makes available tolaw enforcement, the methods allowed for the col-lection of that information, and the permissibleexchange of information between law enforcementand other governmental and investigative agencies.This expansion of tactics and targets, provisions forwhich are found in Title II, eviscerates many of theprevious constraints on domestic investigations.
The expansion was accomplished primarily byenlarging the application of FISA to cover investi-gations in which foreign intelligence information ismerely a significant purpose as opposed to the pre-vious requirement that obtaining such informationbe the purpose for obtaining the order and seizure.Because USAPA §218 expands FISA to encompassinvestigations in which foreign intelligence is notthe primary purpose, USAPA tools may be usedeven when the primary purpose of the investigationis everyday law enforcement. FISA orders are notpermissible when the basis lies solely in a person’sexercise of First Amendment rights.
The broadest access to information is provided by§215, which amends FISA to allow access to anytangible things (including books, records, papers,documents, and other items) for an investigation toobtain foreign intelligence information or to protectagainst international terrorism or clandestine intelli-gence activities. These things may be taken fromany person, business, or agency, not only from thetarget of an investigation. There is no restriction onthe type of material available, including medicalrecords; library records; computer disks; DNA orbiological material; and legal, business, or financialrecords. An order must be obtained from a desig-nated FISA judicial officer to allow seizure of thematerial, but the judicial officer has no discretionto deny the order once the requisite application ismade by the director of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) or a high-ranking designee. It isnot necessary to set out facts in support of therequest nor to establish any threshold showing—such as probable cause or reasonable suspicion—tojustify the seizure. Once a seizure is ordered, no onemay disclose that the items have been sought by orproduced to the FBI. Thus, a person about whominformation has been seized will have no notifica-tion of the seizure or any opportunity to challenge it.
Title II of the USAPA broadens the permissibleuse of several traditional forms of surveillance.Nationwide installation and use of “pen register”and “trap and trace” devices are allowed under §214and §216 of the USAPA, amending FISA, when anattorney for the federal government certifies to acourt that the information likely to be obtained is
USA PATRIOT Act—�—887
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 887
“relevant to an ongoing investigation to protectagainst international terrorism or clandestine intel-ligence activities.” These orders can compel anyperson or entity providing wire or electroniccommunication anywhere in the United States toprovide information concerning a user, includingrouting and addressing information about Internetcommunications and such non-Internet communi-cations as voicemail. The user whose information isobtained need not be the target of the investigation.More geographically limited orders under §214 areavailable to state law enforcement and investigativeagencies.
The USAPA, in §206 and §207, allows the “rov-ing wiretap” in a FISA investigation, with the orderallowing such surveillance obtainable under therelaxed FISA standards. This surveillance caninclude intercepts on all phones, computers, and soon that the target of the investigation may haveused. The order allowing such surveillance maydirect any person to assist in the surveillance; it isnot limited to the service provider.
The notification of the existence or execution ofany warrant or order allowing the search or seizureof anything “that constitutes evidence of a criminaloffense” may be delayed pursuant to USAPA §213,allowing “sneak and peek” searches with no noticeto the target or to the person or entity searched.However, once an investigation has obtained “for-eign intelligence information,” USAPA §203 allowsthe sharing of that information, as well as federalgrand jury information, with domestic and foreignagencies.
Title II, §224, of the USAPA contains a sunsetprovision that causes several of the sections toexpire on December 31, 2005. Additional legisla-tion will be required to extend these provisions, andthus their adequacy, efficacy, and legality will beassessed in the political arena.
Title III includes provisions regarding moneylaundering, bank secrecy, and currency crimes. Itexpands U.S. jurisdiction over certain financialcrimes and adds administrative regulations applica-ble to certain parts of the financial industry. Theseprovisions generally expand government entitle-ment to the financial information of individuals,
organizations, or entities engaged in or reasonablysuspected of engaging in terrorist acts or moneylaundering activities. There is no requirement thatthe suspected money laundering activities have anyrelationship to terrorism; thus, this section is applic-able to general law enforcement and to any investi-gation that may involve money laundering. The lawexpands the categories of businesses required to filereports of suspicious financial transactions or activ-ity, whether or not they are terrorism related. Thecontents of those reports can be made available inemployment references to other financial institu-tions, as well as to intelligence agencies, togetherwith the files of consumer reporting agencies. Thisdisclosure is to be made upon certification by theagency that the file is necessary for its conduct orinvestigation, activity, or analysis. This provisionmakes financial information of citizens broadlyavailable to intelligence agencies without any notifi-cation to the person whose information is disclosed.
Title IV addresses administrative issues regard-ing the status of aliens affected by the events ofSeptember 11, 2001. In addition, §411 broadens thecategories of aliens who are deportable from andinadmissible to the United States now, includingaliens, their spouses, and children when the alienhas ties to a terrorist organization. Ties includeadvocacy, fundraising, and providing material sup-port to such an organization or to persons involvedin terrorist activity. The provision gives the secre-tary of state authority to designate domestic orinternational terrorist organizations. The broad def-inition of terrorist activity potentially could includemany domestic activist groups having no relation-ship to international political terrorism.
Under §412, the attorney general may certifyaliens lawfully in the United States as terroristswhen there is reasonable grounds to believe that theperson is affiliated with a terrorist organization orengaged in terrorist activities as broadly defined inthe statute. Once certified, the individuals may bedetained indefinitely with no review other thanhabeas corpus proceedings if the attorney generaldetermines that they threaten national security orthe safety of the community or any person. Anotherimmigration provision includes information sharing
888—�—USA PATRIOT Act
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 888
that gives immigration authorities access to FBIand other criminal history data in connection withthe visa approval process. The information in the“visa-lookout” database and information on individ-ual aliens may also be shared, with few limitations,with foreign governments to “combat terrorism andtrafficking in controlled substances, persons orweapons.”
A number of sections of the law are concernedwith tracking foreign students who are in the UnitedStates. Title IV, §416, directs the attorney general toimplement and expand a foreign student trackingsystem, including a student database that includesport and date of entry. Title V, in §507 and §508,authorizes federal law enforcement agencies toobtain student records from educational agenciesand institutions and to retain, disseminate, and usethe records as evidence in administrative or judicialproceedings, regardless of preexisting privacyrights in those records and restrictions on disclosure.In addition, information that has been collectedfrom individuals under the National EducationStatistics Act, including individually identifiableinformation, may be obtained by law enforcementagencies upon an order issued by a judicial officerwho has no discretion to deny the application.
CRIMINAL LAW APPLICATIONS
The USAPA, in §802, includes in the definitionof domestic terrorism an act “dangerous to humanlife” that is a violation of the criminal laws of astate or the United States, if the act appears to beintended to intimidate or coerce a civilian popula-tion; influence the policy of a government by intim-idation or coercion; or affect the conduct of agovernment by mass destruction, assassination, orkidnapping, and the act occurs primarily within theterritorial jurisdiction of the United States. Suchacts that occur outside the country or that “tran-scend national boundaries” were previously definedin 18 U.S.C. 2331 as international terrorism andremain so. The inclusion of acts that only appearintended to intimidate or coerce includes manydomestic individual or group activities that are nowsubject to prosecution as terrorism. The broadening
of the concept of terrorism in the USAPA is alsoevident in §806, which includes in the definitionof “material support to terrorists” the providing of“monetary instruments” and “expert advice andassistance” without any specification that such sup-port be directed at the terrorist activities. In lightof the broad definitions throughout the USAPA, thisprohibition encompasses a wide range of supportto an even wider range of groups, many of whichmight have numerous nonterrorist functions andactivities.
In §806, the USAPA allows the seizure and civilforfeiture of all assets, foreign and domestic, of aterrorist organization without any allegation of anycrime. Assets subject to forfeiture are those of anyindividual, entity, or organization engaged in plan-ning or perpetrating any act of domestic or inter-national terrorism against the United States, itscitizens, or their property. Assets can be seizedbefore any hearing, and without notice to the owner,who may then be deprived of the use of those assetsfor an extended period of time pending a full for-feiture hearing. The basis of forfeiture is a showing,by a preponderance of the evidence, that the assetsor the owners have the necessary connection toterrorism. Again, the inclusion here of the verybroadly defined domestic terrorism exposes a widevariety of groups to this provision. Other forfeitureprovisions, found in §106 of USAPA, apply toproperty owned by a foreign person or entity withsome relationship to an attack on the United States.
The USAPA also makes a variety of amendmentsto technical aspects of terrorism prosecutions, forexample, statutes of limitations and sentencing pro-visions, and expands definitions of several offenses,including cyberterrorism and biological weaponsoffenses. Likewise, the attorney general is givenprimary investigative authority over all federalcrimes of terrorism.
Title VI of the USAPA contains provisions con-cerning aid to the families of public safety officersand amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of1984. Title VII authorizes certain information shar-ing in connection with critical infrastructure protec-tion. Title IX expands the role of the CIA byallowing the dissemination of all information from
USA PATRIOT Act—�—889
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 889
electronic surveillance or physical searches underFISA, which under USAPA now includes investiga-tions in which foreign intelligence issues are notprimary. In addition, Title IX allows the attorneygeneral, the director of the CIA, and the secretary ofdefense to defer the submission of intelligencereports to Congress. Finally, the USAPA includesprovisions such as Drug Enforcement Administra-tion funding, telemarketing and consumer fraudlegislation, crime identification technology and bio-metrics, and critical infrastructure protection fund-ing. It provides immunity from civil liability tovarious third parties who cooperate with the inves-tigative process.
CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE USAPA
The USAPA has stirred a variety of controversies.From the point of view of federal law enforcement,supplementary legislation has been discussed toremedy perceived weaknesses in the USAPA.Opposition to the act has been multifaceted andarguments have been made that invoke the funda-mental guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Theexpansion of executive power over investigationsand commensurate reduction of judicial controlover such investigations have given rise to criticismthat the USAPA violates core principles of separa-tion of powers, checks and balances, and dueprocess. The breadth of the statutory language thatallows the use of expanded law enforcement powerhas generated criticism that the expanded powersmay allow widespread avoidance of the traditionalFourth Amendment restrictions on search andseizure. Vague definitions of key terms such asdomestic terrorism and material support give rise tofears that even those portions of the law that arefocused on terrorism might be applied to traditionalcriminal activity as well as to political protest. Theunprecedented access afforded to all forms of pri-vate material has generated concern for the preser-vation of privacy interests. In particular, the broadaccess to domestic information afforded to the CIAhas led critics to invoke past abuses by that agency.Extremely severe penalties for mere advocacy orassociation with suspect organizations have chilled
fundamental First Amendment rights of expression.Increased reporting obligations regarding finan-cial transactions have imposed a burden on privatebusinesses.
Critics have charged that this multitude ofamendments approved by Congress in the immedi-acy of the events of September 11, 2001, was actu-ally unnecessary and that effective use of existinglaw enforcement tools and intelligence resourcescould have detected, and even prevented, the attack.Some cynics view the USAPA as nothing more thana long-standing law enforcement wish list that wasopportunistically proposed to Congress for itsapproval during the shock and horror of those days.Proponents of the legislation argue that thenew tools and techniques afforded to law enforce-ment and intelligence agencies will help achievethe goals of national security and prevention ofterrorism.
Some of the dissention regarding the USAPA hasbeen fueled by misconceptions that ascribe allaspects of the War on Terror to this legislation. Infact, the USAPA does not provide for the designa-tion of “enemy combatants” whether or not they areU.S. citizens, nor does it establish the GuantanamoBay or any other detention facility, or provide formilitary tribunals. U.S. military operations inAfghanistan and Iraq are authorized separately fromthe USAPA. Many controversial law enforcementactions, such as the widespread detentions of certainaliens who are out of lawful immigration status,represent merely the more stringent enforcement ofpreexisting laws, rather than the implementation ofnew laws under the USAPA. The expanded secrecyprovisions of the USAPA have compounded the con-fusion regarding the exact parameters of this legisla-tion; because it allows investigations to proceed insecret, the public is unable to assess its true impact.
The ongoing debate over the USAPA representsa modern manifestation of the struggle to achievean equilibrium between the need for security andthe guarantee of fundamental civil liberties, whilemaintaining the core principles of our constitutionalsystem.
Mary Gibbons
890—�—USA PATRIOT Act
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 890
For Further Reading
Doyle, C. (2002, April 15). The U.S.A. Patriot Act: A legalanalysis (CRS Rep. No. RL31377). Washington, DC:Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Heymann, P. B. (2003). Terrorism, freedom and security:Winning without war. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
O’Harrow, R., Jr. (2002, October 27). Six weeks in autumn: Ayear ago, as a nation reeled from attack, a battle wasjoined for America’s future. Not in Afghanistan. InWashington. The Washington Post Magazine.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing AppropriateTools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.Publ. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
USA PATRIOT Act—�—891
U-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 891
V� VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT
Responding to the harm to women caused bydomestic abuse, rape, stalking, sexual assault, andother forms of violence, in 1994 Congress enactedthe Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWAcontained numerous provisions designed to reducethe frequency of violence against women, to holdperpetrators accountable for their actions, and toprovide greater relief to victims. It also authorized$1.62 billion in federal funds over six years forthese purposes. The most innovative provision ofVAWA created a civil rights remedy allowingvictims of violent crimes motivated by gender tobring a legal action against their perpetrators formonetary damages and other relief. However, in2000, in United States v. Morrison, the SupremeCourt of the United States held that the civil rightsprovision of VAWA was unconstitutional.
BACKGROUND AND KEY PROVISIONS
Congress enacted VAWA following extensive hear-ings on the pervasiveness of violence committed bymen in the United States against women. Congressfound that a principle effect of this gender-basedviolence was to exclude women from full participationin the economic sphere, including by undermining the
ability of women to maintain employment andforcing many women into poverty and welfaredependency. Congress determined that existingstate laws were inadequate to address the system-atic violence against women because such lawsoften exempted marital rape and precluded recoveryfor torts committed by a victim’s spouse or parentand because police, prosecutors, and judges tendedto trivialize domestic violence, rape, and othercrimes in which women were victims. Moreover,existing laws did not remedy crimes motivatedspecifically by gender bias that undermined theplace of women as equal citizens.
VAWA used a multipronged approach to addressviolence against women. Subtitle A, labeled SafeStreets for Women, increased prisons sentences forperpetrators of federal sex crimes and imposedmandatory restitution to victims; provided fundingfor states to investigate and prosecute violentcrimes against women and to improve the safety ofparks and public transportation; allowed the use offederal funds for rape prevention and educationalprograms; and amended the federal rules of evidenceto prohibit introducing evidence about a victim’ssexual behavior or history in rape trials and othercases. Subtitle B (Safe Homes for Women) fundeda national domestic violence hotline, criminalizeddomestic violence committed across state lines,required states to recognize orders of protection
893
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 893
issued in other states, required the collection of dataat a federal level on sexual and domestic violence,and increased funding for women’s shelters and toeducate young people.
Subtitle C of VAWA (Civil Rights for Women),the provision at issue in the Morrison case, madecertain gender-based crimes federal civil rights vio-lations. This provision empowered victims of violentcrimes motivated by gender to sue their attackers infederal or state court for compensatory and punitivedamages, injunctive relief, and other remedies. VAWAdefined a crime of violence broadly to include anyfelony under federal or state law against a personor against property if it entailed a serious risk ofphysical injury to a person. Such crimes were deemedmotivated by gender, and therefore subject to a civilaction, if committed because of the victim’s genderor on the basis of gender and due to an animustoward the victim’s gender. This provision maderelief available to victims even if the perpetrator ofgender-based violence had never been prosecutedunder criminal law.
Subtitle D (Equal Justice for Women in theCourts) provided grants to educate judges and courtpersonnel about rape and domestic violence and tostudy gender bias in the federal courts. Subtitle E(Violence Against Women Act Improvements)increased penalties for federal sex offenses, allowedvictims of sexual assault free testing for sexuallytransmitted diseases, and funded studies aboutcampus-based violence and battered women’s syn-drome. Subtitle F (National Stalker and DomesticViolence Reduction) enhanced record keepingand information sharing among federal, state, andlocal government on domestic violence and stalkingoffenses. Subtitle G (Protections for BatteredImmigrant Women and Children) allowed batteredimmigrant women to seek lawful immigrationstatus without the cooperation of an abusive spouse.Together, these provisions made VAWA a far-reachingresponse to violence against women.
MORRISON AND ITS AFTERMATH
United States v. Morrison involved a lawsuitbrought by a woman under Subtitle C, the civil
rights provision of VAWA, against two men sheclaimed had raped her when they were all studentsat a Virginia university. In a 5-4 decision by ChiefJustice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Courtinvalidated Subtitle C on federalism grounds, therebydenying the plaintiff and victims like her the VAWAremedy. The Court held that Congress lacked con-stitutional authority to enact the civil rights provi-sion of VAWA because it addressed matters ofviolent crime that under the U.S. Constitution weretraditionally and properly the province of state, notnational, government.
Although Congress had found that violenceundermined the ability of women to participatefully in economic life, the Court in Morrison ruledthat Article I of the Constitution, which empowersCongress to regulate interstate commerce, could notsustain VAWA’s civil provision. Violence againstwomen involved a noneconomic activity that wastoo removed from Congress’ interstate commercepowers. The Court reasoned that violence againstwomen did not become a matter of federal concernjust because such violence may have economiceffects; allowing Congress power to legislate in thismanner would undermine the role of state govern-ments. The Court also ruled that the civil rightsprovision of VAWA could not be upheld as a validexercise of Congress’s power, under Section 5 ofthe Fourteenth Amendment, to enforce the constitu-tional guarantee that no state shall deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law, nor deny any person equal protec-tion of the laws. While recognizing that Section 5gives Congress broad legislative authority, the Courtheld that it only allows Congress to address govern-mental violations of civil rights. By giving victimsa remedy against private individuals who commitcrimes of violence, Congress had exceeded its con-stitutional powers. The plaintiff’s remedy thereforelay under Virginia and not federal law.
The Morrison case only dealt with the singleportion of VAWA that provided victims with a civilremedy against perpetrators of gender-based vio-lence. Without this provision, however, victims whoseek civil remedies must depend on the availabilityand reach of state laws—laws that Congress had
894—�—Violence Against Women Act
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 894
found inadequate at the time it enacted VAWA. TheSupreme Court’s decision in Morrison may alsoportend limitations on Congress’s ability to enactfuture laws protecting people from violations oftheir civil rights.
Jason Mazzone
For Further Reading
Schneider, E. M. (2000). Battered women and feministlawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, andconsequences of violence against women: Findings fromthe National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740(2000).
Violence Against Women Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat.1902 (1994).
� VIOLENT CRIME CONTROLAND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT
The Violent Crime Control and Law EnforcementAct was first referred to the House Committee onJudiciary on October 26, 1993, and was eventuallysigned by President William J. Clinton on September13, 1994. It became the largest crime fighting billpassed by Congress, with provisions for spendingalmost $30.2 billion from 1995 through 2000.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce-ment Act of 1994 (Crime Control Bill) (Publ. L. No.103-322) amended the Omnibus Crime Control andSafe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal programdeliberately designed as a block grant to assist stateand local law enforcement agencies in crime reduc-tion. The Crime Control Bill was a comprehensivebill that affected a variety of crime-fighting legisla-tion. There was grant funding to be dispersed acrossgovernments and agencies, in addition to manysubstantive provisions.
GRANT FUNDING
The law provided more than $30 billion to state, local,and Indian tribal governments, both public and private
agencies, and other multijurisdictional associationsto enhance public safety and combat crime. Thisincluded $3 billion in immigration initiatives and theremaining funding was spent on a multitude of grants.
The immigration funding was spent on variousaspects of immigration control, such as bordercontrol, deportations, tracking and monitoring theinflux of aliens, and provided $1.8 billion for reim-bursement to states that comprehensively criminal-ized illegal immigration, also known as the StateCriminal Alien Assistance Program.
The remaining grant initiatives totaled around$27.2 billion and encompassed an array of programsand initiatives. These include, but are not limited to,crime prevention block grants, the Brady HandgunViolence Prevention Act, Byrne grants, violenceagainst women, DNA analysis, education and pre-vention programs to help reduce sexual assaults,National Domestic Violence Hotline, batteredwomen’s shelters, delinquent and at-risk youth,drug courts, drug treatment, crime prevention, com-munity and family endeavor schools, crime preventionin public parks, police corps, rural law enforcement,community policing, and correctional facilities andboot camps.
The greatest contribution was provided to acompetitive grant called the Community OrientedPolicing Services program. This program was toreceive a total of $8.8 billion between 1995 and2000 to increase police presence by 100,000 officersand to improve communication and collaborationbetween law enforcement agencies and communitymembers. This initiative was also known as “cops onthe beat.” The next largest contribution of almost$8 billion was to go to correctional facilities, bootcamps, and alternative correctional facilities in anattempt to increase prison space for the more violentcriminals.
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
The Crime Control Act also had substantive criminalprovisions. It greatly impacted the way in whichstates prosecuted their criminals. It called forharsher punishments for a variety of crimes, as wellas enacting new legislation to control certain crimes.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—�—895
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 895
The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994
The law expanded death penalty sentencing toan additional 60 offenses. These additional crimesincluded some acts of espionage, terrorist acts, homi-cide, murder of federal law enforcement officers,and if death should occur during certain crimes,such as hostage situations, kidnapping, genocide,and carjacking.
Violent Offender Sentencing
The Crime Control Act required that states man-date that their violent prisoners complete at least85% of their sentence or be ineligible to receiveincarceration funding. This was part of the Truth-in-Sentencing initiative. In addition, federal repeatoffenders who were convicted of violent crimesor drug trafficking were subject to three strikesmandatory life-imprisonment sentencing.
Sex Offender Legislation
Sex offender legislation was amended so thatoffenders would be punished more harshly and couldbe supervised more effectively. For repeat sex offend-ers convicted of federal sex crimes, the new legislationdoubled the maximum term of imprisonment. TheCrime Control Act also required states to enact legis-lation that would require sexually violent predatorsand those convicted of violent sexual offenses to reg-ister with law enforcement for 10 years postreleasefrom prison. This has also become known as the JacobWetterling Crimes Against Children and SexuallyViolent Offender Registration Act. Furthermore, thebill required community notification. It also providedthe stipulation that states that did not execute theseregistration and notification systems would lose 10%of their allotted share of federal crime-fighting funds.
Punishment for Young Offenders
The statute required that juveniles receive moresevere punishments. For example, the act allowedfor individuals age 13 and older who were chargedwith possessing a firearm during an offense to beprosecuted as an adult.
Public Safety and RecreationalFirearms Use Protection Act
The act also called for greater gun control. Itbanned the manufacturing, transfer, and possessionof 19 styles of semiautomatic assault weapons andcertain firearms with ammunition magazines thatheld more than 10 rounds. It also made it illegal tosell assault weapons and firearms to, or for them tobe possessed by, domestic abusers and juveniles.The act also strengthened federal licensing require-ments for gun dealers, requiring that they obtainboth a photograph and fingerprints with the appli-cant’s license request. Last, it enhanced penaltiesinvolving possession and use of firearms, especiallyin crimes involving drug trafficking and violence.
Violence Against Women Act
According to President Clinton, this CrimeControl Act also became the first comprehensivefederal effort to focus on violence against women. Itaccomplished this by prosecuting offenders moreharshly and providing victims assistance programs.The act called for various measures, such as mandatoryrestitution to victims of sex crimes, the employmentof victim/witness counselors for the prosecution ofsex crimes and domestic violence crimes, and the revi-sion of Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,which made certain evidence inadmissible, such asthe alleged victim’s past sexual behavior.
Amy D’Olivio
See also Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, LawEnforcement Assistance Administration, OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act, Violence AgainstWomen Act
For Further Reading
Dodenhoff, P. (1994). LEN’s 1994 people of the year: Themakers of the Violent Crime Control Act. Law EnforcementNews, 20(414), 1, 14.
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center, NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service. (1994, October 24).Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.[Online]. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/billfs.txt
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. H.R.3355, 103rd Cong. 2nd Session (1994).
896—�—Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 896
� VOLSTEAD ACT
The Volstead Act, also know as the NationalProhibition Act, was established to prohibit the man-ufacture of intoxicating beverages and also to regu-late the production, transportation, use, and sale ofalcoholic beverages containing more than one-halfof 1% alcohol. Andrew Volstead (R-MN) was thechief sponsor of the act, which was initially ratifiedon January 16, 1919, but was vetoed by PresidentWoodrow Wilson. Congress overrode him andpassed the law on October 28, 1919. The VolsteadAct became effective as the Eighteenth Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution on January 17, 1920.
Alcohol consumption became a social issue inthe 19th century and the temperance movement wasubiquitous in the United States. People were con-cerned about the excessive use of alcoholic bever-ages causing moral delinquency through familyviolence, poverty, crime, disorder, and incompetencein the workplace. The call for prohibition of alcoholgrew in the United States and expanded largely as aresult of the coalition of temperance movements. Theleading groups struggling to outlaw drinking werethe Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon League, and the American TemperanceSociety. Women were particularly strong supportersof the temperance movement since alcohol was seenas a key factor in the destruction of families and mar-riages. The Anti-Saloon League was founded in 1893and became an influential political advocacy groupfor passing national prohibition on alcohol. Between1905 and 1917, many states across the nation passedlaws that prohibited the manufacture and sale ofintoxicating beverages. By 1914, 14 states hadadopted prohibition; by 1919 the number had risen to26. With the outbreak of World War I, the coalition oftemperance movements was able to win passage ofvarious federal prohibitory laws, the War Prohibitionfor instance, as part of the war effort to outlaw alco-hol. Thus, the Volstead Act extended the wartime lawto peacetime.
In 1917, the temperance movement activistsbegan to move forward to ban alcohol through leg-islation and the House of Representatives proposedProhibition as the Eighteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. Congress sent the amendment to thestates for approval, where it needed three-fourthsapproval. In just 13 months, 36 of 48 state legisla-tures had ratified the amendment that would pro-hibit the manufacture, sale, and transportation ofalcoholic beverages.
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
The enactment of the Eighteenth Amendmentmarked the end of a long struggle for prohibitionlegislation, but it was just the beginning of a newstruggle for enforcement of the law. Although over-all drinking was thought to have declined in theVolstead Act’s early years, it continued uninter-rupted in many parts of the country, particularly inlarge cities. Speakeasies, defined as clubs in whichillegal drinking flourished, soon mushroomed acrossthe country. In 1925, there were estimated to beabout 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone.People hid liquor in many ways such as hip flasks,hollowed canes, and false books. The act did just theopposite of what people expected. It rapidly createda black market for liquor that spawned organizedcrime, bootlegging, and corruption among thepolice. Even the health of people who drank alco-holic beverages deteriorated. Because liquor was nolonger available to the public, people turned to gang-sters operating the bootlegging industry and soldliquor with no quality control on the black market.
The failure of enforcement of the act and theincrease in crime related to Prohibition led publicopinion to turn against the Volstead Act. Calls forrepeal of the Eighteenth Amendment began as earlyas 1923. President Herbert Hoover ordered aninvestigation in 1929, which was completed in1931. It confirmed that the Eighteenth Amendmentremained largely unenforced in many parts of thenation. In 1932, the Democrats came out for therepeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. On March 22,the Volstead Act was revised to permit the sale of3.2% beer and wine. On December 5, 1933, prohi-bition was repealed by the adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment. It was the first and only time inU.S. history that a constitutional amendment wasrepealed. The Volstead Act was withdrawn.
Volstead Act—�—897
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 897
A number of factors contributed to the repeal ofthe Eighteenth Amendment. First, the enforce-ment of the prohibition was extremely difficult. Itmade society more violent, with open rebellionagainst the law, especially by organized crime.The government was unable to suppress crime,which increased public dissatisfaction. Second,the influence of the Anti-Salon League decreasedafter the death of its leader, Wayne Wheeler, in1927, while the groups that opposed the prohibi-tion became stronger and better organized. Third,the start of the Great Depression in 1929 changedthe political atmosphere in the United States and
President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt supportedthe repeal.
Yi Sheng
See also Prohibition Law Enforcement
For Further Reading
Blakemore, A. W. (1927). National prohibition: The VolsteadAct annotated and digest of national and state prohibitionacts. Albany, NY: Matthew Bender.
Cashman, S. D. (1981). Prohibition: The lie of the land.New York: Free Press.
Kyvig, D. E. (Ed.). (1985). Law, alcohol, and order: Perspectiveson national prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
898—�—Volstead Act
V-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 898
W� WACKENHUT CORPORATION
Formed in 1954 by George R. Wackenhut and threeother former special agents of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, the Wackenhut Corporation providessecurity services to a vast number of private andgovernment agencies. Its involvement with so manyfederal agencies is unique among private securityfirms, particularly in its role as a provider of uni-formed security officers for U.S. State Departmentfacilities around the world and for nuclear powerplants and transit agencies within the United States.
Much like the development of both the Pinkertonand the Burns detective agencies in the 19th cen-tury, the Wackenhut Corporation in the 21st centuryremains closely associated with its founder and hisfamily. By 1958, a number of smaller companies inwhich he was involved were combined under thename of Wackenhut Corporation, and George W.Wackenhut remained as president and chief execu-tive officer of the company for more than 30 years,after which his son became president. The familyremains closely associated with the firm, which isheadquartered in south Florida and has been pub-licly traded since 1966 with its stock traded on theNew York Stock Exchange from 1980 until itmerged with Group 4 Falck, a Danish security firm,in May 2002. Although it became a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Falck, Wackenhut continues to operate
as a separate company, even though its stock is nolonger publicly traded.
The Wackenhut Corporation is one of the largestprivate security companies in the world; it employsmore than 67,000 people, about 50,000 of whomprovide direct security services, around the globe.Revenues in 2001 were approximately $1.8 billion,not all of which were directly related to the securityportion of the business. The firm’s first internationaloffice opened in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1966.Currently, in addition to more than 150 domesticoffices, it operates on six continents, with offices inCanada, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, manyWestern European and Middle Eastern countries,and in South American and the Caribbean, andclaims operational capabilities through associationwith other firms in more than 85 countries. Whilemany of its clients are private, such as banks, officebuildings, and industrial complexes, it also providessecurity services to government and quasi-governmentagencies in many of these countries.
Beginning in 1978, through acquisition of anothersecurity firm, Wackenhut began providing technicaland consulting services to the nuclear industry.Through its nuclear services division it providessecurity at close to 30 nuclear generating plants inthe United States, including plant protection, accesscontrol, and fire and emergency medical services.Among the federal installations that rely on
899
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 899
Wackenhut for security and related services arethe Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site inSouth Carolina and its Nuclear Test Site in Nevada,the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Center inColorado, the Oak Ridge complex in Tennessee, theKennedy Space Center in Florida, the Johnson SpaceCenter in Texas, and a number of Department ofDefense facilities and Army ammunition plantsaround the country. It has also provided a range ofsecurity services at Hoover Dam. Wackenhut’s fed-eral contracts have been estimated to be worth about$200 million annually. Since the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001, Wackenhut has been contractedto provide passenger security screening for the CircleLine-Statute of Liberty ferry in New York City.
Through its custom protection division, initiatedin 1989, it provides uniformed officers for a numberof bus and rail systems around the country. Agenciesmay contract for either armed or unarmed officersor some combination of the two based on localfirearms licensing laws or crime conditions. Officershired for custom protection assignments are retiredmilitary or law enforcement personnel or criminaljustice students who hope to enter public lawenforcement. Wackenhut is also the single largestcompany providing security for U.S. embassiesoverseas. While the number fluctuates based on annualcontracts, it has guarded embassies and missions ina number of countries during times of civil unrest,including in Chile, Greece, and El Salvador. SinceSeptember 11, 2001, its State Department assignmentsare not as publicized as in earlier years.
In the early 1980s, Wackenhut developed a sub-sidiary that is active in the private prison construc-tion and management industry. Originally knownas the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the com-pany, which in 2003 managed more than 50 correc-tional or detention facilities, is no longer associatedwith the Wackenhut Corporation and in 2003changed its name to the GEO Group.
Another way in which the Wackenhut Corporationhas followed the traditions of the Pinkerton andBurns agencies has been the controversies that havesurrounded it. Possibly because George Wackenhutis known to hold conservative political views andbecause many former Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) officials have been on its board of directors,the firm has been accused of having been involvedin a number of CIA-sponsored activities and of hav-ing allowed the CIA to use its international officesto conduct investigations. None of these allegationshave been proven, and company officials deny allsuch claims.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Legg, J. M. (2003). Wackenhut now manning roadblocksin Nevada and Arizona. Voy Forums. [Online]. Available:http://www.voy.com/129276/46.html
Protecting the Statute of Liberty. (2003). Group 4 FalckInternational Magazine 46, 35–38.
Wackenhut. [Online]. Available: http://www.wackenhut.com
� WEAPONS OFMASS DESTRUCTION
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are chemical,biological, radiological, nuclear, and large explosive(CBRNE) means used as a terrorist tool. Severalterrorist groups are known to have used, acquired,or attempted to acquire WMD. These include AumShinrikyo, perpetrator of the 1995 Tokyo Sarinattack and al-Qaeda, which seeks chemical, biologi-cal, radiological, and nuclear weapons to further itsself-proclaimed global terrorist jihad. Additionally,after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centerin New York City and the Pentagon on September11, 2001, an unknown actor or actors conducted ananthrax attack via mailed envelopes to media andgovernment officials, yielding 22 cases of anthraxinfection, which ultimately resulted in five deaths.
DEFINING WEAPONSOF MASS DESTRUCTION
The label weapons of mass destruction is consideredto include chemical warfare agents, biological or bio-logic warfare agents, nuclear materials and radiolog-ical isotopes, or the intentional release of industrialagents as a weapon. A number of federal statutesprovide criminal jurisdiction over the use of biological,
900—�—Weapons of Mass Destruction
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 900
nuclear, chemical, or other weapons of mass destruction.These sections are found at 18 U.S.C. §§ 175, 831,2332c, 2332a. Specifically, biological terrorism is cov-ered at § 175, chemical at § 2332c, nuclear at § 831,and other weapons of mass destruction at § 2332a.These cover use or threatened use of WMD within theUnited States or extraterritorially whenever the perpe-trator or a victim is a U.S. national.
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Chemical or biological weapons can be utilizedas unconventional weapons by a variety of actorsand can include military agents or the intentionalrelease of industrial agents. Dissemination methodsmentioned in a chemical or bioterrorism contextinclude aerosol dissemination, water contamina-tion, food contamination, direct application, andinsect vectors. Attacks against water or food supplyare also possible with certain chemical and biolog-ical agents. For example, in 1984 the Rajneesheecult attacked local salad bars with Salmonellatyphimurium in The Dalles, Oregon, causing illnessamong approximately 751 people.
Many toxic substances can be potential chemicalweapons, although far fewer have actually beenturned into weapons (or weaponized). Examples ofmilitary chemical weapons include toxic industrialchemicals, such as chlorine, hydrogen cyanide, andphosgene; sulfur- and nitrogen-mustards selectedfor their blistering (vesicating) effects; and nerveagents, such as sarin and VX. Typical industrialchemicals can also be intentionally released.
Many pathogens can be potential biologicalweapons. These include the bacteria responsiblefor anthrax, cholera, and bubonic plague; the virusesresponsible for encephalitis, hemorrhagic fevers(such as Ebola), and smallpox; the Ricksettiaeresponsible for typhus and Q-fever; and varioustoxins. Toxins are poisonous substances that occurnaturally in animals, bacteria, fungi, and plants.Examples include botulinum toxin (BTX) and ricin,a plant toxin occurring in the castor bean that hasrecently been produced by Islamist extremists inGreat Britain for potential terrorist use. Biologicalweapons can be used against persons or as economic
weapons against agriculture (agroterrorism) directedagainst animals or plants.
Nuclear and Radiological Weapons
Nuclear and radiological weapons present anovel threat in the civilian setting. Prior to the dis-integration of the Soviet Union, nuclear issues wereviewed as elements of conventional military opera-tions. The few instances raising cause for alarminvolved nuclear extortion. In mid-October 1995,Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev threatenedto deploy radiological dispersion devices (RDDs)in Russia. Subsequently, a radioactive package wasfound in Moscow’s Ismailov Park. More recently,in May 2002, José Padilla, a former Chicago gangmember alleged to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, wasarrested for alleged participation in a conspiracy touse RDDs in the United States.
Attacks on nuclear facilities or shipments ofnuclear or radiological materials are one means ofcausing a nuclear or radiological incident. Anotherthreat is the diversion and deployment of conven-tional military nuclear weapons. While considered aremote possibility by most analysts, reports of fissilematerial leakage, and attempts by rogue nations andnonstate terrorist actors to obtain nuclear capabilitiesshow that it may be possible. Diversion of actualweapons (a loose nuke) or of fissionable material—known as special nuclear material—via theft, seizure,or clandestine purchase could make nuclear terrorisma reality. Numerous open source reports refer to thedesire of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and its affili-ates to pursue this option. Crude nuclear explosivesknown as improvised nuclear devices (INDs) are alsoa potential threat. The impact of a loose or crudenuclear device in an urban area would be devastating.
Radiological dispersal weapons (RDWs) includeRDDs and simple radiological dispersal (SRD).RDWs spread radioactive material, contaminatingpeople, equipment, and the environment. RDWs donot release radiation in a massive burst of energy.Rather, isotopes are dispersed (by an explosive ormechanical means) exposing persons to radiation.Terrorists can construct RDWs by obtaining radio-logical isotopes or sources used in industrial or medical
Weapons of Mass Destruction—�—901
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 901
applications. RDWs are not likely to cause largenumbers of immediate deaths, but may be responsi-ble for excess cancer in the exposed population.Despite the low casualty-generating potential ofmost RDW scenarios, fear of radiation could causesignificant disruption.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Law enforcement action to address WMDsincludes intelligence toward prevention or interdic-tion, as well as response to and investigation of actualincidents. In the United States, the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) is the lead federal agency forWMD investigations. Each FBI field office has adesignated WMD coordinator who works closelywith local officials to address WMD issues. TheDepartment of Homeland Security performs manyroles related to preparing for, and responding to,WMD incidents, including border and maritimesecurity, intelligence sharing, training, equipment,and grant support to local response agencies andtechnology development for response.
Local police missions include containment(perimeter and area closure), evacuation, traffic con-trol, area security, force protection (protecting fire andhealth personnel), crime scene management and evi-dence collection, and investigation (in coordinationwith the FBI and public health authorities). WMDincidents are crimes that require skilled law enforce-ment intervention and management. They may com-bine elements of hazardous materials response andpublic health emergencies; response from local, state,and federal agencies necessitating special skills; anda high degree of interagency coordination.
John P. Sullivan
See also Chemical and Biological Terrorism; Department ofHomeland Security; Emergency Preparedness; FederalBureau of Investigation; Nuclear Security,Department of Energy
For Further Reading
DeGeneste, H. I., Silverstein, M. E., & Sullivan, J. P. (1996,October). Chemical and biological terrorism: Upping theante? The Police Chief, pp. 70–80.
Jernigan, D. B., Raghunathan, P. L., Bell, B. P., Brechner, R.,Bresnitz, E. A., Butler, J. C., et al. (n.d.). Investigationof bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001:Epidemiologic findings. Emerging infectious diseases.[Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/v018n010/02–0353.htm
Sullivan, J. P. (Ed.). (2002). Jane’s unconventional weaponsresponse handbook. Alexandria, VA: Jane’s InformationGroup.
Symonds, D. R. (2003, March). A guide to selected weaponsof mass destruction, The Police Chief, pp. 19–29.
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 175, 831, 2332c, 2332a.
� WELLS FARGO
Wells Fargo was not the first express company in theUnited States, but it became synonymous with theAmerican West and with the fight against the rob-bers who called to drivers to “throw down that box,”the iron-bound green box that contained money,gold, mail, and whatever else people might need tosend from one place to another. Despite its associa-tion with the West, particularly in relationship to lawenforcement, Wells Fargo was formed in 1852 bytwo Easterners, Henry Wells and William G. Fargo,to serve the west by offering banking and expresspackage delivery. In 1845, the two had previouslyformed Wells & Co.’s Western Express to provideexpress and package service west of Buffalo,New York, to Cincinnati, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri;and Chicago, Illinois. Its modern equivalents wouldbe the United Parcel Service and Federal Express.
After 1866, Wells Fargo combined all the majorwestern stagecoach lines and its distinctive coachesbegan to travel over 3,000 miles of territory fromNebraska west to California. Wells Fargo carriedpassengers, mail, and packages in its stagecoaches;valuables were locked in Wells Fargo’s easily iden-tifiable green iron boxes. The boxes were alwaysplaced on the driver’s bench of the stagecoachesand protected by shotgun messengers, virtually allof whom were crack shots with a rifle and many ofwhom were peace officers before, during, or aftertheir employment with Wells Fargo.
At a time when there were few local police andno federal law enforcement, the shotgun messengers,undercover agents, and special agents employed by
902—�—Wells Fargo
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 902
Wells Fargo constituted a police system set up notonly to combat bandits but also to investigate inter-nal theft and fraud within the company. This systemwas the model of policing that would be followedby the railroads when they set up their policing sys-tem and by many federal agencies that also reliedon a combination of plainclothes special agents andinternal auditors for their policing, with the additionof uniformed officers at their primary locations laterin their development.
In 1858, Wells Fargo was estimated to have car-ried between 70 and 90% of the mail in California,making the coaches immediate targets for some ofthe famous western robbers. To combat these theftsand robberies, the company employed a vast net-work of stagecoach shotgun messengers, who rodein the passenger seat of the stagecoach to protectgoods and lives and were expected to shoot to killany would-be robbers. On some particularly dan-gerous routes, the stagecoaches traveled in caravanswith armed riders in front and behind the coachesthat carried bullion during the gold rush years. Thevalue of the packages carried by Wells Fargo wouldbe difficult to estimate at current value. Between1870 and 1877, one messenger was estimated tohave carried $4 million worth of gold solely withinthe state of California.
The shotgun messengers who also had careersas public law enforcement officers included WyattEarp, later a deputy U.S. marshal, and both hisbrothers, Virgil, later a city marshal of Tombstone,Arizona, and Morgan, a Tombstone police officer;and Bob Paul, later sheriff of Pima County,Arizona, and U.S. marshal of Arizona Territory.Less well-known was “Old Charlie” Parkhurst, amessenger who died in 1897 and was only thendiscovered to have been a woman.
OLD CASES WERE NOT COLD CASES
Although many of the detectives are less famous,their reputation as the force who never forgets rein-forced their technique of expending money and man-power to hunt down those who robbed them. Oneof Wells Fargo’s best-known detectives was JamesB. Hume. Although Wells Fargo employed special
agents prior to Hume, he has been credited withestablishing its pattern of tenacious retroactiveinvestigation of past crimes that would be followedby railroad police, private detective agencies, andmunicipal and federal police agencies until the pre-sent time. Typical of the movement from public toprivate policing that existed at the time, Hume hadbeen a deputy tax collector; an elected city marshalin Placerville, California; an undersheriff; and theelected sheriff of El Dorado County, California.Elected in 1868, he was defeated for reelection inSeptember 1871 and was then hired by Wells Fargo,although he briefly left the express company toserve as deputy warden of the Nevada State Prison.By 1873 he had returned to Wells Fargo, where heworked until he was well into his sixties. He died in1904 at the age of 77. By then he had been replacedby his long-time deputy, John Thacker, who hadbeen elected sheriff of Humboldt County, Nevada,in 1868, but moved to California and began work-ing as a shotgun messenger for Wells Fargo in 1875.Thacker retired from Wells Fargo in 1907; he diedin 1913.
Hume developed modus operandi files, mug shotbooks of suspects and past robbers, and made useof the developing science of ballistic recognition.Wells Fargo also made extensive use of wantedposters, generally indicating the details of the crimeand posting a generous reward for informationabout or capture of the robbers dead or alive. Hume,Thacker, and other members of the special agentsforce were often photographed after completion ofsome of their more publicized cases. Each wasalways well dressed, with long dark jackets, stringties, and large cowboy or bowler-style hats, lookinglike prosperous gentlemen of their era.
Although the heyday of stagecoach robberiesbegan to draw to a close with the establishment ofcross-country train service on May 10, 1869, it con-tinued until long after train robbery had replaced itas a primary source of income for western criminalslooking for large paydays. Between 1869 and 1884,more than 300 stagecoaches were robbed, 16 rob-bers were killed, 7 were hanged by citizens, and8 guards were killed or wounded. The total amountof money and goods stolen was more than $400,000.
Wells Fargo—�—903
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 903
In addition to making good on the loss to customers,the company spent more than the amount stolen forrewards, prosecutions, and salaries to guards, shot-gun messengers, and special agents. Salary alone forthose years was more than $326,000.
After 1888, as the railroads replaced stage-coaches, Wells Fargo continued to operate itsservices by transporting mail, money, and packagesin railcars attached to the railroads’ own passengerand package cars. The plan did not eliminate rob-beries; the first robbery of a Wells Fargo car attachedto a train occurred in Nevada on November 4, 1870.Despite these crimes, the plan remained in effect;years later the U.S. Post Office would also attach itsown railcars to regularly scheduled train runs.
The last big armed robbery attempted againsta Wells Fargo shipment carried by train occurredin Texas, about 300 miles east of El Paso, in 1912,when the messenger was confronted by an armedman he killed by smashing him in the head witha wooden mallet. A second bandit was also killed.The last documented stagecoach robbery occurrednear Jarbidge, a one-street town in Elko County,Nevada, in December 1916. Signifying the endof one era of American law enforcement and thebeginning of another, the trial of one of the suspectswas the first to rely on a palm print of the accused.The print was used to convict Ben Kuhl of themurder of stagecoach driver Fred Searcy. Althoughsentenced to death, Kuhl’s confession just beforehis scheduled execution in 1918 resulted in his sen-tence being commuted to life. He was released atage 60 and died in 1944. It was, though, far fromthe last robbery of a Wells Fargo shipment. InSeptember 1983 militant Puerto Rican nationalistsled by Filiberto Ojeda-Riso held up the Wells Fargodepot in Hartford, Connecticut, and got away withabout $7 million.
The Wells Fargo company still exists, but it isno longer in the express business. It is one of thelargest banks in the United States and has alsobecome a diversified financial services company. Ithas retained the stagecoach as a symbol of its his-toric role in transportation and law enforcement.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Dodge, F. (1969). Under cover for Wells Fargo: The unvar-nished recollections of Fred Dodge (C. Lake, Ed.).Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Fradkin, P. L. (2002). Stagecoach: Wells Fargo and theAmerican West. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hungerford, E. (1949). Wells Fargo: Advancing the Americanfrontier. New York: Random House.
Secrest, W. B. (1994). James Bunyan Hume. In Lawmen &desperadoes: A compendium of noted, early Californiapeace officers, badmen and outlaws, 1850–1900(pp. 181–186). Spokane, WA: Arthur H. Clark.
Secrest, W. B. (1994). John Nelson Thacker. In Lawmen &desperadoes: A compendium of noted, early Californiapeace officers, badmen and outlaws, 1850–1900(pp. 291–294). Spokane, WA: Arthur H. Clark.
Strobridge, W. F. (1995). Pilsbury “Chips” Hodgkins: WellsFargo’s Southern California messenger. SouthernCalifornia Quarterly, 77, 293–314.
Toll, D. W. (1983, April). The last stagecoach robbery. NevadaMagazine, pp. 12–15.
Wilson, N. C. (1936). Treasure express: Epic days of the WellsFargo. New York: Macmillan.
� WHITE-COLLARCRIME ENFORCEMENT
White-collar crime is most often defined as crimecommitted by individuals who are engaged inprofessional activities and who participate in crimi-nal activity to benefit either themselves or theiremployers. Because white-collar criminals arepersons in professional occupations, the phrasewhite collar is used to differentiate the offendersand their offenses from the more traditional violentcrimes such as robbery or assault. White-collarcrime is often also called corporate crime or moreinformally suite crime, again in contrast to streetcrime. Offenses might include bribe taking, pricegouging, fraud, mislabeling products, or violationsof tax or other regulatory agency prohibitions.Despite the problems in defining white-collar crimeand in enforcing against it, many federal lawenforcement agencies have traditionally been cre-ated to deal specifically with such crimes, ratherthan street crime, which is more commonly theresponsibility of local police forces.
904—�—White-Collar Crime Enforcement
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 904
HISTORY OF WHITE-COLLARCRIME ENFORCEMENT
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitutiongives the federal government the power to regulatewhite-collar crime. Regulations have existed in theUnited States controlling such crimes since 1890,with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act,designed to outlaw monopolies and price fixing.Articles in the early 1900s by investigative journal-ists who came to be known as muckrakers broughtto the public’s attention crimes and other exploita-tions committed by industrial elites and resulted ina number of regulatory laws. The Clayton Act of1914, which was revised in 1950, was designedto control business practices that had a profoundlynegative impact on the economy, and the FederalTrade Commission Act of 1914 was designed tocontrol interstate commerce and established theFederal Trade Commission. Although the ShermanAntitrust Act is a criminal statute whose violationresults in heavy fines or prison time, the ClaytonAct and the Federal Trade Commission Act are civilstatutes that allow victims to sue the violator fordamages up to three times their actual losses. Inaddition to being held in violation of these acts, vio-lators may be charged with such crimes as perjury,obstruction of justice, making false statements tothe government, and conspiracy (a crime that hasrecently been expanded). In addition, state govern-ments regulate white-collar crime, in many cases incollaboration with federal agencies.
Following the stock market crash of 1929, thenation witnessed a growing governmental concernover white-collar crime. Corporations were increas-ingly held accountable for their deceptive activities.The Securities Act of 1933 required that publicorganizations openly and honestly provide reliableinformation to allow investors and affected bodiesto make informed decisions. In the following year,the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)was created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934to monitor the securities market and investigateunusual market activity, including what has cometo be known as insider trading, which occurs whenstock is traded on the open market with advance
knowledge of events that may affect the stock’svalue. The SEC most commonly investigates thecrimes of insider trading, accounting fraud, andmisrepresentation. Other acts legislated to controlwhite-collar crime during this time include thePublic Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, theTrust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Act of1940, and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.
The study of white-collar crime by criminolo-gists was advanced by Edwin Sutherland, who, inan attempt to develop a general theory of crime,began to focus on the crimes of professional andpowerful individuals. In 1939, in his presidentialaddress to the 34th annual meeting of the AmericanSociological Society, he coined the term white-collar criminal. By 1949, Sutherland had developedhis argument, empirically tested it, and publishedWhite Collar Criminal, the most cited work onthe subject. The largest dilemma in the study ofwhite-collar crime has been the development ofan acceptable definition. According to Sutherland’sdefinition, “white-collar crime may be definedapproximately as a crime committed by a person ofrespectability and high social status in the courseof his occupation.” Sutherland also believed thatwhite-collar criminals were well organized becausethey had the economic and political power to con-trol legislation and administrators and to impact theenforcement of the laws controlling white-collarcrime. As such, Sutherland believed that white-collar crime was extremely damaging to society.
Due to the failure to agree on a definitive con-cept of white-collar crime, researchers have furtherdeveloped it to include four categories: occupa-tional crime, which involves crimes for the benefitof an organization; state authority occupationalcrime, which includes crimes committed by offi-cials as a result of an abuse of government power;professional occupational crime, which includescrimes committed by professionals in the course oftheir occupation and in violation of the trust givento them; and individual occupational crime, whichinvolves crimes committed by individuals who arenot government officials or professional elites andwho commit these crimes through their occupationfor individual benefit.
White-Collar Crime Enforcement—�—905
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 905
The diversity of crimes fitting into the categoryof white-collar crime has also made it difficult tocategorize and measure by the criminal justice sys-tem. Such crimes include antitrust violations, bankfraud, bankruptcy fraud, bribery, credit card fraud,computer and Internet fraud, counterfeiting, eco-nomic espionage, embezzlement, environmentallaw violations, financial fraud, government fraud,health care fraud, insurance fraud, insider trading,kickbacks, mail and wire fraud, money laundering,phone and telemarketing fraud, public corruption,tax evasion, and trade secret theft. White-collarcrime, although sometimes violent, is more likelyto be used primarily to include property or financialcrimes. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Justicedefined white-collar crime as “those illegal actswhich are characterized by deceit, concealment, orviolation of trust and which are not dependent uponthe application or threat of physical force or vio-lence. Individuals and organizations commit theseacts to obtain money, property, or services; to avoidthe payment or loss of money or services; or tosecure personal or business advantage.”
WHITE-COLLAR CRIMEENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
A number of political and business scandals in the1960s and 1970s drew public and law enforcementattention to white-collar crime. National attitudestudies revealed that public trust and confidencein the government and other American institutionswere at an all-time low. In the late 1950s, publictrust in the government was positive among morethan 70% of the U.S. population. By the late 1970s,this had dropped to 30% and white-collar crimebecame a major focus of government enforcementagencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)declared white-collar crime and public corruption tobe serious problems whose prosecution was neces-sary to restore legitimacy. While the U.S. attorney’soffice and FBI were already engaged in investigat-ing and prosecuting white-collar crimes, they movedto establish formal white-collar crime programs andincrease resources to their enforcement. By 1980, 15%of the FBI’s budget was allocated to white-collar
crime enforcement. However, resource allocationdecreased by the mid-1980s. Despite shifts inresources since that time, concerns with terrorismsince September 11, 2001, have again resulted infewer resources being expended by the FBI oninvestigation of white-collar offenders.
Interest in white-collar crime increased in 2001and 2002, with the occurrence of four of the largestcorporate bankruptcies in U.S. history, includingEnron’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection requestof $63.3 billion, Global Crossing’s of $25.5 billion,Adelphia’s of $24.4 billion, and Worldcom’s recordfiling of $107 billion. In each case the organizationallegedly hid its actual financial condition in viola-tion of a number of federal regulations, includingthe Securities and Exchange Act and EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In eachcase, corporate authorities claimed false profits andinflated the actual value of their stocks to encourageemployees and the public to buy or established pen-sion fund blackout periods, while top executivesaggressively sold off their shares, profiting in thebillions. This left employees with worthless retire-ment plans and has been estimated to have causedeconomic damage of more than $7 trillion.
CURRENT WHITE-COLLARCRIME LEGISLATION
In response to these events, Congress passed anumber of antitrust bills, including the EmergencySecurities Response Act of 2001, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Corporate and CriminalFraud Accountability Act of 2002, and the White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002(WCCPA). President George W. Bush also createdthe Corporate Fraud Task Force to oversee corpo-rate financial crimes investigation, prosecution, andpolicy through interagency collaboration. The taskforce is chaired by the deputy attorney general andincludes the FBI and the Criminal and TaxDivisions of the U.S. attorney’s office. Enforcementand regulation are enforced in collaboration withthe Securities and Exchange Commission, theDepartment of the Treasury, the Department ofLabor, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission,
906—�—White-Collar Crime Enforcement
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 906
the Federal Communications Commission, theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, and theU.S. Postal Inspection Service.
The focus is on both individual criminal account-ability and corporate accountability. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was designed to controlaccounting oversight, auditor independence, insidertrading, corporate responsibility, honesty in finan-cial information, conflicts of interest among ana-lysts, the resource needs of the SEC, criminal fraudaccountability, and criminal penalty enhancements.It also expanded the resources of the SEC and cre-ated the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard to monitor auditors.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act included the WCCPA,which increased the maximum prison sentence ofwhite-collar criminals for violations of the ERISA,fraud, and conspiracies to commit fraud by up to10 times the prior sentencing statutes. The WCCPAalso mandated that the U.S. Sentencing Commissionalter its sentencing guidelines for these offendersto reflect the seriousness of the crime.
CURRENT ENFORCEMENT PATTERNS
Measurement of white-collar crime continues to beproblematic, in part because of the imprecision of thedefinition and in part because a large number ofregulatory agencies have primary responsibility for thecrimes included in the definition. These agenciesinclude the Consumer Product Safety Commission,Food and Drug Administration, the Federal TradeCommission, the Environmental Protection Agency,the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations,and the SEC. Though the FBI is responsible for anincreasingly large number of white-collar crime inves-tigations, most of the other agencies have administra-tive, rather than criminal, jurisdiction, which meansthat although they are able to impose financial penal-ties, they cannot bring criminal charges against offen-ders. Furthermore, since regulation of these crimesis overseen by so many different agencies, there isno central database that measures the frequency andcharacteristics of these crimes and criminals.
This decentralization poses a great problem tothe understanding and control of white-collar
crime. While the FBI releases its annual UniformCrime Report (UCR), the crimes included in theUCR are largely street crimes, although the UCRdoes include such white-collar crimes such asembezzlement, fraud, forgery and counterfeiting,and larceny. A recent attempt to improve white-col-lar crime reporting by the FBI is the revised UCR,the National Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS), which includes many more crime typesand characteristics of criminal activity than does theUCR. NIBRS has the potential to increase statisticsreporting of white-collar crime through the moredetailed reporting of computer crime, location ofthe offense, value of the property stolen and recov-ered, victims of white-collar crime, and lawenforcement responses.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Though inroads to criminal prosecution of white-collar criminals have been made, many barriersremain in the investigation, prosecution, and dispo-sition of white-collar crime include defining andmeasuring white-collar crime, policing and prose-cuting white-collar crime, and maintaining a crimeapproach in the face of much administrative over-sight. The ambiguity in defining white-collar crimedoes not allow for accurate measurement. The eco-nomic emphasis of white-collar crime law enforce-ment has allowed for control to be achieved throughmany administrative, as well as criminal, agencies.This practice allows for decentralization, inconsis-tency, and potential problems of collaboration whenmonitoring, controlling, and measuring white-collar crime. This practice also detracts from theseriousness and potential violence of white-collarcrime. The true nature and frequency of white-collar crime in the United States has yet to be realized.
Detection and investigation of white-collar crimeis complex. Although historically white-collarcrime has been investigated primarily at the federallevel, state and local police and prosecuting agen-cies are increasingly engaging in white-collar crimeenforcement. The problem that presents itself is thelack of training in investigating these crime types.State and local police officers are trained primarily
White-Collar Crime Enforcement—�—907
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 907
in combating street crimes and often prosecutorson the local level do not have the resources to inves-tigate and prosecute such complex cases whoseverdicts are uncertain. State and local police andprosecutors often find themselves up against highlypaid and highly qualified corporate lawyers.
Even federal law enforcement agents may be ill-equipped to investigate the most sophisticated typesof white-collar crime, which may involve organizedcrime or international cartels and be well beyondthe technical sophistication of today’s police agen-cies. Finally, the complexity of these crimes mayresult in only the least serious being successfullyprosecuted, whereas others are able to continue outof the public purview.
The passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and the White-Collar Crime Penalty EnhancementAct of 2002 and the creation of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board and the President’sCorporate Fraud Task Force create the potentialfor the redefinition of white-collar crime and moreintense efforts to police it. The dramatically increasedsentencing penalties, the mandates to the U.S. Sen-tencing Commission, and the constraints to prosecu-torial charging and bargaining have the potentialto increase government effectiveness in prosecutionof white collar criminals and may result in a reassess-ment of the treatment of these offenders.
Venessa Garcia and Richard Butler
See also Securities and Exchange Commission
For Further Reading
Edelhertz, H. (1970). The nature, impact, and prosecutionof white-collar crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Green, G. S. (1997). Occupational crime (2nd ed.). Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Recine, J. (2003). Examination of white-collar crime penaltyenhancements in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. AmericanCriminal Law Review, 39, 1535–1570.
Robin, G. (1974). White-collar crime and employee theft.Crime and Delinquency, 20, 251–262.
Sutherland, E. (1949). White-collar crime. New York: Dryden.U.S. Department of Justice. (1989). White-collar crime: A
report to the public. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.
WOMEN IN FEDERALAGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT
The modern history of women special agents infederal law enforcement agencies began in 1971,when President Richard M. Nixon issued ExecutiveOrder No. 11478. The order, Equal EmploymentOpportunity in the Federal Government, prohibiteddiscrimination in employment at the federal levelbecause of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,handicap, or age and effectively ended the ban onemploying women in the title of special agent. Italso opened up to women positions in GS-1811 sta-tus, or criminal investigative positions, from whichthey had previously been barred. Agencies thathired women that same year included the SecretService and the Postal Inspection Service. Others,including the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI), did not implement this change until 1972.
Although women continue to have a difficulttime establishing credibility among their male peersand have filed numerous lawsuits against virtuallyall the federal law enforcement agencies, it did nottake long for them to begin to establish firsts.Within a year of their appointments, five women inthe U.S. Secret Service became the first womenassigned to guard a presidential candidate whenthey were assigned to protect RepresentativeShirley Chisholm (D-NY), the first woman to cam-paign for a major party presidential designation. By1993, when fewer than 200 of the Secret Service’s2,000 special agents were women, a small numberof women had been assigned to guarding not onlypresidential relatives, but the president himself.
The FBI hired its modern female agents in 1972,after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, when actingdirector L. Patrick Gray III ordered that women beaccepted as agents. The first women began trainingat the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, in thesummer of 1972. One of the women, Sheila Horan,who was a graduate student in education and psy-chology when she decided to change careers, yearslater became one of the highest ranking women inthe agency. Indicative of how difficult it is to mea-sure progress on the basis of the careers of individ-ual women, in 1994 one of the earliest women
908—�—Women in Federal Agency Law Enforcement
�
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 908
agents sued the agency upon her retirement.Although the numbers of women in the FBI haveincreased, they still comprise a small percentage ofagents. From June 30, 1974, to December 31, 1976,the number rose from 30 to 70; at the time womenwere still less than 1% of the agent force. By 1986,about 650 women made up 7.3% of the total forceof just fewer than 9,000 special agents, and by 1991,women were just more than 10% of the somewhatlarger force of just fewer than 10,000 agents.
The overall percentages of women in federal polic-ing have not been increasing rapidly. From 1996 until2000, women accounted for slightly over 14% of fed-eral sworn officers. By 2000, the Internal RevenueService (IRS) had the largest percentage, about 25%.Of agencies under the Department of Justice, the FBIhad the largest percentage in 2000 (almost 16%) andthe Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had thesmallest (just under 8%). The figures had not changedmuch by 2002, when women were still less than 15%of all federal officers with arrest and firearms autho-rization, and the IRS continued to employ the largestpercentage (28%) and the DEA continued to employone of the smallest percentages (8.6%).
Despite its small percentage of women, the DEAwas the first federal agency to name a female director.In 2003, Karen P. Tandy, a federal drug prosecutorwho was an associate deputy attorney general anddirector of the Organized Crime Drug EnforcementTask Force at the time of her appointment, wasselected to run the agency, assisted by MicheleM. Leonhart as her deputy. Leonhart, a career DEAspecial agent who was in charge of its Los Angelesfield office, was the first woman in her agency to comefrom the agents’ rank to a top management position.Previously, a few women had risen from specialagents to high-level management positions in theFBI, beginning in 1993 when veteran agent BurdenaPasenelli was named the first female assistant director.
A number of other agencies, including U.S.Customs; the Border Patrol; the Secret Service; andthe Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco, Firearms, andExplosives have also promoted women to the assis-tant director or assistant commissioner levels. In2002, the Central Intelligence Agency placed awoman in charge of intelligence analysis. Also in2002, Theresa Chambers was named chief of the
U.S. Park Police, but by 2004 she was embroiled ina controversy within the agency that had resultedin her being placed on administrative leave and thenfired despite her having filed a number of lawsuitsdisputing the events leading to her termination.
Women have had greater success in increasingtheir numbers in many of the Offices of InspectorsGeneral than in the older federal law enforcementagencies. Many of these agencies are more investi-gatory than arrest-oriented, which may haveaccounted for women’s greater acceptance in theranks. As of mid-2002, women agents comprisedalmost 30% of special agent and investigatory staffin more than one office, including Agriculture,Education, Health and Human Services, Interior,Small Business Administration, and Treasury (TaxAdministration).
EARLY WOMEN LAW ENFORCERS
The only federal law enforcement agency to haveemployed women throughout is history is the U.S.Marshals Service. Deputies were appointed by theU.S. marshals, and many, particularly in the West,were willing to appoint women to their staffs. Thefirst woman positively identified as working for themarshals service, F. M. Miller, was commissionedout of the federal court at Paris, Texas, sometimeprior to 1891 and was reported at the end of thatyear to have been the only female deputy workingin the Indian (Oklahoma) Territory and to haveaided in transporting prisoners. Also in OklahomaTerritory, Ada Curnutt, who in 1893 served as adeputy to Marshal William Grimes (in office from1889 to 1893) traveled by train from Norman toOklahoma City, where she arrested two men andbrought them back to Norman. Curnutt, the 20-year-old daughter of a Methodist clergyman, alsoheld the title of district court clerk in Norman. S. M.Burche and Mamie Fossett worked as deputies forU.S. Marshal Canada H. Thompson, who was themarshal of Oklahoma Territory from late 1897 toJanuary 1902. Other women, most of them officedeputies, also worked in Oklahoma Territory. Later,in 1929, Deputy Dorothy Rose, 21, guarded femaleprisoners in Chicago and Deputy Norma Hauganassisted in the arrest of Al Capone in 1931.
Women in Federal Agency Law Enforcement—�—909
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 909
Women have served in the position of U.S. marshalsince the 19th century. Phoebe Wilson Couzins, thethird woman allowed to practice law in the UnitedStates, was appointed the U.S. marshal for Missouriin 1887 by President Grover Cleveland. Succeedingher late father, she held the position for only twomonths. Katherine Battle Gordy had a much longertenure; she was the U.S. marshal for the SouthernDistrict of Alabama from 1936 until 1952. Morerecently, President Ronald Reagan in August 1982named Faith Evans to head the District of Hawaii. In1985, Lydia Glover became marshal for the Districtof South Carolina; a number of other women havebeen appointed by presidents of both parties sincethen. In 2003, one former U.S. marshal, NannetteHegerty, was named chief of the Milwaukee,Wisconsin, Police Department, where she had begunher policing career and where she returned whenher appointment as marshal was not continued byPresident George W. Bush.
Women also served in the Bureau of Investigation(BOI), the forerunner of the FBI. Alaska Davidsonwas appointed a special investigator on October 11,1922. The first female special agent, Jessie Duckstein,was appointed on November 6, 1923, followed byLenore Houston, who on January 14, 1924, was giventhe title of special employee. Their careers were short;by 1935, when the BOI became the FBI, they weredismissed by new director J. Edgar Hoover, whoremoved a large number of political appointees andwho did not believe women should be employed indirect policing positions, but only as clerical supportstaff for male agents.
These women’s backgrounds differed consider-ably from modern women agents. Duckstein hadjoined the BOI in August 1921 as a steno/typist. InJuly 1923 she was promoted to confidential secretaryto then-Director William J. Burns. Shortly after, ather request, Burns ordered her title changed to spe-cial agent. A 37-year-old high school graduate, shewas sent to New York City for training, after whichshe was assigned to the Washington, D.C., office. InMay 1924, Special Agent in Charge E. R. Bohnerwrote to acting director Hoover that it was not advis-able to have a woman agent assigned to that office.
Davidson was 54 years old when she wasappointed a special investigator. She had no prior
law enforcement experience and also received hertraining in the New York office. Shortly after shewas assigned to Washington, Bohner advisedHoover that there was no work for her. On May 26,1924, Hoover requested both their resignationsbased on a reduction in the number of agents’ posi-tions. Duckstein resigned effective May 24 andDavidson effective June 24. Houston, a 45-year-old high school graduate who had completed threeyears of college and a business course and whohad been designated a special agent by Hoover onNovember 26, 1926, worked in Philadelphia andWashington, D.C., until she resigned on October10, 1928. By 1930, she was confined to a hospitalsuffering from hallucinations and threatening toshoot Hoover upon her release. No other women areknown to have served in the FBI outside of clericalpositions until 1972.
WILL THE NUMBERS INCREASE?
It is difficult to determine whether the numbers ofwomen in federal law enforcement will increasesubstantially. Much of the growth of federal lawenforcement has been in agencies that have not sub-stantially increased their numbers or percentages ofwomen, and recent research into work-related issuesreinforces that positions that require training awayfrom home are not conducive to career breaks andpositions that require frequent transfer are notattracting increasing numbers of women. At a timewhen members of the first generation of women spe-cial agents are retiring, although a small percentagehave moved up in rank into visible leadership posi-tions, recruitment and human resources personnelare unsure whether a new generation of women willfill the vacancies created by the retirees.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Burton, A. T. (2003). Women of the shooting iron. [Online].Available: http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/women.htm
Calhoun, F. S. (1989). The lawmen: United States marshalsand their deputies, 1789-1989. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.
First female U.S. marshal, The. (2003). [Online]. Available:http://www.sameshield.com
910—�—Women in Federal Agency Law Enforcement
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 910
Reaves, B. A., & Bauer, L. M. (2003). Federal law enforce-ment officers, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice.
Samuelson, N. (1998). Some notes on Oklahoma’s federalmarshals. Quarterly of the National Association forOutlaw and Lawman History 22(3), 5–8.
Ungar, S. J. (1976). FBI. Boston: Little, Brown.Vines, L. (1981, May). The first female agents. The
Investigator, pp. 4–6.
� WOMEN IN FEDERALLAW ENFORCEMENT
Women in Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE)began in 1978 as the Interagency Committee onWomen in Federal Law Enforcement (ICWIFLE), atask forced formed by the U.S. Office of PersonnelManagement to study the reasons women were notbecoming or remaining federal law enforcement offi-cers. In 1983 its sponsorship was transferred to theDepartment of Justice and the Department of theTreasury, with each agency represented by a cochair.In June 1999, leaders of the group decided to achievegreater independence by incorporating outside theinteragency committee and changed the group’sname to Women in Federal Law Enforcement.
Mindful of the fact that until 1971 women wereprohibited from holding most federal law enforce-ment positions that required carrying a firearm,WIFLE’s primary aim has been to achieve equity forwomen in law enforcement. It encourages the recruit-ment, retention, and promotion of women in federallaw enforcement and it recommends solutions toexisting barriers. To assist agencies in locating appli-cants, WIFLE has established a network to mentorwomen who are interested in or are currentlyemployed in federal law enforcement. Last, WIFLE isconcerned with enhancing the image of law enforce-ment in the community and promoting collaborativeand cooperative leadership styles. To meet their goals,members of the organization have gathered statisticson women in individual agencies, have recommendedsolutions to barriers facing women in federal lawenforcement (particularly transfer policies that aredisadvantageous to dual career families), and have
promoted equitable treatment of women in entry andpromotion processes.
Annual conferences, which until 2000 were eachcosponsored by a different federal law enforcementagency in cooperating with ICWIFLE, draw morethan 1,000 women from across the spectrum offederal law enforcement, including large and smallagencies and investigative and uniformed person-nel. Major awards are announced at the conference.The Julie Y. Cross Memorial Award commemoratesSecret Service Special Agent Cross, who was killedin the line of duty while on surveillance nearLos Angeles International Airport on June 4, 1980.The recipient must have displayed unusual courageduring an especially heroic act. The Doris R.McCrossen Manager Award is named in memoryof the late Department of Justice Federal Women’sProgram manager and it recognizes a federal offi-cial who has contributed to the recruitment andadvancement of women in law enforcement. TheOutstanding Advocate for Women in Law Enforce-ment Award honors an individual who has worked toeliminate systemic barriers to career opportunitiesfor women in federal service.
Through its Washington, D.C., headquarters andlocal chapters around the country, WIFLE alsoconducts fund-raising events to support collegescholarships for women interested in federal lawenforcement careers. Members also hold forumsaimed at advising women of the requirements, bene-fits, and typical tasks associated with federal polic-ing. Enhancing its efforts to publicize federal lawenforcement generally and women federal lawenforcers specifically, in 1996 WIFLE produced a35-minute documentary film based on interviewswith a dozen women in 10 different federal agencies.
Dorothy Moses Schulz
For Further Reading
Progression through challenge. (1996, June 17–20).Conference program of the 1996 WIFLE Conference,Washington, DC.
Women in federal law enforcement. [Online]. Available:http://www.wifle.com
Women in Federal Law Enforcement—�—911
W-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:36 PM Page 911
Master Bibliography
1968 Gun Control Act, The. [Online]. Available: http://www.brady-campaign.org/facts/gunlaws/1968.asp
1994 annual report of the attorney general of the United States. (1994).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
2002 legislation civil asset forfeiture reform. [Online]. Available:http://www.improvenewmexico.org/pdfs/asset_forfeiture02.pdf
2002 report to the Nation: Occupational fraud and abuse. (2002).Austin, TX: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.
Aaron, D. (1998). The International Trade Administration in changingtimes. Business America, 119, 2–4.
Abadinsky, H. (2001). Drugs: An introduction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
Abanes, R. (1996). American militias. Downers Grove, ILs:Intervarsity Press.
About the National Gallery of Art. [Online]. Available: http://www.nga.gov/ginfo/aboutnga/htm
About US Postal Inspection Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.consumer.gov/postalinspectors/aboutus.htm
Abrams, N. (1986). Federal criminal law and its enforcement.St. Paul, MN: West.
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. [Online]. Available: http://www.ACJS.org
Ackerman, T. H. (1999). Guide to careers in federal law enforcement.Traverse City, MI: Sage Creek Press.
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).Adler, F. (1997). The ASC and women: One generation without, one
generation with. Criminologist, 22, 1, 3–5.Aftab, P., & Savitt, N. L. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.aftab.com/the_children_s_online_privacy_protection_act_coppa_.html
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).Air Force History Pages. [Online]. Available: http://community-
2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/AirPoliceHistoryAir Force Office of Special Investigations. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dtic.mil/afosi/govAir Force Security Forces—Phoenix Raven. U.S. Military Newsletter.
[Online]. Available: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/blraven.htm
Airborne Law Enforcement Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.alea.org
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990). Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. [Online.] Available:
http://www.ttb.govAlexander, K. B. (2001, September 14). INSCOM 25th anniversary.
INSCOM News, p.1. [Online]. Available: http://www.nasaa-home.org/AF/new/inscom.htm
Allsop, K. (1967). Hard travellin’: The hobo and his history.New York: New American Library.
Amar, A. R. (1997). The Constitution and criminal procedure, firstprinciples. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2001, July 13). ACLU lauds pun-ishment in immigrant slavery case while urging U.S. to addressgrowing problem. [Online]. Available: http://www.aclu.org
American military law enforcement links. [Online]. Available:http://members.aol.com/JJOusaf/web/Unitlist.htm#USMC
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. [Online]. Available:http://www.ascld.org
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors LaboratoryAccreditation Board. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
American Society of Criminology. [Online]. Available: http://www.asc41.com
Amsterdam, A. (1974). Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment.Minnesota Law Review, 58, 349–477.
Amtrak. [Online]. Available: http://www.amtrak.comAnderson, O. E., Jr. (1958). Health of a nation: Harvey W. Wiley and
the fight for pure food. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Anslinger, H. B., & Tompkins, W. F. (1953). The traffic in narcotics.
New York: Funk and Wagnall.Anti-Crime Bill’s crimes, The. (1968, June 5). The New York Times, p. 46.Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690 (November 18,
1988).Arizona State University Libraries Government Documents Service.
Federal Maritime Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.asu.edu/lib/hayden/govdocs/onlinepubs/fmc.html
A-R&D and analytical services for the exploitation of communica-tions systems and other electronic equipment SOL DASC01-00-R-0004. (2000, April 10). Commerce Business Daily Issue.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2000/04(April)10-Apr-2000/Aso1002.htm
ASCLD/Lab Accreditation Board. (2002). Proficiency review pro-gram. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
ASCLD/Lab Accreditation Board. (2003). Approved proficiency testproviders. [Online]. Available: http://www.ascld-lab.org
ATF launches new Internet-based system to share bomb and arsoninformation. (2003, November 6). FEDagent. [Online]. Available:http://www.fedagent.com
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Attorney General Ashcroft announces neighborhood watch campaign.
[Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/March/02_ag_125.htm
Bachrach, B. (2002). Development of a 3D-based automated firearmsevidence comparison system. Journal of Forensic Science 47,1253–1264.
Bagott, J. (2003, May). It’s all happening at the zoo. SecurityManagement, pp. 45–56.
Banner, S. (2002). The death penalty: An American history.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barker, M. L. (1998). Policing in Indian Country. Guilderland, NY:Harrow and Heston.
913
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 913
Barkun, M. (1997). Religion and the racist right: The origins of theChristian identity movement. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press.
Baum, D. (1996). Smoke and mirrors: The War on Drugs and thepolitics of failure. New York: Little, Brown.
Beavan, C. (2001). The origins of crime detection and the murder casethat launched forensic science. New York: Hyperion.
Behr, E. (1996). Prohibition: Thirteen years that changed America.New York: Arcade.
Bell, K. (1943). Always ready: The story of the United States CoastGuard. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Bennett, D. H. (1995). The party of fear: The American far right fromnativism to the militia movement. New York: Vintage.
Benson, J. (1999). Send me your money: Controlling international ter-rorism by restricting fundraising in the United States. HoustonJournal of International Law, 21, 321–366.
Berenson, A. (2003, November 10). Policing the unpoliceable.New York Times, sect. 4, p. 4.
Berkowitz, P. D. (1995). U.S. rangers: The law of the land. Redding,CA: CAT.
Biasotti, A. A. (1959). A statistical study of the individual character-istics of fired bullets. Journal of Forensic Science 4, 34–50.
Biasotti, A. A., & Murdock, J. (2002). The scientific basis of firearmsand toolmark identification. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J.Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence (Vol. 3,Ch. 29, pp. 495–523). St. Paul, MN: West.
Bibel, D. (2002). Crime mapping using IBR data. [Online]. Available:http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/mapping/mapping_ ibr.pdf
Bill summary and status for the 98th Congress. [Online].Available: http://homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d098:4:./temp/~bd2WKh:/bss/d098query.html
Biskupic, J., & Witt, E. (1997). Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Blakemore, A. W. (1927). National prohibition: The Volstead Actannotated and digest of national and state prohibition acts.Albany, NY: Matthew Bender.
Bloomfield, H. V. L. (1966). The compact history of the U.S. CoastGuard. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Bodrero, D. (2002, February). Law enforcement’s new challenge toinvestigate, interdict, and prevent terrorism. The Police Chief[Special Issue “Defeating Terrorism”], pp. 41–48.
Boesman, W. C., & Krouse, W. J. (2001). National Integrated BallisticsInformation Network (NIBIN) for law enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.boozman.house.gov/UploadedFiles/SECOND%20AMEND%20-%20Ballastic%20Fingerprinting.pdf
Bolgano, D. G. (2001, December). Support of domestic law enforce-ment operations: Working with Posse Comitatus. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, pp. 16–23.
Bolkcom, C., & Bartholomew, E. (2003, February 12). Homelandsecurity: Protecting airliners from terrorist missiles (CRSNo. RL 31741). Congressional Research Service. [Online].Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/crs/rl-31741.pdf
Bologna, G. J., Lindquist, R. J., Wells, J. T., & Bologna, J. (1996). Theaccountant’s handbook of fraud and commercial crime, 1996supplement cumulative. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bolz, F., Jr., Dudonis, K. J., & Schulz, D. P. (2001). The counter-terrorism handbook: Tactics, procedures, and techniques. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press.
Bolz, F., Dudonis, K., & Schulz, D. (2002). The counterterrorismhandbook: Tactics, procedures and techniques. Boca Raton. FL:CRC Press.
Bonnie, R. J., & Guyer, B. (2002). Injury as a field in public health:Achievements and controversies. Journal of Law, Medicine &Ethics, 30, 267–280.
Bottoms, A. E. (1990). Crime prevention facing the 1990s. Policingand Society, 1, 3–22.
Bowden, M. (2002). Killing Pablo, The hunt for the world’s greatestoutlaw. New York: Penguin Putnam Press.
Bowen, C. D. (1966). Miracle at Philadelphia: The story of theConstitutional Convention, May to September 1787. Boston:Little, Brown.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).Brady Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.bradycenter.orgBrady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2002, December 6). Brady
Center heralds federal Appeals Court opinion that repudiatesnew Justice Department view of gun rights. [Online]. Available:http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=442
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, H.R. 1025, 103d Cong.(1993).
Brady Law. [Online]. Available: http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Brady.html
Brady, S., & McLoughlin, M. (2002). A good fight. New York: PublicAffairs of Perseus Books Group.
Bramson, A. (2003, March). Encryption legislation at a glance. [Online].Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/encryption/legislation.htm
Brecher, E., & Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine. (1972). TheConsumers Union report on licit and illicit drugs. Boston: Little,Brown.
Brer Amtrak. (2001, June). Trains Magazine, pp. 50–59.Bridges, D. (2002, February). It’s a police problem: The terrorist
threat’s impact on state and local law enforcement. The PoliceChief [Special Issue “Defeating Terrorism”], pp. 35–38.
Brief sketch of the naval history of the United States Coast Guard,with citation of statutes defining its military status from 1790 to1922. (1922). Washington, DC: Press of B.S. Adams.
Brinkley, J. (2002, November 4). Interior department struggles toupgrade its police forces. New York Times, p. 1.
Broadway, B. (2002, November 9). Arson at churches an ongoingproblem. Washington Post, p. B9.
Bryan, T., Cohen, K., Eaton, C. J., and Love, S. (2003). Racketeerinfluenced and corrupt organizations. American Criminal LawReview, 40, 987–1010.
Budget of the United States Government, FY 2005. [Online].Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
Bunch, S. G. (2000). Consecutive matching striation criteria: A gen-eral critique. Journal of Forensic Science 45, 955–962.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco, Firearms, and Explosives. [Online].Available: http://www.atf.gov
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: History.[Online]. Available: http://www.atf.gov/about/atfhistory.htm
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. [Online]. Available:http://www.cbp.gov
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.bcis.gov
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/index.htm
Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja
Bureau of Land Management. [Online]. Available: http://www.blm.gov
Bureau of Land Management. (2000). Bureau of Land ManagementStrategic Plan FY 2000-2005. Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Printing and Engraving. [Online]. Available: http://www.bep.treas.gov
Burke, R. (2000). Counter-terrorism for emergency responders.New York: Lewis.
Burton, A. T. (2003). Women of the shooting iron. [Online]. Available:http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/women.htm
914—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 914
Butler, J. M. (2001). Forensic DNA typing. San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.
Butler, J. M., & Reeder, D. J. (2003). Short tandem repeat Internetdatabase. National Institute of Standards and Technology.[Online]. Available: http://www.csti.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/
Byrd, R. C. (1991). Capitol police. In The Senate, 1789-1989 (vol. 2,pp. 327–345). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Bzovy, M. (2004, January). Kate Warne: First female Pinkerton detec-tive. American Western Magazine. [Online]. Available: http://www.readthewest/com/margebee2004-01.html
Caesar, G. (1968). Incredible detective: The biography of WilliamJ. Burns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Calabresi, M. (2000). The terror hunters. Time Europe, 156, 34–35.Calder, J. D. (1993). The origins and development of federal crime con-
trol policy: Herbert Hoover’s Initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.Calhoun, F. S. (1989). The lawmen: United States marshals and their
deputies 1789-1989. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.Caltrain. [Online]. Available: http://www.caltrain.comCaminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).Capital Reports Environmental Newslink. [Online]. Available:
www.caprep.comCaplan, G. M. (Ed.). (1983). ABSCAM ethics: Moral issues and
deception in law enforcement. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Carr, J. (1972). The second oldest profession: An informal history of
moonshining in America. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Cary, P. (1992, November 9). Navy justice. U.S. News & World
Report, p. 46.Cashman, S. D. (1981). Prohibition: The lie of the land. New York:
Free Press.Castells, M. (1997). The information age, economy, society and cul-
ture: Vol. 2. The power of identity. Maudens, MA: Blackwell.Center for Army Lessons Learned. (n.d.). CALL - LIWA operational
structure (pp. 1-6). [Online]. Available: http://call.army.mil/io/structure.htm
Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research and Justice Research andStatistics Association. (2000). Improving the quality and accu-racy of bias crime statistics nationally. [Online]. Available:http://www.dac.neu.edu/cj/crimereport.pdf
Center for Democracy and Technology. (2003, March). Safe HR 850:The Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act:2/25/99 Introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep. ZoeLofgren (D-CA). [Online]. Available: http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_106/SAFE/
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. [Online]. Available:http://www.cms.hhs.gov
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). Challenges for a changing world.Security Protective Officers. Washington, DC: Author.
Chermak, S. (2002). Searching for a demon: The construction of themilitia movement. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1831 (1831).Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. [Online]. Available:
http://www.pbi.org/Goodies/privacy/pri_coppa.htmChipman, A. (1977). Tunnel 13. Medford, OR: Pine Cone.Chourey, S. (2002, May 22). GPO police seek right to patrol neigh-
borhood. The Hill. [Online]. Avaiable: http://www. hillnews.comChristenberry, T., & Waggoner, K. (1997, October). Virtual learning:
Distance education for law enforcement. Law EnforcementBulletin, p. 65.
Church Arson Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 104-155 (1996).CIA careers: Professional. [Online]. Available: http:www.cia.
gov/employment/professional.htmlClark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.
[Online]. Available: http://www.lab.fws.govClay, B. (1994, November). Los Angeles County’s live-scan fingerprint-
ing network is world’s largest. Law and Order, pp. 24–25, 28–29.
Claybrook, J., & Bollier, D. (1985). The hidden benefits of regulation:Disclosing the auto safety payoff. Yale Journal on Regulation 3,87–132.
Clear, T. R. (2001). Has academic criminal justice come of age?Justice Quarterly 18, 709–726.
Clede, B. (1998). Innovations in police training. [Online]. Available:http://www.clede.com/Articles/Police/ways.htm
Clemetson, L. (2003, February 20). Reshaping message on terror,Ridge urges calm with caution. The New York Times, p. A1.
CNN. (2003, April 20). Bush signs AMBER Alert into law. [Online].Available: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/30/se.07.html
Coakley, R. W. (1988). The role of federal military forces in domesticdisorders, 1789-1878. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (2002). Test No. 02-526:
Firearms examination. [Online]. Available: http://www. collaborativetesting.com/reports/2226_web.pdf
Collins, A. (2002). My jihad: The true story of an American mujahid’samazing journey from Usama Bin Laden’s training camps tocounterterrorism with the FBI and CIA. Guilford, CT: LyonsPress.
Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.[Online]. Available: http://www.calea.org
Commissioner orders review of IRS Inspection Service. (1998,February 4). IRS Tax News, IRS New Release #IR-98-05.
Community policing blueprint seminars offer executives innovativemanagement tools. (2002, January/February). Sheriff, p. 28.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Control Act. [Online]. Available:http://chemweb.calpoly.edu/chem/bailey/377/F02Revision/Regulation.doc
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.(1970). Congressional and Administrative News, 3, 4566–4639.
Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System faces significantimplementation challenges. (2004). Washington, DC: U.S.General Accounting Office. [Online]. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04385.pdf
Conconi, C., & House, T. (1979). Washington sting. New York:Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.
Cone, J., Levinson, M., & Finlayson, S. (2003). Health care fraud.American Criminal Law Review, 40, 713–770.
Control of Marijuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. [Online]. Available:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2.htm
Cook, F. J. (1964). The FBI nobody knows. New York: Macmillan.Cook, F. J. (1974). The Pinkertons. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Coolidge, T. (2000, February). Electronic surveillance. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 25–32.Coomaraswamy, R. (1996). Report of the special rappoerteur on vio-
lence against women, its causes and consquences: Report of thespecial rappoerteur to Poland on the issue of trafficking andforced prostitution of women. Report prepared for the UnitedNations Economic and Social Council. [Online]. Available:http://www.un.org/esa
Cooper, C. (2000). Mediation in black & white: Mediation centerpolice partnerships & a dignified response. Bethesda, MD: Pike& Fischer.
Cooper, J. (1999). The Posse Comitatus Act (1878). In J. W. ChambersII (Ed.), The Oxford companion to American military history(pp. 555–556). New York: Oxford University Press.
Copage, E. (1999, May 16). A rogue’s gallery. The New York Times,Section 14, p. 4.
COPPA: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. [Online].Available: http://www.ala.org/oitp/privacy.html
Master Bibliography—�—915
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 915
Coppin, C. A., & High, J. (1999). The politics of purity, HarveyWashington Wiley and the origins of federal food policy. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cordner, G. W., & Williams. G. L. (1995, August). The CALEAstandards: What is the fit with community oriented policing?National Institute of Justice Journal, pp. 39–49.
Corr, K. (2002, May). Internet Fraud Complaint Center. Law andOrder, pp. 38–43.
Crandall, R. W. (1986). Regulating the automobile. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
Crockett, J. R. (2003). Operation pretense: The FBI’s sting on countycorruption in Mississippi. Jackson: University Press ofMississippi.
Cross, H. (1971) The people’s right to know. New York: AMS.(Original work published 1953)
Crothers, L. (2003). Rage on the right: The American militia move-ment from Ruby Ridge to homeland security. Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield.
Curriden, M. (1995, February 20). Secret threat to justice. NationalLaw Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/threat.html
Davidson, O. G. (2001). Under fire: The NRA and the battle for guncontrol. Ames: University of Iowa Press.
Davies, K. L. (2000). The imposition of martial law in the UnitedStates. The Air Force Law Review 49, 67–103.
Day two: A look at gun-control laws. [Online]. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/guns_laws.html
Deakin, T. J. (1988). Police professionalism: The renaissance ofAmerican law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Death Penalty Information Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
Decker, R. (2001). Combating terrorism: Comments on counterter-rorism leadership and national strategy. Washington, DC: U.S.General Accounting Office.
Dees, M., & Corcoran, J. (1996). Gathering storm: America’s militiathreat. New York: Harper Collins.
Defense Criminal Investigative Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/INV/DCIS/
Defense Links. [Online]. Available: http://www.defenselink.mil/sites/a.html#armedforces
DeGeneste, H. I., Silverstein, M. E., & Sullivan, J. P. (1996, October).Chemical and biological terrorism: Upping the ante? The PoliceChief, pp. 70–80.
De Kinder, J., & Bonfanti, M. (1999). Automated comparison ofbullet striations based on 3D topography. Forensic ScienceInternational, 101, 85–93.
Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Co. v. United States, 231U.S. 363 (1913).
Deloria,V., & Lyttle, C. M. (1983). American Indians, Americanjustice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Delucia, R. C., & Doyle, T. J. (1998). Career planning in criminaljustice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Denniston, E. (1964). America’s silent investigators: The story of thepostal inspectors who protect the United States mail. New York:Dodd, Mead & Co.
Department of Agriculture. [Online]. Available: http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2004/ 14.OIG.htm
Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.bis.doc.gov/about/index.htm
Department of Defense. (2003). The DoD role in homeland security:Defense study and report sent to Congress, July 2003.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Department of Defense. [Online]. Available: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/
Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices
Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/security.html
Department of Education. [Online]. Office of Inspector General.Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html?src=mr
Department of Energy. [Online]. Available: http://www.mbe. doe.gov/budget/05budget/content/otherdef/eh.pdf
Department of Health and Human Services. [Online]. Available:http://www.hhs.gov
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Secretary’s AdvisoryCommittee on Automated Personal Data Systems. (1972).Records, computers, and the rights of citizens. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office. [Online]. Available: http://aspe. os.dhhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm
Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). Emergency preparednessand response. [Online]. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gove/deptofhomeland/sect4.html
Department of Homeland Security. [Online]. Available: http://www.dhs.gov
Department of Homeland Security. [Online]. Available: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service.(2003). Interim strategic plan FY 2003-FY 2008. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. [Online]. Available:http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/about/mission.cfm
Department of the Interior. [Online]. Available: http://www.doi.gov/budget
Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.govDepartment of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.
gov/jmd/2003summary/html/2003SUMMARYBYAPPROP01-31-02FINAL.htm
Department of State. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.govDepartment of State. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/
rls/rpt/cbj/fy2004/21880.htmDepartment of Transportation. [Online]. Available: http://www.
dot.govDepartment of the Treasury. (1955, May). Public report of the White
House security review. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
Department of Veterans Affairs. [Online]. Available: http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/2004_Departmental_Administration.pdf
Dieter, R. C. (1995). On the front line: Law enforcement views on thedeath penalty. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center.
Dilworth, D. C. (Ed.). (1977). Identification wanted: Developmentof the American Criminal Identification System. Gaithersburg,MD: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Diplomatic Security Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.ds.state.gov
Disquieting state of disorder: An assessment of Department of theInterior law enforcement. (2002). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General.[Online]. Available: http://www.indianz.com/docs/oig/2002-I-014.pdf
Distance Learning Resource Network. (n.d.). What is distance educa-tion? [Online]. Available: http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/whatis.html
Dodenhoff, D. (1990). 1989’s people of the year: The study andredesign team behind the new Uniform Crime Reporting System.Law Enforcement News, 14(307), l.
Dodenhoff, P. (1994). LEN’s 1994 people of the year: The makers ofthe Violent Crime Control Act. Law Enforcement News, 20(414),1, 14.
Dodge, F. (1969). Under cover for Wells Fargo: The unvarnishedrecollections of Fred Dodge (C. Lake, Ed.). Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
916—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 916
Doner, S. (2002). IACLEA is on the move. Campus Law EnforcementJournal, 32(6), 3.
Douglas, J. E., Burgess A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1992).Crime classification manual. New York: Lexington Books.
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).Doyle, C. (2002, April 15). The U.S.A. Patriot Act: A legal analysis
(CRS Rep. No. RL31377). Washington, DC: Library ofCongress, Congressional Research Service.
Dressler, J. (1997). Understanding criminal procedure (2nd ed).New York: Matthew Bender.
Drielak, S. (1998). Environmental crime: Evidence gathering andinvestigative techniques. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Drinking in America: Myths, realities, and prevention policy. (2001).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.
Drug Enforcement Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.dea.gov
Drug Enforcement Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea
Drugs. [Online]. Available: http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl. dll/fm/19-20/ch13.pdf
Duarte v. State of California, 151 Cal. Rptr. 727 (88 Cal. App. 3d 473,1979).
Duffy, J. E., & Brantley, A. C. (1997). Militias: Initiating contact. FBIWeb page. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/1997/July/975.htm
Duke, S. (2003). The drug war on the Constitution. [Online]. Available:http://www.cato.org/realaudio/drugwar/papers/duke.html
Dunn, L. (1989). The Department of Justice. Broomall, PA: ChelseaHouse.
Dyer, J. (1997). Harvest of rage: Why Oklahoma City is only thebeginning. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Edelhertz, H. (1970). The nature, impact, and prosecution of white-collarcrime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, LawEnforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of LawEnforcement and Criminal Justice.
Eizenstat, S. E. (2003). Imperfect justice: Looted assets, slave labor,and the unfinished business of World War II. New York: PublicAffairs.
Ekstrand, L. (1996, March). Asset forfeiture: Historical perspec-tives on asset forfeiture issues (GAO Publication No. T-GGD-96-40). [Online]. Available: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96040t.pdf
Elder, W. (2003, October). Electronic surveillance: Unlawful invasionof privacy or justifiable law enforcement. Yale New HavenTeachers Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1983/4/83.04.07.x.html
Elias, B. (2003, September 11). Air cargo security (CRS No. RL32022). Congressional Research Service. [Online]. Available:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32022.pdf
Elizabethton Star, The. [Online]. Available: http://www.starhq.com/html/localnews/0902/091902TVA.html
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).Employment Opportunities at the National Gallery. [Online].
Available: http://www.nga.gov/resources/employ.htmEncryption policy: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, 106th Cong., first session (July 1 and13, 1999) [microfiche].
Environmental Protection Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov
Establishment of the National Security Council. [Online]. Available:http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc
Evans, J. (2002). Hijacking civil liberties: The USA PATRIOT Act of2001. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 33, 933–990.
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.
Evett, I., & Weir, B. S. (1998). Interpreting DNA evidence: Statisticalgenetics for forensic scientists. Sunderland, MA: SinauerAssociates.
Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).Export.gov. [Online]. Available: http://www.ita.doc.gov/Fahrenthold, D. A. (2003, December 2). Park police duties exceed
staffing: Anti-terror demands have led chief to curtail patrolsaway from Mall. Washington Post, p. B1.
Falcone, D. N., & Smith, B. A. (2000). The army military police: Aneglected policing model. Police Quarterly 3, 247–261.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g;34 CFR 99.
Farmer, D., & Mann, C. (2003). Surveillance nation. TechnologyReview, 106(4), 46–52.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2001, September). Fact sheet: FAAFederal Air Marshal Program. FAA News. [Online]. Available:http://www.faa.gov
Federal Aviation Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.faa.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Blueprint for the NationalDomestic Preparedness Office. Washington, DC: Author.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Hate crimes statistics, 2001.[Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01hate. pdf
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). The science of fingerprints:Classification and uses. Washington, DC: Author.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). CODIS: Mission statementand background. [Online]. Available: http://www/fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/program.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Annually). Crime in the UnitedStates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, FederalBureau of Investigation.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/historicdates.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/about.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Academy. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis ofViolent Crime. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Operations Support Branch. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/osb.htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tactical Support Branch. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/tact. htm
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Federal Communications Commission. (2003). Federal Communi-cations Commission Enforcement Bureau. [Online]. Available:http://www.fcc.gov/eb/
Federal Communications Commission. (2003). The AMBER plan.[Online]. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/AMBERPlan.html
Federal law enforcement groups join forces for better overtime pay.(1989, June 19). Crime Control Digest, p. 6.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. [Online]. Available:www.fleoa.org
Federal law enforcement personnel: How can we fix an imbalancedcompensation system? Hearing before the Committee onGovernment Reform (July 23, 2003). [Online.] Available:http://reform.house.gov/CSA/Hearings?EventSingle.aspx?EventID=362.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.fletc.gov
Master Bibliography—�—917
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 917
Federal Maritime Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.fmc.gov.
Federal police agencies. [Online]. Available: http://eiconline.org/anewnormal/federal.html
Federal Trade Commission. About the FTC. [Online]. Available:http://www.ftc.org
Federal uniformed police: Selected data on pay, recruitment, andretention at 13 police forces in the Washington, D.C.,Metropolitan Area (GAO-03-658). Washington, DC: U.S.General Accounting Office.
Feeley, M. M., & Sarat, A. D. (1980). The policy dilemma: Federalcrime policy and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Felkenes, G. (1980). Accreditation: Is it necessary? Yes! Journal ofCriminal Justice 8, 77–87.
FEMA–Rapid Response Information System. [Online]. Available:http://www.fema.gov/rris/index.htm
Fialka, J. J. (2003, June 4). As threat of old mines grows, a legislativefix isn’t working. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Fialka, J. J. (2004, May 10). Energy Department may set plans fornew nuclear-material security. The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
Fields, G., & Kulish, N. (2002, June 10). ATF is overlooked in home-land-defense proposal. The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
Fields, G., & Wilke, J. R. (2003, June 3). FBI’s new focus places bigburden on local police. The Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, A12.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). [Online].Available: http://www.fincen.gov
FinCEN strategic plan for 2000–2005. (n.d.). About FinCEN/Strategic plan. [Online]. Available: http://www.fincen.gov/af_strategicplan.html
Find Law. [Online]. Available: http://www.findlaw.comFinnegan, J. P., & Danysh, R. (1997). Reorganization and renewal.
In Military intelligence (chap. 10, p. 12). [Online]. Available:http://www.army. mil/cmh-pg/books/ lineage: m:/ch 10.htm
Firearm Owner’s Protection Act. [Online.] Available: http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/mcclure.htm
First black U.S. marshal left an American legacy. (2002, January). TheMarshals Monitor. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/monitor/jan.2002
First female U.S. marshal, The. [Online]. Available: http://www.sameshield.com
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).Floyd, C. W., & Helms, K. L. (1995) To serve and protect: A tribute to
American law enforcement. Paducah, KY: Turner.Flynn, S. E. (2001). Homeland Security is a Coast Guard mission.
Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, 127(10), 72–76.Flynt, J. (Willard). (1969). Tramping with tramps: Studies and
sketches of vagabond life. New York: McGrath.Fogelson, R. (1977). Big city police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.Food and Drug Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.fda.
gov/opacom/org.htmForest Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us.Forest Service, Law Enforcement & Investigations. [Online].
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/lei/Fort Leonard, Missouri. [Online]. Available: http://www.ftleonard-
wood.com/Fradkin, P. L. (2002). Stagecoach: Wells Fargo and the American
West. New York: Simon & Schuster.Frankel, M. (1967, February 7). Johnson outlines $350 million plan to
aid crime fight. The New York Times, p. 1.Fraser, C. B. (1998). Challenge to change: The 21st century policing
project. Washington, DC: PERF.Frazier, S. K. (1994). The sting book: A guide to setting up and
running a clandestine storefront sting operation. Springfield,IL: Charles C Thomas.
Freilich, J. (2003). American militias: State-level variation in militiaactivities. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Freilich, J., Pichardo-Almanzar, N., & Rivera, C. (1999). How socialmovement organizations explicitly and implicitly promotedeviant behavior: The case of the militia movement. JusticeQuarterly 16, 655–683.
Freilich, J, Pienik, J. A., & Howard, G. J. (2001). Toward comparativestudies of the U.S. militia movement. International Journal ofComparative Sociology 62, 163–210.
Friedrichs, D. O. (1996). Trusted criminals: White collar crime incontemporary society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
FTC fines COPPA violators $100,000. [Online]. Available:http://www.keytlaw.com/FTC/Actions/ftc010419.htm
Fugitive Felon Act, 18 U.S.C. 1073, 1074 (1934).Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). FY 2002 performance report/FY2003 revised final performance
plan/FY 2004 performance plan. (2002). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.
Gains, P. (2001, April 16). Zoo adds security on anniversary of shoot-ings. Washington Post, p. BO2.
Gallaher, C. A. (2003). On the fault line: Race, class and theAmerican patriot movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman andLittlefield.
Garfinkel, S., & Spafford, G. (1997). Web security and commerce.Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates.
Garland, S., & Dwyer, P. (1999, May 31). A new era of trustbustingmay be just warming up. Business Week, p. 55.
Gellman, R. (1997). Does privacy law work? In P. E. Agre &M. Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new land-scape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gen. Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library. Drugs.[Online]. Available: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-20/Ch.13.htm
General Services Administration, Historical Background. [Online].Available: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/offerings_content.jsp?contentOID=116083&content
Genge, N. E. (2002). The forensic casebook: The science of crimescene investigation. New York: Ballantine.
Gentry, C. (1991). J. Edgar Hoover: The man and the secrets.New York: Norton.
George, J., & Wilcox, L. (1996). American extremists: Militias,supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and others. Amherst, MA:Prometheus Books.
Gest, T. (2001). Crime & politics: Big government’s erratic campaign forlaw and order. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, J. W. (1994). Warrior dreams: Paramilitary culture in post-Vietnam America. New York: Hill and Wang.
Gillette, P. (2003, January). Department of Homeland Security: Pros,cons and opportunities. National Security Watch, pp. 1–8.
Gilliom, J. (1994). Surveillance, privacy, and the law: Employee drugtesting and the politics of social control. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
Golberg, A. (1992). Pentagon: The first fifty years. Washington, DC:Historical Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Golembieski, K. (2002, September 20). Naval Criminal InvestigativeService serving sailors in D.C., around the world. The Waterline.[Online]. Available: http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/seaser-vices/7_37/local_news/19283-1.html
Goode, E. (1999). Drugs in American society (5th ed.). Boston:McGraw-Hill.
Goodwin, L. S. (1999). The pure food, drink, and drug crusaders,1879-1914. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Gordon, A. R., & Morris, N. (1985). Presidential commissions and theLaw Enforcement Assistance Administration. In L. Curtis (Ed.),American violence and public policy (pp. 117–132). New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.
918—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 918
Gores, P., & Gallagher, K. (2003, May 28). Factory workers made$1.4 million in insider-trading scheme, SEC says. MilwaukeeJournal-Sentinel. [Online]. Available: www.jsonline.com/bym/news/may03/144042.asp
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Government Accountability Office. (1988). Government auditingstandards. Washington, DC: Author.
Government launches center to combat Web-based fraud. (2000, May9). Wall Street Journal, p. A2.
Graebner, J. (1997). The derailment of the Sunset Limited. In B. M.Jenkins (Ed.), Protecting surface transportation systems andpatrons from terrorist activities—Case studies of best securitypractices and a chronology of attacks. San Jose, CA: NormanY. Mineta International Institute for Surface TransportationPolicy Studies. [Online]. Available: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/terrorist/ Protect.htm
Green, D. (2003, February 2). Mail theft a common practice. TheMiami Herald. [Online]. Available: http://www. Herald.com
Green, G. S. (1997). Occupational crime (2nd ed.). Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Greenberg, M. A. (1999). Prohibition enforcement: Charting a newmission. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A.,Ringel, C., Warchol, G., & Maston, C. (1998). Violence by inti-mates (Report NCJ 167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1977).Grittner, F. K. (1990). White slavery: Myth, ideology, and American
law. New York: Garland Publishing.Guerra Thompson, S. (2001). Congressional reform of civil forfeiture:
Punishing criminals yet protecting property owners. FederalSentencing Reporter, 14(2), 71–75.
Guiliani, R. W. (1985). Organizing law enforcement as well as orga-nized crime. Public Administration Review 45, 712–717.
Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-618). [Online]. Available:http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Gun Control Timeline. [Online]. Available: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm
Haddon, W., Jr. (1968). The changing approach to the epidemiology,prevention, and amelioration of trauma: The transition toapproaches etiologically rather than descriptively based.American Journal of Public Health, 58, 1431–1438.
Hagan, W. T. (1966). Indian police and judges: Experiments in accul-turation and control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hagerty, E. J. (1997). The OSI story: A 50-year retrospective.Washington, DC: Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Hamid, A. (1998). Drugs in America. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Hammitt, H. (Ed.). (2002). Litigation under the federal open govern-
ment laws. Washington, DC: Electronic Privacy InformationCenter. [Online]. Available: http://www. accessreports.com
Hammitt, H. A., Sobel, D. L., & Zaid, M. S. (Eds.). (2002). Litigationunder the federal open government laws 2002. Washington, DC:Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Hammond, M. C. (1997). The Posse Comitatus Act: A principle in needof renewal. Washington University Law Quarterly 75, 953–987.
Hampton, R. (1998). The National Black Police Association resourceguide to a career in law. Garden Grove, CA: Learning Express.
Hamre, J. (2002). Meeting the challenges of establishing a newDepartment of Homeland Security. Washington, DC: Center forStrategic and International Studies.
Hansen, W. L. (1990). The International Trade Commission and the poli-tics of protectionism. American Political Science Review, 84, 21–46.
Hansen, W. L., & Park, K. O. (1995). Nation-state and pluralistic deci-sion making in trade policy: The case of the International TradeAdministration. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 181–211.
Hanser, R. (2002, July/August). Domestic terrorism and the UnitedStates mail system. Crime & Justice International, pp. 7–8.
Harring, S. I. (1977). Class conflict and the suppression of tramps inBuffalo, 1892-1894. Law & Society Review 11, 873–911.
Harring, S. L. (1990). Crow Dog’s case: A chapter in the legal historyof tribal sovereignty. American Indian Law Review 14, 192–239.
Harris, R. (1969). The fear of crime. New York: Praeger.Harris, S. (2002, February 1). Disrupt and dismantle. [Online].
Available: http://www.govexec.com/features/0202/0202s4.htmHarris, T. (1988). The silence of the lambs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Harrison, A. (2000). Privacy group critical of release of carnivore
data. Computerworld, 34(41), 24.Hart, T. C., & Rennison, C. (2003). Reporting crime to the police,
1992–2000 (Report NCJ 195710). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Haskin, F. J. (1923) The American government (2nd ed.). Washington,DC: Author.
Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 28 U.S.C. 524 (1990).Hawala: The invisible bank. (2002, April). U.S. Customs Today.
[Online]. Available: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/April/custoday_hawala.xml
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation on the TransportationSecurity Administration’s Perspective on Aviation Security(2003, October 16). [Online]. Available: http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/10-16-03/10-16-03memo.html
Helicopter Association International. [Online]. Available: http://www.rotor.com
Helvarg, D., & Schultz, R. (1997, February). When Uncle Sam’s “fishcops” reel in a suspect, he’s usually a keeper. Smithsonian,pp. 30–39.
Henigan, D. (1989). The right to be armed: A constitutionalillusion. [Online]. Available: http://www.guncite.com/hci2nd.html
Henney, A. (1999). Amtrak police: Protecting a nation in transit. TheCapitol Hill Monitor, 5, 2–3. [Online]. Available: http://www.henney.com/chm/0299/
Hernon, P., Relyea, H. C., Dugan, R. E., & Cheverie, J. F. (2002).United States government information: Policies and sources.Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Heymann, P. B. (2003). Terrorism, freedom and security: Winningwithout war. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., & Mable, K. (Eds.). (1996). Molecular sys-tematics. Sutherland, MA: Sinauer.
Hirshberg, C., & Sweetman, B. (2003, March). Are airliners flyingtargets? Popular Science, pp. 45–48.
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association Online.[Online]. Available: http://www.hapcoa.org
History of Army Intelligence and Security Command. (1997). [Online].Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/inscom/history.htm
History of the postal inspection service. (1982). Washington, DC:Postal Inspection Service.
Hitt, S. L. (2000). NCIC 2000. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69(7),12–16.
Hoff-Wilson, J. (1975). Herbert Hoover: Forgotten progressive.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966).Hoke and Economides v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913).Homeland security: Challenges to implementing the immigration inte-
rior enforcement strategy. (2003). Statement of Richard M.Stana, Director Homeland Security and Justice (GAO-03-66T).Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. [Online].Available: http://www.gao. gov
Hopson, G. E. (1988). The Veterans Administration. New York:Chelsea House.
Horan, J. D. (1967). The Pinkertons: The detective dynasty that madehistory. New York: Crown Publishers.
Master Bibliography—�—919
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 919
Howard, M. (2002). Writing secure code. Redmond, WA: MicrosoftPress.
Human Rights Watch. (1998). Shielded from justice: Police brutalityand accountability in the United States. New York: Author.
Hungerford, E. (1949). Wells Fargo: Advancing the American frontier.New York: Random House.
Hunt, W. R. (1990). Front-page detective: William J. Burns and thedetective profession 1880-1930. Bowling Green, OH: BowlingGreen State University Popular Press.
IG Net. [Online]. Available: http://www.ignet.govIllinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990).Implementation of recommendations: Academy panel 2001 report on
the U.S. Park Police. (2004, February). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Public Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.napawash.org/Pubs/ParkPoliceFeb2004.pdf
In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).Inciardi, J. (1992). The war on drugs II. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Press.Inciardi, J. (2002). The war on drugs III. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Independent report on IRS Inspection Service released. (1998).
Practical Accountant, 31(8), 52.Innocence Project. (2001). Factors leading to wrongful convictions.
[Online]. Available: http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/index.php
Inspector General Act, Publ. L. No. 95-042.Inspector General Act of 1978. 5 U.S.C.A., Appendixes III. (West 2003).Internal Revenue Service. (1990). History of taxation: Organization
of the IRS, functions within the IRS (IRS Publication T22.2:h62/2). Washington, DC: U.S. IRS Printing Office.
Internal Revenue Service. [Online]. Available: http://www. irs.gov/irsInternal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division. [Online].
Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
[Online]. Available: http://www.iaclea.orgInternational Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000). Policing the
national parks: 21st century requirements. [Online]. Available:http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/documents/IACP.pdf
International Association of Chiefs of Police. [Online]. Available:http://www.theiacp.org
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (1994). TheIACP today: From 1893 to 1993, a century of serving lawenforcement. Alexandria VA: Author.
International Association of Women Police. [Online]. Available:http://www.iawp.org
International Civil Aviation Organization. [Online]. Available:http://www.icao.int
Internet Fraud Complaint Center. (2002). IFCC 2001 Internet fraudreport, January 1, 2001–December 31, 2001. Morgantown, WV:National White Collar Crime Center. [Online]. Available:http://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/ IFCC-2001-AnnualReport.pdf
Internet Fraud Complaint Center. (2003). IFCC 2002 Internet fraudreport, January 1,2002–December 31,2002. Morgantown, WV:National White Collar Crime Center. [Online]. Available:htttp://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/IFCC-2002-AnnualReport.pdf
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans andTexas Pacific Railway Company, 167 U.S. 479 (1897).
Interstate commission abolished. (1996). Congressional QuarterlyAlmanac, 51, 3–38.
Introduction to Army Intelligence and Security Command. (1997).[Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/inscom/intro.htm
IRS criminal investigation in action. (1992). (IRS Publication Rev11-92). Washington, DC: U.S. IRS Printing Office.
Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954).
Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (1998) Hate crimes: Criminal law andidentity politics. New York: New York University Press.
Jaffe, J. H. (1995). Anslinger, Harry J., and U.S. drug policy.In Encyclopedia of drugs and alcohol (Vol. 1, pp. 124–125).New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Jaffe, J. H. (1995). Controlled Substances Act of 1970. InEncyclopedia of drugs and alcohol (Vol. 1, pp. 319–320).New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime: From socialmovement to law enforcement. New York: Sage.
Jernigan, D. B., Raghunathan, P. L., Bell, B. P., Brechner, R., Bresnitz,E. A., Butler, J. C., et al. (n.d.). Investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001: Epidemiologic findings.Emerging infectious diseases. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/v018n010/02–0353.htm
Johnson, D. (2003, July 25). Report of 9/11 panel cites lapses byC.I.A. and F.B.I. The New York Times, p. 1:506.
Johnson, M. (1998, February 3). Protective service gets beefed up.The Tampa Tribune, p. 8.
Johnston, R. (2002, January). The battle against white-collar crime.USA Today Magazine, p. 130.
Johnston, R. R. (1997, Winter). Paying the witness: Why is it OK forthe prosecution, but not the defense? Criminal Justice, pp. 21–24.
Jones, B., Sleet, D., Dellinger, A., Wallace, D., Quinlan, K., & Branch, C.(1999). Reductions in motor vehicle-related deaths. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 282, 2210–2211.
Jost, P. M., & Sandhu, H. S. (2000, January). The hawala alterna-tive remittance system and its role in money laundering.[Online]. Available: http://www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/MoneyLaundering/hawa
Judd, T., & Garner, C. (2000, January 8). Stringent new checks willhelp art world beat trade in stolen paintings. The Independent(London), n.p.
Juster, K. I. (2003, October 20). Keynote address at the Update2003 Export Controls and Policy Conference, Washington, DC.[Online]. Available: http://www.bxa.doc.gov/News/2003.Update2003Keynote.htm
Justice Research and Statistics Association. IBR Resource Center.[Online]. Available: http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc
Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET). National LawEnforcement and Corrections Technology Center-National.(2002). [Online]. Available: http://www.nlectc.org/justnet.html
Kaiser, F. M. (1988). The U.S. Capitol Police and Supreme CourtPolice: Expanding their protective mandates and jurisdiction.Police Studies, 11, 81–91.
Karl, J. (1995). The right to bear arms: The rise of America’s newmilitias. New York: Harper.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Katz, S. M. (2002). The DSS and the manhunt for the Al-Qaeda
terrorists. New York: Forge Books.Kelling, G. L., Pate, A., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1975).
Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report.Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Kelly, J. (1998). Tainting evidence: Inside the scandals at the FBIcrime lab. New York: Free Press.
Kennedy, R. C. (2001, June). Veterans Affairs Police and SecurityService. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 18–24.
Kerner Commission. (1968). Report of the National AdvisoryCommission on Civil Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
Kessler, R. (2002). The bureau: The secret history of the FBI.New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Keyt, R. (2002). How to comply with the Children’s Online PrivacyProtection Act of 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.keytlaw.com/netlaw/coppa.html
920—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 920
Kippenhahn, R. (1999). Code breaking: A history and exploration.Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.
Kisluk, A. (1999, December 2–3). Stolen art and the Art Loss Register.Paper presented at the Art Crime: Protecting Art, ProtectingArtists and Protecting Consumers Conference of the AustralianInstitute of Criminology, Sydney, Australia. [Online]. Available:http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/artcrime/kisluk.pdf
Knight, W. (2003, March). Weakened encryption lays bare al-Qaedafiles. [Online]. Available: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991804
Kobler, J. (1973). Ardent spirits: The rise and fall of Prohibition.New York: Putnam.
Koedam, W. (1993). Clinical considerations in treating participantsin the federal witness security program. American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 21, 361–368.
Koletar, J. W. (2003). Fraud exposed: What you don’t know could costyour company millions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).Kyvig, D. E. (Ed.). (1985). Law, alcohol, and order: Perspectives on
national prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.LaFave, W. R. (2003). Substantive criminal law (2nd ed.). Eagan,
MN: West.LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., & King, N. J. 1 Criminal Procedure,
§1.2(b) A Federal System That Is “One Among Many” (2nd ed.Supp. 2003).
Lambeth, B. J. (2000). The transformation of American air power.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Langum, D. J. (1994). Crossing over the line: Legislating moralityand the Mann Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: A partnership for crimecontrol, The. (1976). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, LEAA.
Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, 2002. (2003).Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/02leoka.pdf
Law Enforcement Training Network. (n.d.). The new face of LETN.[Online]. Available: http://www.pwpl.com/law/
Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Permanently Reinstate Brady WaitingPeriod. (1999, February 24). [Online]. Available: http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/press/release.php?release=164
Leary, W. M. (1984). The Central Intelligence Agency: History anddocuments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Lebens Nacos, B. (2002). Mass-mediated terrorism: The central roleof the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. Lanaham, MD:Roman & Littlefield.
LeDuff, C. (2003, February 7). U.S. agents seize horses of 2 defiantIndian sisters. New York Times, p. A16:1–4.
Lee, H. (2003). Blood evidence: How DNA is revolutionizing the waywe solve crimes. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Lee, H. C., & Gaenssien, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in fingerprinttechnology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Legal Information Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Legg, J. M. (2003). Wackenhut now manning roadblocks in Nevadaand Arizona. Voy Forums. [Online]. Available: http://www.voy.com/129276/46.html
Levin, B. (2002). The vindication of hate violence victims via crimi-nal and civil adjudications. Journal of Hate Studies, 1, 133–165.
Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (2002). Hate crimes revisited: America’swar on those who are different. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Levine, B. (1999). Forensic drug testing. In A. J. Jenkins (Ed.),Principles of forensic toxicology (pp. 31–45). Washington, DC:American Association for Clinical Chemistry.
Levine, H. G. (2002). Global drug prohibition: Its uses and crises.International Journal of Drug Policy 14, 145–153.
Levine, M. J. (2002). Accreditation: Celebrating 20 years of excellence.[Online]. Available: http://www.calea.org
Levine, S. (2003, April 28). Unfriendly skies. U.S. News & WorldReport, pp. 48–50.
Levinthal, C. F. (1999). Drugs, behavior, and modern society (2nded.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Lichtblau, E. (2003, July 5). Report on detainees shines a brighterspotlight on an inspector general. The New York Times, p. A9.
Linkins, J. R. (1997, May). FBI academy. FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, pp. 1–12.
Lipson, M. (1975). On guard: The business of private security.New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Company.
Litan, R. E., O’Hand, M. E., Orszag, P. R., & Steinberg, J. B. (2002,July). Assessing the Department of Homeland Security.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Loeb, V. (2001, May 1). Tenet, Krongard alter CIA power structure.The Washington Post. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25386-2001Apr30?l
Loftus, P. (1999, July). The FBI’s Combined DNA Index Systemhelps corrections and law enforcement professionals monitorinmates and solve crimes. Corrections Today, pp. 68–71.
Lord, J. (2000, Spring). Really MADD: Looking Back at 20 Years.Driven Magazine. [Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org/aboutus/printable/0,1068,1686,00.html
Lott, J. (1998). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Love, A. A. (1997, March 30). Guarding the nation’s history. ChicagoSun-Time, p. 56.
Lowenthal, M. (1950). The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Westport,CT: Greenwood.
Lukas, L. (1999). National Park Service law enforcement: To conserveand protect. Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse.
Luna, E., & Walker, S. (1998). Policing in Indian Country: A nationalsurvey of tribal law enforcement agencies. Washington, DC:Police Executive Research Forum.
Lyman, M. D., & Potter, G. W. (2003). Drugs in society: Causes, con-cepts and control (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Maclin, T. (1996). Informants and the Fourth Amendment: A recon-sideration. Washington University Law Quarterly, 74, 573–635.
Maier, T. (2002, July 22). Terror witnesses may be left in cold.Insight, 24.
Maiwald, E. (2001). Network security: A beginner’s guide. New York:London: Osborne/ McGraw-Hill.
Maltz, M. D. (1977). Crime statistics: A historical perspective. Crimeand Delinquency, 23, 32–40.
Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Man sentenced for smuggling girls. (2001, November 19). SanFrancisco Chronicle, p. A21.
Managing the emergency consequences of terrorist incidents: Interimplanning guide for state and local governments. (2002).Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Mariani, M. (1998). The Michigan Militia: Political engagement or polit-
ical alienation? Terrorism and Political Violence, 10, 122–148.Mariano-Florentino, C. (2003) The tenuous relationship between the
fight against money laundering and the disruption of criminalfinance. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 93(2/3), 1–72.
Marquis, C. (2003, February 26). A crackdown on the traffic inhumans. New York Times, p. A3.
Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mashaw, J. L., & Harfst, D. L. (1987). Regulation and legal culture:The case of motor vehicle safety. Yale Journal on Regulation 4,257–316.
Master Bibliography—�—921
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 921
Mashaw, J. L. (1990). Inside the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration: Legal determinates of bureaucratic organizationand performance. University of Chicago Law Review, 57,443–480.
Massachusetts Department of State Police. (2002, February). CODISunit. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.ma.usmsp/unitpage/crimelab/codis.htm
Masson, J. (1997). Confidence level variations in firearms identifica-tion through computerized technology. Association of Firearmsand Toolmark Examiners Journal, 29, 42–43.
Maxfield, L. D., & Kramer, J. H. (1998). Substantial assistance: Anempirical yardstick gauging equity in current federal policy andpractice. [Online]. Available: http://www.ussc.gov
McBride, D. (Ed.). (2003). Bioterrorism: The history of a crisis inAmerican society. New York: Routledge.
McCarl, J. N., & Putnam, K. D. (2002). Land Information WarfareActivity. INSCOM Journal Almanac 25(3), 20. [Online].Available: http://www.inscom.army.mil/PAO/journal/almanac02.pdf
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).McClurg, A., Denning, B., & Kopel, D. (2002). Gun control and gun
rights: A reader and guide. New York: New York University Press.McCrie, R. D. (1997). A brief history of the security industry in the
United States. In M. Felson and R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Businessand crime prevention (pp. 197–218). Monsey, NY: CriminalJustice Press.
McCullough, D. W. (Ed.). (1986). Great detectives. New York:Panetheon.
Melle, A. R. (2001, September 12). The U.S. Forest Service approachto forest law enforcement. Paper presented at the East AsiaMinisterial Conference on Forest Law Enforcement andGovernance, Denpesar, Indonesia. [Online]. Available: http://Inweb18.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attachments/FLEG_S7a-2/$File/7a+2+ Anne+Melle+-+USFS.pdf
Meredith, R. (2000, February 27). Illegal immigrants find danger andappeal in northern route. The New York Times, p. 22.
Militia Watchdog Web site.[Online]. Available: http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y. 2d 493, 478 N.Y.S. 2d 829, 467N.E. 493 (1984).
Miller, J. (2000). Criteria for identification of toolmarks, Part II:Single land impression comparisons. Association of Firearmsand Toolmark Examiners Journal, 32, 116–131.
Miller, K. W. P., Brown, B. L., & Budowle, B. (2003). The CombinedDNA Index System. International Congress Series, 1239,617–620.
Miller, W. R. (1991). Revenuers & moonshiners: Enforcing federalliquor laws in the mountain south, 1865-1900. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.
Mintz, J. (1995). Enforcement at the EPA: High stakes and hardchoices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mississippi Statistical Analysis Center. Information and TechnologyCapabilities of Mississippi Law Enforcement Agencies. [Online].Available: http://www.usm.edu/mssac/publications/information.7.31.2002.pdf
Mitgang, H. (1987, August 20). Reacting to document thefts, librariesmove to add security. The New York Times, p. C21.
Mitgang, H. (1988). Dangerous dossiers. New York: Donald I. FineBooks.
Moore, J. (1997). Very special agents: The inside story of America’smost controversial law enforcement agency—the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. New York: Pocket Books.
Moran, B. (2000). Firearm examiner expert witness testimony.Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners Journal, 32,231–251.
Morn, F. T. (1977). Allan Pinkerton: Private police influence on policedevelopment. In P. J. Stead (Ed.), Pioneers on policing(pp. 96–120). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
Morris, A. (1975, August). The American Society of Criminology: Ahistory, 1941–1974. Criminology, pp. 123–167.
Moser, J. E. (2002). Presidents from Hoover through Truman,1929-1953: Debating the issues in pro and con primary docu-ments. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. [Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Sanction issues compendium.[Online]. Available: http://www.madd.org/aboutus/printable/0,1068,4077,00.html
Mueller, R. S., III. (2003, July 31). Agreeing to disagree with theACLU. Law Enforcement News, pp. 11, 14.
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449 N.E. 2d 331 (1983).Muoio, A. (1999). His people are as good as gold. FastCompany,
30, 338.Musto, D. (1973). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Musto, D. F. (1999). The American disease: Origins of narcotic
control (3rd ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.Musto, D. F. (Ed.). (2002). Drugs in America: A documented history.
New York: New York University Press.Musto, D. F., & Korsmeyer, P. (2002). The quest for drug control: Politics
and federal policy in a period of increasing substance abuse,1963–1981. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Myers, S. (1999, May 7). Mining’s toll on land was heavy, CharlestonDaily Mail, n.p.
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. [Online]. Available: http://marijuana.bdtzone.com/history/marijuana-control-act.asp
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. (1956). United Sates Code.Congressional and Administrative News, 1, 651–662.
Narcotic Control Act of 1956. (1956). United Sates Code. Congressionaland Administrative News, 2, 3274–3286.
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives.[Online]. Available: http://www.nawlee.com
National Black Police Association Online. [Online]. Available:www.blackpolice.org
National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2003). Humangenome resources. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/
National Church Arson Task Force. (1997, June). First year reportfor the president. [Online]. Available: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/gen_pub/arsonrpt.htm
National Church Arson Task Force. (2000, September). Fourth yearreport for the presiden.t [Online]. Available: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/gen_pub/report2000/index.htm
National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement:Report. (1931). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1967). Goals and rec-ommendations: A response to “The challenge of crime in a freesociety,” the report of the President’s Commission on LawEnforcement and Administration of Justice. New York: Author.
National Crime Information Center. [Online]. Available: http:// www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm
National Domestic Preparedness Office. [Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ndpo/
National Forensic Science Technology Center. [Online]. Available:http://www.nfstc.org
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1998). Youth andGeneration X planner, promoting zero tolerance: Campaign safeand sober [Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/Safesobr/15qp/web/idpromo.html
922—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 922
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000). Youth fatalcrash and alcohol facts. [Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/2002YFCAF/preface.html
National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration. [Online]. Available:http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
National Human Genome Research Institute. [Online]. Available:http://www.genome.gov/
National Institute of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm
National Institutes of Health. (2000). NIH Almanac, 2000 (NIHPublication No. 00-5). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department ofHealth Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, NationalInstitutes of Health..
National Institutes of Health. [Online]. Available: http://www.nih.gov.
National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). (2003).ATF’s NIBIN Program. [Online]. Available: www.nibin.gov/nibin.pdf
National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund. [Online]. Available:http://www.nleomf.com
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. [Online].Available: http://www.nlets.org
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement.[Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa. gov/ole/fen.html
National Native American Law Enforcement Association.(2000–2003). Newsletter, 8–10.
National Native American Law Enforcement Association. (2002).Tribal lands homeland security report. Washington, DC:NNALEA.
National Native American Law Enforcement Association. [Online].Available: http://www.nnalea.org
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2003, February 3).FY 2004, budget summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofCommerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/budget2004/images/fy2004bluebook.pdf
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.[Online]. Available: http://www.noblenatl.org
National panel on crime holds first session today. (1965, September8). The New York Times, p. 8.
National Park Service, fiscal year 2004 greenbook. [Online].Available: http://data2.itc.nps.gov/budget2/fy04gbk.htm
National Park Service, Division of Ranger Activities. [Online].Available: http://www.nps.gov
National Police Week. [Online]. Available: http://www.national-cops.org
National Prohibition Law hearings before the Committee on theJudiciary, U.S. Senate, 69th Cong., 1st Session, 649 (1926) (tes-timony of Fiorella H. LaGuardia).
National Public Safety Information Bureau. [Online]. Available:http://www.safetysource.com.
National Research Council, Committee on DNA Technology inForensic Science. (1992). DNA technology in forensic science.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, Committee on DNA Forensic Science:An Update. (1996). The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Rifle Association. [Online]. Available: http://www. nra.orgNational Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. [Online].
Available: http://www.nra-ila.orgNational Security Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.
nsa.gov/about_nsa/index.htmlNational Security Archive, George Washington University. [Online].
Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiveNational Security Presidential Directives. [Online]. Available:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm
National Sheriffs’ Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.sheriffs.org
National Sheriffs’ Association. About the NSA. [Online]. Available:http://www.sheriffs.org/
National Transportation Safety Board. [Online]. Available: http://www.ntsb.gov
National Unaffiliated Shippers’ Association. [Online]. Available:http://www.nusa.net/fmcguide.htm
National White Collar Crime Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.nw3c.org
National Zoological Park. [Online]. Available: http://nationalzoo.si.edu
Naval Criminal Investigative Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncis.navy.mil/
Naval War College. [Online]. Available: www.nav.mil/library/3Navasky, V. S., & Paster, D. (1976). Law enforcement: The federal
role. New York: McGraw-Hill.Navigating the red tape of a new federal agency: New homeland secu-
rity segment added to the national directory makes finding theright contact easier. (2003, June 30). PR Newswire.
Neese, W. (2003). An analysis of the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as a control mechanismfor business activity. Journal of American Business, Sept.,pp. 367-375.
Neiwert, D. A. (1999). In God’s country: The patriot movement in thePacific Northwest. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
Nelson, H., Army, H., Bruce, J., & Bluhm, R. (2001). The army.New York: Levin and Associates.
Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d 768 (1993).Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influences
nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press.Newton, D. E. (1999). Drug testing: An issue for school, sports, and
work. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.Nonproliferation and Security Institute. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nnsi.doe.gov/GenInfo.O’Brien, S. P., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (1998). Fueling the fire: Social
and political correlates of citizen militia activity. Social ScienceQuarterly 79), 456–465.
Oettmeier, T. N. (1993). Can accreditation survive the ’90s? In J. W.Bizzack (Ed.), New perspectives in policing. Lexington, KY:Autumn House.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Service. (2003). Closing thecommunication gap between the Hispanic community and lawenforcement. [Online]. Available: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/print.asp?Item=511
Office of Headquarters Security Operations (SO-20). (2003).Washington, DC: Office of Security, U.S. Department of Energy.[Online]. Available: http://www.so.doe.gov/index.cfm?fuseac-tion+home.so20
Office of Homeland Security. (2002). National strategy for homelandsecurity. Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Inspector General. (2002, January). The federal witnesssecurity program criminal division (Report No. 02-05). [Online].Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/01g/audit/ 0205/index.htm.
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education. (2002,October 1–March 31, 2003). Semiannual report to Congress:no.46. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center.
Office of Justice Programs. (1997). LEAA/OJP retrospective.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
O’Harrow, R., Jr. (2002, October 27). Six weeks in autumn: A yearago, as a nation reeled from attack, a battle was joined forAmerica’s future. Not in Afghanistan. In Washington. TheWashington Post Magazine.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).Orders to preserve confidentiality. 18 U.S.C. 1835
Master Bibliography—�—923
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 923
O’Reilly, K. (1982). A new deal for the FBI: The Roosevelt adminis-tration, crime control, and national security. Journal of AmericanHistory 69, 638–658.
Outline of U.S. Marshals Service activities. (1986). Washington, DC:Department of Justice.
Oversight hearing on Forest Service law enforcement. Hearing beforethe Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee onResources, House of Representatives, 105th Cong., 2 (1998, June23). [Online]. Available http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/resources/hii49653.000/hii49653_0.htm
Overview: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. [Online].Available: http://www.ala.org/oitp/overview.html
Palmer, L. J., Jr. (2001). Encyclopedia of capital punishment in theUnited States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Pannuru, R. (2003, October). 1984 in 2003? National Review,pp.17–18.
Parisian, S. (2001). FDA inside and out. Front Royal, VA: Fast HorsePress.
Pate, A., Fridell, L. A., & Hamilton, E. E. (1993). Police use of force:Official reports, citizen complaints, and legal consequences.Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. E. (1991). The big six: Policing America’slargest cities.Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Patrick, C. L. (2003, March) Training as an agent of change. PoliceChief, pp. 12–13.
Patterson, G., & Telesco, G. (2003). Mass violence and law enforce-ment personnel. In L. Straussner & N. Phillips (Eds.),Understanding mass violence: A social work perspective(pp. 117–125). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, W. (1996). Preventing terrorist fund raising in the UnitedStates. George Washington Journal of International Law andEconomics, 30, 127–158.
Pear, R. (2003, June 6). Report criticizes health dept. inspector gen-eral as a poor manager. The New York Times, p. A24.
Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Employment Opportunities.[Online.] Available: http://www.dtic.mil/dps/employmenttent.html
Perine, K. (2003, April 12). AMBER child crimes bill clears, pro-pelled by news and strategy. CQ Weekly, p. 879. [Online].Available: http://web25.epnet.com/delivery.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+0+1n+en-us+s
Personnel issues affecting federal law enforcement and pay reform:Hearings before the Committee on Government Reform (July 23,2003) (testimony of Richard J. Gallow with Timothy Danahey).[Online.] Available: http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Gallo_FLEOA.pdf
Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 685 P.2d 1193(1984).
Pitcavage, M. (2001). Camouflage and conspiracy: The militia move-ment from Ruby Ridge to Y2K. American Behavioral Scientist44, 957–981.
Poggio, E. C., Kennedy, S. D., Chaiken, J. M., & Carlson, K. E.(1985). Blueprint for the future of the Uniform Crime ReportingProgram. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureauof Justice Statistics.
Poholek, C. H. (1998). Prohibition in the 1920s: Thirteen years thatdamaged America. [Online]. Available: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4399/
Police Coordination Act. [Online]. Available: http://mpdc.dc.gov/serv/programs/covered_leagencies.shtm
Police Executive Research Forum. [Online]. Available: http://www.policeforum.org.
Police Executive Research Forum meeting draws record numbers.(1999, August). Police, p. 11.
Police Foundation. [Online]. Available: http://www.policefoundation.orgPotter, C. B. (1998). War on crime: Bandits G-men and the politics of
mass culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Prassel, F. R. (1972). The western peace officer: A legacy of law andrder. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
President forms panel to study crime problems. (1965, July 27). TheNew York Times, pp. 1, 14.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administrationof Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Prince, C. E., & Keller, M. (1989). The U.S. Customs Service: Abicentennial history. Washington, DC: U.S. Customs Service.
Principles of a national homeland security program. (2002). IAEMPosition Paper No. GAO1: 11042001. [Online]. Available:http://www.iaem.com/principles_of_a_ national_ homel.shtml
Privacy Protection Study Commission. (1977). The Privacy Act of1974: An assessment, and technology and privacy. In Personalprivacy in an information society (Appendix 4). Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.
Progression through challenge. (1996, June 17–20). Conference pro-gram of the 1996 WIFLE Conference, Washington, DC.
Protecting the Statute of Liberty. (2003). Group 4 Falck InternationalMagazine 46, 35–38.
Quality assurance audits for forensic DNA and convicted offenderDNA databasing laboratories. [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/dnaaudit.pdf
Quality assurance standards for convicted offender DNA databasinglaboratories, DNA Advisory Board April 1999. [Online].Available: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/codis1b.htm#1
Quinton, B. (2000). Watching the detectives. Telephony, 239(4), 8.Rand, M. R., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). Criminal victimi-
zation, 1973–95 (Report NCJ 163069). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rantala, R. R., & Edwards, T. J. (2000). Effects of NIBRS on crimestatistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureauof Justice Statistics.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992).Raymond, J., & Gomez, C. (2001). Sex trafficking of women in the
United States. Report prepared for the Coalition AgainstTrafficking in Women. [Online]. Available: http://www.catwinternational.org
Reaves, B. A., & Bauer, L. M. (2003, August). Federal law enforce-ment officers, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Online].Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ fleo02.htm
Reaves, B. A., & Hart, T. C. (2001, July). Federal law enforcementofficers, 2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Recine, J. (2003). Examination of white-collar crime penalty enhance-ments in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. American Criminal LawReview, 39, 1535–1570.
Research and Special Programs Administration, Department ofTransportation. [Online]. Available: www.rspa.dot.gov
Responsibilities of supporting agencies. Land Information WarfareActivity. (1996). Field manual No. 100-6 (Appendix B). Washington,DC: Department of the Army. [Online]. Available: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/adtl.dll/fm/100-6/appendix.html
Ressler, R. K. (1992). Whoever fights monsters. New York: St.Martin’s Press.
Richard, A. O. (1999). International sex trafficking in women to theUnited States: A contemporary manifestation of slavery andorganized crime. Report prepared for the Central IntelligenceAgency. [Online]. Available: http:// www.cia.gov
Richards, E. (2002). Collaboration between public health and lawenforcement: The constitutional challenge. Emerging InfectiousDiseases, 8, 1157–1159.
Richards, J. R. (1999). Transnational criminal organizations, cyber-crime, & money laundering: A handbook for law enforcement
924—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 924
officers, auditors, and financial investigators. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Richman, D. C. (1995). Cooperating clients. Ohio State Law Journal,96, 69–151.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2003). Rivenbark, L. (1995, October 10). Hospital police get guns. Federal
Times, p. 6.Robbing Peter to pay Paul. [Online]. Available: http://www.
TomPaine.comRoberts, M. (1990). Moments in history, 1865-1990. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.Robin, G. (1974). White-collar crime and employee theft. Crime and
Delinquency, 20, 251–262.Robinett v. Barnes, 854 F2d 909 (1988).Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).Rosenthal, A. (1990, April 24). President signs law for study of hate
crimes. The New York Times, Section B, p. 6.Rositzke, H. (1977). The CIA’s secret operations: Espionage, coun-
terespionage, and covert action. New York: Reader’s Digest Press.Ross, D. (1996). A review of EPA criminal, civil and administrative
enforcement data. In S. Edwards, T. Edwards, & C. Fields (Eds.),Environmental crime and criminality: Theoretical and practicalissues (pp. 55–76). New York: Garland.
Ross v. Pennsylvania State University, 445 F. Supp 147 (1978).Sabbag, R. (1996, February 11). The invisible family. New York Times
Magazine, pp. 32–39.Saferstein, R. E. (2003) Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic
science (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Safety/security publications adjust to changes in lifestyle, technology.
(2002). Simba Report on Directory Publishing 12(3).Sampson, A., Stubbs, P., Smith, D., Pearson, G., & Blagg, H. (1988).
Crime, localities, and the multi-agency approach. British Journalof Criminology, 28, 478–493.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race,crime and urban inequality. In J. Hagan & R. Peterson (Eds.),Crime and inequality (pp. 37–54). Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.
Samuelson, N. (1998). Some notes on Oklahoma’s federal marshals.Quarterly of the National Association for Outlaw and LawmanHistory 22(3), 5-8.
Savino, D. (2003). CDI terrorism project factsheet: The sky marshalprogram. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdi. org/terrorism/sky-marshals.cfm
Schafer, M. (1991). All aboard Amtrak. Greentown, PA: RailpaceCompany.
Scheina, R. (n.d.). U.S. Coast Guard: A historical overview. [Online].Available: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history
Schmeckebier, L. F. (1929) The Bureau of Prohibition: Its history,activities and organization. Washington, DC: The BrookingsInstitution.
Schmitt, E. (2004, March 11). Army retraining soldiers to meet itsshifting needs. The New York Times, p. A22.
Schneider, E. M. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schreiber, B., Prasow, A., & Martin, R. (2002). Health care fraud.American Criminal Law Review, 39, 707–761.
Schulz, D. M. (1987). Holdups, hobos, and the homeless: A briefhistory of railroad police in North America. Police Studies 10,90–95.
Schulz, D. M. (1995). From social worker to crimefighter: Women inUnited States municipal police. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schulz, D. M. (1998). Bridging boundaries: United States police-women’s efforts to form an international network. InternationalJournal of Police Science and Management 1, 70–80.
Schulz, D. M. (2002). On the track of—and with—railroad police:Separating the real cops and special agents from the fictional bulls
and cinder dicks, The St. Louis Mercantile Library Report toMembers, 2001-2002, pp. 19–23.
Schulz, D. M. (2002, March). Law enforcement leaders: A surveyof women police chiefs in the United States. The Police Chief,pp. 25–28.
Schulz, D. M. (2003). Robert S. Mitchell brought law and order toMissouri’s railroads. The St. Louis Mercantile Library Report toMembers, 2002-2003, pp. 31–44.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. (2003). Bylawsof the Scientific Working Group on DNA analysis methods.Forensic Science Communications, 5. [Online]. Available:http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/swgdambylaws.htm
Secrest, W. B. (1994). James Bunyan Hume. In Lawmen & despera-does: A compendium of noted, early California peace officers,badmen and outlaws, 1850-1900 (pp. 181–186). Spokane, WA:Arthur H. Clark.
Secrest, W. B. (1994). John Nelson Thacker. In Lawmen & despera-does: A compendium of noted, early California peace officers,badmen and outlaws, 1850-1900 (pp. 291–294). Spokane, WA:Arthur H. Clark.
Securities and Exchange Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforcement
Security bolstered at library. (1995, August 12). The Washington Post,p. C5.
Security Management. (1990). 35th anniversary special supplement.Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 472 U.S. 479 (1985).Seo, Y., Uchiyama, T., Matsuda, H., Shimizu, K., Takami, Y.,
Nakayama, T., & Takahama, K. (2002). Mitochondrial DNA andSTR typing of matter adhering to an earphone. Journal ofForensic Science, 47, 605–608.
Shaffer, R. (1977). Surprise! Surprise! How the lawman conned thethieves. New York: Viking Press.
Shalloo, J. P. (1929, November). The private police of Pennsylvania.The Annals of the American Academy of Police and SocialScience, pp. 55–62.
Shea, E. L. (1987). A history of the NOAA: Being a compilation offacts and figures regarding the life and times of the originalWhole Earth Agency. [Online]. Available: http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/noaahistory.html
Shenon, P. (2002, November 20). Establishing new agency is expectedto take years and could divert it from mission. The New YorkTimes, p. A14.
Shenon, P. (2003, March 3). Ridge discovers size of homeland secu-rity task. The New York Times, p. A1.
Siringo, C. A. (1912) A cowboy detective: A true story of the twenty-two years with a world-famous detective agency. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press. (Reprinted, 1988)
Situ, Y., & D. Emmons. (2000). Environmental crime: The criminaljustice system’s role in protecting the environment. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Slate, R. (1997). The federal witness protection program: Its evolutionand continuing growing pains. Criminal Justice Ethics, 16, 20–35.
Slaughter, T. P. (1986). Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier epilogue to theAmerican Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smart Motorist. [Online]. Available: http://www.smartmotorist.com/the/leg.htm
Smith, B. (2000, January). Police service dogs: the unheralded train-ing tool. Police, pp. 36–39.
Smith, D. C., Jr. (1991). Wickersham to Sutherland to Katzenbach:Evolving an official definition for organized crime. Crime, Lawand Social Change, 16, 135–154.
Smith, R. (1997). America tries to come to terms with terrorism: TheUnited States Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 v. British anti-terrorism law and international response.Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law, 5,249–290.
Master Bibliography—�—925
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 925
Smithsonian Institution. (2003). Fiscal year 2004, budget request toCongress. [Online]. Available: http://www.smithsonian.org/about/budget
Snow, R. L. (1999). The militia threat: Terrorists among us.New York: Plenum Press.
Soraghan, M. (2001, October 5). House panel OKs police help fornation’s dams. Denver Post, n.p.
Special on the 25th anniversary of Amtrak. (1996, June). TrainsMagazine, pp. 34–40, 42–49.
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).Spunt, B. (2001). Heroin and crime in New York City. In A. Karmen
(Ed.), Crime and justice in New York City: Vol. 1. New YorkCity’s crime problem (rev. ed., pp. 90–96). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
Stallings, W. (1999). Cryptography and network security: Principlesand practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Statutory History of the United States Capitol Police Force:Committee on House Administration, 99th Congress, FirstSession. (1985). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Sterling, J. W. (1994, October). A history of the IACP insignia. ThePolice Chief, pp. 125–141.
Stern, K. (1996). A force upon the plain: The American militia move-ment and the politics of hate. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Stevenson, R. W. (2002, November 26). Signing Homeland SecurityBill, Bush appoints Ridge as secretary. The New York Times,p. A1.
Stimson, D. R. (2002). Cryptography: Theory and practice. BocaRaton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Stone, R. D., & Landry, M. (2002). The decline and rise of theInterstate Commerce Commission. Journal of TransportationLaw, Logistics and Policy, 70, 64–78.
Stonehill v. United States, 405 F.2d 738, (cert. denied, 1969), 395U.S. 960 (9th Cir. 1968).
Strazzela, J. A. (1998). The federalization of criminal law.Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
Strobridge, W. F. (1995). Pilsbury “Chips” Hodgkins: Wells Fargo’sSouthern California messenger. Southern California Quarterly,77, 293–314.
Stubbs, B., Truver, S., & Feege, E. (2000). America’s coast guard,safeguarding U.S. maritime safety and security in the 21st century.Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard.
Stuster, J. (2001). Development of a Standardized Field SobrietyTest (SFST) training management system (DOT HS 809400). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2001,September). Mandatory guidelines for federal workplacedrug testing programs. Draft guidelines for federal workplacedrug testing program. [Online]. Available: http://workplace.samhsa.gov/ResourceCenter/DT/FA/GuidelinesDraft4.htm
Sullivan, J. P. (Ed.). (2002). Jane’s unconventional weapons responsehandbook. Alexandria, VA: Jane’s Information Group.
Sullivan, M. (1927). Our times: The United States, 1900-1925 (Vol. II).New York: Scribner’s.
Sutherland, E. (1949). White-collar crime. New York: Dryden.Sykes, G. W. (1994). Accreditation and community policing: Passing
fads or basic reforms? Journal of Contemporary CriminalJustice, 10, 1–16.
Symonds, D. R. (2003, March). A guide to selected weapons of massdestruction, The Police Chief, pp. 19–29.
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1202-1527, 46 Stat. 741 (1930).Tauber, R. S. (2000, February 10). Holocaust survivors assets.
Statement on Banking and Financial Services, House ofRepresentatives (congressional testimony). Federal DocumentClearing House. [Online]. Available: http://www.fdcl.com
Tax administration: IRS’s audit and criminal enforcement rates forindividual taxpayers across the country. (1998). (GAO/GGD-99-19). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Tax administration: IRS’s efforts to place more emphasis on criminaltax investigations. (1997). (GAO/GGD-98-16). Washington, DC:U.S. General Accounting Office.
Taylor, G., & Ramstack, T. (2003, September). Ridge adds 5,000 airmarshals to help get “surge capacity.” The Washington Times.[Online]. Available: http://dynamic. washtimes.com
Taylor, M. J., Epper, R. C., Tolman, T. K., & National Law Enforcement& Corrections Technology Center (U.S.) Rocky Mountain Region.(1998). State and local law enforcement wireless communicationsand interoperability: A quantitative analysis. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.
TechBeat. (1994–2002). Rockville, MD: National Law Enforcementand Corrections Technology Center-National.
Telesco, G. (2002, Summer). Rescue and recovery: Providing crisisintervention to the families of the victims of the world tradecenter. Reflections, pp. 12–18.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985).Tennessee Valley Authority. [Online]. Available: http://www. tva.govTestimony to the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia (June 24, 1998) (testimony of RobertE. Langston, Chief, United States Park Police). [Online].Available: http://www.dcwatch.com/police/980624-3.htm
Theoharis, A. G. (2002). Chasing spies: How the FBI failed in coun-terintelligence but promoted the politics of McCarthyism in theCold War years. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Thibodeau, P. (2001, October). FTC shifts focus to enforcement.Computerworld, p. 41.
Thomas, J. B., Jr. (1982). Addressing fraud, waste and abuse: TheU.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General.American Education 18(9), 24–27.
Thurman, S. (1997, December 5). Safeguarding library treasures fromtheft. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.
Tippets, D. W. (1988, April). Understanding U.S. Forest Service lawenforcement. Law and Order, pp. 58–66.
Title 18, U.S.C. §§ 175, 831, 2332c, 2332a.Title 18, U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 96, Sections 1961–1968.Title V–Emergency preparedness and response. [Online]. Available:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/title5.htmlTjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and conse-
quences of violence against women: Findings from the NationalViolence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure andreform the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.H.R. 2676, 105th Cong. (1998). [Online]. Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d105query.html.
Tobias, M. (1998). Nature’s keepers: On the front lines of the fight tosave wildlife in America. New York: Wiley.
Toll, D. W. (1983, April). The last stagecoach robbery. NevadaMagazine, pp. 12–15.
Torres, D. A. (1985). Handbook of federal police and investigativeagencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Training via television: Making life safer in the field. (1999,December). Law and Order, pp 57–58.
Transportation Safety Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.tsa.dot.gov
Treasury inspector general for tax administration. [Online].Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta
Tulacz, G., & O’ Toole, M. P. (1989). What you need to know aboutworkplace drug testing. Old Tappen, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.
926—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 926
Ungar, S. J. (1976). FBI. Boston: Little, Brown.United States government manual 2002-2003. (2002). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United States government manual 2002-2003. (2003). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United States government manual, The. (1995). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.United States government manual, The. (2000/2001). Army
Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). Washington,DC: Office of the Federal Register/National Archives andRecords, General Services Administration.
United States government manual, The. (2000/2001). CentralIntelligence Agency. Washington, DC: Office of the FederalRegister.
United States Marshals Service Then . . . and Now. . . . (1981).McLean, VA: Department of Justice.
United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140 (1915).United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000).United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998) and 165
F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1024.United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. Publ. L. No.107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
U.S. Air Force aims for CPP. (2004, March/April). ASIS—International Dynamics, pp. 1, 24.
U.S. Army. [Online]. Available: http://www.army.milU.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cid.army.mil U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. (2002). Land
Information Warfare Activity. INSCOM Journal Almanac,25(3), 1–31.
U.S. Capitol Police Merger Review. GAO-02-792R [Online].Available: www.gao.gov/new.items/d02792r.pdf
U.S. Coast Guard. [Online]. Available: http://www.uscg.milU.S. Coast Guard. [Online]. Available: http://www.uscg.mil/
USCG.shtmU.S. Coast Guard: America’s maritime guardians. (2002).
Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard.U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary. (1996). Church
fires in the southeast. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure. (2000). Ocean Shipping Reform Act. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, 8 and Article IIIU.S. Customs Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.customs.
ustreas.gov/U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2002). Report of the
Forest Service, FY 2001: Incorporating financial and performanceaccountability. Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (2003, July 9).NOAA Fisheries’strategic plan for FY 2003–FY 2008: Priorities forthe 21st century. [Online]. Available: http://www.spo.noaa. gov/pdfs/LO% 20Strat%20Plans%202003%20Final/ Fisheries-SP-July-9.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. [Online]. Available: http://www.defenselink.mil/
U.S. Department of Defense. Defense links. [Online]. Available:http://www.defenselink.mil/
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Security Affairs, Office ofSafeguards and Security. (1994, July 15). Manual of securityrequirements for the classified automated information securityprogram (DOE M5639. 6A-1, DOE 471. 2-1, Executive Order
12958 and 12968). [Online]. Available: http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/Securitydoesec. html7
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2003). Yearbook of immi-gration statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation SecurityAdminstration. (2003). Air cargo strategic plan. [Online].Available: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/press_release/press_release_0371.xml
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation SecurityAdministration. [Online]. Available: http://www.tsa.gov
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General. (2002,January). Disquieting state of disorder: An assessment ofDepartment of the Interior law enforcement. [Online]. Available:http://www.indianz.com/docs/oig/2002-I-014.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (1989). White-collar crime: A report tothe public. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1993). Use and management of criminalhistory record information: A comprehensive report (Report No.NCJ 143501). Sacramento, CA: Search Group Inc.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1995). The nation’s two crime measures.Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Criminal resource manual.[Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01780.htm
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). United States attorney’s manual.[Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). The federal death penalty system:A statistical survey (1988-2000). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). AMBER Alert: America’sMissing Broadcast Emergency Response. [Online]. Available:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/amberalert/history.html
U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). Drug Enforcement Administration:A tradition of excellence, 1973-2003. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/
U.S. Department of Justice. [Online]. Overview of the Privacy Act of1974. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/oip.html
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002).Capital punishment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
U.S. Department of Justice, Drug and crime facts. [Online]. Available:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/def/enforce.htm
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy. (2002).Freedom of Information Act guide & Privacy Act overview.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Online].Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. (2002). NIJspecial report: Using DNA to solve cold cases. [Online].Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center, National CriminalJustice Reference Service. (1994, October 24). Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. [Online]. Available:http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/billfs.txt
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). State and territory laws. Workingpartners substance abuse information database. [Online].Available: http://said.dol.gov/StateLaws.asp
U.S. Department of State. (2002). Trafficking in persons report. Officeto Monitor and Combat Trafficking. [Online]. Available:http://www.state.gov
U.S. Department of State. (2002, March). President’s FY 2003budget proposal for the Drug Enforcement Administration
Master Bibliography—�—927
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 927
(DEA). [Online]. Available: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/2002/9235. htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Environmental crimi-nal enforcement: A law enforcement officer’s guide. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Meeting the environ-mental challenge: EPA’s review of progress and new directionsin environmental protection. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
U.S. Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Pub. L. No. 59-384. 34Stat. 768 (1906).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement. (2002).Annual report FY 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement. [Online].Available: http://www.le.fws.gov
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1986). Who should be responsiblefor state fugitives—the FBI or U. S. Marshals? Washington, DC:Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992). Money laundering: Stateefforts to fight it are increasing but more federal help is needed.Report to the chairman, Permanent Subcommittee onInvestigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.Washington, DC: GAO.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Money laundering: U.S.efforts to fight it all threatened by currency smuggling. Reportto the chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington,DC: GAO.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Report to the Subcommitteeon Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade andTechnology, Committee on Financial Services, House ofRepresentatives (GAO-03-696). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement FederalBuildings. [Online]. Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/enforce/enforce_fb.htm
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal ProtectiveService. [Online]. Available: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/careers/fps/
U.S. Marshals Service. (2002, January/February). The MarshalsService pioneered the Air Marshal Program. MarshalMonitor–The Official Newsletter of the United States MarshalsService. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/monitor/jan-2002/jan-2002.html
U.S. Marshals Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/
U.S. Mint. [Online]. Available: http://www.usmint.govU.S. Park Police. [Online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/uspp/U.S. Park Police: Focusing priorities, capabilities, and resources
for the future, The. (2001). Washington, DC: National Academyof Public Administration. [Online]. Available: http://www.napawash.org/publications.html
U.S. Postal Inspection Service. [Online]. Available: http://www.usps.com
U.S. Secret Service. (2003). United States Secret Service: History.[Online]. Available: http:/www.secretservice.gov/hisotry.shtml/history.shtml
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2001). Sourcebook of federal sentenc-ing statistics (Figure G and Table 45). Washington, DC: U.S.Sentencing Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/fig-g.pdf; http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table45.pdf
U.S. Speeches and Remarks. (1997). A Collection of Speeches andOther Presentations Given by Various FMC Officials. [Online].Available: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS14482
U.S. Treasury Department. [Online]. Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/
U.S.P.C.A. history. [Online]. Available: www.uspcak-9.com/html/history.shtml
Van Dyke, N., & Soule, S. A. (2002). Structural social change andthe mobilizing effect of threat: Explaining levels of patriot andmilitia organizing in the United States. Social Problems,49, 497–520.
Vietnam Security Police Association. [Online]. Available: http://www.vspa.com/history.htm
Vines, L. (1981, May). The first female agents. The Investigator,pp. 4–6.
Violence Against Women Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1902(1994).
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. H.R. 3355,103rd Cong. 2nd Session (1994).
Vito, G. F. (1999). Presidential address: Research and relevance: Roleof the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly16, 1–17.
Vorenberg, J. (1967). The crime commission’s report. FederalProbation, 31, 3–6.
Wackenhut. [Online]. Available: http://www.wackenhut.comWakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., & Begay, M. (2001).
Policing on American Indian reservations. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
Wald, M. L. (2004, April 11). Privacy issues slow updated airlinesecurity. The New York Times, sect. 5, pp. 3: 1–2.
Wald, M. L. (2004, May 5). Screening begins at Maryland trainstation. The New York Times, p. A24: 5.
Wald, M. L. (2004, May 8). Nuclear weapons program could get ownpolice force. The New York Times, p. A13.
Walker, S. (1998). Popular justice: A history of American criminaljustice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A pol-icy guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Warburton, C. (1932). The economic results of Prohibition.New York: Columbia University Press.
Warner, J., & Sweatman, B. (2002). Federal jobs in law enforcement(2nd ed.). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.
Watson, P. (2000, December 17). Portrait of a shady art deal. SundayTimes (London), n.p.
Webster Commission. (1999). Review of the Internal RevenueService’s Criminal Investigation Division (IRS Publication No.3388 (4-1999)). Washington, DC: U.S. IRS Printing Office.
Webster, W., & Williams, H. (1992). The city in crisis: A report by thespecial advisor to the board of police commissioners on the civildisorder in Los Angeles. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Weeks v. United States, 235 U.S. 383 (1914).Weisburd, D. L., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E. E., Bryant, K. A., &
Williams, H. (2001). The abuse of police authority: A nationalstudy of police officers’ attitudes. Washington, DC: PoliceFoundation.
Weissinger, G. (2003). The illegal alien problem: Enforcing the immi-gration laws. [Online]. Available: http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html
Weissinger, G. (2004). Law enforcement & the INS: A participantobservation study of control agents (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD:University Press of America.
Wells, J. T. (1997) Occupational fraud and abuse. Austin, TX:Obsidian.
Wells, J. T. (2000). Frankensteins of fraud. Austin, TX: Obsidian.White Slave Traffic Act, 36 Stat. 825 (1910).Whitebread, C. (1995). The history of the non-medical use of drugs in
the United States. A speech to the California Judges Associationannual conference. [Online]. Available: www.forces.org/articles/files/whiteb/white05. html
Whitebread, C. (1999). The history of the non-medical use of drugs inthe United States. A speech to the California Judges Association
928—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 928
1995 annual conference. [Online]. Available: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ Whiteb1.htm
Whitehead, D. (1963). The FBI story. New York: Random House.Wilkinson, C. F. (1992). Crossing the next meridian: Land, water, and
the future of the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.Williams, D. (1981). The Bureau of Investigation and its critics, 1919-
1921. Journal of American History 68, 560–579.Williams, G. L. (1989). Making the grade: The benefits of law
enforcement accreditation. Washington, DC: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum.
Williams, H. E. (2002). Asset forfeiture: A law enforcement perspec-tive. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Williams, N. B. (n.d.). Bass Reeves. In The handbook of Texas online.[Online]. Available: http://tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/fre47.html
Williams, R. L. (1997). Supreme Court of the United States: The staffthat keeps it operating. Smithsonian, 7, 39–48.
Willis, L. (1998). IRS inspection service and taxpayer advocate rolesfor ensuring that taxpayers are treated properly. Hearing beforethe Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, February 5. GAO/T-GGD-98-63. [Online]. Available: http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta/
Willuweit, S., & Roewer, L. (2003). Y-STR haplotype reference data-base. Institute of Legal Medicine, Humboldt Universität, Berlin.[Online]. Available: http://www.ystr. org/europe/
Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563 (1914).Wilson, N. C. (1936). Treasure express: Epic days of the Wells Fargo.
New York: Macmillan.Winnie, M. (1995). Priority mail: The investigation and trial of a mail
bomber obsessed with destroying our justice system. New York:Scribner.
Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).Withington, T. (2003). Terrorism: Stung by stingers. Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 59(3), 16-17. [Online]. Available: http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2003/mj03/mj03withington.html
Witzig, E. W. (2003) The new ViCAP: More user-friendly and used bymore agencies. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72, 1–6.
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).Wolf, R. A., & Watkins, R. C. (2001). Alcohol and drug use in
American colleges and universities. Campus Law EnforcementJournal, 31(4), 33–35.
Women in federal law enforcement. [Online]. Available: http://www.wifle.com
Women policing: IACP, Gallup assess recruitment, promotion, reten-tion issues. (1998, October). The Police Chief, pp. 36, 38, 40.
Worrall, J. L. (2001). Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil assetforfeiture as a budgetary necessity in contemporary law enforce-ment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(3), 171–187.
Wright, C., & Miller, A. (2003). Federal practice and procedure:Federal rules of criminal procedure. St. Paul, MN: West.
Wright, J. (2000). Worldwide tragedy: U.S. not immune to sexual slav-ery. Report prepared for the National Organization of Women.[Online]. Available: http://www. now.org
Wright, R. K. (Ed.). (1992). Military police. Washington, DC: U.S.Army Center of Military History.
Wright, R. K. (1992). Military police. Washington, DC: Center ofMilitary History, U.S. Army. [Online]. Available: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Lineage/mp/mp.htm
Yaroshefsky, E. (1999). Cooperation with federal prosecutors:Experiences of truth telling and embellishment. Fordham LawJournal, 68, 917–964.
Young, J. H. (1961). The toadstool millionaires: A social historyof patent medicines in America before federal regulation.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, J. H. (1967). The medical messiahs: A social history of healthquackery in twentieth-century America. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Master Bibliography—�—929
Bibliography-Sullivan Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 8:37 PM Page 929
AppendixLaw Enforcement News
15 Years in Review (1989–2003)
Marie Simonetti Rosen
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A1
With its record-breaking levels of violence and acommensurate increase of concern on the part of the public,the media and government at all levels—in short, on thepart of just about every American—1989 can stand on itsown in the catalog of years, yet it is impossible to set asidethe fact that the year ends a decade of dramatic change forlaw enforcement and begins a decade of dramatic chal-lenges. Whether viewed as a year in isolation or as theculmination of a decade, 1989 bore witness to portentouschanges in the role of the police in the overall production ofpublic safety.
Ten years ago, the police were seen as the authority oncrime. They were the experts. In many respects the profes-sion thought of itself as having a monopoly on safety andpublic order. Over the past ten years, however, the field hasgradually acknowledged that it cannot shoulder this respon-sibility alone, and other segments of society have started toparticipate in crime prevention and protection. Perhaps thesingle most significant manifestation of this change in 1989came with the official entry of the military into the drug war.
THE IRONY OF MILITARY INVOLVEMENT
There is a certain irony to the notion that, at a time whenpolice departments are increasingly moving away from themilitary model of management, branches of the militaryhave joined with local, state and Federal law enforcementofficers, who to date have been the only line of defense onthe nation’s streets and borders. In at least 48 states and theDistrict of Columbia, the National Guard was called uponto provide radar and air surveillance, eradicate domesticmarijuana crops, and assist the Customs Service with cargochecks at border crossings and airports. Whether helpingWashington, D.C., police with searches or getting involvedwith police efforts against gangs and illegal drugs, as was
reported in Portland, Ore., thus far Guard units have workedunder the direction of local and Federal law enforcementagencies. As the year progressed, however, the temptationto change that picture appeared to be growing. The Miamichapter of the NAACP had requested the involvement ofthe Guard in patrol duties, citing unsubstantiated fears of a“look-the-other-way” response from police protesting theconviction of a fellow officer for the shooting of a civilian.In New York and Detroit, local elected officials called fordeployment of the Guard to address street-level drug dealingin their high-crime neighborhoods. San Francisco consideredcalling in the Guard to free police for patrol duties as a resultof increasing gang violence. Army doctors in Los Angelesreceived their training by working in inner-city hospitals ongunshot wounds incurred in gang wars. As the year ended,the contingent of 50 Marines assigned to assist the BorderPatrol exchanged fire with drug smugglers for the first time.
With lobbying efforts already underway in Washingtonto allocate the so-called “peace dividend”—as much as $10billion by some reports—the military’s entry into the waron drugs comes at an opportune time for the armed forcesto justify retaining certain resources—including high tech,big-ticket items—by redeploying.
Congressional officials are already on record when itcomes to the drug war and the military. Said one committeechairman, “With all the billions spent on the military, ifthey can’t help us, then we don’t need them.” Policing inAmerica has traditionally been decentralized—fragmented,some would say—and while the debate on consolidationof small departments ebbs and flows on the waves ofdemographics and politics, local police authority hasremained part of the American bedrock. Could the use ofthe National Guard be seen as a dent in the armor of locallaw enforcement control? Regardless of the answer, thefuture holds increased interaction between the military andlaw enforcement.
1989 IN REVIEW
New Players in the Safety Game,New Challenges for Police
A3
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A3
FEAR, VIOLENCE STALK THE STREETS
For local communities, the battlegrounds of the drug war,the year was fearful at best and violent at worse. One pollpublished in October indicated that more than 70 percentof Americans feared becoming a victim of drug-relatedviolence. Media reports in five U.S. cities compared sectionsof those cities to Beirut on the basis of having reached astage of “civil insurrection.” With increasing frequency in1989, the community took matters into hand. In Berkeleytenants found a way to evict drug dealers through legal pro-ceedings in small claims courts. In some of the nation’spublic housing developments, the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development stepped in with stream-lined eviction procedures and help from the U.S. MarshalsService to eject drug dealers. Communities formed patrols,they engaged in activities ranging from prayer vigils toburning down crack houses. Nor was extreme action limitedto residential properties; it was also to be found in theschools. The increase in handguns carried by adolescentsprompted six of the ten largest school districts in the countryto make use of metal detectors. Drug-free zones were cre-ated around schools to permit higher penalties for drugoffenses. And, to be sure, it took the murder of five school-children and the wounding of numerous others in Stockton,Calif., to rivet public attention on the issue of assault rifles.
But whether or not one lived in a high-crime area, themedia brought the crime issue, particularly drug-relatedcrime, into almost every household on a daily basis, dramat-ically increasing the regular coverage of criminal justiceissues. Print and broadcast media alike not only expandedtheir news coverage, but added expanded feature storieson the problems of drugs and crime. For television, lawenforcement issues also ranked high on the list of prime-timeentertainment formats. From controversial “fact-based” dra-mas of particularly heinous crimes, to “realistic” policeshows, television has moved to capitalize on Americans’growing fear of crime. Syndicated shows like “America’sMost Wanted” and “Unsolved Mysteries” have joined localCrime Stopper shows in providing a forum for communityinvolvement in apprehending offenders, while at the sametime proving a profitable cog in the entertainment machinery.
FOR SOME, CRIME IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Private-sector endeavors against crime are increasing aswell, with evidence of dramatic growth in the number ofpersons employed in private security. By some estimates,more than 1.2 million Americans were employed in the pri-vate security field in 1989—1.6 percent of the workforce.(Sworn officers and civilians in state and local police agen-cies are estimated to number about 758,000.) While laborexperts express concern over the productivity lag that suchemployees create—by adding to the cost of products with-out aiding in their production—police experts fear that anunequal ability to purchase protection creates unequal pro-tection. Civil libertarians, for their part, point to some small
private companies whose marketing pitches boast that theydo not operate under the same legal restraints as the police.With the 1989 Supreme Court decision, drug-testing com-panies are quickly becoming a growth industry. Prisonconstruction industries are booming. From proliferatinglocks and alarms, to high-fashion bulletproof clothing, tothe more than 4 million firearms produced in 1989 alone,private industries are growing up and prospering on publicfear and high crime rates.
[Even public-sector employment has prospered. Helpedby increases in correctional jobs, more Americans aresaid to be employed by government than at any other timein the nation’s history. Over the past six years, the JusticeDepartment experienced the highest level of staff increasesof any Federal agency—some 30 percent. (The Departmentof Education, meanwhile, experienced a 30-percentdecrease in manpower.)]
The economic dimensions of crime and criminal justicereceived more attention in 1989. Surpluses in severalbranches of the Federal Reserve Bank were attributed todrug-related proceeds. Compared to 1988, public safetycosts rose by an average of nearly 33 percent in thecountry’s 50 largest cities and by 14 percent for the states.For police departments nationwide, new sources of fundingwere found in the assets seized from record-breaking drugbusts. The forfeited assets were applied to the luxury itemsthat police departments, particularly those in tight financialstraits, cannot readily afford, from four-color slick depart-mental magazines to helicopters. All of these forfeitedassets, and the means by which they are obtained, are mak-ing some police officials uneasy. Although taking the prop-erty and money away from criminals is widely regardedas a worthwhile endeavor that has the added benefit ofpromoting interagency cooperation, local law enforcementinitiatives are being influenced more and more by revenue-raising rather than by community needs like foot patrol.Some fear that police agencies are in danger of having amonkey on their backs: an addiction to drug money.
While the Federal Government concerns itself with theeconomic dependency of Latin American countries on illegaldrugs, it is ignoring the economic dependencies that areemerging under its own doorstep. The combination of a rede-ployed military, the volume of resources devoted to publicand private security, regional economies bolstered by laun-dered drug money and the growing reliance of law enforce-ment on forfeited assets to supplement dwindling budgetsrisks creating a vicious cycle of social and economic depen-dency on crime. A paraphrasing of President Eisenhower’sone-time admonition regarding the military may be apt:Beware the growing public safety-industrial complex.
THE 24-HOUR-A-DAYPUBLIC OPINION POLL
Now that law enforcement has been joined by the commu-nity, the private sector and the military, why aren’t things
A4—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A4
getting better? Some experts are of the opinion that morecoordination is needed, but at what level and under whosedirection are questions that remain unanswered. A moreimmediate issue for law enforcement, however, is the over-all allocation of resources now that these other segments ofsociety are engaging in public safety work, because despitethe growing number of participants in public safety and therecognition that law enforcement alone cannot solve thecrime problem, the public still wants a greater police pres-ence. To that end, 1989 was a year of enormous pressureto put more police on the street. In recognition of thisincreased pressure, departments continually grappled withjuggling calls for service versus high-pressure anti-crimetactics versus foot patrol. For that matter 1989 found lawenforcement executives re-examining the question of whatreally constitutes essential services.
There is probably no escaping the issue of 911 whenessential services are mentioned. In the past, police expertshave thought of calls for service as “the tail wagging thedog,” and yet the information that can be gleaned fromthese calls can provide a deep perspective into the demo-graphics and needs of a neighborhood. To be sure, analysesof 911 calls placed in the hands of community membersand problem-oriented police officers could serve as valu-able tools for ascertaining the needs of those in the com-munity who do not participate in civic activities. In essence,calls for service are an ongoing opinion poll of what thecommunity wants and needs. Irrespective of police feelingsabout calls for service, the fact remains that the public likes911. And why shouldn’t they? It provides 24-hour access tolocal government that the public cannot get through othermeans. While the 1980’s saw police departments assessing,ranking and redirecting their calls for service, the futurewill demand the speedy analysis and dissemination ofinformation from the calls as a priority in itself.
In the face of escalating crime, however, many depart-ments had to redirect personnel in order to handle theincreased load of calls for service and to staff the high-pres-sure approaches that became popular around 1987 and1988. These tactics were successful insofar as providingrelief, if only temporarily, for crime-ridden neighborhoods,but they resulted in paralyzed local courts and prisons. Therevolving door speeded up. While some experts argued thattough punishment for first offenders was a deterrent, othersargued that the system cannot even hold all the violentrepeat offenders. And clearly, the police were being askedto deal with increasingly violent criminals whose fear of thelegal system was questionable at best. To enhance visibility,police departments used a variety of means, some tradi-tional, some innovative.
Efforts were made in Dallas and Cleveland to implementone-officer patrols. Mandatory overtime was tried inWashington, D.C. The nation’s capital also tried puttingsupervisory or desk-bound personnel back on the streets, asdid Philadelphia. In Houston, a police shooting was attrib-uted to the reassignment of an officer from desk duty tostreet patrol. Video arraignment proved successful in
helping Port Authority of New York police officers getback to patrol more quickly. Philadelphia started a mobileprecinct. In Fort Myers, Fla., forfeited assets were used tohire retired officers for school-based anti-drug programs,thus freeing full-time officers for patrol work.
POLICE RECRUITMENT IN THE NEW AGE
When it comes to increasing police visibility, however,hiring new officers remained the most straightforwardapproach. Such an approach will no doubt be a temptationfor many departments in the immediate future, notwith-standing the pitfalls of hasty recruitment, as has beendemonstrated by Miami in recent years. The need to recruitwill be exacerbated by the retirement of baby-boom policeofficers who were hired in the middle to late 1960’s andwill soon have put in their 20 or 25 years. For those depart-ments with the fiscal luxury to hire, the recruitment poolwill require careful scrutiny.
The labor market will contain a significant portion of thepopulation who cannot read. It has been reported that 1 of5 adults are functionally illiterate (although many of themhave high school diplomas). Thirty-eight percent of the 118companies examined in one private-sector survey assertedthat high school graduates were not prepared for the worldof work. In the face of increasingly complex police work,and spurred perhaps by low levels of literacy even amonghigh school graduates, more and more departments areadopting college requirements either for entry or as partof promotion. With 1989 seeing the lowest jobless rate in15 years, employment analysts predict that the current lowunemployment rate is a sign of labor shortages in the future.
At a time when police recruitment efforts will be morecomplicated than ever, the changing role of the armedforces will have its effect. With military bases closing downboth here and abroad, the troops will be coming home.Reports issued last spring estimated that as many as 1.5million G.I.’s will be discharged in the next 10 years. Theywill be armed with higher educational benefits and theywill need jobs. Not since what some police chiefs havecalled the good old days of military disciplined recruits inthe early 1970’s has the law enforcement profession hadaccess to such an employment pool. It is rather ironic that,at a time when the military model of policing is morediluted than ever, the profession will likely be drawingits future recruits from military trained personnel. Yet formany law enforcement administrators this will be a bless-ing, since departments that took cuts in the mid-to-late 70’sand rehired in the late 80’s have reported declining levels ofmaturity and a resulting increase in officer misconduct.
For the profession, the last 10 years have been nothingless than a metamorphosis. The beginning of the decadesaw most of the country’s police departments viewingthemselves purely as law enforcers—as separate from thecommunity. They reacted to crime. By the end of thedecade, earlier experiments in team policing turned into
Appendix—�—A5
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A5
proactive community-oriented policing. What began ascrime prevention has turned into problem-oriented policing.Victims’ rights advocates emerged as a political force.Science and technology reshaped evidence-gathering, iden-tification and communication. Computerization alloweddepartments to gather and analyze information as neverbefore. National broad-based research efforts became morefocused and localized. Along the way, the profession sawthe growing acceptance of national accreditation, a chang-ing workforce with the increased representation of minori-ties and women and growing higher levels of education.The decade witnessed declining acceptability of the use offorce, but a growing public outcry for police intervention.While drugs have always influenced the crime rate, thetypes of drugs that grew in popularity in the mid-to-late80’s—those like crack and crank—had the additional dis-advantage of producing staggering amounts of illegal prof-its and accelerated levels of violence, a phenomenon thathas contributed to the crisis that is engulfing the criminaljustice system. Yet for all the professional changes that haveoccurred over the decade, public safety continues to declineand the decade ended as it began, with record-breakinglevels of crime. Literally and figuratively, the 80’s went outwith a bang.
MAINTAININGPOLICING’S LEADERSHIP ROLE
The decade ahead, meanwhile, will no doubt see changes inthe field of law enforcement, particularly in the role it will play.Whether or not police will maintain a position of leadership inthe area of public safety will very much depend on the decisionsmade in the immediate future to handle the demographicchanges that are largely outside the realm of police control. The
United States is going through a spreading-out process. Since1986 the rural and suburban populations are growing morerapidly than the urban population. The urban village is takinghold from Los Angeles to New York as the economy movesfrom manufacturing to service-based industries. As this trendcontinues, the public safety needs of these evolving andgrowing communities could overwhelm existing levels ofpolice resources. With crime going up in small communities,interagency task forces are springing up at the state, countyand local levels. At present 80 percent of America’s policedepartments have less than 10 sworn officers. In the future,police observers predict somewhat larger departments and amix of county policing with local enforcement.
Another immediate socioeconomic problem police willhave to contend with is the effect of a widening income gap.Although 1989 saw some of the lowest levels of unemploy-ment in recent memory, the income disparity is greater nowthan at any time in the past 42 years, with 32 million peopleliving below the poverty level. In addition, immigrationpolicies will influence the communities police will serve,particularly in California, New York, Florida, Massachusettsand Texas. Ethnic and racial population shifts will occur,with minorities becoming majorities in some localities andthe likelihood increasing for interethnic competition for apiece of the American dream. Police futurists and market-ing experts alike predict an age of activism, anger andurban decay. For the law enforcement field, that translatesto a decade of turbulence. In the face of growing socialproblems and static or shrinking budgets, the police profes-sion will have to muster all available resolve and apply thelessons learned amid civic turmoil from the 1960’s onwardif it is to withstand a challenge to its leadership role in theproduction of public safety.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, January 31, 1990, Vol. XV,No. 307.
A6—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A6
1990 IN REVIEW
Amid Gloom, Hunkering Down
A7
War is not only hell—it can also be frightfully costly.Consider one recent conflict: At least 20,000 civilianskilled, with many thousands more wounded; more than600,000 people confronted by guns in enemy hands;hundreds of front-line troops killed or wounded; more than$60 billion spent.
This is not the war in the Persian Gulf; it was the warbeing waged against crime on the streets of America in1990. The damage assessments coming in from the frontclearly show that, unlike the war in the Gulf, America islosing the war on crime.
By the summer of 1990, the year was already proving tobe one of the deadliest in recent memory. Homicide recordswere being broken in cities, suburbs and rural communities.Even the nation’s park and wilderness lands witnesseddramatic increases in criminal activity. Despite reports—frequently challenged—that drug use was declining, crimesoared. One explanation is a criminological convergence—the deadly synergism of the “baby boomerang” generationcommitting crimes at earlier ages, a declining economycharacterized by an increase in joblessness, depressedpublic spirits, increased racial tensions, and an abundanceof easily obtained firearms.
In a nutshell, said one observer, 1990 saw an Americathat was “gloomy, less rich, less safe, and less certain of thefuture.”
HUNKERING DOWN
To make matters worse for law enforcement, the histori-cally severe crime wave was compounded by unprece-dented budget cuts. The profession’s reaction to theseconditions can best be described as “hunkering down,” asbudget cuts and increased workloads became the twopreoccupations of the year. While the nation’s economywas spinning into decline, the ranks of law enforcement
underwent a general shrinkage: Attrition increased as“baby-boom” officers retired in growing numbers, anddepartments found themselves generally unable to get thefunds to maintain personnel levels. To a great extent, smallcounties lost proportionately larger numbers of officers, butcities also felt the decline. The Chicago Police Department,for one, fell to its lowest sworn strength in 20 years as aresult of attrition, hiring freezes, and budget cuts. The attri-tion-versus-hiring standoff in many jurisdictions is notlikely to improve significantly into the early 90’s.
Law enforcement agencies of all sizes struggled toaccommodate budget reductions by cutting services, andthe ways in which police and sheriffs’ departmentsresponded were as different as the localities they served.Some police agencies stopped having officers testify incourt on minor traffic tickets; sold off unaffordable equip-ment such as aircraft; ordered officers to gas up and main-tain their own patrol cars; or transferred large numbers ofsworn personnel from desk or plainclothes jobs back to thestreets. Illegal aliens arrested in one Kansas county wereroutinely dropped off across the border in the next countybecause of a lack of prosecutorial resources. Police in SanDiego “unarrested” indigents who needed medical attentionand left them in hospitals to relieve the city from picking upthe tab for medical expenses. And, to be sure, more than afew police departments shifted certain responsibilities toother public agencies.
SPEND LESS OR MAKE MORE
In balancing a budget, of course, the alternative to cuttingexpenses is to bring in more money, and again theapproaches were many and diverse. In one particularlydrastic move, California police departments were told thatthey will be charged as much as $200 per prisoner whenbooking arrestees into county correctional facilities. As a
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A7
result, some departments in that state have refused tobook all but the most serious felons. Police in Chicagobegan charging lawyers a fee for responding to subpoenas.Where fines or fees were increased, many law enforcementagencies found themselves in the precarious position ofhaving to emphasize activities that raise funds—often tothe dismay of communities that desperately wanted morefoot patrol.
Significantly, in cities ranging in size from Jackson City,Mo., to New York City, tax increases were proposed thatwere specifically earmarked for crime-fighting purposes,and law enforcement officials in some cases found them-selves in the delicate role of political lobbyist. Deputy sher-iffs in Mohave County, Ariz., for example, went door todoor to rally public support for a budget override that wouldpermit new hiring for the department. The catch, however,is that when taxpayers are told to go deeper into their pock-ets with the promise of increased public safety, they willexpect something for their money. In areas where increasedtaxes are set aside exclusively for law enforcement agen-cies, police administrators would do well to give somethought to how to demonstrate to the public that theirmoney has been well spent. The expanding use of publicsafety-specific taxes will no doubt require an accounting inyears ahead.
WHITHER COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING?
Citizens paying more for increased public safety are aslikely as not to expect increased police presence in theirneighborhoods. For a growing number of police depart-ments, this translates into community-oriented policing.For as popular as COP is, however, it also has a small butvocal cadre of critics and skeptics. There are those whoclaim that although it is a laudable philosophy, it is difficultto implement in definable and measurable practices, espe-cially on a large scale. Others feel that there are definitionalproblems. Who is the community and who represents it? InNew York, where community-oriented policing is now theofficial guiding principle, the city’s layered and diverseneighborhoods almost defy community definition. There isalso a growing professional concern that communityleaders could be misled into believing that they alone willdetermine the agenda for the police. More importantly tosome, the public is being led to believe that crime will godown as a result of community-oriented policing programs.Another, more tangible criticism is that the approach isexpensive, and at a time of recession such talk invites inten-sified scrutiny—and certainly community-oriented policingis too new, in relative terms, to have demonstrated that itcan bring about meaningful reductions in violent crime.
Within the context of community-oriented policing, andin light of increased budget scrutiny, officer productivitymeasures will become ever more critical in the near future.
Traditionally, police departments have been centralizedorganizations with strict pyramidal structures. Employeeadvancement has been a vertical ladder climbed by a com-bination of testing, number of arrests and personal contacts.Eventually the ladder leads to a desk. Just how the fieldadapts to accommodate a community-oriented approach,with its need for decentralization, without changing itsproductivity measures will be an important challenge. Asimportantly, how can patrol work be made more desirablefor the officer, many of whom aspire to a desk assignmentwithin their first weeks on the job? As one researcher put it:“We need to set up a system for police departments wherebyofficers can grow in income, status and perhaps evenauthority while they are actually doing police work.”
PRESSING THEIR SUITS
But measuring productivity isn’t the only personnel issue oftopical concern to the profession. Affirmative action prac-tices, in some departments now 20 years old, continued tobe challenged by all sides. A decade ago, most of the law-suits were brought by minority officers; now white officersare claiming reverse discrimination in promotional matters.There is probably no more highly competitive aspect of thejob than promotional testing, where police careers can bemade or broken on the basis of one point. For many depart-ments, the method used to achieve departmental affirma-tive-action goals is to put less emphasis on strict numericalscores and, in effect, create two separate lists. To manyofficers, these departmental “goals” are nothing more thansemantically disguised “quotas,” and a trail of court casesattests to their discontent. In Dallas, for the fourth timesince 1988, white lieutenants filed a suit claiming that theywere passed over for promotion in favor of black andHispanic candidates who were lower on the list. Whitesergeants in Grand Rapids, Mich., filed a $7.5-million law-suit for discrimination in promotions. In Dayton, Ohio, theFOP brought a reverse-discrimination case on behalf of twowhite officers who were denied promotion to sergeant. InSt. Paul, Minn., the Chief made a videotaped roll-call mes-sage for his officers to reassure them that promotions werenot rigged in favor of minorities.
TACTICS AND SANCTIONS
On the front lines, police continue to use high-pressuretactics and a variety of problem-oriented techniques tocontrol crime while responding to the never-ending callsfor service. The year saw increased attention placed on thenation’s highways and housing projects. Numerous juris-dictions increased DWI penalties and enforcement efforts.Thirteen states are testing a new device to measure alcohollevels. Video cameras are becoming popular additions topatrol cars (in some cases provided to economically strappeddepartments by insurance companies). In jurisdiction after
A8—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A8
jurisdiction, drivers licenses are being seized or revoked forthose who refuse to take or who fail a breath-alcohol test.The cars of repeat offenders are being confiscated or embla-zoned with special license plates. And the U.S. SupremeCourt gave its official blessing to sobriety checkpoints, apractice that had become popular in the late 1980’s.
In the area of criminal sanctions, 1990 saw a resurgencein the age-old practices of public humilation, ostracism andbanishment. The names and offenses of wrongdoers insome localities are now published in newspapers—oftenbecoming popular reading material. In Miami Beach,employers may be notified of an employee’s arrest on drugcharges. Landlords and tenant groups in some areas havebeen granted access to criminal records in an effort toreduce crime in housing projects by keeping out undesir-ables. Pilot programs have begun to deny Federal benefitsto drug offenders. Proponents of such practices hope theywill provide punishment without consuming valuable jailspace. For civil libertarians, it is a nightmare.
And what of 1991? At least in part, the forecast wouldseem to be bad news, good news and then more bad news.The bad news: Unemployment may grow to 7 percent,bringing with it a host of social ills that affect police work.The good news: Increasing unemployment, coupled withthe new Police Recruitment and Education Program, willenable law enforcement agencies to be more competitiveand selective when recruiting. [See story, Page 1.] The sec-ond dose of bad news: Most localities will not have themoney in their budgets to hire.
POLICING A CHANGING LANDSCAPE
The landscape that police face will change. For starters, themedian age of the population continues to rise. The contin-uing population shift away from the country’s older cities,particularly in the Northeast, to the Sun Belt and to suburbsin general, will have many departments recalculating theirofficer/population ratios. Immigration patterns will changefrom Asian and Latin American countries to Europeancountries. And, in light of reports that the income gap isgrowing, with the total income of the top 1 percent of thepopulation equaling that of the bottom 40 percent, itappears law enforcement will find itself policing a poorerpopulation as well.
From January until August of last year, the public’s atten-tion was directed toward crime and the economy—andthence will it return when the war in the Persian Gulf is over.In fact, it may be argued that the onset of trouble in theMiddle East turned around the sense of gloom that pervadedthe public’s mood for much of last year, by focusing atten-tion away from weighty social and economic ills at home. Itremains to be seen whether the zeal and sense of purposeaccompanying U.S. actions in the Gulf will ultimately betranslatable to domestic issues, and whether America willdiscover a way to police itself with the kind of success thatcharacterizes recent efforts at playing “global policeman.”
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Jan. 15/31, 1991, Vol. XVII,No. 329.
Appendix—�—A9
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A9
More than most years, 1991 lent itself to graphic videoimages. It began with the pictures of the Persian Gulf warin scenes that bore a striking if artificially benign resem-blance to fireworks and video games. As gripping as thoseimages were, though, the pictures from America’s streetswere far more terrifying. There was an officer shot andkilled during a traffic stop in Nacogdoches, Tex., as hisdashboard-mounted camera recorded the event. In Detroit,a mob engaged in a bias-motivated beating. In New YorkCity, a gang of teenagers videotaped themselves as theybeat a man with a hammer, In Chattanooga, Tenn., a hiddenvideo camera recorded a baby-sitter beating a child.
While these pictures visually demonstrate growinglevels of violence in this country, the video that had thegreatest influence on law enforcement in 1991 was that ofthe beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers.The amateur videotape, played over and over on TV newsprograms, sent a shock wave through law enforcement thattouched all levels. Police departments from Hawaii toMaine reviewed use-of-force policies and modified orexpanded training. Officers were made to watch the tape asan example of what not to do. Many localities considered—or reconsidered—civilian review. Some departmentsdevised computerized systems to keep closer track of com-plaints against officers. After March 3, the use of force wasscrutinized in a way unlike anything one has seen in morethan a decade. Even the Justice Department got caught upin the furor and promised to conduct a national study ofpolice brutality.
More than simply contributing to growing levels ofpublic anxiety about crime, these home videos of gratuitousviolence also demonstrated the evolving nature of surveil-lance. No longer is it dominated by the criminal justicesystem and private investigators. As one legal scholar put it,“Big Brother is now your neighbor.” Such a development
does not come problem-free, however. Among lawyersthere is palpable concern about such videos and theirimpact on individual privacy rights and pretrial publicity.Worried public-policy analysts, for their part, questionwhether local officials are responding to the get-toughwishes of constituents by relying more and more onsurveillance as a cheaper alternative to increasing policeand other criminal justice services. In Newark, N.J., forexample, 24-hour camera surveillance was installed in atwo-square-mile section of the city—an action that just afew years ago would have seemed more at home in an IronCurtain country. But as the public mood becomes increas-ingly fearful and frustrated, some observers see signs ofan attitude of resigned acceptance with respect to suchsurveillance efforts.
CRIME AND POLITICS
While the national agenda turned from the war to domesticeconomic woes in 1991, on the local level the spotlightcontinued to focus on crime. Many political careers acrossthe country were made or broken on the basis of publicsafety issues. In cities such as San Francisco, Houston,Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Columbus, Ohio, and Savannah,Ga., citizens cast their vote on the basis of real or perceivedlevels of danger. Strikingly, in comparison to previous elec-tion years that had an emphasis on crime, a number of win-ning candidates emerged from the criminal justice ranks.Newly elected mayors and county managers came fromsuch backgrounds as that of police chief in San Francisco,a county prosecutor in Indianapolis, a former district attor-ney in Philadelphia, a police sergeant in Brockton, Mass.,and a former FBI agent in Suffolk County, N.Y. As publicconcern about crime continues to mount, there would seem
1991 IN REVIEW
Graphic Images Paint aNone-Too-Pretty Picture
A10
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A10
Appendix—�—A11
to be a growing role in politics for criminal justiceprofessionals.
Voters spoke their minds in other ways as well, as refer-endums capped a year that brought numerous pieces oflocal and state legislation concerning criminal justiceissues. Voters cast their ballots in favor of increased victimsrights in New Jersey, bonds for new jails and drug centersin Texas, taxes for 911 in Washington, and holding gunmakers and dealers in Washington, D.C., liable for damagesand injuries that firearms cause. In the meantime, and muchto law enforcement’s dismay, 1991 was a year withoutnational crime legislation, as Congress failed to pass itsomnibus crime bill. In an eleventh-hour vote, senators andrepresentatives found themselves unable to reconcile differ-ences about the life-and-death provisions of the legislativepackage, notably gun control and habeas corpus.
COMMUNITY-ORIENTEDPOLICING AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
At one time, community-oriented policing came into adepartment at the instigation of a progressive police chief.Aided by a handful of researchers, the department wouldconduct a pilot test, usually, but not always, tied to a spe-cific geographic area. If the community and the police weresatisfied, and if budget considerations allowed, community-oriented policing would be expanded to include a largersegment of the department and the city. Inevitably, as com-munity-oriented policing grew in popularity and use, ques-tions arose: Just who is “the community,” and whorepresents it? Can COP and its decentralized, “bottoms-up”style, fit into policing’s tradition-bound, heavily hierarchi-cal structure? What is the happy medium between officerdiscretion and accountability? How does one balance COPwith calls for service? Will it create a potentially dangerousdivision within a department, where one group of officersanswers calls for service while another makes acquain-tances? Such questions were openly discussed throughoutthe law enforcement and academic communities, withbelievers, skeptics and non-believers alike all engaged inthe debate. That is how it used to be.
COP has now entered the political arena. These days,one frequently finds community-oriented policing recom-mended by management consultants hired by a mayor. Inthe past year, outside consultants hired to analyze policedepartments in such cities as Milwaukee, Chicago, LosAngeles and Boston urged implementation of a commu-nity-oriented policing approach. Just how COP will farewith the vagaries of electoral politics remains to be seen.Bridled by political influence, some observers fear, COPwill be used to create unrealistic public expectations. Oneresearcher, a long-time believer in COP, observed, “Prettysoon they’ll be saying it cures the common cold.” There arealso concerns that COP will become primarily a lip-serviceapproach for the sake of public relations, and its longevity
(if not impact) will be limited to the term of office of amayor or police chief.
The evolution of COP is characterized by more thansimply the way in which it is introduced into a community;the nature of debate about the concept has also changed.The issues that are raised now concern primarily costand evaluation. Community-oriented policing still has itsbelievers, skeptics and non-believers, but observers saywith increasing frequency that it is becoming politicallyincorrect to question the viability or implementation ofCOP in some jurisdictions.
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS
A 14-year-old shot a cop. A 12-year-old shot a taxi driver.A 15-year-old tried to poison another child. A 10-year-oldwas arrested for a second-offense armed robbery (this timefor putting a .38 to an 8-year-old’s head while demanding ayo-yo). Five teenagers (two of them 14) gang-raped andshot a woman in the presence of her four children. An 18-and a 15-year-old were charged with killing a sheriff’sdeputy while he was writing out a report on their allegedshoplifting. While these cases are just a handful of the2.3 million arrests for serious crime, they and many morelike them demonstrate the growing concern over juvenilecrime. Law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions esti-mate that as many as 40 percent of those arrested for seri-ous crime are juveniles. Twenty percent of high schoolstudents regularly carry weapons, according to the FederalCenters for Disease Control. (One can only wonder athow high the number would be if the estimate includeddropouts.) Figures such as these have given rise to a re-examination of juvenile justice in many areas around thecountry. Of particular focus was the tracking of criminalrecords and the circumstances under which juvenilesshould be prosecuted as adults. The method most used in1991 for controlling youth crime, however, was the imposi-tion of a curfew. In numerous localities large and small,curfews were adopted in response to public fear. Whilesome local officials felt that curfews complemented andreinforced parental initiatives, civil libertarians, along withsome law enforcement officials, criticized such action fordiminishing civil rights with little impact on safety.
The bottom line, in the opinion of one researcher, is thatas long as youthful offenders perceive there to be little or norisk of punishment, the crime rate in the United States willcontinue to go up. His research indicates that this percep-tion differs among groups and is influenced by a youngperson’s friends, peers and family. When it is observed thatcriminal behavior goes unpunished, young people expectthat they too can get away with crime. The frightening con-clusion of this research is that not only is the overburdened,“revolving-door” criminal justice system not helping toreduce crime, it is actually contributing to an increase incrime.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A11
A12—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
CRIMES, CLEARANCES AND CUTS
Law enforcement practitioners did not need to wait fornational crime statistics to be released in order to know thatviolence was increasing. Local reports, whether from bothurban or rural areas, showed that 1991 was yet another yearof matching or breaking murder records, with an end-of-year estimate of 24,000 nationwide. But as the number ofhomicides continued to mount, the clearance rate hasdropped significantly, from 86 percent in 1970 to 68 per-cent in 1989. Experts offer a smorgasbord of reasons toexplain the decline: an overall increase in the number ofhomicides with a growing level of stranger-to-stranger vio-lence; the mobility of career criminals; few and/or fearfulwitnesses; increased availability of high-powered weapons;skeptical, increasingly hard-to-convince juries, and a short-age of investigative personnel (the latter a problem that willnot be alleviated any time soon).
In 1990, police departments cut muscle; in 1991 they cutbone. Few departments went unscathed by the budget ax.Budgetary coping methods used in 1990, such as redeploy-ment of personnel and imposition of user fees, gave way in1991 to layoffs, furloughs, givebacks, deferred hiring, con-solidations and mergers. A growing number of one-persondepartments simply disappeared. In departments large andsmall, the ranks of sworn officers dwindled. Nearly everypart of the country was hit in some way. Some departmentsturned to the ranks of reserves and auxiliaries; sometimesthe slack was picked up by private security. More often thannot, services simply diminished. While the recession con-tinues, these cuts will come at a time when demand forpolice service is dramatically increasing.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
In the last national election, the Willie Horton gambitenabled the Republicans to make the crime issue—or, moreaccurately, fear of crime—a key campaign theme. The 1992campaign, at least on a national level, will be dominated byeconomic issues. At best, crime will be relegated to a backseat. Recent opinion polls suggest that crime and drugs are
no better than halfway up the list of leading publicconcerns. That’s not to say that the economic situation, andpolicies adopted to deal with it, won’t affect law enforce-ment. Rising unemployment will have a two-prongedimpact on policing. It will require that more services bedirected to hard-hit areas, and at the same time it willdiminish the tax base, the source of police funding. (Theonly positive effect one may see in the continuing recessionis that it may lead to lower attrition rates due to retirement.)High unemployment will also exacerbate the problem ofhomelessness in America, which reportedly rose by 7 per-cent in major cities last year. Tighter public-sector budgetshave also taken a toll on the mental-health care system, andsome officials are saying that as many as one-third of thehomeless are mentally ill.
Police will find themselves responding to significantlygreater numbers of emergency calls in 1992. Diminishedresources, increased societal violence, and a spillover effectfrom unabated social problems will force law enforcementto make tough choices in setting priorities. These prob-lems, individually or in combination, are by no meansnew to policing. What is different is that the currentdemand for police services far outstrips the ability ofpolice to supply such services. This dire imbalance, cou-pled with gloom about the economy and continued fearsfor one’s safety, have given rise to a trend already spottedand labeled by marketing forecasters: the “ArmoredCocoon.” It is marked by an increased in gun ownershipamong women and growth opportunities in so-called“paranoia industries.”
Growth opportunities in the private sector are of littlebenefit to the police in this instance. While such growthopportunities point out the importance that the publicattaches to crime and safety concerns, they also demon-strate a disturbing propensity to find solutions that do notinvolved public-sector law enforcement. Cocoons, armoredor otherwise, may provide security to those on the inside.The police, however, risk being caught on the outside look-ing in—in more ways than one.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Jan. 31, 1992, Vol. XVIII,No. 351.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A12
On April 29 at 3:30 P.M. Pacific time, the law enforcementcommunity went into red alert as riots erupted in responseto the acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers accusedin the beating of Rodney King. At the epicenter of this man-made disaster, South Central Los Angeles, some 1,000 firesburned out of control, 52 people were killed, 2,383 wereinjured, more than 16,000 were arrested, and damages wereestimated to be as much as $1 billion. With local lawenforcement personnel unable to control the upheaval, theNational Guard and the U.S. military were called in to han-dle what appeared to be a complete breakdown of law andorder. The rioting was called the nation’s worst civil disor-der in this century. Indeed, the nation had not experiencedanything even remotely close in the area of civil unrest inmore than 20 years.
While Los Angeles clearly suffered the worst of theriotous upheaval, the controversial verdict triggered a shockwave of disturbances in many other cities as well, andpolice departments often found themselves less than ideallyprepared for the surges of violence that ensued. Thus, justas 1991 saw a re-examination of police policies and prac-tices on the use of force, 1992 saw the law enforcementprofession hastily reviewing, revising or making up policiesfor handling civil unrest.
For those cities that experienced violent unrest firsthand,evaluations of police response to such disturbances werevery often sharply critical of the lack of communication andcoordination—internally as well as with other agencies—political indecision, and a lack of preparedness on the partof line officers. The situation was exacerbated by the factthat most officers serving today have an average of aboutseven years experience and, therefore, have no experiencewith civil disturbances.
In October, the F.B.I. released a handbook titled“Prevention and Control of Civil Disturbance: Time forReview,” which was based on concerns voiced by a numberof major city chiefs. In the document, the contributors cite
such problems as out-of-date equipment, a lack of officertraining, the failure to develop new tactics to deal with theincreased use of firearms by rioters, threats to innocentpeople, and the role of arson in urban riots. The questionpolice chiefs and other public officials had to grapple withwas whether it was better to deal swiftly and agressivelywith disturbances or take a slower, more measuredapproach. For a number of police officials the consensuswas that it was better “to take quick and decisive actionrather than to let the situation defuse itself.” The F.B.I.handbook notes that recent experience with civil disorderstends to suggest that slow or ineffective first response bythe police contributes to a significant increase in propertydamage, additional loss of life, and an increase in thenumber of neighborhoods involved in civil disorder. Insome cities, of course, mass violence seemed inevitable butnever occurred, due in part to the police use of variousmechanisms for letting off steam—hot lines, open dialoguewith constituents, and access to information to dispelrumors. Generous doses of luck didn’t hurt, either.
CONSEQUENCES OF UNREST
The riots of 1992 were not limited to those that occurred inreaction to the Los Angeles verdict. In Chicago a riot wastriggered by fans celebrating a basketball championship. InBelmar, N.J., violence grew out of a pop music concert.Police shootings sparked riots in Mobile, Ala., and inNew York. Whatever the cause, for many cities the cost ofrioting included a scarred political landscape. In LosAngeles both the mayor and the police chief paid the price.The political response to a police shooting in New Yorkcaused what some say is the deepest schism in 20 yearsbetween the mayor and the rank and file. The mayor dis-played what some perceived as undue sympathy to thefamily of the man who had been shot—an armed drug
1992 IN REVIEW
Eruptions, Aftershocksand a Shifting Landscape
A13
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A13
dealer—thereby leaving many with the impression that theofficer had acted improperly, even criminally. The officerwas later exonerated by a grand jury, and the prosecutionwitnesses—relatives of the drug dealer—were said to havecommitted perjury. In light of the rioting that accompaniedthe original shooting, the department did plan for the worsewhen the grand jury’s decision was announced. Snippets ofthe testimony and evidence were released over a period oftime, and the timing of the actual announcement even tookinto consideration the phase of the moon. The city remainedcalm, but the repercussions didn’t end there. The demoral-ization of many officers over the mayor’s response to thesituation was a significant undercurrent to a raucous policedemonstration later in the year.
Even as civil unrest was a constant underlying concernfor law enforcement in 1992, the use of force continued todominate many agendas. The Justice Department’s reviewof police brutality, ordered in 1991 in the aftermath of theRodney King beating, was met with sharp Congressionalcriticism for its failure to take a critical, discerning look atpolice misconduct. That shortcoming, however, was said tostem largely from the irregular nature of record-keeping forsuch incidents. Issues of civilian oversight of police, whichresurfaced on the local agenda in 1991, came under thespotlight once again in 1992. At least 10 cities consideredcivilian-review proposals as police chiefs and others arguedthat civilian review boards would not help to reduce policewrongdoing. The general public, however, had its ownviews on the subject. In a national poll conducted byLouis Harris and Associates Inc., and John Jay College ofCriminal Justice, 8 of 10 Americans said they favored aboard with a mixed composition of both police and civil-ians. Seen against the backdrop of the times, this surprisingresult—one that cut across demographic and racial lines—should prompt localities to look closely at public attitudeswhen the issue of civilian review comes to the fore.
BACK TO THE COMMUNITY
Just what impact these spasmodic events have had oncommunity policing—whether a mild temblor or a majortectonic shift—is difficult to determine. With many aspectsof community policing, there are simply no generallyaccepted measuring methods. As important, now that scoresof the country’s largest cities have begun to adopt the phi-losophy, there is still no consensus definition of communitypolicing. How does one know if the policing style of a par-ticular city is indeed community-oriented? Assuming thatit is, how can one assess the impact? In the biggest cities,there is growing concern that the adoption of the commu-nity-oriented approach is more difficult than may have beenbelieved at the outset. The cynicism of officers at all levels,the amorphous nature of community policing, the mediaconsciousness of political officials—all have helped to slowthe process. In some instances, these factors and others leadto little more than a community-policing charade.
In some localities, community policing is being creditedwith declines in crime. In other areas, where crime has goneup, community policing is being offered as an explanationbecause increased interaction between officers and thecommunity has fostered increased reporting of crime. Onepolice researcher put it simply: “The question is how do wedisentangle the crime stats.” Others say crime rates cannotbe used at all to measure community policing. Differentmeasures will have to be used, but such measures are as yetunformulated.
Yet notwithstanding the lack of measurements and asimmering sub-surface skepticism, community policingdid receive an endorsement last year from the LawEnforcement Steering Committee, a coalition of 11 majorlaw enforcement organizations. The community-basedapproach was also incorporated into the “seed” portion ofthe Justice Department’s Weed & Seed program for reduc-ing local violence. Although community policing continuesto reshape law enforcement to varying degrees, the mostdramatic transformation of the profession—at least over theshort term, and possibly for many years to come—is occur-ring because of unprecedented changes in the ranks ofpolice executives.
A CHANGING OF THE GUARD
“All is change; all yields its place and goes.” This ancientsaying was amply applicable to law enforcement in 1992.Not in the 17-year history of Law Enforcement News hasthere been a year with such movement at the top. More thanone-third of nation’s 50 largest cities experienced changesin police leadership: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago,Houston, Philadelphia, Detroit, San Diego, San Francisco,Washington, Denver, Austin, Long Beach, Pittsburgh,Tulsa, Cincinnati, Tucson and Oakland. The wave of depar-tures and new appointments washed ashore in many othercities as well: Salt Lake City, Portsmouth, Va., Elizabeth,N.J., Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Birmingham. Such changewas almost epidemic in the New York metropolitan area,affecting the NYPD along with the New York TransitPolice and the Nassau and Suffolk County police forces.As a result, nearly 40,000 officers in a radius of less of than50 miles are now working under new leadership.
Political differences between police executives andelected officials underscored many of the departures, whileothers left because it was simply their time. In someinstances, new chiefs lasted just a matter of weeks. SuffolkCounty, N.Y., and San Francisco each went through fourtop cops in one year. The gain will be new people with freshideas; the loss is a wealth of experience and talent. Theextent to which this dramatic change in leadership willinfluence the public safety agenda remains to be seen. Therewill be no small number of chiefs who will need to getin touch quickly with the needs of their constituencies.The large number of new chiefs on the block, combinedwith numerous new Federal appointees, will necessitate the
A14—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A14
Appendix—�—A15
forging of new professional relationships—what usuallywould be called an “old boy network.” But the network willbe neither old nor solely male.
1992 proved to be a good one for women in law enforce-ment. Four women were appointed as police chiefs in majorcities—in Tucson, Austin, Elizabeth, N.J. and Portsmouth,Va. Two came up through the ranks of the departments theynow head. Two others were career officers who relocatedfrom other departments. Even the FBI got into the act,appointing its first female as head of a field office. Theseappointments, while statistically insignificant among themore than 16,000 police departments nationwide, mark thefirst time that more than one woman at a time has occupiedthe chief’s office in major cities. While their numbers arefew, they are the first generation.
Regardless of gender, new police executives will findthemselves facing officers who feel overly scrutinized andwho are trying to contend with community-oriented policing.These chiefs will be dealing with elected officials who wantmore say on issues of public safety than they have had in thepast. They will face budgets that continue to be inadequate.They will face a public that is frustrated, frightened and crim-inally victimized at the rate of more than 1 out of every4 households. And, if some reports are correct, it is a publicthat is increasingly arming itself in response to such events asthe Los Angeles riots and the election of Bill Clinton (whofavors a Federal waiting period on the purchase of handguns).
WHEN IS AN ISSUE NOT AN ISSUE?
As law enforcement prepared for the possibility of civilunrest last year, the country prepared for a Presidential
election. Yet despite the heightened tensions on the streets,and even though the country’s domestic agenda hadcenter stage during the campaign, law and order issueswere not high on the list of public priorities. With thenation’s attention focused on the economy, President Bushand Governor Clinton offered only occasional passingremarks on criminal justices issues. As the country’ssecond largest city was partially destroyed by rioters, acollective amnesia seemed to set in, as if the scene weretoo disturbing to contemplate for very long. To an extent,the election served as an almost welcome diversion fromthe sight of U.S. troops patrolling the streets of a devas-tated American city.
The resources and energies of the country are beingfocused, for the moment, on major economic issues. Thatshould please the police officials and criminal justicetheorists who believe that improvements in the areasof poverty, joblessness, and education will help reducecrime. Of course, many experts are just as hopeful thatthe new Administration will provide greater support forlocal law enforcement, with less bureaucracy to get in theway. They want gun-control legislation, assistance withcommunity policing efforts, and increased funding forresearch, technical assistance, officer education and train-ing enhancements. Before any of these things can be accom-plished, however, law enforcement must first get the earof the new Administration. On the score, the line formsto the left.
Will the Administration eventually turn its attention toissues of public safety? Obviously time will tell.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Jan. 15/31, 1993, Vol. XIX,No. 373.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A15
By all reasonable measures, 1993 marked an about-facefor law enforcement when compared to the previous year.Issues of public safety, which struggled for attention duringthe 1992 Presidential campaign, had moved foursquare intothe spotlight by the end of 1993. The Federal attitude towardlocal law enforcement, only recently marked by a hands-offposture, took a hands-on turn that in some cases bordered onoutright intervention (as witness Congress’s federalizationof certain crimes). Police departments, which were fre-quently scrutinized in 1992 for the excessive use of force,found themselves under the microscope for corruption in1993. Federal law enforcement agencies went from beingpraised for their actions to being criticized for their failures.
At last, it appeared, 1993 saw a nation whose attentionwas galvanized on issues of public safety and seemedpoised to do something about them. In citizen-generatedactions, in legislation, in elections, in opinion surveys andin numerous other ways, the public gave voice to its grow-ing fear and frustration over violence. The convergence ofthis increased public attention with a new Administration inWashington provided the critical mass necessary to get aFederal gun law enacted, and may yet lead to passage of thefirst significant crime legislation in years.
THE BIG-BANG SCENARIO
It was a year highlighted by mega-events: a titanic bombblast; a prolonged and deadly siege; the worst floods inhundreds of years; wind-driven wildfires aided by the handsof arsonists. The magnitude of these events stunned andmobilized the law enforcement community in ways thatheretofore were only contemplated. And it all started, bothfiguratively and literally, with a bang that symbolized thetype of year it would turn out to be.
Of the thousands of bombing incidents that occurred in1993, one stood above all others. At lunchtime on a snowyFeb. 26, a terrorist bomb rocked New York’s World TradeCenter, one of the largest office-building complexes in thecountry. More than 1,000 people were injured. Six peoplewere killed, and it was generally agreed that it was miracu-lous that the number of fatalities was not far greater.Thousands of uniformed personnel—Federal, state, local,even private security officers—sprang into action, joiningforces for both the rescue and the ensuing investigation.The blast created a 200-foot-wide, five-story-deep crater,which in weeks to come would be visited by police person-nel from around the country who sought some insight froma first-hand look at a crime scene that defied description.What differentiated this bombing from others in 1993 wasnot simply the size of the blast, but the fact that those whoallegedly planted the explosives were not homegrownextremists. With this incident, international terrorism onAmerican soil, which had long been predicted, had cometo pass.
Had the bombing of the World Trade Center been 1993’sonly shocking act of extremist religious fundamentalism, itwould have been more than enough. But just two days afterthe bombing, yet another horrific situation unfolded, thistime in Waco, Texas. On Feb. 28, agents of the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, attempting to serve a war-rant for weapons violations, stormed the compound thatwas home to the Branch Davidians, until then a little knownreligious cult. It proved to be the darkest day in ATF’shistory, as four agents were killed in the raid.
Yet even this deadly episode was but a prelude. The FBItook command of the scene, and for nearly two monthswaffled between negotiating and applying tactical pressureon the cultists to leave the compound. At length, tacticalmeasures won out as the bureau’s patience wore thin. On
1993 IN REVIEW
Mega-Events and the Fears ofEveryday Life
A16
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A16
Appendix—�—A17
April 19, the tanks rolled in, punching holes in thecompound’s flimsy walls and pumping in canisters ofCS gas. Abruptly, the compound exploded into flames,apparently set by the cult members inside. In short order,the fire—fed by the compound’s wooden construction,the kerosene and ammunition stored within, and a briskwind—reduced the compound and its occupants to ashes.While public opinion felt it manifestly clear that DavidKoresh and his followers brought this frenzy of lethalviolence upon themselves, police experts were privatelycritical of how the siege was handled. In the space ofonly two months, the praise that had been heaped on theATF and the FBI for their response to the World TradeCenter bombing turned into harsh criticism of the Wacodebacle.
THE SMOKING GUN
As riveting as these mega-events were, on a day-to-daybasis the country was bombarded with reports of violence,making gun-control legislation increasingly popular. Aonce-unthinkable stream of politicians reexamined theirrelationships with the National Rifle Association, withmany concluding that continued support for the NRAcould mean a loss of voters. Although polls indicate thatpublic support for gun regulation has been growing foryears, it was not until this past year that gun control finallyfound a friend in the White House. The Clinton Admini-stration’s support of gun control—a radical policy shiftfrom the past—helped to bring about the eleventh-hourpassage of the Brady Bill, which has been lingering inCongress for years. With it, it would seem, a corner hasbeen turned on gun control. By the end of the year, talkturned to regulating or taxing ammunition and enactingother controls on firearms, those who sell them, and thosewho use them.
The new Federal agenda is more than just gun control,however. The appointment of an Attorney General who hadbeen a local prosecutor and thus had worked closely withpolice was viewed as a indication that violent crime wouldbe an overriding concern of the Department of Justice—much to the delight and relief of law enforcement person-nel. Attorney General Janet Reno’s agenda is nothing lessthan comprehensive. She has stated that she wants to: takethe politics out of policing; provide “truth in sentencing”;build more prisons; come to grips with mandatory sen-tencing that has non-violent offenders serving longer sen-tences than violent criminals; deport illegal aliens who aretaking up space in American prisons; crack down on juve-nile crime; create a shared, comprehensive informationbase; stop interagency turf wars; have Federal law enforce-ment agencies share more information with their localcounterparts, and create partnerships with other social-service providers. Still, the new Federal agenda doesn’tstop there.
THE CORPS OF AN IDEA
For years, local law enforcement has asked the FederalGovernment to provide additional front-line resources tofight crime, and the Clinton Administration appears readyto do just that. Of course, along with those funds will comeno shortage of attached strings as to how the dollars are tobe used. The two most obvious examples of this are the pro-posed creation of a national Police Corps and providingfunds for the local hiring of community police officers.Both of these initiatives will have direct implications forlocal policing in the years ahead. No doubt many depart-ments will benefit from these programs, but there is a grow-ing feeling on the part of police chiefs that local autonomyis being eroded.
Not since the so-called “good old days” of the late1960’s and 70’s has policing benefited directly from aninfusion of funds to encourage higher education. Throughthe Law Enforcement Education Program—known far andwide simply as LEEP—those funds primarily went to thosewho were already sworn officers, and the beneficiaries ofthat program have gone on to lead police departmentsthroughout the country. LEEP funds also spurred a growthin criminal justice education programs—an effect that thenew initiatives are likely to repeat. Like the LEEP program,the Police Corps will also affect a generation of officers—future officers. Therein lies the difficulty.
Unlike LEEP, the Police Corps concept raises questionsof whom to hire and when to hire—issues that have tradi-tionally been within the purview of local authorities. Thefear on the part of many police chiefs is that the PoliceCorps will infringe on that self-determination. Over thecourse of more than 10 years, the Police Corps has beendebated, even tried in a handful of jurisdictions, and ithas consistently run into the same obstacles. Whether thenational Police Corps is modified to address local concernsremains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that anotherhopeful step will be taken toward the 1967 goal of acollege-educated police service.
COMMUNITY-MINDEDNESS
The latest step in the evolution of community policing isoccurring on the Federal level. In the late 1970’s and early1980’s, community policing was typically brought in by achief; by the late 1980’s it was often the result of a mayor’swill or other political mandate. We are now witnessing thedirect infusion of resources through the Justice Department,to the tune of $150 million that will be used to pay for offi-cers’ salaries and benefits for three years in cities over150,000 population. The appeal of such funding is undeni-able, as witness the traffic jam of Federal Express trucks atthe Justice Department on the day grant applications weredue. Nonetheless, there remain a number of concerns on thepart of many police executives. What criteria were used to
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A17
A18—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
judge the grant applications? After three years, how willcities pay to keep these newly appointed officers on the job(particularly when 53 percent of all cities are runningdeficits)? If these officers incur job-related injuries, whowill foot the bill for potentially lifelong disability benefits?Despite these and other serious reservations, some chiefsfelt pressured by their local government to apply for theseadditional officers. Even state police agencies have appliedfor community-police funds.
Adding a sprinkling of more police officers around thecountry is not the only Federal measure to incorporate com-munity policing. The Justice Department is underwritingfive to nine community policing experiments in larger citiesthat will seek to integrate the concept, evaluate outcomesand disseminate the information. Community policing con-tinues to thrive in some jurisdictions, while in others itremains maddeningly elusive. Police supervisors complainthat officers are talking with community members and writ-ing reports about how they spend their time, but nothing inthe way of better policing is being produced. In the estima-tion of some scholars, there is no validity to the idea thatmore cops equals less crime. As one observer put it, “Toprevent crime, the police must become inventive, notsimply more numerous.”
CRACKS IN THE BADGE
In the face of deadly serious crime problems, police foundthemselves dealing with communities that felt increasinglyunsafe—and all too frequently, the sense of unease wasintensified by reports of drug-related police corruption.
In 1991 and 1992, police departments found themselvestaking a hard look at excessive force and riot control. Thisyear, the emergence of several major-city scandals prompteddepartments to reassess their vulnerability to corruption. It isnot the type of corruption that rocked policing in the 1960’s,which emphasized payoffs for looking the other way tocover illegal vice activities. Contemporary corruption is farmore aggressive, far more vicious, with rogue police officersstealing and reselling drugs, indiscriminately beatingpeople, even participating in drug-related murders.
Police observers attribute the current wave of corruption,at least in part, to lowered entry standards, accelerated hir-ing that led to inadequate background and psychologicalchecks, and institutional environments that do not activelyweed out corruption. Many departments around the countrywill attach a paramount importance to integrity issues in1994. As local finances improve to permit renewed hiring,and with the Federal Government standing by to infuse tensof thousands of additional local officers, agencies will haveto summon the will not to skimp on background checks andpsychological screens. More than ever, it seems, organiza-tional environments are needed that promote integrity, andseek out and combat corruption—however unpleasant atask that may be.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR?
In 1993, Americans ‘fessed up: They were scared. In thecourse of one year, public priorities appeared to shift. At theend of 1992 the nation was riding out a Presidential electionin which one campaign mantra was “It’s the economy, stu-pid.” This year, public and, at last, political attentionfocused on public safety—or the lack of it. Official statis-tics suggested that crime was declining slightly, butAmericans just didn’t feel safe. (And, to be sure, their fearswere borne out by end-of-year data showing new homiciderecords in nearly two dozen major cities.)
More and more communities found themselves facingincreasingly violent, increasingly visible gang activity.Some localities tried gang summits, others enacted get-tough legislation. The extent of the problem was under-scored by an edict issued by a prison gang in California,warning local gang members to stop drive-by shootingsbecause they were proving bad for business. Violent crimeby the young increased, and by some estimates it has dou-bled in the last five years. Many experts note that youngpeople value life less than they had in previous generationswhen a car, not a handgun, was the dominant status symbol.
Another catch phrase was added to the lexicon of fear:sexual predator. With evidence increasingly indicating thatmany sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, the year saw acrackdown on them and their crimes. Many communitiesrequired convicted child molesters and other sex offendersto register with police. In some areas, released offenderswere run out of town, sometimes before they could evensettle in. Anti-stalker laws became a fact of life for manylocalities. In some states, prison terms were lengthened—tothe point of indefinite confinement—for incorrigibleoffenders deemed likely to commit more sex crimes uponrelease.
Where possible, Americans took action to deal with theirfears. They voiced their fear in the voting booth duringnumerous local elections where crime was a major issue.There were increased calls for curbs on the pervasive vio-lence in TV programs and movies. In the main, though,people changed their habits and tried to put themselves outof harm’s way—a phenomenon that is not accounted forin crime statistics. If possible, they moved to safer areas.Stores were encouraged to close early. Vacation plans werechanged or canceled. Christmas Eve midnight masses werecanceled or moved up to earlier starting times to cut the riskto parishioners. Some communities sacrificed a measure oftheir privacy in order to use surveillance cameras; othersblockaded themselves from outsiders. City residents inparticular altered their daily habits or, at a minimum, livedin a state of constant alert. The cocooning of America, atrend that began in the past few years, has in some neigh-borhoods turned into self-imposed imprisonment.
More and more, the American habitat is threatened byviolence. The simple truth is that, in setting after setting,people do not feel safe. They do not feel safe in the
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A18
Appendix—�—A19
workplace; on the highways; in the post office; in schools;in shopping malls; in parking lots; in taxis; at conveniencestores; in fast-food restaurants; on the streets; on commutertrains. And, for too many people, they do not feel safe intheir own homes.
Could it be that the country is finally fed up withviolence?
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 31, 1993, Vol. XIX,No. 392.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A19
1994 IN REVIEW
Frustrated, Angry & Ready to Get Tough
Americans Roll Up Their Sleeves & Say ‘Enough is Enough’
A20
There weren’t urban riots as in 1992. There wasn’t a foreignterrorist bombing or cult-related fiery inferno of the kindthat galvanized 1993. Still, 1994 will be remembered as awatershed year in criminal justice, as a public that wasbecoming angrier and more frustrated about crime insistedthat something be done. The increasing levels of fear thathave dominated the 1990’s turned into action in 1994 asAmerica rolled up its sleeves and got tough.
Nowhere was this toughness more evident than in thelegislative arena. There was, of course, the passage of theFederal crime bill, the most comprehensive crime legisla-tion in a generation. But there was also an avalanche ofcriminal justice lawmaking on the local and state levels.Scarcely a week went by without some legislative bodyconsidering laws aimed at improving community quality oflife and getting violent offenders out of society for as longas possible. The phrase “three strikes and you’re out” mayhave been missing from ball parks after August, but it wasa year-long battle cry that reverberated nationwide amongthose who had had their fill of violence.
THROWING AWAY THE KEY
In part, the public’s ire was an outgrowth of the perceivedgrowing disparity between court-imposed sentences andactual time served—what has come to be known in thecriminal justice lexicon as “truth in sentencing.” By lateFebruary, 30 states were considering three-strikes laws.This approach is not without its critics, with somecriminal justice experts pointing to enormous costs that inCalifornia alone could run as high as $5.5 billion a year.
Such expenditures, it is argued, could seriously underminegovernment funding of other essential services like educa-tion. The three-strikes approach might also turn prisons intoold-age homes for those violent offenders who grow out ofcrime, as well as intensify the pressure to plead down thecharges for first or second violent offenses.
For other critics, three strikes is not tough enough. (InGeorgia, the law allows only two strikes.) Three strikeswould leave no prison space for misdemeanor offenders.Thieves and drug dealers would no longer be dealt withharshly enough, they say. These criticisms notwithstanding,proponents say that with as few as 7 percent of violentoffenders committing 70 percent of the crimes, three-strikeslegislation and its focus on repeat offenders will reduce thehuman and economic costs of crime.
In the move to get tough, states also increased prisontime by curtailing or abandoning parole and good time, andby moving prisoners from halfway houses back to securecells. In some jurisdictions, violent offenders will now haveto serve up to 85 percent of their sentence. And whileoffenders spend more time behind bars, the quality of thattime has been diminished as well, as legislators took awaysuch prison perks as cable television, entertainment equip-ment, and physical fitness gear—over the objections ofprison officials who fear an escalation of prison violence.
One specific crime category demonstrated the get-toughmood more than any other—sex offenses. Coupled with,and fueled by, several nationally publicized cases, a grow-ing public awareness that rehabilitation is often impossibleled to an onslaught of legislation aimed at serial sexoffenders—criminals who by some estimates commit 30offenses for every time they are caught. Taking the lead
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A20
from the state of Washington, many jurisdictions opted tokeep sexual predators incarcerated for longer periods bymandating indefinite prison terms, parole denials or civilcommitments.
Authorities are keeping tabs on such offenders as neverbefore. More states joined the ranks of those requiringDNA samples from offenders, and 1994 also saw the grow-ing popularity of requirements that sex offenders registerwith local police upon release, and that the public be noti-fied of their whereabouts. (One released sex offender inNevada asked to be returned to jail because his presencesparked protests by neighborhood residents.) SoonCalifornians will even have the ability to call a state-runtelephone hotline to get information on the whereaboutsof paroled child molesters. Local school officials, for theirpart, are demanding to know about juvenile sex offenderswho sit in their classrooms. Law enforcement agencies aresharing more information with each other and with thepublic in the investigation of serial rapists and killers, andsome departments even use the information superhighwayin their efforts.
MAKING A FEDERAL CASEOUT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence, like sex crimes, deals primarily withfemale victims, and like sex crimes, was a major focus ofincreased public attention, with much of the activity againtaking place in the legislative arena. Under Title IV of the1994 crime control act, gender-based violence is now aFederal civil rights violation, and under certain circum-stances violating a court order of protection is a Federaloffense. (The law also imposes a ban on gun possession bydomestic abusers.) Some states are already convicting bat-terers under bias-crime statutes, thereby allowing for addedsanctions. Police policies requiring mandatory or preferredarrest were initiated by legislation in numerous jurisdic-tions, while in other areas police departments zeroed in onrepeat domestic offenders, forming a coordinated front withprosecutors, courts and social service agencies to deal withsuch cases. One major Midwestern department evenlaunched a program to address domestic violence within itsown ranks. It appears that law enforcement will continue itsdecade-long increased focus on domestic violence.
Early in the year Federal officials reported thattwo-thirds of the 2.5 million women who were victims ofviolent crime were attacked by friends, family or acquain-tances. As happens so often, however, there was onehighly publicized incident that drove the issue into thespotlight—the O.J. Simpson case. Reports of domesticviolence surged almost everywhere at once. Yet while thelegal proceedings against Simpson continue to captivate thepublic and the news media, there always seems to be roomin the headlines for a particularly heinous crime committedby a child.
NEVER TOO YOUNGTO BEGIN A LIFE OF CRIME
A 7-year-old selling crack. . . . Two 9-year-old boyscharged with sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl. . . . Two12-year-old boys accused of murdering a transient. . . .From one coast to another, in cities, suburbs and rural ham-lets, no region of the country was spared the tide of juvenileviolence that seemed to involve ever-younger criminals andincreasingly vicious crimes. In some areas the number ofyouths charged with murder has doubled in the past 10years. Confronting this disheartening increase in violentcrime committed by children is a juvenile justice systemthat is largely the product of another era and was notdesigned to handle this kind of shock wave—a wave thatresearchers say will get worse. Consequently, more andmore localities are opting to put violent juvenile offendersin the hands of the adult criminal justice system. Prosecu-tors sought and usually got legislative changes aimed atgetting tough on violent juveniles.
A number of experts see dysfunctional families and theeasy access to firearms as the primary causes of rising juve-nile violence. There is no question that one of the mostfrightening elements of youth crime is the arsenal of firearmsat their disposal. For law enforcement personnel every-where, concern about gun-related violence among theyoung is paramount. In one major-city, a survey found thatone in five high school students carries a weapon. Thearming of juveniles, it seems, has gone beyond those whodeal drugs or belong to gangs. It now permeates the youthculture itself.
HEEDING THE PUBLIC’SCALL TO CURB WEAPONS
More so than in recent years, 1994 brought an uncompro-mising focus on getting illegal weapons off the street.Backed by surveys indicating that a significant percentageof the population favors restrictions on weapons, legislatorscalled for curbs on gun possession and increased penaltiesfor firearms misuse, while police in many localities steppedup enforcement of existing laws.
In the main, local law enforcement’s response to the pro-liferation of guns came in the form of stepped-up effortsagainst violators. (Of course, one cannot overlook the hand-ful of challenges filed by county sheriffs against the 1993Brady Law, questioning whether the Federal Governmentcould mandate local compliance in conducting backgroundchecks of handgun purchasers.) Nationwide, search-and-seizure practices were bolstered in a variety of ways. In acrime-ridden Chicago housing project, the communityapplauded the city’s housing police for going into apart-ments to conduct warrantless searches for weapons—apractice civil libertarians were quick to stop. St. Louispolice tried a different tack, with consensual searches at the
Appendix—�—A21
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A21
homes of suspected youth gang members. In Kansas Cityand Indianapolis, officers assigned to patrol “hot spots” areusing “reasonable belief” as a basis for stopping cars forweapons searches—an experimental initiative that so far isproving successful in cracking down on illegal weaponsand their owners. Rhode Island set up what was described asthe nation’s first gun court to fast-track offenders into prisonIn New York City, police were ordered to aggressively pur-sue the origin of a weapon when making an arrest.
But the battle against illegal weapons is far from joined.Many police agencies have no idea how many firearms theirofficers seize annually because they don’t keep records onthe subject. Just how far there is to go in tracking illegalguns was demonstrated on Oct. 29 when a Colorado manfired a semiautomatic rifle at the White House. He had liedon his gun-purchase form about a prison record and his dis-honorable discharge, but there is currently no mechanismfor checking the truth or accuracy of the information at thepoint of purchase. Still, while there remains a long way togo in getting illegal weapons out of circulation, it is clearthat the public has made weapons violations a priority.
ANYBODY REMEMBER THE DRUG WAR?
Even as the country was taking aim at violent offenders,domestic abusers, weapons violators and sexual predators,the get-tough mood did not extend to drugs. That’s not saythat there weren’t hundreds of thousands of drug busts,increasingly huge drug seizures, and hundreds of acres ofcrops burned, but drug issues were booted from the frontpages by the bloody appeal of violent crime.
Among the headlines that did crop up were the likes of:“The War on Drugs is Over (Drugs Won)”; “The PhonyWar/The Real Crisis”; “End War on Drugs/Too ManyCasualties”; and “Forget the War on Drugs.” And if dona-tions to pet causes are any indication, consider the follow-ing: In July the Partnership for a Drug Free Americareported that contributions have fallen 20 percent in the lasttwo years. That same month, the Drug Policy Foundation,an organization which promotes alternatives to current drugpolicies, announced it had received a $6-million philan-thropic donation. To be sure, a small but growing number ofpeople in the legal profession are voicing objections to thewar on drugs. In California, a judge refused to sentence aman to a 6-year mandatory term for a drug offense. Thecurrent president of the American Bar Association sup-ports decriminalization, and a special committee of theAssociation of the Bar of the City of New York has cameout in favor of dropping current prohibitions. What criticsof U.S. drug policy have in common is the view that exist-ing enforcement-based strategies have not worked. In theirview, drug use is primarily a public health issue and shouldbe treated as such.
It has been reported that more than 300,000 Americansare behind bars for drug offenses, and that one out of every
five Federal prisoners is a first-time nonviolent drugoffender. Although most Americans oppose decriminaliza-tion—and clearly do not want drug dealing on theirstreets—they are vexed and perplexed when mandatorysentencing policies mean that drug offenders serve longerterms than do violent criminals. Now, with the recent crack-down on violent crime, prison space has become an evenmore valuable commodity. To accommodate get-toughpolicies like “three strikes,” the criminal justice system willhave to make room. Even with the building of additionalprisons, many states have had to diminish sentences forsome non-violent offenses—like drug possession. In Texas,for example, a plan was adopted which requires, amongother things, that all violent and sexual offenders serve atleast half of their sentences. In order to accomplish that,state legislators decided to significantly reduce the sentencesfor certain drug offenses.
CHARGING AHEADWITH COMMUNITY POLICING
One undeniable feature of 1994 has less to do with gettingtough than with getting smart—the continued popularity ofcommunity policing. Just about every police department inthe country, if asked, would likely say it had some varietyof community policing in effect, yet some pioneers of theconcept fear that it has become little more than an overusedcatchphrase—where officials do nothing more than talkabout it.
Law enforcement practitioners and researchers, havinghad little success in resolving the definitional dilemma ofcommunity policing, have moved on to the issue of mea-surement. But evaluating community policing is proving justas elusive as defining it. Some feel that measurements oughtto be taken of things like fear, crime reduction, problemsolving, officer effectiveness, customer satisfaction andpolice/community civility indicators. So far, though, thereare no standardized yardsticks. And as one scholar noted, theFederal Government is “putting 100,000 more cops out thereto do [community policing] . . . without a clue to its effec-tiveness.” Community policing is moving full speed ahead.
Even before the passage of the crime bill, the JusticeDepartment pipeline for applying for more officers wasjammed, and the department realized early on that properlyevaluating the applications from potentially thousands ofpolice departments would prove nearly impossible andpolitically unwise. It’s been said that some applications did-n’t even include the phrase “community policing.” Whetheror not police chiefs really wanted more officers or werepolitically pressured into applying for the extra personnel,they couldn’t queue up fast enough. To expedite matters,the Justice Department achieved a minor bureaucraticbreakthrough with the streamlined “COPS Fast” applica-tion kit for small departments that is one of the simplestforms ever created by the Federal Government.
A22—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A22
Appendix—�—A23
Locally, community policing continues to evolve. Forthose departments that have been at it awhile, a decentral-ization and flattening of the command structure hasoccurred. The San Diego Police Department, one of theleaders in community policing, announced in April thatthe city would be divided into 21 communities to be servedby mini-police departments. In Tempe, Ariz., the PoliceDepartment went citywide with an approach known as“geographic deployment,” where each of the city’s 15beats, under the direction of a sergeant, controls its ownscheduling and deployment. In departments where commu-nity policing is still in its embryonic stages, such as in LosAngeles and Chicago, academic experts and institutionshave been brought on board to help steer the initiative fromthe outset and evaluate outcomes.
The kind of community policing a locality gets is inlarge part determined by the officers it has—their level ofenthusiasm, the nature and extent of middle managementinvolvement in the process, their training and education,and last but certainly not least, their level of experience. InNew York, the average age of officers is 23; in Chicago,it’s 42. The type of community policing that evolves inthese two cities will be greatly determined by officer age.
The “community,” however defined, is supposed to be apartner in the production of public safety. And variations incommunities are part and parcel of American society.Communities want and need different things, amid day-to-day problems that can range from shootings, robberies anddrug dealing to drag racing, panhandling and quarrelingneighbors. If departments know nothing else about commu-nity policing, they know that residents want quality-of-lifeimprovements.
But what happens to community policing when acommunity wants something that is unenforceable, evenunconstitutional? One New Jersey borough passed anordinance outlawing cursing in public, but the police chiefhas refused to enforce the law. Beyond that, what happenswhen one segment of the community wants to be rid ofanother? Consider the recent passage of Proposition 187 inCalifornia. Many police chiefs in the Southwest and else-where have worked long and hard to establish good rela-tionships with all residents—legal and otherwise—of theircommunities and have had tenuous relations with immigra-tion officials. If police are required to report illegal aliens,
cooperation from witnesses and victims would certainlybecome problematic, as would community involvement inimproving the quality of life. Some believe bias crimewill increase and the overall level of civility may drop.Community policing has had its share of police organiza-tional and resource problems that threaten its existence. Butwhat happens to community policing when a communitytries to pull itself apart?
THE FORECAST:KEEPING BUSY, WITH PARTNERS
Among the commitments made by Attorney General JanetReno after she took office in 1993 was to have Federal lawenforcement agencies share more information with theirlocal counterparts, and to create partnerships with othersocial service providers. Reno has made significant head-way thus far; there is hardly a group that she has yet toreach out to. In this respect, one of the hallmarks of 1994was the improved working relationships among differentagencies, within the Justice Department itself, within thelaw enforcement profession generally, and between polic-ing and other government entities.
Seven Cabinet-level agencies have joined forces in asweeping initiative to address youth violence. And, inanother interagency milestone, the departments of Justiceand Defense have linked up in a research and development-sharing venture that could open the doors to new technolo-gies for law enforcement. (Of course, even as high-techmilitary technologies slowly make their way into the policemarket, there are still police agencies operating with rudi-mentary, even primitive equipment. One department in theNortheast only recently made the step up to copying machinesfrom manual typewriters and carbon paper.)
The partnership approach to tackling crime will likelyresult (with the help, no doubt, of crime-bill funding) in aflurry of activity in law enforcement and in allied researchand academic institutions. They’ll have their hands full withhiring, training, educating, upgrading, implementing, ana-lyzing, researching, evaluating, disseminating, assessingand reporting. 1995 will be a busy year.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 31, 1994, Vol. XX,No. 414.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A23
1995 IN REVIEW
The Sweet Smell of Success,the Sour Taste of Bad Apples
A24
Charles Dickens was referring to the late 18th century whenhe wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst oftimes.” He might as well have been talking about Americanlaw enforcement at the close of the 20th century. Fewwould argue that the times have rarely been as good as theywere in 1995, in light of policing’s overriding success storyof the year—the dramatic, almost unimaginable reductionsin serious crime. At the same time, one would be hard-pressed to recall another time filled with such frequentreports of police wrongdoing, enough to cast a yearlongshadow over law enforcement’s image and its otherwiseremarkable record of accomplishment.
This was more than a tale of just two cities. In one local-ity after another, the bottom fell out of the crime rate, andespecially so in the case of homicide. This was apparentlyno blip, no product of creative number-crunching; it was agenuine and major drop. Preliminary figures for the firsthalf of the year showed murder rates dropping by more than25 percent in San Diego, Miami, Las Vegas, and LongBeach, among other cities; by more than 30 percent inHartford, Houston, New York, Tampa, Kansas City, Mo.,and Seattle, and by an astounding 40 percent or more inBridgeport, Louisville, Buffalo, and Fresno.
Confronted with these numbers, the first question manypeople tended to ask was “How did this happen?” Theanswer depended largely on whom one asked. Success, itseemed, had many potential parents.
Politicians, predictably, wanted their due for the sharpreduction in crime. Officials from the President of theUnited States to local council members, aldermen and free-holders all claimed credit, citing the enactment of “get-tough” legislation such as the Crime Bill, three-strikes,registration of sex offenders, adult treatment for juvenileoffenders, and the implementation of curfews. Someofficials said increased sentences made the difference by
keeping would-be recidivists off the streets longer. Othersthought it had to do with toughening the kinds of sentencesserved, such as the re-emergence of chain gangs.
Community residents, for their part, say it is theirincreased participation in public safety issues that has madethe difference in the crime rate. Others, more sanguine, saythey simply have learned to adapt to hostile environments.
DOING THE UNTHINKABLE
It was no surprise that politicians would take some creditfor a decrease in crime. The shocker was that some policechiefs actually did the unthinkable—they publicly ascribedcredit for the decrease to good police work. Conventionalwisdom has always held that you don’t take credit for adrop in crime if you’re not prepared to take the heat for anincrease—crime happens, for whatever the reason, andpolice react to it. They have little or nothing to do with howmuch occurred. As one police planner put it, “We leave[that] to the social scientists and psychologists.” But withthe proactive stance that has taken hold in recent years, itseems more and more police executives believe that crimeprevention through policing is possible. (Some chiefs havegone so far as to put a statement atop their résumésproclaiming that crime reduction is their top priority.)
In assessing the sharp drop in crime, police executiveshave pointed to increased community policing effortsand/or improved problem-solving techniques. Yet whetheror not police departments are actually “doing” communitypolicing—and most departments claim that they are—thereis an enhanced, almost palpable “can do” feeling takinghold throughout law enforcement. In the not-too-distantpast, many police were of the view that they can’t preventcrime, don’t do a very effective job of solving crime, and
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A24
Appendix—�—A25
have little or no responsibility for allaying public fear.There was a general sense of ineffectiveness and resigna-tion in the face of rising crime and victimization. But thatwas then, and police now are assuming increasinglyactive—and thoughtful—roles in dealing with problemslike domestic violence, school safety, child abuse, truancy,street-level drug dealing, gun crimes and gang activity.
Consider, for example, the nation’s largest police depart-ment. New York City police officials credit the crimedecreases there to increased precinct-level commandaccountability, backed up by the use of enhanced crimeinformation and mapping systems, quick dissemination ofthe information, an increased emphasis on quality-of-lifecrimes, and strategies that focus on specific crime hot spots.Weekly early-morning meetings of borough-based com-manders with top brass are becoming the stuff of legend.(The sessions in the headquarters “war room” are an amor-phous mix of statistics, strategy, and stress.) The PoliceDepartment is spurred by a mayor who is an ex-Federalprosecutor and for whom crime-fighting is a top priority. Italso doesn’t hurt to have had many thousands of officersappointed in the last five years. One veteran police managerconcedes: “I don’t know why it [crime] is going down; Ijust know that we’re paying more attention to it.”
CRIME-TREND CASSANDRAS?
Taking credit for crime decreases is laudable, even brave.But will the police be as willing to bear some of theresponsibility when crime goes up, as crime forecasterspredict it will in 10 years with an explosion in the juvenilepopulation?
Those forecasters—social scientists, demographers andothers—were hard pressed to offer a definitive explanationfor the crime decrease, but that didn’t stop many from try-ing. Some cited a drop in the population of 18-year-oldmales (although that doesn’t hold true for all cities.) Othercriminologists speculate that crime dropped in major citiesdue to maturing drug rings engaging in fewer turf battles.
For the most part, however, criminologists did not seethis decline coming. When crime rates in some major citiesbegan to slowly decline a few years ago, analysts dismissedthe reductions as being too low to have any significance.Curiously, though, now that the decreases in crime are greatenough to command attention, there is still little in the wayof definitive analysis—despite a crying need. For example,when it comes to homicide, we don’t know who didn’t die,or why. Were there fewer innocent bystanders caught incrossfires? Fewer drug dealers or gang members settlingdisputes with lethal consequences? Fewer victims ofdomestic violence? Could improved medical and para-medic response be responsible for vicious assaults notturning into murders? (Heaven knows it’s not a lack ofavailability of lethal weapons.) With robbery down by 10percent nationwide in the first half of 1995, could it be thatone-time victims of murder-robberies are the ones who
aren’t dying because would-be robbers are turning insteadto larceny—the only offense that showed an increase, oneof 7 percent. Are criminals, cowed by increased penalties,opting for less serious, less violent offenses? Have classifi-cations and reporting criteria changed? Could the drop inhomicide be a result of more aggressive policing, likeSWAT teams on patrol in Fresno?
The picture would be a whole lot clearer if the NationalIncident-Based Reporting System—a perfect adjunct toproblem-oriented policing—were in wider use. It’s not thatpolice departments cannot generate incident-based infor-mation; for the most part, it simply cannot be gotten expe-ditiously. It’s said that a deep-seated lack of enthusiasm forNIBRS within some high-level law enforcement circles ishampering the project. NIBRS, and the study of decliningcrime, do not seem to be a high priority in the JusticeDepartment’s research agenda. While there is always anabundance of information about crime increases, there istypically much less available as to why crime goes down.Still, a small but growing number of departments are drop-ping out of the Uniform Crime Reporting program andturning, agency by agency, to the NIBRS format because itprovides them with valuable “hot spot” information thatallows them to tailor policing efforts to community needs.Had there been more departments participating—especiallythe larger ones—for the past several years, a clearer picturewould have emerged by now as to why crime is down sodramatically.
FROM HUBCAP THEFT TO MURDER
In a nutshell, then, many residents of large cities felt saferin 1995 than in the recent past. Sadly, though, law enforce-ment found itself unable to capitalize more fully on thediminishing fear of crime. For the reasons why, one mustturn to the year’s failures, a variety of events that tarnishedlaw enforcement’s image in the eyes of the general public.
Even as hundreds of thousands of officers carry onbravely, professionally and, sadly, in anonymity, one—Mark Fuhrman—became a household name, if for all thewrong reasons. Yet with that, Fuhrman was but one mani-festation of police misconduct in 1995, as scandals greatand small erupted on a seemingly recurring basis. InNew York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans and numer-ous other jurisdictions, incidents were reported thatinvolved a virtual laundry list of offenses by police: steal-ing hubcaps, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault,robbery, fraud, bribery, drug dealing, even murder. Granted,police are generally held to higher standards of conduct andtend to be the most scrutinized of all occupational groups.As such, incidents of wrongdoing tend to make theheadlines when they occur, and easily overshadow all thegood that is done. To the profession’s credit, some ofthe year’s wrongdoing was uncovered by the departmentson their own, providing hopeful signs that police can policethemselves.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A25
(Of course, even with increasing reports of wrongdoing,it is hard to know for certain if the incidence of misconducthas in fact risen, or merely the reporting of such acts. Onepolice veteran points out that in the relatively recent past,corruption and misconduct was often overlooked or cov-ered up, for fear that even the smallest eruption could kill acommander’s career. Thus, while police misconduct mayindeed be rising, it seems just as likely that police depart-ments and individual officers are edging ever closer towardzero-tolerance of such acts.)
One aspect of police wrongdoing that continues to hauntthe profession, but is the subject of increased attention, isthe use of excessive force. Acting on a mandate built intothe 1994 Crime Control Act, the Bureau of Justice Statisticshas said it will begin collecting national data on the use offorce by police (once issues pertaining to definitions ofterms and uses of the data are settled). The likelihood is thatthe information will derive at least in part from the additionof questions to the annual victimization survey. In conjunc-tion with this, the IACP has announced plans to create acomprehensive national data base modeled on one used bythe Virginia chiefs’ association.
FOCUS ON THE FEDS
Over the years, tens of millions of dollars have beenawarded in damages to the victims of police abuse, and ithas typically been local law enforcement authorities whowere in the hot seat for questionable uses of force. Whatmade 1995 different by anyone’s measure was that the glareof official and media scrutiny was focused, for a change, onFederal law enforcement, most notably in the form of tele-vised Congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge.In a rare admission of error, the Justice Department agreedto pay $3.1 million to white separatist Randy Weaver,members of whose family were shot and killed at the RubyRidge siege. And through the entire episode, Federal lawenforcement officials got a no-nonsense reminder of theconsequences of cavalierly disregarding policies governingthe use of deadly force. In some cases, officials paid for theerrors with their careers.
The scrutiny of Federal law enforcement agencies fortheir handling of right-wing extremists was not without itsirony, however, coming as it did in the wake of the literalexplosion of such fringe groups onto the scene. In the blinkof an eye, the right-wing movement was linked to the mostlethal terrorist incident in American history, the bombing ofthe Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
As horrifying as the April 19 bombing was, with its 169victims, what made it all the more troubling—shocking,even—to the American public was that those suspected ofcommitting the crime were not some international terror-ists, but a cadre of home-grown extremists. In this instance,not only was the terrorist incident committed on Americansoil, but the alleged perpetrators were themselvesAmerican. In truth, heavily armed right-wing extremists are
nothing new to law enforcement, as witness the showdownsin the 1980s with such groups as the CSA, the Order andthe Posse Comitatus. Still, Federal agents and local author-ities alike are now feeling the threat of such groups morefrequently. There have been bomb threats and attacks onFederal personnel, outright confrontation with police andsheriff’s deputies in Montana, and numerous other threatsagainst the lives of law enforcers.
Such extremists, whether anti-abortionist, whitesupremacist or constitutionalist, tend toward local andregional organizations, and some have fragmented furtherin the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Nonethe-less, through optimal use of the means of mass commu-nication, such as faxes, e-mail and the Internet, even thesmallest group can engage in far-reaching networking.(More than one teen-ager has been reported to have cookedup a homemade bomb using instructions found on theInternet.) The hard-to-take realization that the enemy iswithin has changed things. There are even reports that agroup called Police Against the New World Order isactively trying to recruit members from the ranks of lawenforcement. The changing order of things is clearly seen inthe FBI’s process of conducting background checks onpotential personnel. The question once asked regardingapplicants was, “Is he now or has he ever been a member ofthe Communist Party.” That question now ends with “. . . amember of a militia.”
THE ROAD AHEAD
The successes and failures of the past year almost set thetone for what lies ahead in 1996. Certainly communitypolicing, which continues to thrive and is given partialcredit for the recent reductions in crime, remains a highpriority for the Clinton Administration as well as forlocal jurisdictions. The Justice Department’s Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services—the COPSShop—went full throttle in putting officers on the streets.To date, more than 30,000 community policing officershave been hired with Federal funds under the 1994 CrimeAct. But the program, which also provides funding for tech-nology that would free officers’ time for community polic-ing efforts, has been in political danger from the start, withthe Republican majority in Congress attempting to scrapthe COPS program in favor of no-strings block grants to thestates. As the year ended, legislation that would have donejust that was vetoed by President Clinton.
The National Institute of Justice awarded a $2.5-milliongrant to the Urban Institute for a thorough evaluation ofcommunity policing, while the COPS office took overthe funding of the Community Policing Consortium, to thetune of $4 million. This consortium, which comprisesthe Police Foundation, the National Organization of BlackLaw Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriff’sAssociation, the Police Executive Research Forum and theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police, is intended to
A26—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A26
Appendix—�—A27
provide training and technical assistance to departmentsthat have received community police funding through theCOPS office. The NIJ also funded nearly $5 million incommunity policing projects and evaluation efforts. If forno other reason than the substantial amount of money nowavailable in this area, it is no great surprise that most policechiefs are indicating that community policing is the main-stay of their departments.
BUILDING A BETTER POLICE FORCE
One can also expect in the coming year that police miscon-duct and the use of excessive force—or, more accurately,how to prevent them—will remain high-priority items.The BJS effort to collect national statistics on use of force,which doubtless will receive its share of media attention,will require police chiefs to become acquainted with thereporting system—that is, if they wish to have meaningfulinput into the process.
There also appears to be increased attention being givento “conduct unbecoming,” and to this end departments arebecoming more sophisticated in keeping an eye on offi-cers—tracking civilian complaints, monitoring off-dutybehavior, and more. The police image took a battering inthe course of the O.J. Simpson trial, and the public will beexpecting police personnel to do a significantly better jobwhen it comes to gathering and protecting evidence andtestifying. (“Testilying” became part of the police vernacu-lar in 1995.) Many departments are already training andretraining in these areas.
Policing has learned from past scandals that selection,screening, training and supervision are among the keys topreventing police wrongdoing. Departments can’t be toocareful, too rigorous. To that end, many departments aretaking a long, hard look at entry standards, whether it’srequiring college (as the NYPD finally said it would,beginning in 1997) or raising the minimum age. What
departments hope to gain is a more mature individual whois less prone to wrongdoing and more inclined toward per-sonal accountability. One would hope that policing has alsolearned from past scandals that, in the midst of expanded oraccelerated hiring, the selection process is not somethingthat can be short-changed in a rush to meet deadlines. As isnow well documented, all too often the seeds of corruptionscandals are found to have been sown in selection.
DO IT AGAIN
As to the No. 1 police success of 1995, the crime-ratereductions, an inescapable truth is that one is usuallyexpected to repeat the success. For those departments thathave enjoyed significant crime-rate decreases, the pressurewill be on to continue the trend. 1996 will no doubt bringincreased efforts to bring the crime rate down even further,but given some of the large declines in homicide, it maybe difficult to maintain such dramatic results. For some, itwould even seem likely that some leveling off may occur.
Repeating the successes may be made more difficult bythe lack of an absolute, definitive explanation as to whycrime went down so dramatically in the first place. (In thelong run, the answer will probably be found in a combina-tion of good police work, get-tough legislation, communityinvolvement and demographic variables.) Sadly, though,law enforcement, politicians, researchers and governmentalagencies continue to be more concerned with what’s goingwrong than with what’s going right. Wherever the answermay lie, one can say without fear of challenge that the recentcrime-rate successes have tasted sweet, and law enforce-ment is not likely to be eager to return to the way thingswere. That fact alone—coupled with the emerging “can do”attitude of the 1990s-era problem-solving cop—may provideall the impetus that’s needed.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 31, 1995, Vol. XXI,No. 437.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A27
A28
1996 IN REVIEW
Forget Events in the Spotlight—LocalPD’s are Where the Action Is
Working Harder & Smarter PaysOff In Continuing Crime Declines
It was a year punctuated by events that captured thenational spotlight: the Freeman standoff in Montana; thecapture of the alleged Unabomber; the crash of TWA flight800, and the terrorist bombing at the Olympic games. It wasalso an election year with all the usual prerequisite law and-order campaigning.
But while public attention focused in one direction, onthese and other events, the real action was elsewhere, aslocal police departments, usually with little notice, werebusy—very busy.
Police departments drew increasingly upon pastresearch—especially in the area of problem solving. Theyincorporated new technologies, and shared informationabout what works. They looked to other jurisdictions wheresuccessful strategies had been implemented and duplicatedthem. Day-to-day operations were reformulated with a viewto reducing crime. In growing numbers, police executivesare convinced that effective policing can decrease crime, andeven a growing cohort of criminologists is conceding thatpolice work is responsible for the recent notable declinein crime. Nationwide, there are clear signs of departmentsreorganizing, refocusing and implementing anti-crimestrategies, targeting problems and attacking them withverve. And from all indications it appears that their effortsare paying off, as 1996, like the years immediately preced-ing it, witnessed significant drops in the crime rate.
HOT SPOTS AND COLD CASES
Police went after drug-dealing hot-spots and public housingcrime. They tracked down guns, mounted camera surveil-lance devices and notified the community of burglars
working in the area. They went after stolen goods and setup telephone hot lines that residents could call for crimeinformation. Fugitive and warrant units and cold-casesquads were set up or reinvigorated. (In Houston, forexample, warrant enforcement has reportedly generated8,860 arrests and cleared 38,126 cases. The New York CityPolice Department, with help from the U.S. MarshalsService and the FBI, will be going after as many 87,000fugitive felons and 403,000 misdemeanor offenders.)Many departments redirected resources to high-crimeareas and peak activity periods. Some departments, suchas those in Bridgeport, Conn., Gary, Ind., Camden, N.J.,and Minneapolis, got temporary reinforcement from statepolice units.
Clearly, 1996 was the year of the crackdown, butperhaps the most common approach was a crackdown onquality-of-life crime. In city after city, quality-of-lifeenforcement became a priority, in part because such a focuswas desired by the community, but as important, becauseevidence increasingly points to the fact that going afterminor violators contributes directly to reductions in majorcrime.
IN WITH THE NEW
When it comes to reducing crime, increased innovation andaccountability rule, with many large and mid-sized depart-ments continuing to undergo significant organizationaltransformations. LEN’s People-of-the-Year award is testi-mony to the kinds of structural changes that are going onaround the country. The San Diego Police Department hasbrought all of its divisions on-line and given its lieutenants
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A28
Appendix—�—A29
24-hour responsibility and commensurate increases inaccountability. Boston officials attribute the city’s recentdrop in crime to increased accountability throughout theranks and the reorganization of the city into two-block-square reporting areas, so that emergency calls can berouted to the line officer responsible for a given neighbor-hood. In Montgomery County, Md., police district bound-aries have been redrawn to provide a fairer, more realisticdistribution of police workloads and greater success inpreventing crime. And supplementing local efforts in orga-nization change, the National Institute of Justice has pro-vided Federal funds to export the NYPD’s ground-breakingCompstat process to Indianapolis and Prince George’sCounty, Md.
As internal changes sweep the nation’s police depart-ments, the role of supervisory personnel, notably lieu-tenants and captains, is coming under renewed scrutiny.Since the advent of community policing, the focus has beenon the beat cop, on how well he knew and interacted withhis neighborhood, and on foot patrol, substations and mini-precincts, community meetings and the like. In 1996, thefocus has been on the supervisory ranks, with redefinitionof their roles and increases in their responsibilities andaccountability. No longer are they mere conduits that filterinformation upward and commands, directives and influ-ence downward. Supervision and middle management arenow bound more closely than ever to their geographic areasand what goes on there. Specifically, supervisors and man-agers have been charged with problem identification, tacti-cal and strategic planning, and problem-solving thatdirectly lead to crime reduction.
The impact of these changes on crime is clear. Butwhat about the impact on the middle management ranksthemselves?
While many departments credit “re-engineering” forcrime reduction and enhanced community policing, suchchanges have not come without a price, in the form of orga-nizational tension. In Austin, for example, lieutenantsbecame the “power rank,” when sectors were put undertheir control. This change has become a linchpin of com-munity policing efforts in the Texas capital, and is consid-ered a success, but one of the negatives is that the captainsare miffed because they feel they are no longer in the loop.
In New York, the focus of community policing—the“power rank”—is the captain. But with power comes pres-sure—lots of it. Scores of captains and other precinct com-manders have been reassigned for failing to meet their basicresponsibility for bringing neighborhood crime rates down.Even those who do deliver are subjected to high-stressdebriefings at the regular Compstat meetings. At least onepossible result of these changes is that fewer lieutenantsthan usual are applying to take the recently announced cap-tains’ exam, and that even many of those who are taking itare ambivalent about wanting the rank. Captain’s bars mayno longer be as desirable as they once were for manyNYPD lieutenants (although one could also surmise that akind of “Darwinian policing”—survival of the fittest—is
taking hold, with new, more intense demands on captainshelping to screen out candidates).
Austin’s police chief, Betsy Watson, summed up theambiguities that are taking hold in middle management:“What is it that a captain can do that a lieutenant should notor cannot do? What is it that a deputy chief can do that acaptain should not or cannot do . . .? We haven’t definedroles and responsibilities that are commensurate with eachrank in the organization and then we bemoan our inabilityto hold folks accountable. Accountable for what? For a jobthat was never defined, never clearly explained and forwhich people have never been formally prepared. It is not aproblem of our people. It is a problem of structure.”
Once again, the military-based structure of departments,while good for some things, doesn’t often accommodatecommunity policing, department restructuring or teamwork.
THEN AND NOW
Nearly 30 years ago, the Federal Government stepped in tofoster police professionalism through the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration. The enactment of the CrimeControl Act of 1994, with the resources it has provided andthe role it is playing in police work, is very much akin to thegolden days of LEAA. There is a great deal of Federal assis-tance for police departments, for new technology, forresearch, for finding out what works, for training, and more.
The striking difference between the LEAA days andtoday is that the Federal Government is now putting fargreater emphasis on putting more officers on the street.To date, the Office of Community Oriented PolicingServices—the COPS shop—has made commitments for50,000 new officers. In the LEAA days, on the other hand,the Federal Government invested in the officers we alreadyhad by providing educational benefits for in-service per-sonnel through the LEEP program, and many of today’spolice leaders point to that educational incentive as a keystepping stone for their careers. According to a Bureau ofJustice Statistics survey released this year, the number ofpolice departments that require recruits to have some levelof higher education doubled from 6 percent in 1990 to12 percent in 1993—still a far cry from the recommenda-tion of the 1967 President’s Commission report, which said“the ultimate aim of all police departments should be thatall personnel with general enforcement powers have bac-calaureate degrees.” Granted, more officers today than everbefore have college educations, but it remains regrettablethat the 1994 crime act’s provisions regarding educationalbenefits for in-service personnel are underemphasized,underutilized and, to be sure, parsimonious.
As the COPS shop continues to fulfill its goal of putting100,000 community policing officers on the nation’sstreets, there is no doubt that the public safety field hasgrown. This is especially true if one includes private secu-rity forces under the heading of public safety. Forbes mag-azine reported that as of 1995 the number of police and
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A29
A30—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
security guards had grown to 1.8 million, ranking 11thamong the country’s top 30 job classifications. In 1960 itranked number 22, with 500,000. According to BJS,approximately 374,000 sworn, full-time officers are cur-rently at work in more than 12,000 county and municipalpolice departments.
GROWING PAINS
While expanding in size, the field has also grown philo-sophically. It has been struggling with the concepts andthe practice of community policing, which has helped tochange how police do what they do. Consider the late1980’s, when many big-city departments unveiled opera-tions known by catchy names like TNT, Clean Sweep andSNIP to crack down on drug hot-spots. Even the Feds gotinto the act with the “Weed” component of the Weed andSeed program. But eventually, these and other crackdownswere back-burnered because they cost too much, they gen-erated huge numbers of arrests that strangled the courts,and they often angered the very communities they weremeant to help. What’s different this time? For one thing,the 1996 crackdowns have been better coordinated with thecourt system, there is far more jail space now than in thelate 1980s, and alternatives to incarceration are getting arenewed look. As important, police point to greater inputfrom the community in developing aggressive anti-crimetactics. Through community policing, the police and thepublic have gained a greater mutual familiarity—and,arguably, trust—thus making today’s crackdowns differentfrom those of the past.
Still, there are those who fear for the future of commu-nity policing, concerned that high-pressure police tacticssignal the concept’s abandonment. There is also concernthat community policing’s intent has become too convo-luted, making evaluation and research projects now under-way all the more difficult to measure.
That’s not to say impossible to measure. One recent studyoffered a dose of good news, finding that community policeofficers in Richmond, Va., while less likely to make anarrest, had a much higher probability of having people dowhat the officers told them to do. The study’s authorobserved: “The pro-community policing officers were muchmore likely to engage and stop suspects on the street, to bea little more active. While they had a lower batting average,they got to bat a lot more.” In view of the problems of exces-sive force that so often plague law enforcement—often as aresult of individuals not responding to officers’ commands—the Richmond finding is all the more significant.
ALL HANDS ON DECK
There is no longer much doubt among practitioners thatpolice strategies and tactics can reduce crime; there is alsoa growing confidence that community activism can play a
major role in crime reduction. Such activism comes in avariety of forms: loud protest marches in front of knowndrug locations; midnight barbecues on street corners knownfor drug dealing; watchdog groups, sometimes armed withcellular phones donated by departments; increased volun-teerism; more information being provided to police.
But it’s not just neighborhood residents who are takingon a greater role in public safety. In the broadest sense,society is taking action with policies aimed at deterrence,collectively telling criminals, “We know who you are andwe know where you live.”
More than ever, communities have access to infor-mation concerning the status and location of offenders.Computerized telephone systems in numerous localitiescan now inform residents as to where ex-offenders live. InNorthern Virginia, communities for the first time madepublic a list of the names and addresses of about 9,500people on parole for crimes such as burglary, drunken dri-ving, drug dealing, sexual assault and murder. Registries forreleased sex offenders have grown in popularity, despitecourt challenges. In California, a molester hot line hasreceived thousands of calls since its inception in July 1995.More newspapers routinely publish photos of wantedfugitives. (That’s not to say that the approach is withoutproblems, as was seen in Minnesota when a privately pub-lished anti-crime newspaper had to print a retraction after itmistakenly identified a number of St. Paul residents as childmolesters.) And, of course, perhaps the most visible sign ofthe “we know who you are” trend was the rescue of the TVshow “America’s Most Wanted” through an appeal from thepublic and the law enforcement community.
A better-informed public was not the only example ofcommunity involvement in crime reduction. The concept ofpenalty has broadened as well. In addition to imprisonment,an offender now risks losing housing, welfare and educa-tional benefits. Criminal background checks are being con-ducted with increasing frequency, and are being used to barex-offenders from a growing list of occupations. A numberof states are expanding the definitions of criminal behavior,such as Florida, which added deadbeat parents into its statecrime computers. In response to the growing national con-cern over underage single-family households, many juris-dictions are once again enforcing statutory rape chargesthat for years had been collecting dust.
IMPACT STATEMENT
The increased crime-fighting capability of police, bettercoordination with other criminal justice and social agen-cies, community action, improved economic conditions andthe linkage of criminal deterrents and entitlement programsare now starting to coalesce. And just what impact has thisenergetic, synergistic trend had? For many, it is the combi-nation of factors that has led to a decreasing crime rate.
The latest Uniform Crime Reports and BJS victimiza-tion study show nationwide declines in the violent-crime
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A30
Appendix—�—A31
rate of 3 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Adult crime isdown. Domestic crime is down. The number of burglaries isat its lowest level in the past two decades. Even juvenilecrime dipped slightly for the first time in a decade.
Granted, throughout most of the year, criminologistscontinued their warnings regarding a coming surge in juve-nile crime. As the year ended, however, several expertschanged their tune and now say that the future with respectto juvenile criminality is not as dire as they had previouslypredicted.
But despite the good news, there are still concerns thatjuvenile crime remains at particularly high levels, andpolice departments around the country—perhaps acting onthe earlier gloomy forecast—focused their attention onyoung offenders. Many departments worked more closelywith schools, and developed strategies for dealing with tru-ancy. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example,developed a program that fines parents $135 for a child’sfirst truancy offense, with subsequent violations carryingfines up to $675. The police also give parenting “how-to”classes. They report that within 180 days of launching theprogram, burglary dropped 6 percent, car theft, 12 percent,and shoplifting, 18 percent.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for itspart, issued a report on youth violence that recommends,among other things, the development of closer relationshipsbetween law enforcement and schools. The issue of educa-tion was enough of a hot button to prompt a number ofpolice officials and organizations to publicly voice theiropposition to a bill in Congress that would deny publicschooling to the children of illegal immigrants. And onesurvey found that most police chiefs believe that for thecrime problem to experience a permanent downward shift,more resources have to be put into addressing the needs ofchildren.
The focus on juveniles is not limited to the police. In thepast two years, at least 44 states have changed their juvenilelaws or are considering statutory changes—usually with aneye toward making proceedings and penalties tougher. Teencourts, designed for first-time minor offenses, have grownin popularity, with 280 of them now in operation in 31states and the District of Columbia. Although the yearended with some criminologists retreating from their earlierdire predictions, educators are becoming more worriedabout the teen-agers of tomorrow. It was recently reportedthat there is a wider gap in the skills of children enteringkindergarten this year than 20 years ago. One facet of thisdisadvantage, experts say, is that such children developlittle ability to tolerate frustrations—a phenomenon withtroubling implications for educators and the police alike.
THE HOME FRONT
Domestic violence, long considered a crime about whichpolice could do little or nothing, has seen its share of
increased police attention of late. Police departments,spurred in part by Federal resources made available underthe Violence Against Women Act, are actively developing avariety of domestic violence programs: computerizedoffender histories, specialized units and officer trainingprograms, relationships with social agencies, and stream-lined protocols for dealing with prosecutors and the courts.The police have been giving out cellular phones and alarmpendants to victims. Specialized courts have sprung up innumerous areas with simplified processes for obtainingorders of protection. Hot lines have been set up to notifyvictims when attackers are released from jail.
One development on the domestic front that carries thepotential for significant impact was the enactment in 1996of Federal legislation that prohibits the possession of a gunby anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violenceoffense. With no exception built in for law enforcement ormilitary personnel, the new law has forced police agenciesto take a hard look at their internal policies and practices. Inmid-December, for example, the NYPD changed its selec-tion process to exclude those with a history of domesticviolence. But what about officers already on the job whohave domestic violence convictions? Colorado has begunexploring whether any State Patrol or state Bureau ofInvestigation officers must turn in their guns because of thelaw. The Denver Police Department reportedly has placedsome officers on desk duty until the department figures outhow to comply with the Federal law—a scenario likely toplay out in many departments around the country. Localpolice unions and national police organizations have sig-naled their discomfort with the new law, and a number ofthem are considering challenging it. But it bears keeping inmind that with all the efforts police departments are makingto deal with domestic violence, it would be politically,legally and ethically tricky for police to enforce a law fromwhich they were exempted.
PUTTING TECHNOLOGY TO WORK
Clearly, many of the achievements of the year were madepossible through technology—specifically, informationtechnology. The mapping software now being used by anumber of departments has given crime maps the look offine art. In Baltimore County, Md., for example, policewarned residents about a series of burglaries through acalling network connected to the department’s mappingsystem. Many departments have set up home pages on theWorld Wide Web to provide information to citizens. InFlorida, at least 52 police and sheriffs departments havehome pages that can be accessed through the Citizen SafetyCenter of the Attorney General’s office.
The FBI is in the throes of a massive overhaul of itscrime files—entailing some 40 million records in 17 databases. The vaunted NCIC 2000 project got off to a rockystart, with delays and cost overruns, but officials now say
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A31
A32—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
things are back on track. As planned, NCIC 2000 will havean increased capacity, allow for greater integration andcross-referencing (e.g., mug shots with fingerprints), inte-grate state systems that don’t talk to each other, and reducefrom minutes to mere seconds the time it takes for infor-mation transactions. (At present, NCIC handles over 1.7million transactions per day, an average of 1,183 perminute, compared to roughly 158 transactions per minute20 years ago.)
For its part, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announcedthat $33 million would go to 48 states and Washington, D.C.,to improve criminal history records, with a view towardkeeping felons from purchasing handguns, preventing sexoffenders from working with children and the elderly, andidentifying repeat offenders who may be subject to three-strikes laws.
Scientific and technological advances have not occurredwithout a price. Forensic labs cannot meet demands cur-rently being placed on them. The level of refinement forevidence analysis has never been greater, yet such increasedprecision remains underutilized largely because crime labsare overwhelmed. A survey reported last August found thateight out of 10 lab directors believe their caseload hasgrown faster than their budgets, their staffs or both. Delaysin evidence analysis, according to some observers, have
created a major bottleneck in the system. For the FBI, thewait is nine months to a year. Some hope looms. Plans arein the works for a new $150-million lab at the FBIAcademy in Quantico, Va. In addition, the NationalInstitute of Justice announced that it would provide funds todevelop ways of bringing down the price of DNA testingfrom several hundred dollars to $20.
KEEP IT UP
In 1996, the police community benefited in no small wayfrom the resources of the Crime Act of 1994, enhanced tech-nology and a renewed sense of determination to bring downthe crime rate. While there is a growing belief that policingcan have a significant impact on crime, there remain anumber of specific reasons that were credited for crimereductions in various localities (see sidebar, above). Thecommon denominator in many of the explanations, however,was the vigorous way police have targeted specific problemsand focused creative energy and resources on them. Thepolice are working harder and working smarter, and theirefforts, at least for now, are paying off.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 31, 1996, Vol. XXII,No. 458.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A32
A33
Generally speaking, 1997 was a relatively quiet year onthe national scene for policing. It lacked the large-scaleterrorist bombings, raging crime rates, major riots andother galvanizing events that have seemed the corner-stones of recent past years. That’s not to say that the yeardidn’t have its moments for law enforcement, as manylocal agencies will quickly attest. For the most part,though, it was a time for introspection and outreach—assessing where the field of policing is going as themillennium approaches, and then building the road thatwill get it there.
Moving along the first of these parallel tracks, lawenforcement, with the help of the research community,paused to visit some of the more sensitive and naggingissues that have long dogged policing: the use of force;civilian complaints; corruption and integrity. Crime trendsremained under the microscope as well, with particularattention being paid to what’s driving crime down.
Along the adjacent track, community policing hascontinued to evolve, arguably coming of age in 1997. Asit has, two schools of thought appear to be emerging. Onthe one hand are those who see community policing as“adrift,” seriously threatened by the variety of methodsbeing applied under its rubric. Others believe just as pas-sionately that it is the nebulous and open-ended nature ofcommunity policing that is responsible for its growth. Itsdiversity is an essential piece of the philosophy, a sourceof its strength, and allows for local tailoring, increasedcreativity and, ultimately, expansion.
GROWTH CHART
Community policing has come a long way since it firstbegan to emerge from the primordial ooze of law enforce-ment thinking more than 20 years ago. Just about everypolice agency in the country has been exposed to it in someway, and many have tapped into the recent abundance ofFederal resources to implement it. But just how far depart-ments have come along the development continuum ofcommunity policing depends on who they are, when andhow they got started, how they define the concept, and thelevel of resources they’ve committed. For some depart-ments, community policing means more officers and equip-ment; for others it’s a brand new way of doing business—aphilosophical underpinning that permeates nearly all aspectsof policing. Some departments continue to vest community-policing responsibilities in specialized units, while othersare satisfied with nothing less than a department-wideembrace.
Problem-solving—which many view as a key elementof, or adjunct to, community policing—can be anythingfrom implementing a bicycle patrol to the sophisticated useof the S.A.R.A. model. Take the Glendale, Calif., PoliceDepartment, which won the 1997 Herman Goldstein Awardfrom the Police Executive Research Forum for its insightfuland effective problem-solving approach to chronic nuisanceproblems brought about by day laborers. The PoliceDepartment’s solution was to spearhead a vigorous effortthat involved partnerships with the community, local
1997 IN REVIEW
Policing Moves Along ParallelTracks of Introspection & Outreach
Community Policing Comes of Agein ’97, Although Critics Still Abound
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A33
businesses and other government agencies. To be sure, thegrowing tendency of criminal justice agencies in general toform problem-solving partnerships was a development ofparticular importance in 1997. Certainly task forces arenothing new to police departments, which have usuallyformed them with other law enforcement agencies for lim-ited periods of time and specific purposes. The partnershipsthat are now emerging, however, involve a closer relation-ship with other branches of the system.
SYSTEMATIC GAINS
For years, the phrase “criminal justice system” has beenderided as a misnomer, a kind of cruel irony. It’s not a sys-tem, critics say, but rather an assortment of agencies with anon-again, off-again mutual dependence that, more oftenthan not, translates into working in isolation from eachother and at cross-purposes. In the context of communitypolicing, more than a few observers have pondered howpolice would ever succeed in getting other governmentalagencies and the community to work with them when it wasso problematic to form productive relationships with pros-ecutors, courts, prisons, probation and parole and otherbranches of “the system.” However, the Law EnforcementNews People of the Year Award for 1997 is testimony towhat can be achieved when the various components of thecriminal justice system work together toward a commongoal, namely stopping juvenile gun violence. The BostonGun Project—now known to some as “the BostonMiracle”—has been responsible for driving juvenilefirearms deaths to near zero over a period of more thantwo years.
But juvenile crime is not the only issue that is beingtackled successfully through the collaborative efforts ofcriminal justice agencies. A growing variety of crime prob-lems are being addressed by closely networked componentsof the system focusing on a common purpose. Domesticviolence offers a particularly telling example, with police,prosecutors, courts, probation and social work agencies insome areas working together with such a degree of refine-ment that they are able to deal with different types ofbatterers in different ways. Other localities are moving suc-cessfully to establish community prosecution and commu-nity court programs. The financial encouragement of theNational Institute of Justice and the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services is also helping to promote part-nerships, with 39 grants currently supporting joint police-university research efforts. No doubt that when it comes tobuilding partnerships, a key ingredient of community polic-ing, 1997 was a good year.
BUMPS IN THE ROAD
Despite the successes of community policing, and theapplication of some of its precepts by other branches of the
criminal justice system, there are still those—includingsome of the staunchest advocates of community policing—who are concerned that it is adrift and in danger of beingwatered down. One criminologist, a former practitioner,went so far as to warn that community policing is threat-ened by “trivialization, perversion and replacement.”Moreover, some fear, because problem-solving was oftenintroduced at the bottom of the organizations as a first stagein community policing, the ability of either concept topermeate all ranks is limited.
A particular sore spot to many community-policingadvocates is the term “zero tolerance.” They point to theincreasing use of crackdowns, particularly on quality-of-life offenses, as reverting to a law enforcement-dominatedkind of problem-solving with no attempt to identify andanalyze the underlying conditions. No less a figure thanHerman Goldstein, the pioneer of problem-oriented polic-ing, says of zero-tolerance: “It’s not surgical and createsmore dependence on the criminal justice system. It impliesless discretion and is unrefined.” Such criticisms may havetaken hold. There are signs that those who favor an empha-sis on quality-of-life crime are backing away from the term“zero-tolerance,” claiming that such an emphasis does notnecessarily mean a heavy-handed approach.
For all of its recent gains, community policing is stillhaving a tough time fitting into the typical organizationalstructure of law enforcement. The quasi-military frame-work of policing has not changed in any fundamental waysince the inception of community policing. For that matter,to some observers it hasn’t changed all that much since SirRobert Peel created the London police nearly 170 yearsago. The police culture itself is seen as a barrier to organi-zational modification, and for policing to fundamentallychange it first needs to determine its core values and thenmodify or rebuild its structure to suit. But for all the dis-cussion in recent years about organizational structure andits relationship with community policing, most practitionersagree that with the exception of some flattening of ranks,the quasi-military structure of policing will not change anytime soon.
Another example of the troublesome fit between com-munity policing and police organizations concerns perfor-mance evaluations—which are difficult enough in mostcases, and all the more so when done in the context of aloosely and varyingly defined concept like communitypolicing. Different evaluation methods are under consider-ation throughout the country, with departments developingcore competencies for each rank and assessing an officer’sability to acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes. Once thisis established, an officer is required to do a problem-solvingproject, to be judged by the community result. For the mostpart, though, departments are trying to supplement long-standing evaluation criteria by simply grafting on a com-munity-policing component. Reports indicate that officersare skeptical about all such approaches because theybelieve the criteria to be subjective. Their skepticism maybe warranted. After all, training in community policing is
A34—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A34
Appendix—�—A35
fairly new and it would seem unfair, if not impossible, totest officers on that which they haven’t learned.
LEARNING CURVES
A recent NIJ-sponsored study found that departments are inneed of training that deals with the general concepts ofcommunity policing, problem-solving, cultural diversityand conflict resolution. Even departments that have alreadyoffered such training identified such a need—an indicationthat such training should be enhanced and periodically rein-forced. Most police academies put community policingprecepts into existing training modules—or, at best, haveadded new modules while leaving much of the curriculumintact. A handful of agencies have tried approaches that aremore radical in concept and design, and there are thosepolice chiefs who feel radical change is just what policeacademies need. As one chief put it: “Academies should notbe run like boot camps. They should be more like officercandidate schools used by the military.”
The quality of recruits has improved in recent years,according to some chiefs. Most recruits now have at leastsome college background, and a growing number of policedepartments now require at least a two-year degree forentry. Yet while many departments require a bachelor’sdegree to advance in rank, there are still only a relative fewwhere it is needed for employment. This past year thePortland, Ore., and Tulsa, Okla., police departments joinedthe small cadre of such departments, and Tulsa Police ChiefRon Palmer summed up the prevailing thinking on thesubject when he observed that officers with four-yeardegrees “come to you a little bit more mature, they’re alittle more aware of diversity issues, and they’re more proneto use their minds to problem-solve than those who don’thave that type of background.”
IN THE KNOW
But a larger issue has also begun to surface in this respect,with a growing number of practitioners and researchersasking the same fundamental question: What is it policeshould know?
Some criminologists believe that police, particularlythose involved in problem-solving, should become familiarwith such concepts as environmental criminology, situa-tional crime prevention, repeat victimization and routine-activity theory—all concepts that would aid practitioners inhot-spot analysis, crime mapping and reducing opportuni-ties for crime. In growing numbers, researchers are lookingat crime in the context in which it occurs rather than focus-ing on the offenders. Such an emphasis cannot help butmake their research more valuable to law enforcement pol-icy-makers. Even under the auspices of community polic-ing, after all, there is little that police do about influencingan individual’s criminal behavior. The study of criminal
offenders, while valuable in itself, has only a limitedbenefit for the cop on the street or behind a desk. But withthe popularity of mapping and hot-spot analysis, police cando something about the context in which crime happens.
GOING DOWN
There is no shortage of crime-reduction strategies and pro-grams being implemented and replicated throughout thecountry, and the continuing sharp drop in crime rates makesevery successful program that much more appealing tothose scanning the landscape for new ideas. There has beenvirtually no let-up, for example, in the number of depart-ments adapting and adopting Compstat, the system thatfigures so prominently in New York City’s dramatic crimedownturn of recent years. Many departments increasedtheir attention to quality-of-life crime and truancy. Citiesinstalled surveillance cameras, roadblocks and gates. Theylaunched resident officer programs (and the FederalGovernment is now aboard that bandwagon). Police sub-stations have sprouted up in a seemingly endless array ofunlikely places, including convenience stores and fast-foodrestaurants.
Police departments went after problems where theyexisted, and when they had to improvise, they did so. Suchwas the case with sex-offender registries and community-notification laws, which departments had to figure out howto implement, sometimes with very little guidance. Howthey did it ranged from hosting good old-fashioned townmeetings to creating CD-ROMs and Internet sites.
Explanations abound as to why crime continues to drop,yet one group that has remained strangely silent in thediscussion has been those criminologists who believe thereto be a significant, inextricable link between poverty andcrime. One might have thought that such criminologistswould be crowing “I told you so” during the past year. Afterall, the economy is booming, and crime is down. Some sug-gest that the poverty-and-crime proponents have held backbecause they attribute the economic boom to low-payingjobs that do not lead to the mainstream.
CAUSAL FACTORS
More significant, perhaps, was an analysis released thisyear by the National Institute of Justice that deals a sharpblow to the notion of a significant connection betweencrime and poverty. The NIJ research, which looked at homi-cide trends in eight cities between 1985 and 1994, showsthere to be a weak link at best between overall homicidetrends and poverty and employment levels.
The research also found a clear link between juveniles,crack cocaine and guns that caused the sharp spike in crimefrom the late 1980s to the mid-1990s. In addition, intra-group homicide was found to be the norm, with black-on-black crime the most dominant. Inmate flows in and out
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A35
A36—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
of prison did have some effect on homicide rates, withprison detentions linked to declines and prison releaseslinked to increases (although the research data was admit-tedly limited).
Another study analyzed police policy and practice andfound that what made a difference in the localities studiedwas aggressive law enforcement (often targeted deploy-ment), particularly when it comes to its emphasis on mis-demeanor offenses. Such enforcement usually comes withthe blessing of the community, whose tolerance for heavier-handed approaches is higher during times of rising crime.(Of course, when crime goes down, as it has been doing,such tolerance might wear thin.)
There are still other views on the decline in homicide,with some suggesting that it’s the result of the end of drug-trafficking turf wars, and because crack is a single-genera-tion drug whose users are aging out of the crime-proneyears. Others say that there are fewer domestic homicidesdue to a decline in domesticity. (Indeed, some go so far as tosuggest that the divorce level and the decrease in marriagehave helped to reduce domestic violence.)
Opinions differ on whether or not a wave of juvenilecrime is looming on the horizon, but a study released in1997 by the Child Welfare League found a strong correla-tion between having an incarcerated parent and the likeli-hood that a child will later be arrested for a crime. (Thisfinding would seem to bode ominously for the future, giventhe 1.5 million parents currently incarcerated and the 1.6million children they have.) The study also found thatabused or neglected children are 67 times more likely to bearrested between the ages of 9 and 12 than those whoaren’t—thus giving statistical muscle to the long-heldbelief that family violence is transmittable through genera-tions. Such information was not lost on a growing numberof police executives, who continue to beseech Congressto “invest in kids” by allocating more for early-childhoodprograms.
WARNING SIGNALS
As policing and police agencies turn some of their atten-tions inward, meanwhile, one of the year’s most notabletrends was the increased emphasis on monitoring person-nel. More than a few departments put in computerized“flagging” systems to identify potential problem officers.Most such systems were sold to the rank and file as early-warning systems aimed at permitting prompt interventionas needed. To the extent that an early-warning system isused to that end, of course, it would be of considerablevalue to both the officer and the department. Following the“stitch in time” adage, such systems could prevent an offi-cer from destroying his career, embarrassing himself andthe department, incurring enormous liability and damningpublic faith in the police.
But just how these systems will be used is still, for themost part, unknown. A number of issues remain to be
ironed out. Just what information goes into this system?How is it acquired? How does it get into the system? Whatis the threshold for intervention? What form will interven-tion take? Who is responsible for it? Who has access to theinformation and under what circumstances? At what pointdo the civil rights of an officer come into conflict with thedepartment’s standards and managerial prerogatives?
A hint of an answer to these questions was providedas the year ended when the New York Police Departmentannounced that 500 officers who were the subject ofdomestic-violence complaints, whether substantiated ornot, would be made to undergo two eight-hour trainingsessions. Even the New York Civil Liberties Union, notusually known for pro-police stances, is troubled by thepossible impact that an unsubstantiated and possibly falsereport could have on an officer’s career. (The NYPD is alsotaking monitoring efforts to another level by looking intoany officer who has fired his weapon on three or more occa-sions. The action was prompted by an end-of-year policeshooting of an unarmed man by an officer who had beeninvolved in eight prior shootings during his 14-year career.)
Beyond local efforts, computerized monitoring systemsare also being supplemented by NIJ’s Office of Science andTechnology, which is working to identify and developearly-warning systems for identifying officers with poten-tial problems. Other NIJ efforts include a five-departmentstudy of the use-of-force and a longitudinal study ofNew York officers who were dismissed, resigned or forcedto resign because of corruption or brutality. An organiza-tional integrity study is also underway in three cities.Perhaps tellingly, it seems the field no longer studies“corruption”; it studies “integrity.”
UNPRECEDENTED INTROSPECTION
While incidents of corruption and brutality litter polic-ing’s past, rarely, if ever, has the profession undergone thelevel of introspection in these areas that is now underway.In November, the Bureau of Justice Statistics releasedan unprecedented study that showed that about 1 percent ofthose who had contact with police alleged that force wasthreatened or used during the contact. The survey estimatedthat 45 million adults had face-to-face contact with police,and of those 500,000 reported that force was threatened orused during the contact. (The finding begs the question, ofcourse, as to which is the more consequential statistic: that500,000 Americans experienced some level of police useof force, or that force was a factor in only 1 percent of allcontacts.)
Those involved in the area of police use of forcewelcomed the study, which was required by the 1994 CrimeControl Act, and expressed hope that there would be futurestudies in order to ascertain trends. At present, however,BJS has not been funded to do another survey and observersare concerned that what might be a useful tool for deter-mining levels of use of force will be abandoned.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A36
Appendix—�—A37
Within the next few months, statistics should be availablefrom IACP’s newly developed national data base on policeuse of force. In addition, over the next few years researchresults will become available from the 17 police depart-ments nationwide that are currently involved in NIJ-spon-sored corruption and use-of-force studies. That so manydepartments are involved in these efforts (a record number,according to NIJ Director Jeremy Travis) speaks loudly tothe sea change that policing has undergone. Receptivenessto such study would have been unheard of just 10 years ago.
AVERTING A “BIG ONE”
Will 1998 be a year that allows for the kind of self-analysis that occurred in 1997? Who can say? As most prac-titioners agree, you never know when a “big one” can go offon your doorstep, bringing it with the kind of high-levelscrutiny that can divert attention from more useful analysesthat can make policing better. Still, as many departmentsare realizing, the risks of a “big one”—especially one that
results from police action—can be minimized by the kindof research and self-monitoring that is now underway.
In sum, it was a good year for law enforcement. Policedemonstrated that they can make a difference in reducingcrime by focusing on specific problems and dealing withthem. Police continued to make partnerships with thecommunity, business and with other public agencies, mostnotably other branches of the criminal justice system.Community policing will continue to flourish, with theeconomy good and crime down. Federal resources continueto be abundant, in terms of funding for new officers andequipment as well as for research. Call it a golden age, arenaissance, of police development. Not since the days ofthe Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has thefield been given this kind of boost.
Just how long it will last is unclear, of course. But withany luck crime rates will continue to drop, the economywill continue to prosper, and Federal resources will con-tinue to flow. At least for now, then, let the good times roll.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 31, 1997, Vol. XXIII,No. 480.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A37
A38
You can’t get too comfortable.On its surface, 1998 seemed like a good year. The eco-
nomic picture remains favorable, as does the crime rate,which continues to drop. Crime slipped from the spotlightas the nation’s attention focused on pocketbook issuesand, almost unavoidably, sordid intimacies in government.There were more Americans at work than ever before,according to the Labor Department, and the poverty rate isfalling, especially among blacks and Hispanics. Generallyspeaking, as a nation we appear to be richer and safer.
Still, the very attributes that made 1998 a good year forpolice and the communities they serve have given rise to somespecters that very well may haunt law enforcement in theyears ahead. Rising prosperity and increased public safety arecontributing to a labor shortage the likes of which the field hasnot experienced since the late 1970s, and its impact is alreadybeing felt in a growing number of departments from coast tocoast. If the past is prologue, then today’s labor shortage willlikely affect policing for years to come. Despite hiring effortscatalyzed by the Office of Community Oriented PolicingServices, which so far has added a reported 88,000 officersto 12,000 communities, and reports that the number of swornofficers in state and local departments rose by 10 percentbetween 1992 and 1996, to more than 660,000, many policeagencies find themselves shrinking.
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE . . .
Twenty-five years ago, the officers and recruits were therebut the resources needed to hire them were not. The country
was in recession, officers were being laid off and hiringcame to a virtual standstill. As the economy graduallyimproved and police hiring resumed, departments rushed toincrease their ranks, in some cases skimping on the recruitscreening process—often with dire results. Some of theofficers recruited at the time proved especially vulnerableto the influence of the violence and drug money thatabounded in the mid-80s. To make matters worse, the bub-ble in hiring also led to corresponding gaps in the supervi-sory ranks—a situation that would eventually play a role innumerous major police scandals.
Now, however, the resources are there but the recruitsare not. Exacerbating the problem is the growing wave ofretirements of the baby-boomer cops who now have morethan 20 years of service. In Washington, D.C., for example,more than 25 percent of the department is expected to retirein the next two years. In Washington state, the SeattlePolice Department, which is already operating at 10 percentbelow authorized strength, is bracing for a wave of retire-ments that could mean the loss of 150 veteran officers bythe end of 1999. In Atlanta, the department’s vacancy rate,which is estimated to be 19 percent, became a legal issuewhen the Mayor’s office refused to release the number ofsworn officers to a major newspaper. And the manpowerproblem is not just limited to large departments. InWashington Township, N.J., for example, police officialsare concerned about filling five positions, which representsalmost 18 percent of the department.
Departments attribute the problem to an nationwideunemployment rate that is currently at a 25-year low andthe increased competition from the private sector as well as
1998 IN REVIEW
Getting Nice & Comfy? Don’t.
From Manpower Levels toCrime Stats, Numbers That Look
Good Now May Yet Haunt Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A38
from other law enforcement agencies. (Some departmentsare now billing officers for the cost of training if they leaveprematurely.) Low pay and the preference of applicants forsmall towns and suburban departments are making it allthe more difficult for large departments to fill vacancies.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department in NorthCarolina has seen a 16-percent drop in applicants. InNew York City, where announcements of police entryexams have typically drawn 30,000 or more applicants,only 2,500 signed up for the most recent test, the lowestnumber in 20 years. Agencies that provide services forremote areas, such as the New Mexico State Police, are alsohaving a hard time recruiting. When you factor in thechronic difficulty of recruiting women and minorities, theproblem only becomes that much more acute.
Far wider nets are now being cast to fill police positions,as departments look well beyond jurisdictional boundariesto woo applicants. Recruiters from the Delaware StatePolice, for example, traveled out of state to find minoritycandidates, offering such enticements as opportunities foradvancement, tuition reimbursement, and liberal vacationand leave policies, The DSP is also using a private consul-tant who will assist in recruiting by building long-term rela-tionships with college and university officials.
THE TIDE TURNS
A generation ago, police recruits came to the job with mil-itary experience and often, thanks to the GI Bill, a collegeeducation. Beginning with the early 1980s, police depart-ments found themselves faced with recruits who had nei-ther. At least in terms of education, the tide is turning onceagain, as a growing number of law enforcement agenciesare now requiring some college education. At the upperranks, a college degree is becoming a virtual necessity. Asurvey by the Police Executive Research Forum of policechiefs in medium and large cities found that 87 percenthave bachelor’s degrees and about half have master’sdegrees, doctorates or law degrees—compare that to theestimated 15 percent who had bachelor’s degrees and 4.3percent who had advanced degrees in 1975. The over-whelming majority of big-city chiefs have degrees in crim-inology, criminal justice, justice administration, publicpolicy, political science and government. Perhaps pre-dictably, the renewed emphasis on college at the entry leveland in the executive ranks has fueled a growth in criminaljustice education programs. U.S. News & World Reportmagazine took note of the trend this year, when, for the firsttime, it included the academic field of criminal justicepolicy among its rankings of more traditional graduatedisciplines. (The No. 1 program in this area, according tothe magazine, is John Jay College of Criminal Justice.)
With recruitment lagging and attrition rates escalating,many police managers find themselves juggling resources.In Seattle, officers were shifted during the summer monthsfrom their regular duties to handling emergency calls for
service. Police in Memphis and Indianapolis, like manyother departments, relied on overtime budgets to get crimedown. The understaffed police force in Santa Fe, N.M., istaking longer to answer calls for service; burglaries are nothandled for three to four hours. Will the shortage of per-sonnel affect community-oriented policing efforts? To theextent that community policing is labor intensive, as manyobservers believe it to be, the answer would appear to be,“Don’t bet against it.” There is little doubt that a sustainedlabor crisis will put limits on what police can do.
THINGS ARE LOOKING DOWN
And police are expected to do a lot these days, not least ofwhich is bringing down the crime rate, which was longbelieved to be beyond their control. To that extent, 1998was a good year for police, with yet another overall declinein the crime rate. From New York to Los Angeles, policedepartments reported the lowest homicide rates in morethan 30 years. For the seventh year in a row, crime is down,with murder and robbery leading the slide. Departmentsenjoying this continued downturn credit such factors as theeconomy, the abatement of the violence associated with thecrack trade, community policing, the elimination of parole,more police on the streets, aggressive police work, andbetter trained officers employing the latest technology. Ofcourse, the downward trend is by no means all-encompass-ing. Some rural areas are reporting crime increases, andeven some large cities are not faring too well.
In some notable cases, crime statistics have been inten-tionally manipulated to make localities appear to be saferthan they are, and the anecdotal evidence was enough tomake the overall validity of crime statistics a primary issuein 1998. As the year began, New York police officialsreported that subway crime statistics had been improperlycollected, and were forced to admit that subway crime wasabout 20 percent higher than first believed. The problem,which was discovered by the department during a routineaudit, led to the transfer of a deputy inspector, who may yetface departmental charges. In Philadelphia, it was reportedthat thousands of nonviolent crimes were simply omittedfrom the statistics submitted to the FBI for the 1997Uniform Crime Reports. Burglaries, thefts and robberieswere downgraded to reports of missing property; somecrimes were downgraded to hospital cases or tossed asideas unfounded, and rapes were entered as “investigativepersons.” One police official there called crime reporting a“creative writing exercise.”
In Baltimore, police officials were accused of doctoringthe numbers of non-fatal shootings by consolidating multi-ple-victim incidents into a single report. In New Orleanssexual assaults were being categorized as “aggravated bur-glary.” While that city’s Office of Municipal Investigationcleared the department of altering crime statistics, it didfind enough problems to warrant an in-depth audit of PoliceDepartment records. An audit of the Atlanta Police
Appendix—�—A39
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A39
A40—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Department was conducted by the Georgia Bureau ofInvestigation after allegations by a high-ranking police offi-cial that supervisors misreported numbers and reclassifiedviolent crimes to make it appear that crime had decreased.
When crime was going up, the validity of crime statisticswas largely a problem for researchers and departmentnumber-crunchers. But when crime started dropping and,more importantly, when police began taking some of thecredit for the decline, the accuracy of crime statisticsbecame a significant issue for police executives and fairgame for critics. As the pressure increases on police toreduce crime, so, too, does the temptation for police per-sonnel to tamper with the numbers—sometimes at the costof their careers. More and more departments are imple-menting internal auditing procedures, but to some observers,internal audits are not enough. A growing number of criticsare calling for outside audits of crime statistics, with someeven demanding laws that would require such scrutiny. Asone long-time researcher noted, “We wouldn’t let hospitalsreport their own health statistics.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS
Even allowing for the variety of recipes being used to “cookthe books,” the fact remains that crime is going down. Butwhat about public perception? If information from the pri-vate sector is any indication, people have become muchmore cautious over the years. Some research indicates thatas many as 8 million Americans live behind gates in morethan 20,000 secured communities. Fourteen percent ofhomes now have alarm systems—double the number of adecade ago. Surveillance cameras in public places havegrown in popularity with little community outcry, and crimeprevention through environmental design has become morecommonplace for developers. It would appear that a richercountry has more to protect.
Still, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released inNovember indicates that the declining crime rate is begin-ning to register with the public. The results of the surveysuggest that many Americans still fear crime, but for thefirst time in 10 years more Americans say crime in theirarea is declining than say it is on the rise. The poll alsoshowed more confidence in the ability of police to shieldpeople from violent crime. Fifty-five percent of thosesurveyed say they have a lot of trust that police can do so, a10-point increase over five years ago.
There may be far fewer crimes, but that developmentmay be lost on the electronic media, as the USA Todaysurvey also showed. The overwhelming majority ofAmericans, 82 percent, agree that TV news and entertainment
programs show more crime and violence than they did fiveyears ago. The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a TVnews monitoring group, found that network coverage ofmurder rose by 336 percent from 1990 to 1995 (not evencounting the O.J. Simpson case). During the same period,homicides fell by 13 percent. On the other hand, there havebeen some changes in print. An analysis by The New YorkTimes of news stories appearing in the city’s three majornewspapers in May found that there were only one-third asmany articles about crime as there were four years ago.Some in the media attribute the decline to the fact that thereis simply less crime, while others believe that police areless forthcoming with information and less cooperativethan they used to be.
ANOTHER MONKEY WRENCH
As law enforcement grapples with a labor shortage thatmay get worse before it gets better, and with the potentialimpact of this problem on crime rates, service delivery andcommunity satisfaction, there is also one other monkeywrench to contend with: the future of the COPS office. Thelargest federally funded police buildup in U.S. history isscheduled to shut down in two years, and many policechiefs and sheriffs are already concerned. As one chief putit, “Never before has local law enforcement had such apowerful voice in Washington. Many of the positivechanges we have made in the past four years will endure,but we will lose . . . a venue for sharing important informa-tion about local problems.” During the past four years, theamount of Federal money devoted to policing has been sub-stantial. At no time in the nation’s history has the FederalGovernment been more generous to police, and for manyin the field this booster shot has yielded results. It hasput more cops on the street, it has brought the field out of thetechnological dark ages, it has produced useful research, ithas focused on crimes, such as domestic violence, whichheretofore were not a priority, and it has fostered informa-tion-sharing. It is probably impossible to establish a directrelationship between these additional Federal resources andthe declining crime rate, yet it seems unlikely that the twophenomena are merely coincidental. For most of the rea-sons cited by officials for the decline in crime, resourceswere necessary, and the resources were there in 1998. Thesame cannot yet be said with any certainty for next year andthe years to come.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 15/31, 1998, Vol. XXIV,Nos. 501, 502.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A40
A41
1999 IN REVIEW
The High Price of Success
Despite Gains for Police, Troubles Still Abound
It was not all that long ago that the term “profiling” had acertain cachet within law enforcement, as investigativeluminaries such as Robert Ressler, John Douglas and PierceBrooks popularized the practice of getting inside the headsof serial killers, rapists and arsonists to create psychologi-cal pictures of unidentified offenders.
But, as they say, that was then, and this is now. In 1999,“profiling” was once again a term that cast a huge shadowover law enforcement, with a spillover into many other seg-ments of society. But the connotation this time, unlike themid to late 1980s, was dramatically different. Just ask mostblack or Hispanic males—or, for that matter, almost anysworn member of the New Jersey State Police and severalother police departments.
The great irony of 1999 is that, at a time of diminishingcrime rates and a vigorous economy, police departmentsacross the country found themselves unable to enjoy anycomplacency or self-satisfaction. There was the need toprepare for and respond to large-scale criminal acts: schoolshootings, terrorism and, of course, bigger-than-ever NewYear’s Eve celebrations. Agencies and personnel respondedto natural disasters and geared up for the frightening possi-bility of man-made computer disasters. These and otherpreparations were frequently made in the midst of growing,often painfully intense scrutiny from Federal authorities,state and local prosecutors and civilian oversight boards.And through it all was the nagging, unsettling issue ofracial profiling—an issue that had been percolating for atleast a year and would not go away easily.
For policing, it appeared, the price of recent successeswas going to be high. The abundance of riches that shouldhave come with sharp and continuing decreases in crimewould translate instead to an uneasy affluence at best.
PROFILE—A ONE-SIDED PICTURE?
The year was barely underway when the racial profilingissue managed to find a new high-water mark, with the fir-ing of Supt. Carl Williams of the New Jersey State Policefor published remarks on profiling and criminality thatwere deemed racially insensitive. His firing on Feb. 28came just a few weeks after the state reluctantly releasedinformation showing that blacks represented a hugelydisproportionate share of those motorists searched andarrested by troopers.
In short order profiling would take center stage not onlyin New Jersey but nationwide. Attorney General Janet Renoannounced in April that she planned to add questions aboutpolice behavior to the annual National Crime VictimizationSurvey. And in a development that made most of the lawenforcement community sit up and take notice, a bill wasintroduced in Congress that would require
police to collect racial data on motorists stopped fortraffic violations, with the data then to be analyzed by theJustice Department. Numerous line organizations voicedtheir concern about the bill. The International Associationof Chiefs of Police found little support among its membersfor federally mandated data-collection but called for thefunding of state and local data bases. The Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, for its part, is looking at the developmentof a national standard. Even the National Organization ofBlack Law Enforcement Executives, while supporting thelegislation, did not feel it necessary for officers to ask dri-vers their race or ethnicity, but instead suggested that theyrely on observation. This notion cut to the heart of one ofthe central issues of the data-collection debate. Police, whoknow all too well that there is no such thing as a “routine
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A41
A42—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
traffic stop,” strongly felt that asking drivers for the desiredinformation would inevitably and unnecessarily intensifyan already tense situation, possibly to the point of violence.
Despite the concerns, numerous jurisdictions wentahead on their own to undertake the task—and not withoutsome cost. The Florida Highway Patrol, for example, esti-mated that its efforts on data collection would cost between$1.1 million and $4.7 million, depending upon the methodselected to record and analyze the information.
Profiling has long been a practice of businesses rangingfrom insurance to banking to marketing. It has been used bylaw enforcement to intercept airplane hijackers, hassle hip-pies and thwart drug couriers. But recent developments arenow showing law enforcement what portrait artists havelong known—a profile presents just one side of a picture,not the full face, and the other side of the picture can bestrikingly different from the one that is presented. Somepolice policy-makers have lamented the looseness or com-plete absence of any generally accepted definition of theprofiling problem. One chief went so far as to suggest thatracial profiling “has come to mean all things which incon-venience people of color involving the police.” Until a def-inition of the problem can be reached, a solution willremain elusive.
Police agencies are forced to grapple with the questionof whether crime-suppression efforts are worth a distrust-ful, even hostile relationship with the minority community.Granted, many of the recent high-profile examples ofimproper racial profiling have come from agencies thatpatrol the nation’s highways, where there are strikingdifferences from patrolling the neighborhood streets of acity or town. For highway patrol agencies, the “community,”as it were, tends to be just passing through on the way tosomewhere else. Municipal policing, however, is generallyless anonymous, and police stops in the age of computerizedcrime-mapping are often based on detailed informationabout a neighborhood and its hot spots. As important, saidone lieutenant, “Profiling is just another fancy word forexperience.” Still, there is always the risk that this could fallinto the category of unacceptable police practice.
The racial-profiling debate was not without its politicalovertones. One chief observed that for some people “there ismuch mileage to be gained by marginalizing the police andusing [them] to mobilize their constituencies.” Others referto a kind of “modern-day McCarthyism,” and note that onecannot ignore the fact that in some areas drug buyers arewhite and sellers are black. Still, police departments todayknow that community perceptions count—whether real,imagined or stirred up—and so many police officials haveundertaken an examination of the problem, as have otheroutside entities. Not least of these is the Justice Department,which in December reached agreement with the State ofNew Jersey on a consent decree that includes the appoint-ment of a monitor for the State Police, who will reportdirectly to a Federal judge on just about any police function.
A lingering question that emerged from the year’s focuson racial profiling and other controversial police practices
is just what impact heightened public scrutiny of police willhave on the level of drug interdiction on interstate routes.Although a final answer has yet to be arrived at, anecdotalevidence suggests cause for concern. As the year ended,reports from various jurisdictions indicated that arrestswere dropping. For example, through September arrests bythe New Jersey State Police had decreased by 42 percentcompared to the same period in 1998. Certainly one expla-nation was that the attention to profiling was forcing someofficers to change their racially driven ways. Some policeunion officials, however, contend that the decline is due totroopers’ fear of being falsely accused of racial profiling.Officers with good intentions and honorable records, itwould seem, are not taking any chances.
LOOKING OVER COPS’ SHOULDERS
In all likelihood, at any given time there is always an inves-tigation of a police department going on somewhere in thecountry. If 1999 seemed to bring an inordinate numberof such investigations—Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit,Cincinnati, Seattle and Hartford, to name several—it maybe a reflection of the prevailing philosophy of the JusticeDepartment, a penchant for more thorough self-examinationby police and, to be sure, politics.
The New York City Police Department began the yearstill reeling from the August 1998 torture of Abner Louimaby police, and on Feb. 4, the proverbial “other shoe”dropped. An unarmed peddler named Amadou Diallo waskilled in a hail of police bullets, and in short order therewere no fewer than five outside agencies investigating theincident. The four officers involved in the shooting wereindicted for murder. Despite statistics showing that policeshootings were declining, a poll conducted just weeks afterthe Diallo shooting indicated that 72 percent of blacks,62 percent of Hispanics and 33 percent of whites believedthat most officers used excessive force. (On the other hand,a survey commissioned by the NYPD found that most resi-dents, including a majority of blacks and Hispanics, respectthe police.)
The notoriety surrounding the Diallo shooting focusednot only on the particulars of the incident itself, but on thewhole notion of quality-of-life crime enforcement, with itscritics saying such efforts are excessive and tend to violatecivil rights. Defenders focused on what they saw as theopportunistic and political nature of the criticism, calling it“an ideological attack on a successful philosophy of polic-ing.” Quality-of-life enforcement, they argued, did indeedprevent crime and they had the stats to prove it.
In recent years the Justice Department and its agencieshave been very generous to law enforcement, but they havealso been tough, as demonstrated by the sharp increase inthe number of police officers serving prison terms—from107 in 1994 to 655 in June 1999. While some chiefswelcome and even invite Federal authorities, and haveused their investigations to advantage, many chiefs have
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A42
Appendix—�—A43
complained that Federal probes have been initiated withouttheir knowledge, thus leaving them to operate in a vacuum.It undermines the responsibility of the chief and the munic-ipality, they say. Some even question whether direct inter-vention is a proper role for the Federal Government to play.Federal authorities have not done the best job investigatingthemselves, some critics point out, as shown by the reopen-ing of the Waco investigation. The Columbus, Ohio, PoliceDivision is one agency that has told the Feds, in effect, tobuzz off, refusing to enter into a consent decree with theJustice Department. Columbus officials told Federal prose-cutors that they will have to prove in court their allegationsthat police engaged in a pattern of abuses ranging fromexcessive force to improper search and seizure.
The irony of these investigations and the attention theyreceived, of course, is that in general police around thecountry use very little force. Through the efforts of theJustice Department and various professional organizations,a national picture is starting to emerge, highlighted by afirst-of-its-kind report released in October, which found thatonly 1 percent of people who had face-to-face encounterswith police said that officers used or threatened force, andthat firearms are used in just 0.2 percent of arrests. Whileemphasizing that more study is needed, the report also stateswith “modest confidence” that use of force is more likely tooccur when they are dealing with persons under the influ-ence of alcohol or drugs or with the mentally ill, and thatonly a small percentage of officers are involved dispropor-tionately in use-of-force incidents. Not even addressed wasthe question of whether or not the use of force was wrong-ful—a statistical shading that would seem likely to make thereport even more favorable to law enforcement.
THE NUMBER CRUNCH
A personnel drought has begun to spread its withering heatacross the field of policing, confronting agencies with theprospect of operating short-handed in the years ahead.Overtime will be a fact of life. Labor-intensive initiativesmay have to be cut back. Supervisory skills will go begging.Pressure will increase in some quarters to reduce standards.
The truth is, America’s booming economy is not goodfor policing. Competition for recruits has been fiercely
competitive, with some departments gaining at the expenseof others. The Seattle Police Department, for example,visited some 10 cities to recruit; one of them, Atlanta, waschosen because it has well trained officers with low morale.The NYPD spent $9 million on a recruiting campaign thatyielded a smaller applicant pool than officials had hopedfor. Departments went overseas to scour military bases forrecruits.
Nationwide, seasoned officers are leaving, including agrowing number in the upper ranks. With police salariesgrowing more slowly than those in the private sector, manysworn personnel take a moment to calculate pensions andother benefits and find they can make almost as muchmoney by not working. Weighed against a backdrop ofincreased pressure from superiors, the public and the press,retirement has a distinct appeal. Departments will findthemselves getting younger and less experienced. Officersmake an average of roughly $33,000. Should localities con-sider increasing salaries to make staying on the job morelucrative? Do they have the ability and the will to do so?Should they consider the potential adverse consequences ofhaving an unusually young and inexperienced work force?
STILL MAKING A DIFFERENCE
Through it all, police have continued to drive down crimerates, and that drop in crime in some areas has given policefree time that allows them to focus more attention on thingslike investigating computer crime and backlogged warrants.They’ve developed after-school programs; they’ve trainedlandlords to spot drug labs. They’ve worked with residentsto make a difference. And despite publicity that was oftenharshly critical, appreciation of police by their “clients” isstrong. In a landmark Justice Department study of 12 cities,roughly 85 percent of residents reported that they were wellserved by their police, notwithstanding higher than averagevictimization. There were differences in the approval rat-ings given by white and nonwhite residents—roughly 14percentage points on average. There’s room for improve-ment, but it’s certainly not bad.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 15/31, 1999, Vol. XXV,Nos. 523, 524.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A43
A44
2000 IN REVIEW
2000: A Year in Profile
Sometimes Bad Things Happento Good Professions
Despite the best efforts of well-intentioned people, someproblems just seem to get worse. Consider two recentexamples: In February, the Riverside, Calif., PoliceDepartment added civilian support staff to free up officers forenhanced recruitment efforts. That same month, half a conti-nent away, the St. Louis County Police Board revised itspolice manual, adding a provision forbidding racial profiling.
By year’s end, police departments from one end of thecountry to another found themselves grappling with theissues of personnel and racial profiling simultaneously andwith increasing urgency. By no means are these problemsnew to law enforcement; in 2000 they simply took centerstage. In terms of racial profiling, the overriding issue wasdata collection: whether to do it, how to do it, what forcesare driving it, and what the results mean. The major con-cerns with respect to personnel, on the other hand, were thesimultaneous problems of declining recruitment andincreasing attrition. When it came to people, departmentshad to figure out how to get them and how to keep them.
THE PEOPLE PUZZLE
We all know the reasons why there is a labor shortage inAmerican policing: the primary culprits appear to be highemployment rates, competition from both the private sectorand other law enforcement agencies, and the demonizationof the police in the public eye. Reciting this litany becamea ritual repeated time and again throughout the country andthroughout the year. While there have been recruiting suc-cess stories, for the most part the efforts of police depart-ments have fallen short of expectations. It has not been for
lack of trying. Departments took up the challenge withzest. They gave recruitment a higher priority within theorganization. They jazzed up their promotional materials.They sent their representatives far and wide, sometimes toexplore previously untapped manpower pools. They imple-mented or enhanced lateral mobility provisions. Somejurisdictions even bit the bullet and increased startingsalaries for officers.
Despite a host of such efforts, though, the problemremains and it many areas it is worsening. The seriousimplications of such a labor shortage beg the question ofwhether it is time to deal with the problem on a nationallevel. Police organizations should consider forming part-nerships with leading marketing firms to put together ageneric advertising campaign that would have the netresult of assisting the field as a whole. That’s not to saythat departments would or should reduce their own effortsas a result, but a nationwide campaign would providepolicing with a necessary boost at this critical point intime. Such an effort, carefully done, might also have theadded result of improving the overall public image ofpolice.
In any profession, a labor shortage puts a squeeze onqualifications and standards. Although some professionscan get away with cutting corners and trying to make due,many feel that when it comes to law enforcement, there’ssimply too much at stake. Of course, that didn’t stop anumber of jurisdictions from rethinking college require-ments out of concern for being able to fill positions. Butbefore departments reduce their standards in this area, theyshould consider the recent experience of one Northeastjurisdiction that requires just a high school diploma. More
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A44
than 100 high school graduates could not pass the policetest with its 10th-grade reading level.
The shortage of personnel has also put a damper on theissue of residency requirements, at least for now. In an idealworld, the police recruit comes from the community andstays in it. But with departments searching far and wide forcandidates, such an ideal applicant may not be possiblethese days. Casting a wider net for recruits has added awhole new dimension to conducting background checks.Interviewing family, friends and neighbors is a more time-consuming, complicated and costly affair when candidatescome from hundreds, if not thousands of miles away. (Thatis, if it’s done correctly—and recent history is replete withexamples of jurisdictions willing to cut corners on back-ground checks, and then later paying dearly for their short-sightedness.)
Even the role of municipal civil service was widelycalled into question, particularly on the issue of who has thefinal say on a candidate—the department or the municipal-ity, through its civil service commission. Like anyemployer, police departments want to have the final say onwho works for them, since the actions of individual officersare ultimately the responsibility of the agencies they serve.Attendant questions abound: Should police have access tothe sealed criminal records of juveniles? Should policeapplicants be required to waive the confidentiality of suchrecords? Do departments have the means to deal with thespecifics of individual cases?
Hand in hand with the knotty issue of recruitment hasbeen an escalation in attrition, a trend that shows every indi-cation of continuing, if not worsening. There are short- andlong-term consequences to a dwindling number of experi-enced supervisors and officers. With authority and respon-sibility having become more localized at the lower ranksthan in the past for many departments, supervisory inexpe-rience may have the reverse effect of moving levels ofaccountability higher up the chain of command. If timein rank is reduced when filling supervisory positions, willinexperienced officers be able to handle the pressure of anenvironment that increasingly stresses officer monitoring?
Communities will have to ask themselves how muchexperience is worth? Are there incentives that could be usedto keep experienced officers from leaving? How muchwould such incentives cost? Are they affordable? What isthe price in human terms if such incentives are not applied?In addition to finding ways to keep experienced officerson the job, departments should consider whether they areunwittingly contributing to their own attrition problems.One veteran observer has noted that overtime-based high-intensity operations can lead to a substantial increase inretirements, since many police pensions are based on thefinal year’s salary. Since high-intensity tactics likeNew York’s Operation Condor are employed throughoutthe country, particularly when it comes to purging neigh-borhoods of quality-of-life crime, departments may findthemselves achieving productivity gains in the present bymortgaging their future.
STOP SIGNS
A look at the centerfold of this issue will show just howthe issue of racial profiling landed on the doorsteps of lawenforcement agencies throughout the country, where it washandled in a variety of ways. Police chiefs in some placessigned agreements to voluntarily collect information onmotorists they stopped, while others had the task mandatedfor them. In some localities, such data were analyzed bythe departments themselves or with the help of outsideresearchers, while in other areas the local news mediaanalyzed police stops, sometimes aided by civil libertiesgroups. Legislators scurried to draft and pass relevant laws,while the courts took on a growing volume of lawsuitsspawned by racial profiling. Taken together, such eventsgave greater dimension and urgency to the issue of racerelations in 2000.
Some police chiefs look back to the 1980’s when profil-ing first hit drug enforcement. Aided and encouraged byfederal law enforcement, notably the Drug EnforcementAdministration, state and local police used race-basedinformation to improve interdiction efforts, particularly onthe interstate highways. When 91,000 pages of informationon racial profiling were released this fall in New Jersey,many of the documents were found to call attention to therole of federal law enforcement agencies that used racialprofiling as a weapon in the war on drugs. But in any arse-nal used to defeat an enemy, there are some arms that arejust too lethal to be deployed in most combat situations. Itbegs the question of whether the perception—or the reality—of civil-liberties infringement is simply too much firepowerto use in this war.
A recent survey by the Police Executive ResearchForum, presented at a forum on racial profiling in the fall,indicated that over 15 percent of departments are involvedin some way with collecting data on race. A number ofdepartments reported having been advised by legal expertsnot to count. The reason is that counting traffic stops byrace gives a number that is without context. Social scienceresearchers contend that without “contextuality,” as theylike to call it, results are questionable, if not utterly invalid.For example, since the total number of traffic violatorsbroken down by race is not known, researchers rely on“proxy” data like residential information, census data, accessto autos by race, racial breakdowns of traffic accidents, andvisual observations of driving patterns in order to measurethe number of stops made by police. Yet getting even the bestinformation in these categories can be misleading.
Experts feel that departments collecting traffic-stop datawould do well to arrange with a research entity to analyzeand interpret the results. And, since counting seemed tohave been central to the year 2000 in politics and well as inpolicing, much depends on who is doing the arithmetic. Fora number of jurisdictions, particularly in states with expan-sive sunshine laws, the counting was done by the pressand/or civil liberties groups. Often in these situations, newscoverage leaves out information as to what level of analysis
Appendix—�—A45
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A45
and what “proxy” data is being used, thereby givingthe public a picture that is as unclear as it is potentiallyinflammatory.
At the PERF forum, legal advocates who believe policeshould collect racial data pointed to the necessity of build-ing and maintaining community trust, without which policeundermine their essential mission. As evidence, they pointto juries and judges declining to give police the benefit ofthe doubt—thereby eroding what has been a fundamental,if unstated pillar of the criminal justice system. Whetherracial profiling is real or merely perceptual, police shouldtackle the issue head-on. Arrest and incarceration rates maybe higher for African Americans and Latinos, but they arenot an accurate reflection of overall offending behavior.These groups are arrested more often for consensual crimeswhere there is no individual victim, when police have notbeen called, and when police are exercising a high degreeof discretion. It therefore proceeds, the analysts say, thatarrest rates are about police activity rather than offendingbehavior. Statistically, blacks are stopped more often thanwhites although they represent a smaller portion of the pop-ulation and although their level of drug use is less than thatof whites. In addition, the “hit” rate—when contraband isactually found—is the same for both blacks and whites.Therefore, these experts maintain, disproportionate stopsdemonstrate racial profiling.
Police officials retort that a discussion of racial profilingmust address the issue of the substantially disproportionateracial breakdowns in victimization and in those identifiedas perpetrators. Officers and are sent “where crime is,”police officials maintain—particularly since the advent ofcommunity policing, problem solving and the focus onquality of life. Such factors as where the calls for servicecome from, how vocal the community is about wantingpolice presence, and where crime analysis determines acriminal pattern exists will determine police activity in anygiven locality. Looking for a match between demographicsand stops is basically flawed. Simply comparing thenumber of stops to the racial demographics of a locality, asis usually done, does not necessarily mean a department isengaged in racist activity. As one African American policeofficial put it, “Sixty-one percent of my city’s population isblack, homicide victims are 92 percent black, and 98 per-cent of the suspects are black. So what am I supposed to do,look for an Asian?”
For some police executives, any discussion about datacollection is really political. Officers in one departmentcame up with a values statement and brought it to the com-munity—a community that was more interested in greaterenforcement of quality-of-life crime connected to drugactivity. Some months later, after the department hadaccommodated the community and had received numerousaccolades for its efforts, a call came for the collection ofdata. As the chief of this department put it, “In the sameweek the department received a letter of praise for itsefforts from the community, the NAACP called for thecollection of numbers, and I realized that I had just spent
the summer generating statistics that would be held againstthe department.”
Others see the issue of racial profiling as being aboutweeding out racist cops and requiring greater civility on thepart of officers when stops are made. Increasingly, depart-ments require officers to articulate, sometimes in writing,the reason for making a stop. The personal dynamics of thetraffic and street stops have become critical to the perceptionof fairness. There is some information, researchers say, thatshows well meaning officers can also act with inadvertentinsensitivity. To address this, departments implemented orenhanced training on making a stop—or at least they triedto. The paucity of training available in this area—trainingthat balances caution and command with courtesy—remainsa matter of concern for many police administrators.
Data collection has been shown to have more chillingconsequences, as one city experienced when traffic acci-dents increased after data collection began—largelybecause officers became “gun shy” about making evenlegitimate traffic stops. In a rush to make good public pol-icy in the sensitive area of racial profiling, legislators mayhave failed to realized, or willfully ignored, the impact inthese very human terms. Will more people be hurt on thenation’s roads? While there is no really trustworthy infor-mation on bad driving habits, sorted by race, there are indi-cations that fewer African Americans wear seat belts.Should efforts to crack down on lack of seat-belt use be cur-tailed? If such efforts are minimized, will more people beinjured, or worse? The current state of affairs puts police inthe difficult predicament of collecting data by race to “dothe right thing,” as it were, a decision that may ultimatelylead to an erosion in public safety.
POLITICAL WINDS
For the last eight years, the Department of Justice has beensensitive to the needs of policing on the local level.Through its various branches, it gave to the field copiousresources in terms of personnel, research, information,technology and equipment. Just as importantly, it provideda voice to police. Having an Attorney General with recentpractical experience working with local police certainlyhelps to explain the emphasis that the Justice Departmentput on the community level. Some see it as a golden age ofpolicing—a time that will influence events in the future.That’s not to say that the field has always been approvingof Janet Reno’s actions. As one police chief put it, referringto the issue of federal monitoring, “I don’t know whetherI’m dealing with ‘Justice-the-Good’ or ‘Justice-the-Bad.’”For the most part, however, the Justice Department underReno tried and often succeeded in delivering a coordinatedapproach to problems. It promised to deliver increasedinteragency cooperation, and for the most part it did. Itwas uncommonly active in supporting some measure ofgun control. It dealt directly with local law enforcementagencies, particularly in the area of funding. Such local
A46—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A46
Appendix—�—A47
interest did not come without a good deal of local scrutiny,of course. It was also a Justice Department that emphasizedpolice monitoring, some would say to a fault.
At the juncture between two administrations, particu-larly with a change in the party in power, it is hard to saywhat the future will bring for law enforcement. In the 2000presidential campaign, crime was simply not on the agenda.Will the new administration continue the activist role of thefederal government in scrutinizing local police depart-ments, or will it back off? Some departments, notably thosein New York and Columbus, Ohio, have a significant vestedinterest in the answer. Will police departments continue toreceive federal resources directly, or will they once againengage in a statewide competition through a resurgencein block grants—a situation that had led to interagency
competitiveness rather than cooperation? Will the newgovernment maintain the same degree of emphasis onkeeping track of the country’s firearms? Will local lawenforcement maintain the same level of access to the feds?Will the resources be there?
Given the close and contentious nature of the last elec-tion, it is difficult to predict what the future might hold forlaw enforcement at the federal level. Locally, though,police will still be dealing with the everyday realities ofcrime, which is bound to begin creeping up again soon,with keeping their ranks filled, and trying to get a grip onthe slippery issue of race relations.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, Dec. 15/31, 2000, Vol. XXVI,Nos. 545, 546.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A47
A48
2001 IN REVIEW
2001: A Year in Profile
Life in Law Enforcement,Before and After 9/11
It took only 78 minutes on the morning of Sept. 11 to alter thevery nature of law enforcement in this country. At 8:48 A.M.on a beautiful, late-summer morning, an act of war occurredon American soil. It was unthinkable, shocking, horrific.
Foreign invaders—Islamic militants who apparently hadbeen in this country for some time—had hijacked commer-cial jetliners and turned them into guided missiles to strikethe World Trade New York City and the Pentagon. A thirdtarget was avoided only by the courageous acts of Americancivilians. The death toll was unimaginable, the repercus-sions both enormous and ongoing. These attackers madegood on past threats—threats that, in retrospect, had notbeen taken seriously.
In the hours after the attacks, the country, caughtnapping, began preparing for war at home and abroad.Nearly everything stopped. Transportation ground to a halt.Businesses shut down. The borders were sealed. Evencrime dropped in the immediate aftermath of the attack.The country was in a self-imposed lockdown. The militarybegan to mobilize and appear en masse. And as if thatweren’t enough, just one week later a chain of events beganat a New Jersey post office that would ultimately point to anew threat—biological weapons. The threat, in the form ofletters that were later found to contain anthrax spores,seemed to be aimed primarily against Congress and thenews media, and would eventually leave five people dead,18 others infected and thousands obtaining antibiotics forprotection.
America became a country transformed in 2001. A con-fident nation had been made painfully aware of its vulnera-bilities, of which there were many. While just about every
segment of society was touched in some way by the attackon Sept. 11, the country’s law enforcement community waschanged almost overnight. Its mission was fundamentallyrecast.
A CHANGE IN EMPHASIS
“To protect and serve” is a catch phrase at the heart ofAmerican policing. The words are found in mottoes, mis-sion statements, painted on patrol cars, sewn into insignias,and would seem to embody the feelings of most police per-sonnel. In retrospect, though, it appears that police havelong had the luxury of being able to concentrate on the“serve” portion of that motto. That’s not to say that policehaven’t had their dealings with truly bad people—orga-nized crime figures, street gangs, serial killers, child killers,mass murderers, even terrorists. Nevertheless, with theadvent of community policing more than two decades ago,police over time have been able to improve service for theircommunities by solving problems. They have been able todeal with quality-of-life crime and have had a significantimpact on bringing down the crime rate. Agencies haveeven had the time to go into cold cases.
On Sept. 11, however, the emphasis in the phrase “toprotect and serve” suddenly switched to the word “protect.”Things change when the battlefield is your own backyard ormail box and the enemy is somewhere in your midst.Information gleaned about the attackers clearly demon-strated to law enforcement just how invisible the enemy canbe—hiding within plain sight, as it were, in many sectionsof the country.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A48
Appendix—�—A49
STRETCHED TO THE MAX
Police worked long hours protecting airports and othertransportation hubs, buildings, bridges, reservoirs, crops,nuclear power plants, government buildings and other facil-ities, often working closely with the National Guard andmilitary reservists. Already facing an ambitious if not over-whelming national investigation, an additional and unnec-essary burden came with the dramatic increases in theoccurrence of hoaxes, both for bombs and anthrax. (InNew York City in just one day, police dealt with more than90 reports of suspicious packages and bomb threats.)Almost immediately, jurisdictions imposed harsher penal-ties on the hoaxers. When biological weapons were intro-duced into the mix, the nature of the hoaxes became evenmore complicated, requiring both a public health and a lawenforcement response—a response that was not alwayswell coordinated.
Overtime reached record-breaking levels in the courseof an effort never before undertaken by the country’slaw enforcement agencies—an effort that cannot be main-tained indefinitely at such high levels of intensity. As theyear ended, police found themselves stretched to the max.Increases in responsibilities of this magnitude do not comewithout a price. Just as the declining crime rate is beginningto plateau and even go up in some places, police are findingthemselves faced with lots to do amid changing priorities.
To make matters worse, recruitment is still down andattrition is mounting in many departments, sometimes as adirect result of the overtime produced by the terroristattacks. As the nation ratcheted up its military defenses, lawenforcement agencies were hit by the call-up of militaryreservists thereby further depleting police ranks. Evenbefore Sept. 11, policing wrestled with the serious problemof dwindling ranks, forcing departments to cast an ever-widening net for recruits. The temptation to lower stan-dards, always a recipe for trouble, continued. A number ofdepartments dropped or modified college requirements.Residency requirements received a second look and wereoften dropped.
While personnel shortages were bad and getting worseprior to Sept. 11, the almost overnight growth of jobs infederal law enforcement and private security also took theirtoll on local policing. More entry level and managementpositions became available in both fields, drawing growingnumbers of seasoned personnel from local police ranks. Asluck would have it, though, increased joblessness in othersectors of the economy may ultimately help to increase theranks of the many police departments. Yet even if applica-tions go up, it will have little immediate impact on the lossof supervisory personnel, a precarious situation sure tounfold in the near future.
Despite new and expanded responsibilities for police,there remains the job of handling routine crime-fightingactivities and investigation. No one wants a return to theearly 1990s, when crime in the United States peaked with
more than 20,000 homicides. With some localities alreadyseeing signs of crime-rate creep, there is the danger that thecurrent set of overshadowing priorities will take time andpersonnel away from effective crime-reduction strategiesand quality-of-life crime initiatives. Compounding theproblem, the economic slowdown that occurred early in2001 was already necessitating cuts in many departmentswell before Sept. 11. It is clear the future will not be easy.
But “help is on the way,” insists Tom Ridge, the formergovernor of Pennsylvania who heads the new White HouseOffice of Homeland Defense. The alerts announced by hisoffice, while sensible, have yet to be translated into practi-cal deployment issues on the ground and in the pocketbook.So far, the Sept. 11 attacks have cost $700 million in addedpublic safety costs. Making war is costly and it became alltoo clear to many cities that federal money is urgentlyneeded for the law enforcement effort at home. WhileRidge has conceded that it could take months, even years,to build a truly viable homeland defense program, polic-ing’s more immediate needs include help in protectingvulnerable targets, training, equipment and enhanced bor-der control. Data bases need to be integrated, coordinatedand, in some cases, built from scratch. But one of the mostimportant elements of warfare, whether foreign or at home,is good and timely intelligence. The events of Sept. 11 mag-nified the urgent need for information on the local leveland the need for enhanced coordination at the federal level.Law enforcement agencies nationwide desperately neededinformation. They didn’t always get it.
LEARNING TO SHARE
Law enforcement’s “dirty little secret”—that intelligence isnot often shared—became household news and a matter ofvital importance to the country’s homeland security. To besure, the FBI had been having a bad year even before Sept.11: Congressional oversight hearings; a pending reorgani-zation; a document foul-up that forced a delay in the exe-cution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, andthe discovery of an agent who had been spying for theRussians.
Many in New York law enforcement will recall theFBI’s attempt to discredit the ATF agent who had found thevehicle identification number—a crucial piece of evi-dence—from the truck involved in the 1993 bombing of theWorld Trade Center, as a telling example of the bureau’ssteamrolling over a major investigations. It certainly didnot help the bureau’s image when it was learned in the after-math of the Sept. 11 attacks that FBI officials refused toapprove a wiretap on the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui,the alleged 20th hijacker. After the attacks, numerouspolice officials bitterly complained that they were kept inthe dark and not provided with enough information to ade-quately protect the public. At year’s end, relations betweenthe bureau and local law enforcement had improved in
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A49
A50—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
some areas, but for the most part signs of strain were neverfar from the surface.
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON PROFILING
Although the tensions between local and federal lawenforcement often ran high, it still came as a shock to manyin policing when the Portland, Ore., Police Bureau and ahandful of other departments announced that they would notassist in the efforts of federal agents to interview thousandsof Middle Eastern subjects. Some viewed this action asnothing less than a dereliction of duty—a case of politicalcorrectness gone too far. After all, some maintain, while twocities were attacked, the operatives lived, trained and con-spired in many regions of the country. Nationwide criminalinvestigations have always been part of police work and,despite rivalries, a fair amount of cooperation takes placeregularly in law enforcement. Given the current threat level,inattention in one place can lead to devastation in another.
Still, it is not surprising that racial profiling, which hasdominated policing in the last few years, remains a sensi-tive topic even through this period of emergency. Prior tothe attacks, departments across the country continued to beobsessed with counting stops by race and issuing policydirectives. But just how valuable the numbers will beremains to be seen [see Page 11]. What did become clearduring the year was that in the aftermath of a raciallycharged incident or some kind of accusation of racism,police engage in what is now known as “depolicing.”Arrests go down and crime goes up largely because officerssimply do not want to put themselves in harm’s way. Whileit is easy for some to say that police should continue to dotheir work without regard for the media blitz that canenvelop them, that would appear to be unrealistic.
The issue of racial profiling was transformed on Sept. 11.In the aftermath of the attacks, pollsters repeatedly askedthe public about the issue of profiling—specifically as itapplies to Middle Eastern men. Those queried have con-sistently responded that law enforcement should not ignorethe obvious similarities among those who have beenalready identified in connection with the recent threats andattacks against this country. Solid majorities of respondentsto two polls said they want Arab-looking travelers singledout for extra scrutiny at airports. Even in Detroit, which ishome to a large Arab-American population, a local news-paper reported that 61 percent felt “extra questioning orinspections are justified.” One cannot ignore the fact that theSept. 11 attacks, as well as other attacks against Americanshere and abroad, were all committed by male Islamic mili-tants of Middle Eastern descent. It would be foolish andpotentially fatal to minimize the realities of this threat. Asthen-Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg stated in 1963,echoing the view of former Justice Robert Jackson, “whilethe Constitution protects against invasions of individualrights, it is not a suicide pact.”
MAY I SEE YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE?
The issue of identifying wrongdoers, now taking on newdefinition and urgency, was on the police agenda evenbefore the attack. When Tampa used sophisticated facial-recognition surveillance during the Super Bowl, publicopinion was accepting but cautious. In today’s environ-ment, such systems have gained in popularity and are a wel-come asset to a security system.
The year also brought a surge in the popularity of hand-held wireless devices that allow officers to quickly andunobtrusively check criminal data bases. Yet of all theissues of identification that arose in 2001, primary concernfocused on the rapid identification of spores and microbes,and the growing problem of identity theft and fake IDs.Given the prevalence of fake identification throughout thecountry, a number of states began to improve the quality oftheir driver’s licenses in hopes of making them more diffi-cult to counterfeit. One idea being given serious considera-tion in the aftermath of Sept. 11 is a high-tech nationalidentification card for all American citizens. A variation ofthis theme is already being practiced at the Mexican border.A new “laser visa,” which among its features includes fin-gerprints and data encrypted in magnetic strips, is requiredof Mexicans who cross the 1,952-mile border.
The thorny issue of immigration and border control,long a concern to federal and local jurisdictions alike, alsotook on added dimensions after Sept. 11, as it became emi-nently clear that the government is clueless when it comesto accurate and up-to-date knowledge of non-citizens in theUnited States. Inadequate State Department and INS poli-cies and procedures, a lack of enforcement and, to be sure,a lack of will gave the United States a border more porousthan the mountains of Afghanistan.
Cooperation with the INS has been a mixed bag for localpolice. For some departments, illegal immigrants are oftenvictims of crimes and in an effort to keep crime down,departments have refused to report illegal aliens to federalauthorities. In some other localities, complaints to federalauthorities about illegal aliens have tended to fall on deafears, so the locals think, “Why bother?” To address currentconcerns, the Justice Department has elected to split INSinto two parts: one to provide service to immigrants and theother to patrol the nation’s borders to block the entry of ter-rorists. The attack on the homeland will no doubt influencefuture relations between local law enforcement and federalImmigration and State Department officials, particularly interms of countries that overtly or covertly support violenceagainst America.
In the post-9/11 era, though, reinforced borders andrevised immigration policies might seem superfluous with-out an accompanying beef-up in air safety and security. Thelong-dormant Sky Marshal program was quickly revived. Anew law enforcement entity was created with the federal-ization of airport passenger- and baggage-screening per-sonnel, who have been the focus of increasing public outcry
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A50
Appendix—�—A51
over repeated (and sometimes egregious) lapses ofsecurity. Planes large and small were scrutinized, as evenlow-flying crop dusters became a source of concern amidthe growing specter of bioterrorism. AWACS surveillanceplanes, used overseas and in the Caribbean, now flymissions over sensitive targets in the U.S., and the rulesof engagement have been changed for fighter pilots whomight have to deal with another commercial jetliner beingused in a terrorist attack.
A well known adage warns that those who fail to learnfrom history are condemned to repeat it. In that context,consider that in 1993, when the World Trade Center wasbombed the first time, the Immigration and NaturalizationService was ordered by Congress to track more than half amillion foreign students attending colleges in the UnitedStates. At the time, civil libertarians successfully opposedthis initiative, along with other measures intended to keepAmerica safe. Since then, Palestinian terrorists have beenarrested in Brooklyn for conspiring to set off a bomb in theNew York City subway system. Plots were thwarted tobomb the Los Angeles airport and the Space Needle inSeattle on the eve of the millennium. Then came Sept. 11and, predictably, civil libertarians once again rose up inrighteous indignation. Their arguments revolve around theidea that it is inappropriate to closely look at the many inorder to catch the few. Should they prevail again, the con-sequences could be mean death and injury to thousands.After all, it took only 19 hijackers to kill more than 3,000.
It is unfathomable what 500 or 1,000 terrorists on Americansoil could do.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES
It’s hard to believe that just 12 months ago crime was down,public safety was not atop the public agenda, the economywas relatively good and the country was at peace. Howthings change. The police role as first responders, forinstance, now means dealing with the terrifying possibilityof biological and nuclear weapons. Law enforcement enters2002 facing a new world with a new and unconventionalenemy posing threats that must be anticipated and pre-vented. By some estimates, more than 50,000 people havepassed through the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps. Theterrorist network reportedly operates in 60 countries, andno doubt some of its operatives are still living here. Manyexperts believe a wave of terrorist acts is likely in the nearfuture. In the months ahead, routine will reassert itself inmany parts of the country, and law enforcement’s dailytasks will dominate the day. But as time goes by, it will beimportant to bear in mind that—for police as well as for themilitary—the war on terrorism can be won through goodintelligence and vigilance, just as it can be lost throughcomplacency and naiveté
Source: From Law Enforcement News, December 15/31, 2001,Vol. XXVII, Nos. 567, 568.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A51
A52
2002 IN REVIEW
2002: A Year in Retrospect
What a Difference 12 MonthsCan Make for Law Enforcement
What a difference a year makes. 2002 began with a sense ofresolve and clarity of mission born of the Sept. 11, 2001,terrorist attacks, coupled with classically American opti-mism and “can-do” spirit. The year proceeded amid flurriesof activity as law enforcement agencies on all levels scram-bled to incorporate homeland security and anti-terrorismmeasures into their agendas, despite problems of under-staffing and underfunding. Departments sought equipmentand training—both commodities in short supply—and didtheir best to implement or improve internal and externalcommunications networks.
As the year ended, however, the grim reality of dwin-dling resources seemed more dire than ever, with states andlocalities facing what some describe as the gravest fiscalcrisis in the past half-century. Moreover, the promise offederal funding has gone unfulfilled. The once-clear mis-sion has become muddied, and the sense of urgency has inmany places turned into little more than heightened con-sciousness.
Certainly, some departments have done more to preparethan others—or have done so more visibly. New York City,notably and for obvious reasons, has probably done themost. As Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly noted,“We’re all on the front lines here, so to speak”—and hewasn’t being metaphorical. To defend this front line, thedepartment created new positions and filled them with for-mer high-ranking officials from the Central IntelligenceAgency and the Marine Corps. Like other departments, itsent officers to Israel to learn more about suicide bombers,and planned to have some officers work in concert withintelligence agencies throughout the world. New equip-ment, such as radiation-detection gear and bio-hazard suits,
is on hand or on order. While continuing its emphasis onquality-of-life offenses and dousing the periodic crimehot-spot, the department appears to be spending its crime“peace dividend,” generated by its declining crime rates, onactively protecting the city from another terrorist attack.
For many localities, however, prevention and prepared-ness efforts fell short, in many cases because the promise offederal funding had failed to fully materialize by year’s end.The Bush administration bottled up $1.5 billion in lawenforcement and antiterrorism assistance, citing Congress’sinability to pass appropriations bills (although some sur-mise that it may have more to do with the White House’sdesire to have more control over the fate and fortunes of theOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services).
Even with lean resources, however, police departmentsmanaged to get in some training, frequently in the form ofjoint haz-mat response exercises with other emergencypersonnel. New joint anti-terrorist task forces emergedfrom improved communications between the FBI and stateand local departments. Statewide communication systemswere enhanced; public terrorist tip lines were established.A number of states are now putting visa expiration dateson driver’s licenses. Although not widely publicized,plans were developed by some local governments for evac-uation and quarantine scenarios. For personnel in somelarger departments, training in intelligence analysis tookpriority—only to be met with a glaring lack of expertise inthis critical area. But for all the initiatives that were under-taken, and all the practitioners for whom anti-terrorismactivities have become a full-time job, law enforcementpreparedness is not what it could or should be, someexperts contend.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A52
Amid improved communications between local andfederal law enforcement agencies, there remain thornyissues concerning the extent to which police should go ininteracting with illegal immigrants. To a large extent, thedebate centered on whether or not local law enforcementshould shoulder some of the enforcement duties that havelong been the province of the beleaguered Immigration andNaturalization Service. The Florida Department of LawEnforcement entered into a partnership with INS to train 35municipal officers, sheriff’s deputies and FDLE agents,who would be assigned to regional anti-terrorism taskforces and authorized to stop, question and detain illegalaliens. Other jurisdictions flirted with the idea. Still, therewere clear divisions among law enforcement officials onthe issue, with some placing local priorities over thenational interest. Many departments, such as Houston andTulsa, pointed to the help illegal immigrants give them withinvestigations and how difficult the job would become ifofficers had to aggressively target those in this countryillegally. Some, such as Pasadena, Calif., have taken a moremoderate approach, allowing officers under certain condi-tions to arrest and detain illegal immigrants for a prescribedperiod, pending notification of the INS. By June, the JusticeDepartment had backed away from its plan to have policeenforce general immigration laws. Not lost on some policeobservers was the irony that local police, who are oftenquick to accuse the FBI of not sharing information andother resources in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, arenow themselves unwilling to share information with thebureau.
One protocol that has been worked out, which does notrequire changes to existing local law enforcement practices,would focus on those who enter from specially designatedcountries, linking their admission documents to a NationalSecurity Entry-Exit Registration System. Failure to com-plete the required registration within 30 days would beconsidered a federal misdemeanor, and the names of thosealiens will be entered into the NCIC as “Wanted,” to behandled by local officers as a “hit.” Such hits require thatlocal INS offices respond in a timely manner. Given thetrack record of INS and its chronic shortage of personnel,with some 1,800 agents to handle 8 million illegal immi-grants, it is not surprising that this protocol allows federalauthorities to ask local law enforcement agencies to detainthe individual, for which they would be reimbursed.Whether locals respond affirmatively when asked remainsto be seen, but given the number of federal agents assignedto the task, without local cooperation on some level, itwould appear that INS, no matter how it is reconstituted,will continue to have its hands full, if not tied.
As Congressional scrutiny bore down on the nation’sintelligence community and its pre-9/11 lapses and short-comings, the phrase “connect-the-dots” became a part ofregular news copy. Inquiries revealed an intelligencecommunity whose components don’t communicate witheach other and, as importantly, don’t communicate withintheir own agencies. Political correctness and legal restraints
are said to have hampered the FBI’s ability to go forwardwith investigations or share information with other intelli-gence agencies. The hearings also showed the FBI to lackfocus when it came to terrorism, compounded by insuffi-cient personnel and inadequate technology (with agentsusing 386-level computers with no external e-mail).
There were a number of agents who uncovered evidenceof potential terrorist threats and issued warnings to theirsuperiors—warnings that went unheeded. As one FBI fieldagent recently put it, “Headquarters is like a black hole.Information goes in but nothing comes out.” Just whathappened to their warnings remains unclear, with somemembers of Congress asserting that the bureau and the CIAwere still covering up those who had impeded pre-9/11investigations. To be sure, the inquiries did not go farenough, having failed to look into lapses by such agenciesas INS, the State Department, motor vehicle offices and theFederal Aviation Administration, all of which made criticalmistakes. Yet another investigation began as the year ended,and the FBI found itself in the embarrassing position ofhaving to remind some field offices that their top priorityshould be terrorism, while at the same time fending off sug-gestions that another agency similar to England’s MI-5 becreated to deal with domestic intelligence-gathering. Withalmost two dozen federal entities already collecting intelli-gence of various kinds, it is clear that channeling relevantinformation to one place—a so-called “fusion room”—isstill far from reality.
The year did witness the creation of a new super-agency,a Cabinet-level department whose work force of 170,000would come from the ranks of 22 agencies and take yearsto fully implement. The Department of Homeland Security,which represents the largest government overhaul indecades, would not include the FBI, CIA or NationalSecurity Agency, which many criticized as a serious omis-sion. Although most agree that the integration of federalagencies was necessary to speed and streamline the dis-semination of information and services, significant ques-tions and concerns remain. Just how will this newdepartment interact with the multitude of intelligence agen-cies, and with local law enforcement? Will pre-existingagency loyalties and priorities affect the interaction of theworkforce? As important, will the diminution of collectivebargaining rights for workers—an issue that delayed legis-lation to create the new agency—lead to deflated employeemorale? Can an agency with so much responsibility in sucha critical area afford to have employees that are unhappy?
Things remain murky on the legal front, although somepragmatic clarity was provided when Justice Departmentguidelines were amended in May to allow the FBI to usecommercial databases in investigations. Prior to the change,agents could not even use a common search engine likeGoogle to look for terrorist activity. In November a deci-sion by a special appellate panel of the Foreign IntelligenceCourt of Review validated the broad surveillance powersunder anti-terrorism laws passed in 2001. For federal lawenforcement officials, this decision razed what some called
Appendix—�—A53
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A53
A54—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
an “artificial barrier” between investigation and intelligencethat had deterred the sharing of information. Even prior tothe ruling, the CIA had begun increasing its presence at FBIfield offices.
At the local level, however, such barriers still exist, asdemonstrated in New York, where the NYPD asked afederal district court judge in September to lift 17-year-oldrestrictions that curtail police monitoring of political activ-ity. These restrictions require investigators to have specificinformation that a crime will be committed or is beingplanned before they can monitor such political activities.Such restrictions exist elsewhere, as in Seattle, but evenwhen these fetters are loosened, as was the case in Chicagolast year, police remain reluctant to use the authority.
If police needed any reminders, a number of arrests,accomplished with varying degrees of local input, servednotice that terrorist threats can take root and grow in one’sown backyard. Suspects with links to the al Qaeda terroristnetwork were rounded up in Portland, Seattle, Detroit andLackawanna, N.Y., while the arrest of one-time Chicagogang-banger Jose Padilla helped assure that the words“dirty bomb” would be added to the law enforcementlexicon for the foreseeable future.
Terror of a different, more conventional kind seizedthe nation’s attention in October, beginning with a seem-ingly random sniper shooting in a Maryland suburb ofWashington, D.C. Over the next three weeks, a total of 10people would die and 3 more would be wounded, all whileengaging in patterns and practices of everyday life. As thesprawling, complex investigation would later reveal, thespree began in effect in Washington state, spanning thou-sands of miles and going on to claim lives in Louisiana andAlabama as well as Maryland and Virginia. The investiga-tion that led to the arrests of John Allen Muhammad, 41,and John Lee Malvo, 17, inevitably focused attention on theability of law enforcement agencies at a variety of levels towork cooperatively, a task that was accomplished for themost part. It also focused attention on the difficulties policeconfront when sifting through thousands of tips, some ofwhich, in hindsight, would have proven to be valuable,while others turned out to be red herrings. Law enforcementused the three-week reign of terror as a test of local pre-paredness for handling emergencies, demonstrating yetagain that locals will be the first to respond when the publicfaces imminent danger. The killings also rekindled debateabout the usefulness of ballistic fingerprinting and theimportance of maintaining and sending information to thenation’s crime databases.
The Beltway sniper shootings left a number of criminalprofilers sporting egg on their faces, as some predictionsproved to be wildly off the mark. There were two suspects,not one; they were black, not white; they drove a darksedan, not a white van; they were out-of-state drifters, notlocal residents with mundane jobs.
Distinct from criminal profiling and its role in suchcrimes as the Beltway shootings, racial profiling still creptinto the year’s news in some jurisdictions, often with thefirst issuance and analysis of traffic-stop data. New Jerseyreluctantly made such data public in March, only to leaveofficials rattled when researchers found that black driverstended to speed more than whites on a certain stretchesof highway. Officials tried unsuccessfully to blame theresearchers for a flawed methodology, which includedusing teams to determine the race of motorists from morethan 26,000 photos taken of speeders and non-speedersalike. Even with many other localities releasing the firstanalyses of traffic-stop data, the once-heated rhetoric sur-rounding racial profiling was more muted in 2002 than ithad been in years—perhaps an outgrowth of 9/11.
It would be an understatement to say that law enforce-ment faces a challenge in the year ahead. Declining bud-gets, severe labor shortages, continuing terrorist threatsand, for some, resurgent Part I crime all combine to equalhard times. With local governments experiencing theirworst financial straits in decades, the resources are simplynot there to get up to speed. Personnel shortages remain asource of concern as officers continue to be called up forNational Guard and military reserve duty. And, to the con-sternation of some officials, local departments will alsohave to pick up the slack as the FBI divests itself of someformer responsibilities.
Law enforcement continues to be frustrated by local andregional computer systems, many representing large invest-ments of time and money, that fail to live up to expectationsand are difficult to use and maintain. Many major federaldatabases are antiquated and still cannot communicate witheach other in any meaningful way. While this is not a newproblem for law enforcement, it does take on a higher pri-ority in the aftermath of Sept. 11. This hodgepodge networkof information creates an acute vulnerability that will bedifficult to correct. Nor is the problem limited to computersystems; emergency radio communications in many areasare dire need of integration and improvements to their inter-operability, as a number of post-9/11 studies concluded.
That’s not to say that law enforcement isn’t better off nowthan it was 15 months ago. Agencies were able to put inimprovements with whatever meager resources were avail-able. Just as dangerous as a lack of resources, however, is alack of will. An attitude that “it can’t happen in our town”may be a luxury in which civilians naively indulge, but onethat the government and, by extension, the police cannotafford. A basic premise for the existence and legitimacy ofgovernment is its ability to protect its citizens. Has Americanlaw enforcement improved its level of prevention and pre-paredness? Yes. Is it enough to keep America safe? Not yet.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, December 15/31, 2002,Vol. XXVIII, Nos. 589, 590.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A54
2003 IN REVIEW
2003: A Year in Retrospect
Can Criminal Justice Tamethe “Monster” That’s Eating It?
“Terrorism,” in the estimation of Massachusetts PublicSafety Secretary Edward Flynn, “is the monster that atecriminal justice.” Combating this Hydra-like creature hascommandeered much of the national agenda in law enforce-ment, as local and federal agencies expend increasingamounts of time and money on detecting it, preventing itand responding to it.
All that attention notwithstanding, however, local lawenforcement in this country is still trying to define its rolein the larger scheme of things, particularly when it comes tointelligence gathering and sharing and sorting out inter-agency relationships. Add to this the changes that have beenoccurring at the federal level and, clearly, the whole field isin motion. Yet for all the activity, numerous reports issuedthis year have pointed to the fact that more than two yearsafter the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement andintelligence gathering agencies are still not sharing infor-mation to a degree that would prevent another attack.
Numerous examples underscored the nation’s vulnera-bility: weapons smuggled onto airplanes; an undetectedradiation device in a ship’s cargo container; undercoveragents carrying false identification who were able to getcircumvent all manner of security checks, to name just afew. While no level of preparedness offers an airtightguarantee of complete safety, it seems apparent thatthe country’s level of preparedness still leaves a lot to bedesired.
Despite the voracious appetite of this shape-shiftinggiant, the funds that are being devoted to addressing the ter-rorist threat remain unequal to the task at hand, particularlysince the added demand comes at a time when local budgetsare woefully stretched. Federal dollars have been slow to
reach local agencies, but it is also the method of fundingthat is troubling to many police executives. As in the late1980s and early ’90s, federal dollars are being funneledthrough the states. It is a method favored by Republicanadministrations—less bureaucracy at the top, more bureau-cracy at the bottom. This process, however, can turn localdepartments into competitors just when they should beworking together. To mitigate the problem, Massachusettsofficials implemented a policy requiring police departmentsto develop their plans and present them to the state as aregion. While this approach may not solve the problem ofregions that transcend state lines, it does require just thekind of cooperation that would be necessary in a disastersituation.
THE POLITICS OF FUNDING
To many officials, the issue of funding is bigger than simplyone of how much money there is, what it is being used forand how it is doled out. It is a question of fairness. Inone of the numerous reports issued this year on the nation’spreparedness—or lack of it—for a terrorist attack, a panelled by former Senator Warren Rudman, whose previousreport on terrorism foreshadowed the 9/11 attack, warnedthat funding allocations for homeland security that werenot based on vulnerability, as opposed to political consider-ations, would undermine public safety. His fears wereborne out as federal allocations were finally made, withNew York City receiving a $5-per-capita share of federalfirst-responder funds while Wyoming received $35 andNorth Dakota received $29. New York City Police
A55
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A55
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly called the federalformula “blind to the threats this country faces and blindto the consequences of an attack.” One can scarcelyblame him.
The federal funding that did get through the pipeline tolocal departments continues to be spent, for the most part,on emergency equipment, protective gear, voice communi-cations systems and data-sharing technology. The interop-erability of voice communications remains a problem. A“report card” issued in April by the Public Safety WirelessNetwork indicated that there is still a long way to go in thisarea despite improvements in some jurisdictions. One ofthe major stumbling blocks is the lack of sufficient radiofrequencies to accommodate public safety needs. Withtoo few to go around, agencies often find themselves com-peting for a place on the radio band. The other stumblingblock, of course, is money; communications upgradesare a very costly proposition. One agency, the ChesterfieldCounty, Va., Police Department spent approximately $70million to put in a state-of-the-art system. Outdated equip-ment, the lack of redundant systems, new systems thatare unable to communicate with old ones, and decades oflocalized implementation and purchasing have made a patch-work of systems that desperately need to be integrated.
SEARCHING FOR THE GRAIL
Interoperability failings also plague public safety data-shar-ing. An enormous amount of information currently exists(as imperfect as it may be) that law enforcement agencieshave a legal right to, but the process of retrieving the infor-mation from myriad non-networked systems of varyingages is simply too slow and painstaking. Law enforcementhas always known that criminals and terrorists are oftenable to exploit the boundaries of geography and jurisdic-tion. Finding the solution to this incompatibility problem—which can exist among agencies within an individuallocality, among neighboring localities, and among state andfederal agencies—has been a virtual search for the HolyGrail. Some law enforcement officials in Louisiana feltthey had found the grail in a database-linking system devel-oped by a software entrepreneur who practically donated itto a number of sheriff departments. Florida and more thana dozen other states hoped to find the grail in the Matrix, asystem whose parent company was able to identify five ofthe Sept. 11 hijackers before the federal authorities haddone so. The program has been in use for more than a yearin Florida where law enforcement officials sing its praise.As the year ended, however, a number of states have droppedout, with most citing the cost, but some worried aboutprivacy issues highlighted by other corporate rivals andcivil libertarians.
(The concerns of civil libertarians were also directedtoward the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorismlegislation that is due for reauthorization next year. Toaddress some of this concern, Attorney General John
Ashcroft took to the road in a series of appearances aimedat defending the expanded powers that the act gives lawenforcement. The country still appears to strongly supportthe act, with a poll taken in September indicating that71 percent think the government has either struck the rightbalance or has not gone far enough to fight terrorism.Nonetheless, the poll also found a slow, steady increase inthose who believe the legislation has gone too far—theirconcern fueled by fears that the powers of the Patriot Actwill be used on routine types of criminal activity rather thanjust terrorism.)
Early in the year a Terrorist Threat Integration Centerwas announced that would provide federal anti-terroristscreeners with “one-stop shopping.” As of August, how-ever, 12 separate terrorist watch lists maintained by at leastnine federal agencies had not yet been consolidated. As theyear wound down, and after much public criticism, officialssubsequently announced that the center would be opera-tional by December 1.
WHO’S WHO
Spotting potential terrorists has become an increasinglythorny problem as law enforcement practitioners wrestlewith the growing phenomenon of identity theft. With casesof identity theft already at alarming levels and continuing toskyrocket, the situation bodes ill for the cop on patrol aswell as for society at large. To the average officer, checkingidentity usually means scrutinizing a driver’s license. Thisritual, carried out thousands of times each day, remainsfraught with tension and peril. Since 9/11, driver’s licenseshave assumed added importance and many states are stilltrying to make their licenses more foolproof, and in somecases have also adopted measures to link licenses withinformation on the holder’s immigration status. In manyareas of the country, notably California, debate continues toswirl around the acceptance of Mexican ID cards—thematricula consular—as valid proof of identification forobtaining a driver’s license.
This form of ID is currently accepted in at least 13states. Some law enforcement officials support the policy asa practical matter, noting that illegal Mexican immigrantsin this country are already driving illegally anyway, thatsome identification is better than none, and that the use ofthe ID card will increase the number of insured drivers onthe road. Others criticize what they see as the security risksinherent in acceptance of the cards. According to the FBI,the matricula consular IDs have become “a major item onthe product list” of fraudulent documents around the world.They are easy to forge and there is some indication that theconsulates that issue them are not taking even cursory stepsto assure their validity. They are subject to corruption andMexican authorities do not keep track of those to whom theidentity cards are issued. Critics of their use also point tothe fact that the driver’s license is in essence a pass-key intoother forms of identification fraud.
A56—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A56
Disagreement over the acceptance of Mexican ID cardsis no less a factor among federal agencies as it is withinlocal and state law enforcement. While the JusticeDepartment remains firmly opposed to the practice on secu-rity grounds, the Treasury Department supports it as a wayof making it easier for illegal immigrants to put their moneyin American banks. The controversy over the ID cards issymptomatic of the schizophrenic attitude the country feelstowards illegal aliens. Federal officials estimate that thereare 8 million to 9 million undocumented immigrantscurrently living in the US, a stunning increase of between1 million and 2 million from the number estimated in 2000.The increase comes despite figures indicating that newarrivals in this country are dropping. What may be at workis a change in deportation policy, as the emphasis shiftsaway from Mexicans. Federal officials reported that in2002, 75 percent more undocumented immigrants fromArabic and Muslim nations were deported than the yearbefore—this despite a 16-percent decrease in the overallnumber of deportations of illegal immigrants.
In the first eight months of the year alone, theDepartment of Homeland Security raised the nation’s ter-rorism alert level to “orange” on four occasions. Initially,editorial cartoonists and late-night comics had a field daymaking jokes about duct tape and plastic window sheeting,but to local police it was no laughing matter, as they com-plained that the alerts were overly vague and put addedpressure on local overtime budgets that were already underenormous strain. The Department of Homeland Securitypromised to rethink the issue and by November it reportedthat the system had been fine-tuned, with a more refinedstream of information furnished to local agencies. Not allproblems were addressed or eliminated. Local officials inLas Vegas were furious when they were not informedabout photos of the city that turned up in a federal terroristinvestigation. And amid the clamor over the type ofinformation supplied to local law enforcement, left unan-swered was the question of how the information will get tothe public.
MEANWHILE, LIFE GOES ON
With all the re-sorting and redefinition of local and federalanti-terrorism roles, and the local resources that have had tobe devoted to anti-terrorism efforts, the day-to-day businessof law enforcement goes on undiminished: answering callsfor service, trying to prevent crime, and responding to andinvestigating those crimes already committed. Beyond theadded burden of counterterrorism responsibilities, manylocal and state agencies find themselves stretching budgetseven further as they pick up the slack in areas that thefeds have backed away from, especially drug enforcementand bank robbery investigations. While many FBI agentswere reassigned to anti-terrorism activities, the DrugEnforcement Administration has yet to get additional resour-ces, and the burden has been passed along to localities. In
June, the General Accounting Office reported that thenumber of FBI assigned to drugs had fallen by more thanhalf and that new investigations fell to only 310 by midyear.The White House drug policy office released data showingthat the 25 largest cities are the sites of 40 percent of alldrug-induced deaths and drug-related arrests. In drugenforcement as well as bank-robbery investigation, the fedsare offering “cooperation,” but what localities really needare resources, and little of that appears to be forthcoming.Bank robbery has soared in many localities, frequentlycommitted by perpetrators who defy conventional profiling.In the absence of federal assistance, localities were left toappeal to the banking industry to play a more vigorous andvigilant role in its protection.
DOING MORE WITH LESS
The monster was also on the prowl as local spending wasseriously curtailed amid historic budget deficits. Somesmall departments all but disappeared. Community policingefforts were scaled back and officers who had been dedi-cated to the purpose were redeployed to answer calls forservice. Officers were laid off, retirements continued toaccelerate, and recruit classes were rescheduled. In somelocalities, station houses were closed at night. To cope withdwindling resources, some departments, like Richmond,Va., gave volunteers more responsibility for such thingsas taking reports for nonviolent crime. New York Cityassigned rookies fresh from the academy to work in high-crime areas. While crime rates have not returned to the levelof the early 1990s, there is a nagging and uneasy sensationin the police community that things are not going as well asthey had been. Quality-of-life crime is on the rise in someareas, while other areas are experiencing significant anddisturbing increases in homicides. One leading policeexpert described it as “watching ‘broken windows’ inreverse.” All in all, it’s not a good sign.
With budgets stretched to the limit, a number of depart-ments have tried to recapture control of the personnel timelost to answering false alarms. The Salt Lake City PoliceDepartment implemented a policy in 2000—over vigorousopposition from private security companies—that mandatesverified response to alarms. The policy change resultedalmost immediately in a 90-percent reduction in policedispatches to alarms. It replicates an approach—and theresults—previously achieved by the Las Vegas MetropolitanPolice Department in the early ’90s. Yet taking on the pri-vate security industry and its burglar-alarm clientele can bea dicey proposition, as was demonstrated in Los Angeleswhen the police tried to tinker with the response policy andthe City Council stepped in to assert jurisdiction over theissue. Help in dealing with false alarms is available fromthe Justice Department’s COPS Office, which has produceda continuing series of guides on this and other issues,including the benefits and consequences of police crack-downs, financial crimes against the elderly, and check and
Appendix—�—A57
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A57
A58—�—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement
credit-card fraud. The problem-oriented guides currentlycover more than 20 topics, with more on the way.
During the course of 2003, public safety personnelhave been confronted with blizzards and hurricanes, firesand floods, computer network hackers, a major powerblackout that blanketed the Northeast and Midwest,heightened anti-terrorism alerts, patrol cars that explodeand body armor that doesn’t stop bullets—and all thewhile dealing with the day-to-day business of policing.
Law enforcement personnel must be prepared to handledisasters of all types, both natural and man-made. Thatincludes a terrorist attack, for, as Shakespeare’s Hamletobserved: “If it be not now, yet it will come. The readinessis all.”
We are still not ready.
Source: From Law Enforcement News, December 15/31, 2003, Vol.XXIX, Nos. 611, 612.
Appendix-Sullivan (Ency) Vol II.qxd 11/16/2004 10:12 PM Page A58