This is a subject that I have spent a lot of time thinking about and trying to understand. I work in the CI community and as such, work with most of the federal law enforcement agencies who in turn work with, or at least are supposed to work with, local law enforcement. There have been many instances of this cooperation working effectively: April 19, 1995, an Oklahoma state trooper was able to arrest Timothy McVeigh because of a traffic stop. May 31, 2003, a major domestic terrorist on the FBI Ten Most Wanted List, Eric Robert Rudolph, was arrested by a local patrolman. April 4, 1980, a very dangerous terrorist organization, Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional (FALN), suffered a major setback when several of its members were arrested by patrolmen in Evanston, Illinois. (Eack, 2008) The problem is that the priorities of State and Local Law Enforcement do not often line up with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). National intelligence priorities also dictate the need for a clearance and a “need to know” to get access to classified information, further limiting who can see it and what data can be shared. Unfortunately there is no way to know how many times a failure to coordinate and share information has cost lives and property. Getting back to the question of how should State and Local Law Enforcement be utilized? I think they are very effectively utilized right now but could be better. The improvement of communication since 9/11, with the creation of the fusion centers, is a great step in the right direction. My recommendations would be mainly focused on the sharing of intelligence, both up and down. This is a very similar problem to the conflict between HUMINT collectors and analysts. HUMINT collectors talk to sources and collect intel but if they don’t know what information leadership cares about, and therefor what analysts are writing about, they don’t know what questions to ask. The same goes for local law enforcement, we don’t know what we don’t know. Local law enforcement could have exactly the information we need but if we don’t know, we can’t ask. I would ensure that at least one person in every police station had a clearance, best option is to have a trained cleared intel analyst embedded. There could be a trained DHS analyst, whose job it was to stay up on current intel and national intelligence priorities. He could be on the “ground floor” to know what kind of intel the cops needed, and work with the SSO to get it released, and what kind of intel the cops had that would be useful to national intelligence agencies. With this, national intelligence could more effectively leverage the power and knowledge of local law enforcement and pass down the only intelligence that is most needed and effective.
References:
Eack, Kevin. “State and Local Fusion Centers: Emerging Trends and Issues.” Homeland Security Affairs, Proceedings of the 2008 Center for Homeland Defense and Security Annual Conference (April 2008). https://www.hsaj.org/articles/130
Logan, K. G., & Moore, G. (2010). Homeland security and intelligence. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
Novak, Justin. " WEEK 4: ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR." American Public University System. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2016. <https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/333899/page/ff1feb4b-0ea5-43b6-9aac-f90c37e58bbf>.
dqbnez
w4fr2.docx
0
