The introduction to intelligence-led policing and how it has effected modern policing in the United States
This study identifies Intelligence led policing by the acronym IPL. It is a radical policing model which began in the United Kingdom.
It is an intelligence-based policing method whereby law enforcement operations are guided by crime analysis techniques, data collection and accurate interpretation of events based on foreknowledge within a given crime environment.
Legal and security scholars attempt to define intelligence–led policing based on their respective views. However, it appears that there is yet to be a globally accepted definition of the concept of ILP since its inception because of its complex and dynamic nature (Lyman, 2010).
The United States accords priority to national security. Policy makers tend to believe that a “discreet” policing strategy is essential in revealing “clandestine” high-profile organized crimes.
Modern policing approaches inspire the development of a new format and application process that assumes an entirely different dimension. They lead to the research for new ideas on the law enforcement mechanisms.
This study observes the need for new realistic changes in policing methods in order to eliminate the inadequacies and challenges of former surveillance methods.
Policy makers underscore the need for innovations and legal frameworks to deal with criminal activities in the contemporary period (Osterburg & Ward, 2010).
How the events of 9/11 and post 9/11 led to the inception intelligence-led policing in the United States. The role of intelligence-led policing in the United Kingdom and how it influences intelligence led policing in the United States
The 9/11 terrorist attacks revealed new security challenges that appeared to be beyond the capacity of the policing innovation of previous decades. Policy makers and intelligence experts arrived at the decision that the nature of criminal activities had become complex. This aspect required a new era of intelligence–led policing.
The ILP as a policing model utilizes assessment and risk management approaches. The post 9/11 security study led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the US (Rangel, 2010).
The terrorist aggression against the US government and authorities oversaw the need for countries to unite against criminal activities.
World states condemned the terrorist act and called for enforcement bodies to formulate global collaboration efforts to enable sharing of intelligence and data regarding terrorism and other crime issues.
This paper suggests that this global partnership foster an environment of collection of significant data relating to identification of potential security threats, and information sharing with international security agencies. Policing strategists and experts agreed on the need to create efficient crime analysis processes.
However, the US and her allies in the fight against global terrorism had to look for cost effective and efficient intelligence led policing. Amy Zegart in her book Spying Blind, revealed how prolonged organizational challenges prevented the FBI from exploiting opportunities to prevent the 9/11 attack (Thompson, 2012).
Jerry Radcliffs in his book Intelligence Led Policing (2008) propounded the 3 -1 model of ILP. He analyzed this model into three basic units which include crime intelligence analysis, decision making and criminal environments. In practical terms, these three basic units are encapsulated in the 3-I formation model that stands for “interpret, influence and impact”.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution features in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits against the formulation of laws that negate the free affiliation of US citizens to religious organizations and freedom of expression. The statute allows citizens to exercise peaceful assembly and to freely express their grievances.
The Fourth Amendment to the US laws forbids against illegal searches and seizures of the property of citizens of the US. It dictates that the police provide a search warrant as a requisite measure to any search.
This evaluation shows the challenges that the US government faces in light of upholding the law in an environment of complex terrorism difficulties. The US and other world states ought to uphold the rights of their citizens but at the same time prevent terrorism occurrences.
Terrorists may exploit the law to safeguard themselves from prosecution. For instance, a criminal may obtain a court order to restrain the police from searching or seizing equipments meant for criminal activities.
He can also continue to seek for support from his accomplices using the law because the statutes uphold the freedom of assembly and speech.
Intelligence led policing is a surveillance measure that is founded on evaluation, risk assessment and establishment of ways on how to manage and prevent criminal acts from occurring. Intelligence officers uphold the responsibility of managing the initiative.
The US and UK governments developed the approach in 1990. Law researchers in both countries agreed on a process of reducing disagreements among law enforcement, intelligence and police units. Recent threats and terrorist attacks in the US led to a re-evaluation of the concept.
Other world states also embraced the mechanism. Intelligence led policing may be a complex initiative in light of recent security trends. It improves conformity of law enforcement units to regulations. Intelligence led policing in the US must be guided by compliance to the First and Fourth amendments to the US Constitution.
Government units can neither conduct illegal nor prevent citizens or immigrants from exercising their freedom of worship. They must work closely with the community to achieve their objectives (Yunker, 2010).
The connection between intelligence, community, and problem oriented policing
Unlike the community process of law enforcement, intelligence-led policing does not entirely depend on the community to determine sensitive and delicate crime situations.
Due to reduced police presence in the community setting, people tend to uphold the idea that visual policing enhances efficient use of resources, and is more effective in the crime reduction exercise.
Community intelligence policing relies heavily on the society for intelligence information and inputs that serve as a guide for intelligence operations. Nevertheless, this paper notes that the resources available to the local police are often minimal at the community level.
Osterburg & Ward (2010 P. 27) describe a problem oriented policing as “ a policing strategy that involves the identification and evaluation of particular crime and disorder challenges in order to create an effective response strategy in conjunction with ongoing assessment”.
This paper links various types of crimes against humanity to be the direct cause of the destruction of lives and valuable properties. Surveillance strategies focus more on the nature of policing rather than its effects.
Osterburg & Ward (2010) further demonstrate that radical measures in policing methods may replace the outdated crime-driven standard model of surveillance approach with a strategic monitoring system.
The change may require that the US government equips the policing organization at this level with adequate resources needed to effectively deal with both small and large scale civil-oriented crimes like armed robbery, burglary, homicide, drug and human trafficking and kidnapping.
Intelligence led policing at the municipal level and the massive New York City Police Department Intelligence Unit
The US government formed the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1845 with about 34,000 uniformed officers under its payroll.
The NYPD adopted an aggressive motto in Spanish ‘Fidelis ad mortem’ which when translated into English means ‘faithful unto death.’ Phillip Banks currently heads the NYPD. He holds the capacity of Chief of Department.
The NYPD is known to be the largest municipal police organization in the United States with critical roles of legal implementation and investigation within the five units of New York City.
This paper suggests that it may be the oldest police unit in the US. Security analysts may use its model as a basis for creation of new policing systems.
The NYPD has a broad spectrum of policing responsibilities which include Emergency Service Unit, K-9 harbour patrol, air support, bomb disposal, counter- terrorism and criminal intelligence.
This paper underscores the idea that the NYPD is a police unit created for effective municipal policing. The New York City Transit Police and New York City Housing Authority Police Department are fully integrated into the NYPD.
The NYPD proves to be an important tool that enhances the success of intelligence–led policing at the municipal level. Intelligence-led policing at the municipal standard may be equated to the ILP at the community level.
Their mode of operation uses the same principles which are mostly based on sourcing intelligence information from the community.
They depend on inputs and information provided by the people in order to determine suitable strategies to employ in dealing with a particular crime. The people depend on the police for information on how to secure their lives and property.
Constitutional implications that could result in misconduct with regard to ILP
In 1791, the First Amendment Bill was adopted by the US government which comprised of the Bill of Rights. Under this amendment, the government of the United States guaranteed liberty to its people to exercise their rights, freedom of speech and upheld the authority of the press.
However, in 1833 there was a situation that had to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The case was presided over by Chief Justice Marshall. The judge had to decide whether the Bill of Rights also applied to the states. The police usually perpetrated massive human right violations at the state level.
Disappointingly, the judge refrained from upholding the Bill of Rights at the state level stating that the founding fathers of the United States did not recommend that the Bill of Rights should equally apply to the states.
Marshall’s ruling led to confusion over the interpretation of the law. The US Constitution seemed to state a particular subject which could be interpreted otherwise.
Law enforcement agencies, public policymakers, and the judiciary usually relate issues of national security with the repression of the freedom of speech of citizens or the press.
The Bill of Rights may continuously be disregarded due to issues of national security. Apparently, the state concentrates on empowering the police and other arms of law enforcement.
The history of the United States’ internal affairs showed that the Bill of Rights had no relevance at the state level. In 1868, James Madison passed the Fourth Amendment into law. The Congress adopted it. Public observers believed it was a step in the right direction to reinstate the ideals of human rights.
The Bill was meant to restore and entrench the liberal philosophies of the United States system of governance that was embedded on the freedom of speech and the press.
However, the state agencies did not comprehensively adopt the Fourth Amendment. They had also disregarded the First Amendment. Subsequently, the Bill of the Espionage Act was also signed into law in the year 1917 prior to the First World War.
This law employed authoritarian philosophies in the way in which the state executed it. The Espionage Act authorized secret service police units to arrest and prosecute 2000 people that had condemned the war. Eventually, 900 of them were convicted.
A relevant case to this study involved a filmmaker in 1976 who directed a movie that highlighted British atrocities against her colonies. The filmmaker was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Experts on constitution matters noted that the First Amendment was not accorded any preference in light of national security. Finally, in a book, The CIA and the intelligence cult, co-written by Victor Machetti, a former CIA agent and John Marks, a journalist, certain accusations were made against the CIA.
The book pointed out that a number of operations carried out by the CIA did not fulfil the requirements of the United States. The CIA filed a case against the publishers demanding the withholding of the publication of the book.
The agency complained that a particular part of its content was sensitive to national security issues. According to the doctrine of ‘no prior restrain’, the powers of the First Amendment seemed limited even before their actual implementation.
How police officers can reduce possible intelligence violations through training
Intelligence-led policing continues to gain worldwide acceptance in many countries in addition to the US and UK. Certain experts hold the view that the model can be effective in policing across the world.
However, while policy makers and police organizations wholly recommend this model as the most appropriate in the modern era, they should also recognize that it is a system developed and operated by humans. It cannot, therefore, be devoid of flaws (Kinzer, 2009).
In the execution of intelligence-led policing operations, a scenario can be created whereby the police wittingly or unwittingly violate the law. Intelligence police agents may exercise uncontrolled authority that may lead to unethical intrusion into people’s privacy, and human rights abuses (Landsburg, 2010).
Therefore, recruits into intelligence organizations ought to undergo specialized training for a particular period. The law enforcement hierarchy should have a system in place that oversees intelligence operations and develops mechanisms to control misconduct by police agents.
Additionally, a continuous learning process mechanism and regular orientation can be vital for proper knowledge development in ILP. In the organizational hierarchy of intelligence policing, inexperienced intelligence officers should be made to undergo a continuous vetting process.
The state should enact a suitable feedback process whereby intelligence agents report to their superiors while the superiors report to the presidency or senate (Edwards, 2010).
The importance and need for continuation of ILP
This research cannot overemphasize the need for the continuation of ILP. Terrorism activities and crimes against humanity continue to cause deaths across the globe. Anti-terrorist units could have prevented the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks had they employed efficient intelligence led policing strategies.
Intelligence policing is no longer considered a specialized duty reserved for security analysts or intelligence units. Intelligence-led policing is vital for the effective functioning of problem-oriented, community and municipal policing structures.
The continued and sustained practice of ILP may not only guarantee national security but also ensure crime control and prevention at all levels of society. The state needs to allocate adequate resources to technological and research oriented ILP.
A terrorist usually exploits any opportunity to commit a crime in a state system that contains security gaps. ILP offers a new integrated dimension in the fight against crime. It gathers information about terrorism activities from the citizens. A terrorist thrives among people in the society.
They socialize and, use local facilities and, therefore, the people who may give accurate accounts about them comprise of people who live with or near their residences. The US government ought to adopt legal protection mechanisms to safeguard citizens who provide crucial information about criminal activities.
Privacy concerns in IPL
Security information extracted from any source ought to be handled with absolute secrecy. This aspect is necessary in order to prevent a situation where criminals access intelligence information and use it to outdo the police.
Intelligence reports or data should not be made available to unauthorized persons, or people who may not be connected directly or indirectly to intelligence organizations.
In recent times, Edward Snowden, a contract employee at the National Security Agency (NSA) provided data on the Agency’s broad-scale information collation on Americans, known as Top Secret Documents which he copied into a USB drive. The secret military networks had banned the use of the device.
Security information, data and intelligence equipment of any form should not be exposed to external systems (Christensen & Overdorf, 2011). The US government should create punitive measures against government officials who divulge security information to outside sources.
Conclusion
The ILP system is an innovation in policing that has proved to be very effective in combating crime in the society. The state must conduct additional research in order to develop new knowledge in the fight against terrorism. It must also create relevant legal mechanisms that uphold the First and Fourth amendments.
The state must fight crime within the law. One of the ways that the state may employ in the fight against crime includes community policing (Art & Jervis, 2011). The government must create trust within its citizens in order to actualize intelligence led policing.
It ought to harmonize its monitoring and evaluation structures and allocate adequate resources in the fight against crime. Intelligence units must also integrate appropriate communication mechanisms to allow citizens to provide information without revealing their identity.
This effort requires adoption of technology based policing. Coded language ought to be comprehensively investigated especially internet based information.
This paper underscores the need for governments to create technological surveillance structures. The government must create a unique unit within the police hierarchy to track external communications.
The 9/11 attacks may not have happened without coordination and communication by the terrorists with the outside world. The US government may also employ tracking devices to detect explosives and bomb making materials in all transport systems.
References
Art, R., & Jervis, R. (2011). International Politics: Enduring concepts and contemporary issues (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Longman.
Christensen, C., & Overdorf, M.(2011). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business, 78(2), 67-76.
Edwards, S. (2010). Left Behind: Latin America and the False Promise of Populism. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kinzer, S. (2009). Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Northern California, NC: Times Books.
Landsburg, S. (2010). Fair Play: What Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values and the Meaning of Life. New York, NY: Free Press.
Lyman, M. D. (2010).Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science (6th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (2010). Criminal Investigation: A Method for Reconstructing the Past (6th ed.). New York, NY: Anderson Publishing.
Rangel, C. (2010). The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. New York. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Thompson, A. (2012). Strategy: Core Concepts and Analytical Approaches (6th ed.). Web.
Yunker, J. (2010). Economic Justice: The Market Socialist Vision. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc.