Enforcement's Role In Homeland Security Intelligence

Many of the current differences we see today between the federal, state and local law enforcement intelligence stemmed from prior to the September 11 attack. Prior to this attack many states lacked a robust intelligence capability, as it was the primary role of federal agencies to protect the United States from both foreign and domestic terrorist threats. In an attempt to mitigate future attacks of this nature state, local, and

While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one, centralized agency, securing the homeland involves the cooperation and collaboration of many, different agencies and organizations ranging from local law enforcement to national agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Each of these agencies contributes to the development of homeland security intelligence. By carefully analyzing and commenting on the objectives, tasks, strengths, weaknesses, and roles of each agency, a larger picture emerges regarding the capabilities and limitation of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts.

Homeland Security is characterized by crime control being the primary police function. It is best achieved through a collective effort by all law enforcement agencies. One of the strategies being used is Intelligence Led Policing. This strategy is not new, it can be traced back to the British is the 1990’s (Bailey, 2011). Intelligence Led Policing is an approach to crime that deals with all crimes and threats including terrorism. This approach is unique because it is threat driven instead of incident driven. It also is a long term approach and focuses on causes and conditions that add to crime through a collection of data.

There has been much less consideration in the role of state and local government, which play a major role in preventing and responding to a terrorist attack. Community policing and other federal agencies can share many strategies such as transforming the agencies to take on new mission should be part of the homeland security strategy because fighting local crimes is the more effective approach in dealing fear and social disorder. When law enforcement are being trained toward a national role in homeland

Before 9/11, law enforcement possessed the primary responsibility for combating terrorism in the United States. Law enforcement relationships and responsibilities have continued to be evaluated and redefined at all levels of government. They will evolve because of the continuous changing nature of terrorist threats, prevention needs and transforming operations and strategies. Terrorist groups continue to advance and pose threats in new ways each day. In the fourteen years since the worst terrorist attack on United States territory, citizens have undoubtedly become more cautious and accustomed to the inconveniences that result from the precautions and added security law enforcement agencies are now having to provide.

Since the last major terrorist casualty, the Department of Homeland Security has been investing billions of dollars every year (Office of Management and Budget, 2010) in order to facilitate the access of local law enforcement agencies to elaborate the necessary standard operating plans, training skills, risk assessments, response plans, and periodically update of mutual aid agreements. While the operational priorities are set up, the administration of the aforementioned funds do not necessary respond to equality formulas of disbursement after jurisdictional size have not been a determinant for the perceived status of risk probability. The financial allocation of funds is directed towards the highest risk entities even if their jurisdiction does not surpass more crowded jurisdictions (Randol, 2012, p. 307). Evidence of cooperation from

State and local law enforcement have a very big role to play in homeland security intelligence. They are the front line offense and defense since the climate in the United States changed on September 11, 2001. It could be suggested that the key for state and local law enforcement to be successful in the homeland intelligence game is to be employed more frequently and to be kept better informed of what the federal agencies are aware of with regard to intelligence and threats.

In the post 9/11 environment, one of the key issues for law enforcement is meeting the threats of all hazards and crimes (Carter, 2010). Officers must now worry about terrorism in addition to traditional crime. With this additional requirement, officers must now have access to more information, as well as the means to send it through the intelligence process. Management is now responsible for supervising a new task, providing policies to outline officers’ roles within that task, and ensuring proper functioning of the entire process (Carter, 2010). Should these officers and managers not understand their new function, or should they be unable to obtain the tools, resources, and information sharing cooperation to do so, the new environment then proves to provide a complex task and insufficient means to meet it – therefore holding them back.

In 1995, Kevin Jack Riley and Bruce Hoffman published their study Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Preparedness to examine the issues and problems state and local law enforcement agencies faced while dealing with the threat of terrorism in the United States. More specifically, researchers sought to identify how agencies at those two different levels perceived the terrorist threat in the United States, as well as learning how those agencies manage the threat of terrorism and plan and organize their response to actual incidents (Riley & Hoffman, 1995). In order to collect the data needed, the study was broken down into three separate research phases: (1) a national survey of state and local law enforcement agencies designed to assess how those law enforcement agencies perceive the threat of terrorism in the United States and to identify potential anti- and counter-terrorism programs currently used by those jurisdictions; (2) the selection of ten locations, chosen after completion of survey, as case studies to examine in detail how different jurisdictions have adapted to the threat of terrorism and to explain further the anti- and counter-terrorism programs used by those jurisdictions; and (3) the identification of programs used by state and local law enforcement agencies to counter potential future threats along with the development of a prospective future research agenda (Riley & Hoffman, 1995).

The tragic events of September 11, 2011 have changed the way Americans lives their every day lives. Especially, with members of the law enforcement community. Guidelines have been implemented in order to better prepare law enforcement agencies in handling suspected terrorist and potential targets for attacks. Nationwide agencies have been created to better serve local law enforcement agencies investigate potential terroristic threats, and alleviate any unsolved questions of what is required to better protect the security of the U.S. Due to terrorist attacks that have occurred across the world and in the U.S., law enforcement agencies and citizens now have the proper resources to help prevent future terrorist attacks.

The events of September 11, which are partly associated with errors in the work of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), raised the issue of reforming the agency both in the countries of the old democracy and in the countries of the new democracy. Most of the discussions about reforming the work of the special services in the fight against terrorism are reduced to the exchange of information between the structures of power. However, it is only by understanding the nature of the tasks of the special services in combating terrorism that it is possible to develop the necessary "architecture" or organizational structure suitable for the solution of the task. The task of the special services at this stage

In order to utilize State and Local Law Enforcement in law enforcement operations (LEO) we need to look no further than the intelligence fusion center (IFC). It is here that information can be centralized, analyzed, fused and pushed out to the intelligence community (IC) for use in any situation, as long as it is relevant to the investigation. As a basis for this, in 2003, the Department of Justice drafted the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) in order to guide law enforcement agencies to adopt intelligence-led policing as their primary means of operation. (Dept. of Justice, 2003)

The purpose of this paper is to define and give as much detail information about Homeland Security in the United States and law enforcement and how they are integrated. I hope after reading this paper you will be well informed on the duties and responsibilities of these agencies. People have always lived in fear but with the help of these agencies we will no longer have to live in fear. I will try to give as much detail information as possible to help with any problems or situation that might come up. Homeland Security in the United States and law enforcement have extensive research skills and knowledge in serving and protecting citizens and other important groups and agencies. Homeland

The Secret Service, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies have similar challenges when fighting computer crimes and terrorism due to the recent development of computer technologies as well as constant threats. Federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies have different responsibilities that work independently instead of on the same level, which can make it difficult to coordinate and cooperate to fight against computer crimes and terrorist threats. Local law enforcement agencies deal with more challenges than federal law enforcement agencies, which includes getting the necessary training, equipment, updated criminal codes designed to complement current enforcement efforts, and resources. The lack of training in computer crimes for most of local law enforcement agencies is a serious issue when trying to prosecute computer crimes. Untrained patrol officers can easily destroy computer evidence by accident, and cause the criminal to go free because there is no evidence linking the computer crime to the criminal. Local law enforcement agencies aren’t capable of deciphering encrypted computer evidence as federal law enforcement agencies are due to the fact that they don’t receive enough funding to get equipment to read encrypted evidence. The constant changes in computer technology have hindered legislative attempts to pass laws that are current and can apply it to the use of these new technologies. Computer crimes would be

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement