CHAPTER 1.docx

**CHAPTER 1** **Introduction** Following the cataclysmic events of September 11, many people asked themselves, "How did this happen?" Despite incidents such as the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, most Americans have viewed terrorism as a problem somewhere else, such a...

**CHAPTER 1** **Introduction** Following the cataclysmic events of September 11, many people asked themselves, "How did this happen?" Despite incidents such as the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, most Americans have viewed terrorism as a problem somewhere else, such as in Israel, Northern Ireland, or Rwanda. People in the United States have always taken pride in the immense individual rights and freedoms they possess, as these are the fundamental premises upon which the country was built. In fact, Americans have generally disapproved of extensive domestic efforts that intrude on their day-to-day activities, preferring, for example, express check-ins at the airport over complete baggage checks. Prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, neither the average American citizen nor the government was particularly concerned with the prospect of international terrorism on US soil. This was the case even though a number of reports, such as the Hart--Rudman Commission on National Security in the Twenty-First Century, had concluded that the U.S. government had no organizational capacity to either prevent or respond to terrorist threats. Moreover, a 1999 government report intricately profiled the leading terrorists and terrorist groups around the world, specifying the kinds of risks that existed, noting how future acts might occur, and demonstrating that the U.S. intelligence community was not completely blind to the potential threat of attack. However, in the wake of the destruction of September 11, Americans are now faced with a sense of insecurity and vulnerability that will have an impact on the delicate balance the country has always known between order and individual freedoms. This affects all aspects of public and private life, including transforming the nature and function of how we view and conduct [law enforcement](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-f6182219-cd59-580f-90cd-88e86985717f), which is the subject of this book. Federal legislations, particularly the [**USA PATRIOT Act of 2001**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-43c6f4fd-77ab-584a-90a5-3ef1128950b4), the [**Homeland Security Act of 2002**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-b5fbe488-99dd-5167-8bcf-41d33762c5ae), the [**USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-f256072b-5727-5b89-8f82-0a3219cc9089), the [**PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-8048cc6f-dc72-5139-980a-03bab44819a9), and the [**USA Freedom Act of 2015**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-1328ba50-e21e-5bd3-8107-a77cd486c5e9), have formally acknowledged this shift by significantly widening the investigative authority of law enforcement agencies across the country. Despite federal, state, and local inquiries, law enforcement and criminal justice experts argue that blame for the failure to anticipate the September 11 attacks cannot be attributed to any single agency. Given the complexity of both the intelligence and law enforcement communities and their many overlapping jurisdictions, it was inevitable that key information would slip through the cracks between agencies. The inability to analyze and link critical information across (or even within) an agency is called [**linkage blindness**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-1fa1f775-6383-5bc0-a0f2-8e3eda35d912) and will be a major theme throughout this book. In part, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and its reauthorization in 2005 were government responses to the problem of linkage blindness by organizing diffuse and autonomous law enforcement agencies and strengthening the government's abilities to obtain information. Stephen Flynn (2001) provides a useful illustration of this critical law enforcement problem, referring to the arrival of a hypothetical ship with questionable cargo and a crew on an intelligence watch list for potential terrorist ties: Although Flynn was referring to linkage blindness prior to the governmental reorganization after September 11, this problem continues to exist. Because of the elusive nature of terrorism and the apparent ease with which terrorists can slip across U.S. borders, federal to local agencies are requesting increased law enforcement investigative authority. The September 11 attacks offered evidence that, even with a threat of transnational origins, the front-line responders are local law enforcement and fire departments. Thus, terrorism is not simply within the domain of the federal government and military. What has been exposed is the need to build adequate mechanisms of information sharing across levels of government in an area that is traditionally rife with issues of territoriality and rivalry. This need led to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest government reorganization in over 50 years. Clearly extremist terrorist groups seeking to oppose or disrupt American government and quality of life will always be a federal national security issue, but as even later events such as the Boston marathon bombings and San Bernadino shootings would also show us, it will always be the local police that are the first to respond when terror strikes. The threat of the radicalized lone wolf capable of causing serious harm is also a new reality and concern of the local law enforcement agency from the standpoint of early detection and prevention. These themes will be gradually developed throughout this introductory text as the reader learns about the many diverse aspects of the law enforcement function and structure in society. **The Police Function: Social Control and the Use of Force** Most people are relatively familiar with the general operations of the three major components of the criminal justice process---police, courts, and corrections---as well as the important roles of federal and state governments in creating and modifying laws through the legislative process. What we are often unable to answer, however, is what it is about these institutions that makes them work as agents of social control? What is it about them that works (or does not work) in achieving order in society? [**[Informal social control]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-452c71ac-ddc6-5d03-8c66-26bde1e96d72) refers to the influences of parents, families, peers, and the community in training individuals about the norms, rules, and customs of a locality in an attempt to compel conformity (the process by which they do so is called [**[socialization]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-f310deb3-a9e6-549d-b88c-da680bcf8baa)). Informal social control occurs when the influential party reacts to [**[deviance]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-114a6dd0-682c-5984-943f-3dbbdda214ab), or violations of social rules. Deviance refers to a range of actions, from something minor, such as getting a tattoo, all the way up to acts of murder and rape. If an act of deviance occurs and a law is broken, as in the case of murder, it is the responsibility of [**[formal social control]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-1edb3dd3-4a22-5640-b282-cd6c4065c93b) agents, such as law enforcement officers, to enforce the law. Many criminal justice practitioners and scholars have argued that the use of force is the principal way in which order is achieved in society: "Institutions of law and government maintain order and control deviant behavior primarily through force, through the forcible apprehension and incarceration of others". Law enforcement usually is at the forefront when it comes to the application of force and apprehension. According to Manning (1977), *policing* literally means "controlling, monitoring, tracking, and altering, if required, public conduct". Given the many competing expectations of the police, Klockars (1985) has argued that the meaning of *police* can be found in what they are permitted to do rather than on what exactly is done in a given situation. To Klockars (1985), the potential to use force is core to the concept of policing. Nevertheless, an officer writing traffic citations is still a police officer, as is another speaking at a community meeting, though, in these examples, force is not an element of the policing function. How, then, can [**coercive force**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-874a0643-0072-51bd-8e7c-a04dbd445037) be the defining feature of policing? Egon Bittner's (1980) classic work argues that it is the fact that the police are authorized to use force in a number of social situations in response to a variety of social problems that forms the basis of our interactions with police. Thus, while a citizen may be equally capable of writing traffic citations, only a police officer will be able to force an individual to comply, if necessary (e.g., if the vehicle's operator had failed to pull over, and so on). Similarly, community residents often involve the police in community meetings discussing even minor quality-of-life issues (e.g., noise disturbances, littering), because they will ultimately be able to resort to force if all other options of problem resolution are not successful. Although the importance of force in defining policing is clear, it alone cannot achieve the public order for which the police are held accountable. Because the police cannot possibly be omnipresent, punishing all deviations from the law, there must also be a commitment and willingness on the part of the majority of citizens to respect the laws and institutions of society. Without this [**culture of lawfulness**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-71725cb7-beb7-54fd-b6b9-daad6e8d5d10), law enforcement would be inundated and unable to carry out its functions effectively (Godson 2000). To achieve this, the average citizen must recognize the legitimacy of the law and its enforcement as an effective means of controlling the behavior of all members of society, from the richest government official to the poorest laborer. Much of this respect will come from the degree to which the government operates within the rule of law and its officials or enforcers do not make decisions arbitrarily, a topic we turn to now. When the government is seen as operating fairly and justly by the majority of citizens, it is said to have [**legitimacy**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-8d5d11c1-16bf-5a81-9646-75745352df46). The rule-enforcing environment, or legal context, can include such factors as the fair enforcement of rules, the legitimacy of rules, and the role of authority (Grant 2006). The important work of Tyler (1990) sets the stage for understanding the importance of the legitimacy concept to policing in the twenty-first century. Voluntary compliance with the law may itself be tied to the degree to which the criminal justice system and its respective components are viewed as legitimate and deserving of compliance (Tyler 1990). Such perceptions of fair treatment, or [**procedural justice**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-a37fc010-9af5-59ba-aa79-5d6d5f4a6535), are the product of the day-to-day decisions that individual officers make during their interactions with citizens. Building police legitimacy covers far more than simply improving police/community relations. It requires that there be a level of transparency and accountability that is felt and understood by the average citizen. Later chapters will look at such innovations as civilian review boards, dashboard and body armor cameras, and other strategies that seek to increase citizen comfort with, and understanding of, the actions of their local police agency. **Policing Within the Rule of Law: The Challenges of Discretion** Agents at every level of the criminal justice system have a significant level of individual [**[discretion]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-7cf0b297-979f-5e41-a0b0-504c98487640), particularly law enforcement officers. Agents have discretion when they have the freedom to make decisions---legal or otherwise---based on their own judgment and they are not bound by formal, inflexible rules. It was in the 1950s, when the American Bar Foundation (ABF) conducted the first field observations of police work, that the central role of discretion in law enforcement was first "discovered" (Walker 1992). Many studies have since validated the significance of discretion in the criminal justice system, but at no point has it ever been officially "recognized" with legislation acknowledging its functional role in police decision making. Matters such as arrest and charge, for example, are subject to varying degrees of police discretion, as are issues relating to the collection and presentation of evidence. Officers do not receive "official" training on how to use discretion, but legal factors provide a guide in some instances. For the most part, discretion exists to ensure that agents within the criminal justice system are free to respond to the particular circumstances and challenges presented by each new case and each new crime. Because each offense is different, flexibility is needed to ensure that justice prevails. Moreover, it is not possible for officers to enforce every violation they encounter, making discretion a practical and necessary reality in law enforcement. In many instances, however, the decisions of individual police officers are not transparent or open to scrutiny. The police are not monitored 24 hours a day or required to justify themselves every time they stop someone on the street or in their car. As a consequence, there is a danger that agents within the criminal justice system may make decisions that are not in full accordance with the law or that infringe upon the rights of suspects, offenders, or prisoners. How can we be sure, then, that two individuals who committed similar crimes would not be treated differently by separate officers or because of [**[extra-legal factors]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-e29282ae-1cb2-5c80-8874-7daaebeddf0e) (factors outside of the legal parameters of an offense), such as differences in skin color or socioeconomic status? It is because of the perception of inequality in law enforcement that discretion can play a divisive role in the community. Discretion can be the result of numerous community, organizational, and individual influences outside of the formal legal codes, a subject we will return to in [[Chapter 5]](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/39fb4e10-f119-11ec-aeb3-6fc54ef3c3e6.xhtml#aade93e4abacc59a2ceb8e9e0ac5c9b7). This idea is the underlying rationale for body-worn cameras that will be discussed later. Although there is no way to ensure that discretion is exercised fairly in every case, principal decisions made by individuals within the criminal justice system are meant to be governed by a set of ideals known as the [**rule of law**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-97c1735c-8da0-5440-9cad-61639b582bab). Developed over many years through case law, statutes, and scholarly writings, the rule of law means that (National Strategy Information Center 1999): - All people in society have the opportunity to participate in establishing the law; - The rules apply equally to everyone; and - The rules protect individuals as well as society. The rule of law was developed in an effort to constrain kings and rulers who regarded themselves as above the law. At its heart is a commitment to the fundamental idea that equality before the law and justice are inseparable. Regardless of their position or responsibilities, all agents within the criminal justice system are bound by the rule of law, and they are required to exercise their discretion according to the limits it prescribes. Of course, in practice not every decision meets the high standards required by the rule of law. Much of its significance, however, derives from its status as an *ideal*; it guides individuals and agencies within the system, and binds them together through a shared commitment to justice and the law. Once again, this standard will also inform the extent to which the police are seen as legitimate, as discussed above. **The Delicate Balance: Crime Control Versus Due Process** Although the "delicate balance" between public safety and individual freedoms has always been a struggle for law enforcement, these issues are particularly salient in the post--September 11 climate. During a lecture immediately following the September 11 attacks, then U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor remarked that "we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in this country" (Greenhouse 2001, p. B5). Despite protestations otherwise by former attorney general John Ashcroft that "we'll not be driven to abandon our freedoms by those who would seek to destroy them," some fear the potential "slippery slope" of giving expansive powers to law enforcement (Hentoff 2001). One of the most influential frameworks for explaining the differing views and values of justice has been the crime control/due process model first expounded upon by the sociologist Herbert Packer in the 1960s. According to Packer (1968), agents within the criminal justice system can be broadly divided into two camps depending on the strength of their support for either strong law enforcement or protection of civil liberties. For those who see the criminal justice system in terms of [**[crime control]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-78c16e6e-ef38-54c5-b3fe-9d6758eedea3), the overriding aim is to ensure that suspects are processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Typically, advocates of this approach emphasize the importance of attempting to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty at the pre-charge stage. Though the adversarial system is based on the assumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, advocates of the crime control model assume that once a suspect has been formally charged, the suspect can be processed on the basis of an informal "presumption of guilt." Guilty pleas are preferred over lengthy hearings and trials, and informal methods of disposal are preferred over legalistic procedures. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the police and other law enforcement agencies are the most vocal supporters of a crime control approach to criminal justice. Extensive police powers, limited rights for suspects, and greater emphasis on pretrial processes are all seen as vital to the effective functioning of the system. The danger lies in the extent to which this favoring of crime control undermines the rule of law, and thus potentially the legitimacy of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in society (Skolnick 1994). In contrast, supporters of a [**[due process]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-4d16d008-0158-5600-812b-5b3cfea97453) approach argue that the criminal justice system must strive to protect the rights of the innocent and ensure that only the guilty are punished. Although recognizing that the primary aim of the system is to reduce and prevent crime, adherents of the due process model maintain that safeguards are necessary to protect individual rights and to ensure that the number of wrongful convictions is kept to a minimum. "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" is an idea that is central to the due process approach. Advocates of this model favor considerable restrictions being placed on the police, are suspicious of informal processes, and view the criminal trial as the most reliable method of determining guilt. With the due process model, the civil rights and liberties of citizens outweigh the information needs of law enforcement. Key features of both models are summarized in [[Table 1-1]](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#ab62da9ef32778e26b65af2f67407608). Historically, considerable tension has existed between these two different approaches to crime and the criminal justice process. During the 1960s, the civil rights movement helped to increase public awareness of individual rights and placed considerable pressure on the criminal justice system to expand basic due process protections. Responding to the mood of the times, the Supreme Court under Justice Warren---in cases such as *Escobedo v. Illinois* (1964),[^^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#6f6773a9-5ef7-43ee-937a-a17b0cf3ccc1) *Miranda v. Arizona* (1966),[^^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#e35aa6a0-645a-4ff9-99dd-bea418ab9b0a) and *Terry v. Ohio* (1968)[^^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#2deac4af-ecba-4193-ba5a-5a2ac58da435)---moved to specify the powers of the police, emphasizing the need for the criminal justice system to recognize and protect the rights of suspects. The Court also addressed due process concerns in the landmark case of *Gideon v. Wainwright* (1963),[^^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#1204b247-27eb-4716-8dfb-8c820fdff3fc) which extended the right to counsel to indigent individuals who would otherwise have been unable to exercise their Sixth Amendment rights. As crime rates began to rise through the 1970s and 1980s, however, there was a gradual but significant shift toward an emphasis on crime control. Although the largest increase in crime was for the possession and sale of drugs, the rate of serious violent crime---including murder, rape, and robbery---also increased dramatically during this period. In the eyes of many policymakers and the general public, the criminal justice system was clearly failing. Proponents of the crime control model argued that the rise in crime was the direct result of an overemphasis on suspects' rights and called for increased police powers and an easing of due process restrictions on law enforcement agencies. Throughout the 1990s, the crime control model continued to dominate policymaking in the United States. Mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders, zero-tolerance policing, and the gradual lowering of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles all grew from a desire to make the criminal justice system more efficient and effective. At the same time, however, several high-profile incidents of police brutality,[^7^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#b895acef-9935-4a35-95f0-b9d0e73169b6) police corruption,[^8^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#c34af0c1-1477-4a6e-87d1-dacfc3e974eb) and racial profiling[^9^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b249a0-dba0-11ec-89f4-75830327f772.xhtml#7fc01c93-ff54-4693-806c-3fc05ec577d9) helped to remind the public of the need for due process protections and the respect for civil liberties. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, crime control values still prevailed, yet there was a continuing tension between the two models first identified by Packer in the 1960s. In light of the past 50 years of criminal justice history, as well as the U.S. government's war on terrorism, there can be little doubt that the struggle between advocates of crime control and due process will continue to shape the development of criminal justice policy throughout the next decade as well. **The Levels of Law Enforcement** The current system of law enforcement in the United States is as complex as it is varied, in many ways reflecting the tensions between the crime control and due process models. Representing the largest segment of the criminal justice system, with over one million employees, contemporary law enforcement agencies operate on a variety of levels within local, state, and federal jurisdictions, or areas of responsibility. Although the boundaries across levels would appear to be straightforward since each enforces the laws of its respective level, in practice the boundaries often are more of a gray tint than a black-and-white tone. There is no direct order of authority with respect to these jurisdictions. For example, in most cases federal law enforcement cannot exert authority over local matters unless requested to do so by local authorities. Each level of law enforcement has its own [**[jurisdiction]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-162342cd-245e-5a25-bb42-a9a756762b1a). These difficulties are further fueled by the territorial nature of many law enforcement agencies. **Municipal Agencies** Municipal police departments represent the greatest number of law enforcement officers in the United States and will thus be the primary focus of this text. The United States had 12,656 municipal police jurisdictions in 2003 (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006a), varying in size from large city departments (e.g., New York Police City Police Department with 36,118 officers in 2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007)) to local departments with a few officers (the majority). In 2000, there were 501 municipal police departments with 100 or more full-time sworn personnel, but of these, only 60 (11 percent) had 1,000 or more full-time sworn personnel that included 500 or more officers responding to calls for service (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004). Most departments have a small number of officers who have jurisdiction over largely rural or suburban landscapes. The large municipal departments (those with at least 100 officers) employed 312,201 full-time employees, compared with 31,945 in county departments, 154,384 in sheriff's departments, and 87,028 in state law enforcement agencies (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004). Large local law enforcement agencies often are responsible for investigating serious violent and property crimes in their jurisdictions, compared to half of state agencies (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Local agencies also are more likely to handle fingerprint processing (81 percent); however, state agencies often provide the needed support for crime lab services and ballistic testing (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). The city government is usually responsible for appointing police chiefs, who are responsible for running departments with general law enforcement authority within their boundaries. Most police chiefs are appointed at the discretion of the mayor or city manager and lack contracts protecting them from unjustified termination. As a result, the average tenure of most police chiefs is only three to six years (Swanson et al. 2001). Although for the most part similar in nature to municipal police departments, [**[township police departments]**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-e2c35ad2-c2eb-54bc-bec2-d1988ceeeabc) can vary greatly with regard to law enforcement powers and authority. Well-developed townships often operate with responsibilities close to those of municipal police departments. The United States has approximately 1,600 township police departments (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004). **County Agencies** Although the primary agency at the county level is the sheriff's office, with 3,061 sheriff's departments across the country (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006b), in some jurisdictions this office is dissolved into a county police force that functions much the same as municipal police. County police departments usually surface in areas where the workload is too large for the sheriff's department. Although their functions and structure will vary by jurisdiction, they most often assume the functions that would otherwise be the responsibility of the sheriff. In the wake of recent budget crises across the country, jurisdictions such as Camden, New Jersey, expanded county police functions to merge the fiscally strapped Camden Police Department with those of neighboring jurisdictions. The local context greatly influences the nature and scope of responsibilities for the sheriff's department. In some jurisdictions, the sheriff's office is entirely law enforcement focused, with no other responsibilities, whereas in others the principal responsibilities involve carrying out court orders and summons or operating the county jail. The majority of sheriff's departments involve some combination of all three responsibilities (Brown 1979). In large cities with populations of over one million, the sheriff's office will only serve correctional functions; those serving very small populations usually are the chief law enforcement agents of that jurisdiction (Senna and Siegal 2001). In all but two states, sheriffs are elected for a two- to four-year term. Because they are elected, sheriffs often have a degree of freedom from local city and county officials, unlike the relationship between the police chief and mayor or city manager in many large cities. However, because it is an elected term, additional forms of accountability and scrutiny can transform the dynamics of the role. In some jurisdictions, there are county-level courts that maintain limited jurisdiction as described by statute in civil matters, such as the performance of marriages and hearings for minor criminal offenses. Referred to as [**Justice's courts**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-07998bf6-eca1-5e66-861f-4ddbdec2ee9d), they are under the responsibility of **justices of the peace**, or magistrates of lesser rank than in the higher courts. It should be noted, however, that the trend has been to dissolve the Justice's courts and transfer their power to other municipal courts of limited jurisdiction (Nolan and Nolan-Haley 1990). **State Agencies** Most states have police agencies in addition to agencies within specific municipalities, townships, or counties. The first state to establish a police agency was Texas in 1835, with the creation of the Texas Rangers. Massachusetts implemented a state police agency shortly thereafter in 1865, though this is often credited as the first modern state law enforcement agency. The state agency in Pennsylvania is credited with being a model agency for other states, and is viewed as the archetype of modern policing when it was created in 1905. The power of most state agencies includes the ability to arrest an individual for an offense committed in the presence of the officer, as well as the ability to execute a search warrant. In addition to the state police, some states have established a Highway Patrol with jurisdiction over traffic laws on interstate roads. These patrols have the authority to enforce traffic laws as well as investigate traffic accidents on highways and freeways. Hawaii is the only state without a state law enforcement agency. Traditionally, state agencies have focused on traffic enforcement on state highways. More recently, agencies have expanded the scope of their law enforcement activities to include patrol, traffic, general policing, criminal investigations, technical services, emergency management, and antiterrorism efforts (Freilich et al. 2009; Ratcliffe and Guidetti 2008; Schafer et al. 2009). Many state agencies also provide criminal history records, crime evidence analysis, and joint operations in task forces to local and county police departments (Correia et al. 1996). **Federal Agencies** The first federal agency established by the U.S. government was the U.S. Marshall Service, which was founded in 1789. Since then, the U.S. government has created eight additional government departments with 21 agencies dealing with issues of major law enforcement. Several of these eight departments contain dozens of smaller offices and bureaus dealing with less serious law enforcement issues. It is important to note that federal agencies only have the power to enforce federal laws and mandates, and have no authority to command state and local law enforcement agencies. The U.S. attorney general, for example, cannot call a governor to dictate a certain policy on the part of the state police unless a constitutional violation of some kind has occurred. Otherwise, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reserves powers over local matters to the various local law enforcement agencies. Prior to September 11, two federal departments were most involved in law enforcement: the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Treasury. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 reorganized many federal law enforcement agencies under the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Presently, the DHS and the DOJ are the two most important federal departments involved with law enforcement. However, other federal departments (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration) have certain law enforcement functions within their mandates. **Department of Justice** The Department of Justice was established in June 1870 and is headed by the attorney general (AG) of the United States. As of the writing of this text, Loretta E. Lynch is the attorney general. The AG is appointed by the president and oversees legal matters involving the U.S. government. The AG is also responsible for supervising and directing the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that make up the DOJ, as well as assisting the president, the president's cabinet, and the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the federal government in legal matters (in cooperation with the White House Counsel as necessary). The DOJ is the federal agency responsible for conducting and coordinating investigations, both those by the DOJ as well as those being conducted by other departments. The DOJ has 39 components, and those most relevant to law enforcement are described in the following sections. The primary responsibilities of the agency are enforcing U.S. law; protecting citizens against criminals; ensuring healthy competition among business; safeguarding consumers; enforcing drug, immigration, and naturalization laws; and protecting citizens through effective law enforcement (U.S. Department of Justice 2015). **U.S. Marshal Service** The passage of the Judiciary Act in Congress in 1789 established the first formal law enforcement agency under the federal government, the office of the United States Marshal. The current structure of the [**U.S. Marshal Service**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-277592a0-c407-5a74-abd7-cfb06aeecb51) **(USMS)** was established in 1969. It is the enforcement arm of the federal courts and is therefore involved in almost every federal law enforcement initiative. The USMS has a variety of duties, including protection of the federal judiciary, operation of the Witness Security Program, seizure of property acquired by criminals through illegal activities, the execution of warrants for the federal courts, and the handling of federal suspects and prisoners (i.e., transporting them, arresting fugitives). The USMS also responds to homeland security crises and national emergencies. **Federal Bureau of Investigation** The [**Federal Bureau of Investigation**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-c6394f05-ddd3-57a1-8d3b-740b98167f34) **(FBI)** is the main investigative agency in the federal government. It currently has over 10,000 agents. The agency was created in 1908, and by 1909 was named the Bureau of Investigation, with its present name designated by Congress in 1935. The principal responsibility of the FBI is to investigate violations of federal criminal law and to assist local agencies in investigations. The FBI has jurisdiction over particular offenses, such as kidnapping, auto theft, organized crime, civil rights violations, and internal security (espionage). It also has the authority to locate and apprehend fugitives who have violated specified federal laws. The U.S. attorney general designated the FBI as primary agency in charge of investigating acts of domestic and international terrorism. Coordination of information exchange has become a priority given this role. [**Joint Terrorism Task Forces**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-6e436c1c-d500-55ee-8779-9d1ba7ac1460) **(JTTFs)** were established in FBI field offices prior to 2001. In 1999, there were 26 JTTFs throughout the United States. As of December 2011, there were more than 100 (Bjelopera 2013). These task forces, which are located within FBI field offices, are composed of representatives of local and state law enforcement, FBI agents, and teams from other federal agencies. A report by the RAND Corporation found that 95 percent of state law enforcement agencies had coordinated with a JTTF. However, only one-third of local law enforcement agencies had coordinated with the FBI (Riley et al. 2004). In addition to its investigative responsibilities, the FBI also has responsibility for publishing the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) (U.S. annual crime statistics, discussed in [Chapter 2](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/5c07c290-f038-11ec-b4b3-dd5f1701077d.xhtml#82031707de998cf44e182c79d1d242ef)) and the *Law Enforcement Bulletin*. It is also responsible for conducting personnel investigations (background checks) for those applying for employment within the DOJ and other government agencies, as requested. The FBI has developed training programs for law enforcement personnel at the local, state, federal, and international levels in order to assist others in the development of new approaches and law enforcement techniques. Several departments within the FBI, such as the FBI Crime Lab, can aid in criminal investigations or provide technical assistance in mass disasters. **Drug Enforcement Administration** In an attempt to control the supply of dangerous drugs, the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1917. At the time, it was established as a tax law, and as such fell under the responsibility of the Department of the Treasury. In 1930, the Treasury Department created the Bureau of Narcotics, which was reorganized in 1968 to become the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs under the DOJ. The [**Drug Enforcement Administration**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-58a91f31-093b-543d-86e8-5d9393cab55d) **(DEA)** as we know it today was created in 1973 with the merging of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence, some U.S. Customs officials, and the Narcotics Advance Research Management Team. The DEA, which is responsible for investigating both domestic and international drug violators and traffickers, uses both control and prevention techniques to stop the flow of drugs from their manufacture through sales. The primary responsibility of the DEA is to investigate and prepare evidence for the prosecution of major violators of controlled substances laws both domestically and internationally. It is also involved in the collection and analysis of information regarding drug use and trafficking and is responsible for developing strategic plans aimed at eliminating such activities. It has the authority to use nonenforcement methods of drug elimination, such as crop eradication, and it also has the authority to seize assets that are in any way related to drug trafficking. **U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives** The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is primarily concerned with the licensing, investigation, and control of these three commodities, as well as explosives. However, it was originally established as a tax-collecting agency, which is why it was located in the Treasury Department rather than the DOJ. On January 24, 2003, the agency was moved into DOJ as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The ATF added "explosives" to its name at this point to reflect its tremendous expertise in this area. Employees of the ATF include many forensic experts as well as law enforcement experts, including chemists, document analysts, latent print specialists, and firearms and tool mark examiners who are trained in forensic skills relating to arson, explosives, and criminal-evidence examination. The ATF works closely with the FBI in federal investigations requiring both areas of expertise. A well-known case that came to the attention of the public was the involvement of the two agencies with David Koresh's Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas. It was the ATF that was originally called to the Koresh compound, beginning the standoff that led to the death of 71 individuals. **Department of Homeland Security** On July 26, 2002, the U.S. Congress approved the creation of the [**Department of Homeland Security**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-cca3050a-0aed-5162-8cd3-2a69ed51347b) (DHS) in the largest government reorganization of federal agencies in 50 years (Firestone 2002). The aim of this reorganization was to better coordinate the intelligence and law enforcement resources of the U.S. government in the war on terror by attempting to eliminate the problems of linkage blindness. DHS assumed many of the law enforcement functions previously performed by the Department of the Treasury and other federal agencies. DHS's 22 domestic agencies employ about 230,000 people, making it one of the largest federal departments. DHS includes over 87,000 different governmental jurisdictions at the federal, state, and local levels, with the overall goal of developing a connected system of information exchange and law enforcement with an emphasis on combating terrorism (DHS 2007). After the formation of DHS, President Bush selected former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as the first secretary of Homeland Security. At the time of this writing, the secretary of DHS is Janet Napolitano. In addition to the 22 agencies, DHS is composed of five *directorates* and other agency components that fulfill a myriad of responsibilities. Each directorate is a large oversight body in charge of fundamental and broad elements of the department's old and newly formed federal agencies. The five directorates are (1) Preparedness, (2) Science and Technology, (3) Management, (4) Office of Policy, and (5) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS 2007). [Figure 1-1](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b83d10-dba0-11ec-85ff-c0f5facbb1e9.xhtml#8f2bc7ae6b681c330e2fe98e6bb498fa) shows the current structure of the DHS. **Immigration and Customs Enforcement** The Department of Homeland Security reorganization effort transferred the U.S. Customs Service functions from the Department of the Treasury and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service's enforcement functions from the Department of Justice to the newly created [**Immigration and Customs Enforcement**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-1509835a-e256-5e45-b7a0-d75010bf1278) (ICE) agency. This agency is the largest investigative branch of the DHS. ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws and protecting the United States from terrorist activity. ICE also targets gang organizations by disrupting their movement across U.S. borders. The agency seeks out illegal workers in critical areas such as power plants or airports to prevent potential terrorist activity. ICE detects and investigates fraudulent immigration documents and investigates those who produce them. ICE also investigates the illegal export of U.S. munitions and technology and cross-border human trafficking. In addition, the agency is responsible for the management of deportation and attempts to find and close\_illicit channels. ICE also attempts to find and close illicit channels for the movement of money by organized crime (ICE 2007). The ICE's [**Law Enforcement Support Center**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-e313b1d3-c265-54ef-94f6-bb585fa916f5) (LESC) assists in the provision of information and assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement. The primary beneficiaries of the LESC are state and local law enforcement officers seeking information about foreign nationals they encounter in their jurisdictions. **U.S. Customs and Border Protection** **U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)** is a combination and unification of the former U.S. Customs Bureau,[^10^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b83d10-dba0-11ec-85ff-c0f5facbb1e9.xhtml#c04a9e87-89bf-4182-9362-a19349dacac1) functions of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization services,[^11^](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/c1b83d10-dba0-11ec-85ff-c0f5facbb1e9.xhtml#b7480660-8b2b-46c0-956a-5e17d925e3a7) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the U.S. Border Patrol. The agency guards over 7,000 miles of land border that the U.S. shares with Canada and Mexico as well as 2,000 miles of coastal waters around California and Florida (CBP 2007a). The core functions of CBP include border security, travel and trade facilitation, and antiterrorism efforts (CBP 2010). In 2009, the agency arrested 556,000 illegal aliens and seized over 4.75 million pounds of drugs (CBP 2009). The CPB is also responsible for the inspection and collection of tariffs for over 1.7 trillion dollars worth of imported goods, including cargo moved by sea container, representing most of the material goods moved in and out of the United States (CBP 2009). The CPB shares responsibility for the security of U.S. ports with the [**U.S. Coast Guard**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-e37672bb-e1a6-5232-af23-b46282007425) (also under DHS) and the local or state port authority who manages or maintains the seaport, airport, or bus terminal (CBP 2007b). The CBP screens visitors by air using law enforcement databases that "verify identity, determine admissibility and prevent terrorists from entering the country" (CBP 2007a). **Transportation Security Administration** The [**Transportation Security Administration**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-41343edf-4cee-5b90-b7aa-0078ed26b0bf) (TSA) was transferred to DHS from the Department of Transportation, where it was placed after its creation in September of 2001. The TSA is responsible for the security of all modes of U.S. transportation. It is responsible for security officers for all commercial airports and for the screening of luggage for explosives. The primary law enforcement entity within the TSA is the Federal Air Marshal (FAM) Service. Several thousand Air Marshals ensure the safety of U.S. domestic and international flights. Air Marshals fly an average of 5 hours a day and 900 hours per year (TSA 2007). **U.S. Secret Service** The [**U.S. Secret Service**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-62fc2ee6-8949-5ab0-8f5d-b4cc8dd86f43) was transferred to the DHS from the Department of the Treasury on March 1, 2003. Although the Secret Service was originally established to suppress counterfeit currency, by 1901 its duties were modified to include protecting the president, the vice president, and the families of each. Congress believed that this was necessary in light of the assassination of President William McKinley. By 1902, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the president. Presidents who were elected into office prior to January 1, 1997, receive lifetime protection from the Secret Service; however, those elected after this time will receive Secret Service protection for ten years. The Secret Service is also responsible for the investigation of all access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud, and computer-based crimes involving the U.S. financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure (Secret Service 2001). **Federal Law Enforcement Training Center** Another agency of the DHS is the [**Federal Law Enforcement Training Center**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-c028ec6e-f759-5939-be10-d0d7fee0849f) (FLETC). The FLETC is an interagency law enforcement training organization, serving over 80 different federal agencies. It provides training to state, local, and international law enforcement agencies. Under the direction of DHS, the FLETC trains federal officers from the Department of Justice and the DHS. It trains personnel from the following agencies: ATF, FBI, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Secret Service. **Additional Programs Under DHS** The [**Joint Regional Information Exchange System**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-79404b54-61f7-5b7d-90c7-6d744f75cebd) (JRIES) enables the exchange of law enforcement information over the Internet. Through this system, the Department of Defense has access to information pertinent to terrorist activity on U.S. citizens, resident foreigners, and others that is collected by local and state police agencies. This program was created by the [**Defense Intelligence Agency**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-15f53942-b9c2-510c-8dfe-021652423bde) (DIA) in 2002 and then moved to the DHS in 2004. Many members of the law enforcement community sit on the executive board, including representatives from DHS and from police departments in New York City, New York state, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. Some police officials have characterized the JRIES as more effective than the local JTTFs. Some concerns have been raised by the collection of information on political, nonterrorist, groups (Rood 2004). The [**Office of State and Local Government Coordination**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-a63de198-5f07-5128-82d6-79cc9bbcd334) (SLGC) facilitates and coordinates DHS programs with state, local, and tribal governments. The program enables DHS to exchange information with state, local, and tribal homeland security personnel. The DHS identifies homeland security practices and processes at the federal, state, local, or regional levels and uses this information to ensure that opportunities for improvement in information sharing are addressed (DHS 2007). The DHS's [**Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-c1d121fb-532f-539c-a59f-0a14a4f20461) (CEDAP) provides funding to first responders (law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical service, emergency management, and public safety agencies) in smaller jurisdictions in the United States for equipment and training to protect their communities in the event of an emergency. CEDAP was launched in 2005 and has since provided more than \$120 million to approximately 6,800 agencies (FEMA 2008). **Department of the Treasury** The Treasury Department has traditionally had several important law enforcement functions, most of which have now been transferred to the DHS or DOJ. Now, the primary law enforcement agency of importance within the Department of the Treasury is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). **Internal Revenue Service** The [**Internal Revenue Service**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-41fec4c2-eeaf-580e-95aa-619f818f6d9c) (IRS) is the largest agency within the Treasury Department. Its roots date back to 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln and Congress decided to enact an income tax to pay for expenses related to the Civil War. Though the income tax was ruled unconstitutional ten years later, Congress once again enacted an income tax in 1913 after the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. The IRS was established in 1862 and is designed to regulate compliance with tax laws and investigate tax evasion and fraud. The IRS has many divisions, including Appeals, Chief Counsel, Communications and Liaison, and Criminal Investigation. Though most people associate criminal investigations with the FBI, the IRS's Criminal Investigation division is responsible for, among other things, enforcing tax laws and identifying money-laundering individuals and organizations. The IRS is the primary agency responsible for enforcing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. In fact, the IRS was responsible for investigating and convicting organized crime figure Al Capone. **U.S. Postal Service** In the past, the average person reading this text might have questioned why the [**U.S. Postal Service**](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-e3967124-d33d-5fe1-a998-198b421509d7) **(USPS)** would be included in a listing of federal law enforcement agencies. However, following the series of anthrax attacks in the United States in the fall of 2001, most would now appreciate the significance of law enforcement activities related to USPS functions. The approximately 1,500 postal inspectors stationed throughout the United States are responsible for the enforcement of over 200 federal laws affecting the U.S. mail and postal system (USPS 2010). Postal inspectors are law enforcement officers; they can carry firearms, make arrests, and serve federal search warrants and subpoenas (USPS 2010). The Inspection Service also maintains five forensic crime laboratories stationed throughout the United States to carry out its investigative functions. Some examples of laws under Postal Service enforcement jurisdiction include: - Assaults or robberies of postal service employees - Bombs - Distribution of child pornography - Distribution of controlled substances - Money order crimes - Theft of mail - Identity fraud **Tribal Agencies** At present, 564 tribal entities in 31 states are recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as Native American tribes. More tribes are located in the Southwest than any other area of the United States, and the largest of these is the Navajo Nation in Arizona. Native American tribes are unique in that they are self-governed. Although they must abide by federal regulations, they have their own sovereignty. Tribal agencies face many problems that are either more extreme or unique to tribal entities. For instance, tribes have a higher rate of unemployment, a lower level of educational achievement, and a higher rate of suicide than states. They also have an extremely high crime rate, particularly in terms of substance abuse. Methamphetamine (meth) use is a growing threat to public safety in Indian country (BIA 2010). Because most tribes live in remote areas and are small in number, they often are required to enforce the law on their own relatives. All of these issues create challenges for tribal police agencies. Criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement authority is dispersed among federal, state, local, and tribal agencies. Tribal officers are primarily responsible for public safety on reservations (BJS 2005). Although they provide a variety of functions and services including, crime prevention, executing arrest warrants, traffic enforcement, court security, search and rescue operations, and operating jails (BJS 2003a and 2005). Tribal officers can exercise jurisdiction over all tribal members and can detain and arrest non-Indians after which they release them to either state or federal authorities for prosecution (BJS 2005). Because tribal courts typically only hear [misdemeanor](https://plus.pearson.com/products/db7a7e9b-9e03-4dfa-970a-45b161dc98eb/pages/glossary.xhtml#key-7b82cd01-6bb0-52bc-8150-96b024d2fc14) cases, tribal agencies often refer cases to U.S. attorney's offices for investigation (BJS 2005). Additionally, BIA, FBI, DEA, and other federal investigative agencies can refer cases (BJS 2004a). To improve law enforcement capabilities where state and tribal lands intersect, some agencies have allowed for cross-deputization with non-tribal authorities which allow tribal officers to arrest both Indian and non-Indian offenders wherever the violation of law occurs (BJS 2005). An additional challenge for tribal agencies is the sheer land area served. "For example, the Navajo Nation Department of Law Enforcement covers approximately 22,000 square miles in 3 states, whereas the comparably sized Reno, Nevada Police Department covers about 57.5 square miles" (BJS 2003a, p. 2). The goal of law enforcement services for Native American tribes is to provide quality investigative and police services and technical expertise specifically designed for Native American tribes. Tribally operated law enforcement programs receive assistance from the BIA's law enforcement program. The BIA aims to create a system of training for criminal investigators specific to the needs of the tribal entities, as well as an internal tracking process to monitor the efficiency of police responses to incidents on tribal land. Few monitoring systems exist to assess the quality and rate of completion of investigations, or the maintenance of a professional and cooperative working relationship with tribal and federal prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies. A number of programs train tribal law enforcement personnel, such as the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. Such programs are designed to teach the basics of policing, investigative techniques, and justice administration principles to law enforcement personnel who will be working in Native American communities. **Transit Police Agencies** Approximately 130 law enforcement agencies served transportation-related jurisdictions, such as mass-transit, airports, ports, bridges, and tunnels (BJS 2007). The largest in the country is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which has over 1,500 employees and services LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Newark Airports; Lincoln and Holland Tunnels; The George Washington and Staten Island Bridges; the PATH train system; the Port Authority Bus Terminal; and the Newark and Elizabeth Port Marine Terminals. Many cities with large mass-transportation systems have their own dedicated police forces, including New York City, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Boston.