Law Enforcement FINAL EXAM STUDY PDF

# Policing and the Law ## Policing and the Law - English Common Law - Early United States until all laws became codified - Codification of laws - Official writing of laws as approved by a federal or state body and its listing of possible punishments - Laws are generally introduced by t...

# Policing and the Law ## Policing and the Law - English Common Law - Early United States until all laws became codified - Codification of laws - Official writing of laws as approved by a federal or state body and its listing of possible punishments - Laws are generally introduced by the legislative branch and voted on by that body of government - NYS - NYS Penal Law, VTL, FCA... ## Standards of Proof - Probable Cause/Reasonable Cause to Believe - Probability that a person(s) based upon evidence, witness statements and other articulable facts that a person committed an offense - Reasonable Suspicion - Based upon a set of specific and articulable facts in which a reasonable person may believe that a crime is, has or will be committed - Common Law Right of Inquiry - Right to ask questions about pedigree or other information, person is free to leave or not answer questions - Mere Suspicion - Unproved or unformed idea that a person may be involved with illegality - gut instinct/sixth sense - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Trial - No doubt that a reasonable person believes that a specific person(s) did in fact commit a crime and is needed for conviction ## Crimes - Felony - Any offense when committed can be punishable more than 1 year in prison. - Misdemeanor - Any offense when committed can be punishable 15 days and up to 1 year in jail - Not VTL - Violation - (Petty offense) - Any offense when committed is punishable of less than 15 days in jail. ## PO Arrest Powers - Make arrests based only on probable cause - NYS CPL 140 ## Felony/Misdemeanor - can arrest on probable cause - anywhere committed in NYS - arrest anywhere in NYS - may have close pursuit to another state ## Violation - Must be observed - In GAOE (w/in 100 yards of) - Probable cause offense occurred - Arrest in county of commission or adjoining county - May have close pursuit anywhere in NYS if pursuit started in county of commission or adjoining county ## Citizen - Felony - In Fact committed - Less than Felony - In fact and presence ## GAOE - Geographic Area of Employment - Location where PO has powers of jurisdiction ## US Amendments Affecting Policing | Amendment | Rights | | ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1st Amendment | Right to religion, assembly, speech. Assembly - demonstrators. Speech - not all protected - reckless speech “Fire” Crowded movie theater | | 4th Amendment | Search and Seizure | | 5th Amendment | Right to self incrimination, due process, double jeopardy, Grand jury (Miranda) | | 6th Amendment | Right to be informed of charges, right to counsel (confront witnesses, jury of peers and speedy trial) | | 8th Amendment | No excessive bail, no cruel and unusual punishment | | 14th Amendment | Applied Bill of Rights to states - only applied to federal gov't and fed officers - Due Process Clause | ## 4th Amendment - Warrantless Search and Seizures Exceptions (USSC based decisions) - Consent - Party gives consent verbally/written - must be voluntary, must be of age, must have control over - Both parties present must get consent from both - Plain View - PO see objects in plain view can seize it but must have PC that object is evidence - Curtilage - Usually protected but not air above - immediate area around home is protected - Open Fields - Pastures, open water, woods - no reasonable exception of privacy - Exigent Circumstances - PO's believe have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect lives, lives of others and search not motivated to arrest/seize evidence - Motor Vehicle - Reduced expectation privacy because of mobility - Items in plain view or areas which could hide weapons with PC - PO’s may search any area in m/v - not passengers - for evidence - Can open locked containers if PC has evidence - If person in car arrested - can search grabbable area - If removed can search if PC for a weapon, evidence of contraband and so escape can be thwarted - Inventory Search of M/V - Search to list and safeguard all items of a defendant and/or mv - Not trying to find/seize evidence - Can fully search and open locked containers with minimal damage - Department must have a policy governing inventory of mv’s ## Search Incidental to Arrest - Preventing defendant in destruction of evidence or using a weapon against PO (US v. Robinson, 1973) - Can search in immediate area of control at time of arrest (Chimel v California, 1969) ## Stop Question Frisk - PO #1 crime fighting tool for personal encounters - Very limited Search relegated to the outer most pockets with a pat down and is only conducted for officer safety in a search for a weapon. - Based upon reasonable suspicion - NYS CPL 140.50 ## Famous Supreme Court Cases - **Tennessee v. Garner - 4th Amendment Case** - L/E pursuing fleeing suspect (felon). PO may/can use DPF to prevent escape if PO has PC that suspect poses a significant threat of death or SPI to PO/others - Tenn. Law - if after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant flees or forcibly resists the PO may use all necessary means to effect the arrest - Family sued under Civil Rights Act - District Ct ruled statute constitutional - US Court of Appeals - 6th District - reversed - killing of subjects is a seizure under 4th Amendment and therefore constitutional only when reasonable - Tenn statute failed to properly limit the use of DPF by reference to seriousness of felony - USSC ruled 6-3 in favor of USCoA decision and concurred that DPF is most intrusive type of seizure - [http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm) - **Mapp v. Ohio - 1961** - Evidence obtained in violation can't be used in criminal prosecutions. - "Exclusionary Rule"/ "Fruits of a Poisonous Tree" - Ohio Court of Appeals - Affirmed decision as did Supreme Court of Ohio stating evidence different in taking from person that object (Evidence found in home and law doesn't apply the same way) - USSC - overruled by 6-3 - Applied exclusionary rule already against Feds (Boyd v US/ Weeks v US) to states using 14th Amendment. No evidence may be used if obtained by illegal means. - **Terry v. Ohio - 1968 - Stop and Frisk/Terry stop** - 4th Amendment - unreasonable search/seizure is not violated when a PO stops a suspect on the street and frisks him w/o PC to arrest if the PO has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed. - Reasonable suspicion - less than PC but must be based on specific and articulable facts, no hunches - PO protection - pat down of outer most clothing for weapons - Criminal Court - ruled guns not taken under search incidental to lawful arrest (prosecution argument) but allowed guns into evidence because of the investigatory stop and frisk - Ohio SC dismissed appeal under no substantial constitutional question involved - USSC ruled 8-1 that arrest was good and weapons were admissible based on a person can be seized and subjected to a search that is reasonable based upon the facts and circumstances. - Reasonable search - specific and articulable facts where a reasonable officer would believe a limited search needed to be made for PO or public protection - This is by far the most important tool for PO's - Other USSC cases affecting Stop and Frisk: - Michigan v Long - frisking lungeable area/car compartments - Arizona v Johnson - frisking subject in car (VTL is a crime) - People v Wardlow - suspect runs gives PO instant cause for Terry stop / running reasonable suspicion (5-4 ruling) ## Miranda v Arizona - 1966 - 5-4 decision - split court - USSC held that both the defendant’s inculpatory and exculpatory statements during an interrogation in police custody are admissible if: - Subject was informed to right to consult with an attorney and prior to questioning and - Statements of self incrimination can be used and - Defendant understood and knew their rights and voluntarily waived - Inculpatory - evidence that shows or tends to show a person’s involvement or evidence that can establish guilt - Exculpatory - evidence favorable which tends to clear or clears the defendant of guilt - Both Arizona courts favored state - Arizona SC - said Miranda never requested an attorney - USSC overturned Arizona courts - USSC ruling - Interrogation is coercive in nature and no confession should be admissible because of that and custodial under 5th Amendment (self incrimination and 6th Amendment (counsel). - Interrogation + Custody = Miranda - Widely criticized - Unfair to PO’s - President Nixon - crime will increase - PO’s want to be efficient and they can’t with this ruling - Confession w/o warning can be used to impeach defendant’s testimony - Exceptions - Spontaneous Utterance - statement made by defendant w/o rights - not in response to specific questioning by police or other conduct to illicit response - Public Safety Exception - defendant knows location of unattended gun or other info that could endanger public - Studies - Miranda has little effect on whether defendant talks to PO - 3-4% - is letting that number good enough to go free - Cases affecting Miranda: - Dickerson v U.S - Miranda is not in Constitution but made up judicially/become part of national culture - Missouri v Seibert - Question, Confession, Miranda, then getting confession again - US V Garibay - intelligent and understood Miranda - translated Mirandas - Berghuis v Thompkins - Suspect refusal to answer is not a waiver if talk later ## Use of Force - Use of Force - PO may use that force he/she reasonable believes he/she must use to affect an arrest or protect him/herself or another. - Force used can’t be excessive or reckless. - Physical Force - That force used that is anything less than deadly physical force. - Deadly Physical Force (DPF) - Any force physical or with a weapon that is readily capable of causing serious physical injury or death. - Physical injury - Any injury that was caused and results in substantial pain or an impairment of health. - Serious physical injury - Any injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes death; or serious and protracted disfigurement; protracted impairment of health or protracted or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. - Use of Force is governed in NYS by the NYS Penal Law - Section 35 - Defense of Justification - Available for PO’s and civilians - Section 35.05 - Gives justification to PO's - Section 35.10 - Lists exceptions: - Parent/teacher to maintain discipline - Warden in jail/prison to maintain order - Person responsible for common carrier (bus, plane, train) - Doctor - Person - prevent injury to self or another, defense of premise, prevent larceny or criminal mischief - Sec. 35.27 - Use of Force - prohibited - Resisting arrest even if later found to be unlawful - Sec 35. 30 - PO may use force while affecting or attempting to affect an arrest to prevent or attempted prevention of escape or when he/she reasonably believes subject committed an offense - Use force in self defense or defense of another - Stages whether PO or civilian can use justification in regard to DPF: - Prevent - Prevention of something from happening - Terminate - Termination of an act from happening that has begun - Arrest/Preventing escape - Not prevented or terminated and an arrest must take place - Reasonableness - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary in situation - Prevent/Terminate Stage of DPF - PO’s and civilians have almost the same authority - D - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to P/T DPF from being used against you or another. - Civilian Must retreat unless being directed by PO OR in own home and not initial aggressor (NYS PL Art. 35.15) - R - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to P/T Robbery any degree. - B - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to P/T Burglary of dwelling or occupied building. - Must have connection to building, like owner or privileged if civilian. - A - RCTB that DPF is necessary to P/T Arson any degree. - R - RCTB that DPF is necessary to P/T Rape (forcible only). - K - RCTB that DPF is necessary to P/T Kidnapping (any degree). - S - RCTB that DPF is necessary to P/T Criminal Sexual Act (forcible). - Arrest/Prevent Escape Stage of DPF - PO’s and Civilians have different authority - Civilians - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to arrest subject who HAS committed MR/MRS (Murder, Robbery, Manslaughter 1st, Rape and Criminal Sexual Act (forcible). - Offense must have been in fact committed and subject must be in immediate flight from crime. - Police Officers - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to arrest subject who commits or attempts to commit felony where PF is used, attempted or threatened imminently against a person. - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to arrest subject who has committed or attempts to commit: Burglary 1st, Arson, Kidnapping and Escape 1st. - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to arrest subject who has committed any felony and is either resisting arrest or attempting to escape from custody AND the subject is armed with a firearm or DW. - Probable Cause that DPF is necessary to arrest subject who has committed or attempts to commit DPF and it is necessary to P/T the use of DPF against the officer or another. - All PO needs is Probable Cause that crime occurred or was attempted. - Civilian needs in fact committed - When DPF used by a PO the legal system must look at the facts available to the officer at the exact moment of the shooting. No "Monday Morning QB allowed". - Graham v Connor (1989) - Legal system must decide if any reasonable officer who had all the facts (not a civilian) would have possibly acted the same way and used DPF. - This is where the public fails to understand and the most controversy comes from - Presence and Verbal Commands - Officer’s mere presence and orders force action. - Empty Hand Control - Grabs, Holds, Restraints. - Punches and Kicks - Impact and Chemical Weapons - Blunt impact, chemical and Conductive Energy devices - Deadly Physical Force - Firearm, impact strikes to lethal areas, chokeholds - Continuum of Force Pyramid - Deadly force - Impact weapons, chemical agents - Empty hand control - Presence and verbal communication - **OfficerInsider.com** - Dynamic Resistance Response Model - Dynamic - Use of Force is fluid - can transition quickly - Resistance - Depends on Suspect’s actions - Response - Officer’s use of force response dependent on Suspect’s resistance - Resisting Suspect - 4 models - Not resistant - Suspect complies verbal commands - Passively Resistant - No compliance holds, pressure points - Aggressively resistant - Actively fight PW, baton, OC - Deadly Resistant - DPF used against officer DPF defense # Civil Liability and Accountability - Accountability - Police have to answer for conduct - Police - Answer to public - Accountable for what and how they do their job. - Totalitarian regimes - PD's don't answer to public/law - Meaningful Accountability of PD - recent development (used to be corrupt/inefficient) - Politicians - Answers to voters - PO’s dual mandate (National Academy of Sciences) - Fairness & Effectiveness - Need to control crime effectively while being fair and ensure justice to all. - Ways to be Accountable - Traditional Approaches - Through crime rate, clearance rate or response times - UCR largest data but not standard - crime may go unreported - Clearance rate there is no set standard - Ignores order maintenance/service oriented - 70-80% of calls - Don’t address quality or treatment - New Paradigm in Accountability - COMPSTAT - NYPD created - Focuses on crime control - Uses timely data on crime & disorder (early intervention) - Geographic focus, emphasizing crime patterns in particular “hot spots” in pcts. or neighborhoods - Increases internal accountability - Precinct c/o’s held responsible for responding quickly to crime problems in areas - Innovative problem solving - Precinct c/o’s expected to develop timely and relevant responses to crime problems (POP) - COMPSTAT - Success or Not? - Coincided w/NYPD zero tolerance policing philosophy - Large increase in PO’s - Large crime drop but also dropped in areas that had no COMPSTAT - Problems w/ increased accountability under COMPSTAT - Demeaning high level commanders lowers morale and spreads to rank and file - Leads to reclassification of reports or not taking - How to be Accountable? - Internal Accountability - Supervision (routine) - Prevent abuse of authority - front line supervision (Sergeant) - Sgts. - monitor PO’s under command on regular basis, face to face, radio, appear at calls, reviews reports - Span of control. - Advise of unsatisfactory performance and instruct on proper procedures and discipline if necessary. - Close supervision - coach, monitor and focuses on specific problems and taking steps to correct them - formal/informal (CCRB complaints) - Organizational Culture - PO’s policing their own - can lead to distrust of one another. - Corrective Action - Informal - talking w/ PO about situation, informal discipline. - Formal - referrals, discipline. - Written Policies/Report Requirements (one of most important). - Can be found in violation of policy through reports (discipline). - Performance Evaluations - No standard technique. - Provide feedback by identifying areas - good, fair, bad and can correct of needed. - Used for promotional. - Can fail to show PO’s true performance - IAB/Professional Standards Units - Investigate alleged misconduct by PO’s. - Investigations - Reactive (citizen complaint) - Proactive (evidence vs. PO) - Face hostility from rank and file - Success depends on attitudes and actions of Chief. - Sufficient resources and proper training. - Early Intervention Systems - Definition - data based management tool designed to ID PO’s whose performance exhibits problems and then to provide interventions, ie. Counseling to correct performance problems. - Focuses on small number of PO’s who generate most complaints. - Possibly best practice for enhanced police accountability - External Accountability - Political Process - Leaders choose Chief/Commissioner. - Voters choose Sheriff - Supreme Court - Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v Ohio - inadmissibility of evidence 4th/14th Amend (no state deprive citizens of due process) - Helped or hindered policing - Can improve new methods to police and increased education and training, recruitment and supervision - Can allow criminals to be set free on technicalities - Creates penalties for police misconduct - Maintains high standards of professionalism - Civil Suits - Federal "Pattern or Practice" Suits - Fed gov’t sues PD over pattern/practice of abuse of citizen rights - State/Provate suits - Court ordered reforms Accomplishments - Court Appointed Independent Monitors - Injunctions - Criminal Prosecution - Very difficult for successful prosecutions - Media - Public Interest Organizations - Citizen Oversight - Non-PO’s involved in review of complaints vs. PO’s - 2 ways - Civilian Review Boards - Reviews individual complaints and makes recommendations to Chief/Commissioner - focus on PO action. - Police Auditor - Audit/monitor the operations of PD - focus on Dep’t actions - can make recommendations on policy to Chief/Commissioner - Goals - Improve citizen input in order to improve policing. - Against - Intrudes on professional independence of PD - Citizens not qualified to review PD operations - Expensive and duplicates work of IAB - IAB sustains more complaints vs. PO’s - For - Opens up transparency of PD - Enhance public confidence in complaint process # Police Discretion and Community Relations - Police Discretion - Defined as: an official action by a CRJ official based on that individual’s judgment about the best course of action. - Can promote effective and efficient police work. - Patrol Officers - “street level bureaucrats” - Most amount of discretion - Discretion used: - Domestic arrests (not so much anymore) - Emotionally Disturbed Persons - VTL's - Juvenile Court referrals - DPF/PF - Abuse of Discretion - Discrimination - racial/ethnic minorities - racial profiling - Denial of due process - harassing instead of arresting (dealers/prostitutes) - Systematic under enforcement of laws - toleration of some laws - Poor personnel management - discretion goes unchecked by supervisors - Inconsistent policy - against dep’t. policy (decisions) - Discretion Used by: - Police Officers - Patrol area more than normal - Conduct pursuit - Stop, Question and Frisk subject - Take report - Make arrest/summons - Use DPF/PF - Detectives - Stop investigation of crime (lack of leads) - Seek warrant for arrest/search - Conduct stakeout - Question/not question subject - Supervisors - Adopt CPOP/POP - Give high priority to VTL’s - Ignore minor drug offenses - Crack down on vice crimes - Give low priority on vice crimes - Why Discretion Used? - Nature of Criminal Law - allows decisions to be made - Public expectations - Social/Medical issues - arrest/refer - Work environment (low visibility at work) - PO’s work alone/limited PO resources. - PO/Citizen contact usually in private - Limits on Discretion - Legal factors - Supreme Court Decisions - State court decisions - State/local law - Administrative/Organizational factors - Dep’t policy - Supervision - Informal organizational culture (style of policing) - Organizational Culture - Peer pressure from other officers. - Situational - Seriousness of crime characteristics of c/v - Situational - Seriousness of crime - Characteristics of c/v - Strength of evidence - Race, ethnicity and gender of c/v/perp - Preference of c/v - Characteristics of neighborhood - Relationship between c/ v and perp - Characteristics of PO - Demeanor of perp - Social and Political factors - Local political culture - Police Community Relations - Relations between the PD and racial and ethnic minority communities. - Changing demographic of communities create new challenges. - Not all groups have the same experiences. - Problems w/ specific groups - Black/African American - major civil rights, riots, feeling of oppression - Hispanic/Latino - immigration laws, language - Native Americans - Tribal police, understaffed and very jurisdictional - Asian - immigration laws, language - Arabs - immigration laws, languages, religion - Gender/sexual orientation - harassment, disrespect and abuse - 2008 - 88% great deal/some confidence in police (US poll) 91% - white, 75% - black - 2013 - 60% - white, 38% - black - Bad feelings towards police - Particular groups or issue (usually force) - 2016 - Gallup Poll - 93% (non-whites - 67%) - Roles played - Use of force - Big role in relation with police - Biggest problem - DPF unarmed, police brutality/ excessive force - Whites less likely to believe PD uses excessive force - Social class - High rates of poverty, less educated or a previous victim less confident/no confidence - Age - High rates of no confidence in 18-28 demographic - Controversial events - Play role and have huge impact within community - Racial Profiling - Definition - Any action initiated by law enforcement that relies upon, race, ethnicity or national origin of an individual rather than 1) behavior of that individual; 2) information that leads law enforcement to a particular individual who has been Identified as being engaged in or has been engaging in criminal activity - Examples - "Driving while Black", "Driving while Brown" - Came about through 1990’s lawsuits against NJ State troopers and Maryland police. - Can arise through SQF (NYPD) and airline security (TSA) - Improving Relations with Community - Maintain a diverse police department - Improve handling of citizen complaints (CCRB) - Create police-community relation units - (NYPD - Community Affairs) - Diversity training (Academy and In-Service Training) - Implement a CPOP/POP strategy # Deviance, Ethics & Professionalism - Police Corruption - Definition - Acts involving the misuse of authority by PO in a manner designed to produce personal gain for himself/for others. - Misuse of authority. - Personal gain. - Types of Deviance by PO’s - Occupational Deviance - Includes criminal and non-criminal behavior committed during the course of normal work activities/committed under the guise of the PO’s authority. - Non-crime - sleeping on the job. - Abuse of Authority - Action by PO that injure, insult, trespasses upon human dignity and/or violate an inherent legal right of a citizen. - High costs on PO, CRJ and society – police corruption - 1 - criminal act - undermines integrity of PD - 2 - protects other criminal activity (gambling/narcotics) - 3 - undermines effectiveness of CRJ system (PO credibility) - 4 - undermines professionalism of PD’s - 5 - secret tax (bribes/payoffs) - 6 - undermines public confidence in PD (PD/community relations) - overall high rating - Gratuities - Free meals, coffee, discounts (non-crime) - about 1½ PD’s have policy against. - Businesses - FOR - 1) thank PO for protecting community. - 2) self interest - deterrence/protection w/ PO there (favors - extra patrol?) - Businesses - AGAINST - 1) open door to serious forms of corruption. - 2) PO’s entitled and may want more - Bribes - Accepting money/other type to do or not do something. - Most serious but historically low occurrence - Isolated acts - VTL getting $ for no summons - Theft & Burglary - Serious form of corruption. - Examples - taking $ from intoxicated persons, stealing property from PD property room, taking money/guns/drugs from drug raids (usually untraceable) - Internal Corruption - Department’s corrupt - Bribes for Promotions/Assignments - Knapp Commission uncovered - $500-$2,000 for Detective Promotion. - Corruption & Brutality - close correlation between the two - Mollen Commission - “Rite of Initiation" into PD corruption - Difficult to determine. - Usually no victim - citizen and PO are in it together. - Little reliable data - research "perceptions" not participation. - Fyfe & Robert Kane study - 1975-1996 - 78K PO's involved - 1,543 PO's career ending misconduct - 2% but most not terminated for corruption. - Corruption levels - Type 1 - Rotten Apple & Rotten Pockets - Least serious - Rotten Apple - few PO’s are independently engaged in corrupt acts. - Rotten Pockets - several corrupt PO’s cooperate with one another. - Type 2 - Pervasive Unorganized Corruption - Higher degree. - Majority of personnel who are corrupt but have little relationship to each other - Type 3 - Pervasive Organized Corruption - Most serious. - Penetrates higher levels of department and is shared among PO’s & supervisors. - Theories - Individual PO Explanations - Rotten Apple easier to blame individual than department. - Department - solve problem - terminate - Private citizen - can understand individual officer, wants to believe no problems with their PD. - Does not account for any history or amount of corruption - Social Structure Explanations - Criminal Law - Laws are immoral and harmful to some or acceptable or not harmful. - Prohibition. - Organized crime. - Bribes - Local Political Culture - Heavily influences PO corruption - Strong non-corrupt government - non corrupt PD. - Cultural Conflict - Different attitudes, norms, mores within society. - Neighborhood Explanations - Neighborhood fosters deviance in PO’s. - Social disorganization - high poverty, transient population, high racial diversity, low informal social control ) - Kane study - Dismissed PO’s assigned to Pcts. with transient population, high poverty and unemployment, foreign born and low education - Nature of PD work Explanations - Setting provides more opportunities. - Exposes many to opportunities to be corrupt. - Low visibility - alone/partner working - no direct supervisor risk of being caught low. - Impact on PO’s attitudes - see worst of humanity and everyone does it. - Police Organization Explanations - Corruption flourishes in department that tolerates it. - Won’t get caught or no severe punishment if caught. - Police subculture Explanations - Major factor. - Creates (initiation) and sustains (cover up). - Peer pressure - very strong among PO’s out of loyalty/group solidarity. - Becoming Corrupt - Most, if not all, are honest at start of career. - Moral career - going from smaller to larger acts of corruption, tolerance of and/or involvement in corruption. - Gratuities (free meals) - Peer pressure is important - introduced/observed corrupt acts by senior PO’s then leads to PO’s involvement. - Internal Strategies on Controlling Corruption - Attitude of Chief - strong stance - vital. - Rules & Regulations - Work with community on expected standards of POs - Managing Anti-corruption investigations - Strong properly staffed IAB (staffing difficult) - Garrity ruling - Investigative tactics - Same problem as with regular investigation - Credible evidence - Honest PO’s don’t come forward - Bad PO’s come forward to save themselves - Blue Wall of Silence - Policies about perjury/ lying - may foster hiding more - Preventing Corruption - Integrity tests - Target PO’s under suspicion or random PO’s - Effective supervision - Competent and effective front line supervisors - Rewarding Good PO’s - Personnel Recruitment - Proper selection screening (almost impossible) - External Control - Special Investigations (Commissions) - Criminal Prosecution - State laws - Bribe receiving, official misconduct, accepting unlawful gratuities. - Federal laws - more independent - Mobilizing Public Opinion - Altering External Environment # Policing and Terrorism - Policing & Terrorism - Today’s Legal framework for Terrorism - Not a whole response to 9/11 - Most response ideas from 1980’s/90’s - Piecemeal fashion - 1970’s - Legislation for air transportation security and hijacking - 1984 - Act to Combat International Terrorism - rewarded anyone giving info solving terrorist acts vs. US/US property. - 1986 - Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act - made Terrorist act vs. American a federal crime - 12/88 - Pan Am Flt 103 - Lockerbie, Scotland - No retaliation but military strike vs. Libya Bombing happened because US bombed Tripoli, Libya in 1986 which was a retaliatory strike vs. Libya for bombing of disco in Berlin and killing American military - 4/19/95 - OKC bombing - 2/26/96 - 1st WTC 2/26/96 - 1996 - Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act - ability to sue foreign govt’s that support terrorism, focused on financing of terrorist groups and considered foreign terrorists were enemy aliens - CRJ viewpoint - Made terrorism a federal crime - Feds authorized to investigate all terrorist cases and provided with funding, paved the way for 9/11 legislation by focusing on international dimensions of terrorism and need for cooperation - 9/11/01 - Attack on America - WTC, PA, Pentagon - 10/11/01 - Creation of Office of Homeland Security - 11/02 - Becomes Department of Homeland Security - Primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks w/in US, reduce vulnerability of US to terrorism at home and minimize damage and assist in recovery if attack occurs - Most important change came at Policy level - Department of Homeland Security - Unified agencies to help accomplish goals - 1 - US Citizenship and Immigration Services - 2 - Customs and Border Protection (was US Customs Service - Treasury Dept) - 3 - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (was INS - DOJ) - 4 - Transportation Security Administration - created under DHS Fed Air Marshall Service - 5 - Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA - former cabinet position ) - 6 - US Coast Guard (Treasury Dept) - 7 - US Secret Service (DOJ) - Most important legislation after 9/11 - USA PATRIOT ACT - (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (10/26/01) revised in 2005 and Amendments in 2006) - Allows investigators to use tools already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking - Use of surveillance for more crimes - Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to avoid detections - Roving wiretaps - surveil person and all devices - FISA Court - Allows LE to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists - Don’t have to tell subject of search warrant - FISA Court - Allows LE to ask court for order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases - Secure records without the knowledge of subject - FISA Court - Facilitated information sharing and cooperation amongst federal and state law enforcement agencies. - Provided more funding for FBI as new lead to investigate terrorism around the world. - Enhanced border patrols and tighten immigration policy. - Updated law to reflect new technologies and new threats. - Allows