DOCSLIB.ORG

NIJ Journal Issue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NIJ Journal Issue Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics by Philip Bulman A new study suggests that less-lethal weapons decrease rates of officer and offender injuries. n the mid-19th century, police offi­ the University of South Carolina, cers in New York and Boston relied recently completed an NIJ-funded Ion less-lethal weapons, mostly study of injuries to officers and civil­ wooden clubs. By the late 1800s, ians during use-of-force events. police departments began issuing Injury rates to civilians ranged from firearms to officers in response to 17 to 64 percent (depending on the better-armed criminals. Today, many agency reporting) in use-of-force law enforcement agencies are again events, while injury rates to offi­ stressing the use of less-lethal weap­ cers ranged from 10 to 20 percent. ons, but they are using devices that Most injuries involved minor bruises, are decidedly more high-tech than strains and abrasions. Major inju­ their 19th-century counterparts. ries included dog bites, punctures, broken bones, internal injuries and Use of force, including less-lethal gunshot wounds. weaponry, is nothing new to polic­ ing, and in any use-of-force incident, injury is a possibility. Researchers Can New Technologies have estimated that between 15 and Decrease Injuries? 20 percent of arrests involve use of Advances in less-lethal technology force. A group of researchers led offer the promise of more effective by Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor of control over resistive suspects with criminology and criminal justice at 4 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 267 If injury reduction fewer serious injuries. Pepper spray likelihood of officer injury; Taser use was among the first of these newer, is the primary goal, by the Seattle Police Department, less-lethal weapons to achieve wide­ however, similarly showed no effect spread adoption by police forces. agencies that deploy on the likelihood of officer injury. More recently, conducted energy This suggests that not every agen­ devices (CEDs), such as the Taser, pepper spray and cy’s experience with CEDs will be have become popular. the same. CEDs are clearly at More than 11,000 American law Miami-Dade Police Department an advantage. Both enforcement agencies use CEDs, With 3,000 officers, the Miami-Dade but their use has not been with­ weapons prevent Police Department (MDPD) is the out controversy. Organizations such largest law enforcement agency in as Amnesty International and the or minimize the the southeast. American Civil Liberties Union have questioned whether CEDs can physical struggles The MDPD started using Tasers in be used safely, and whether they 2003. By May 2006, about 70 per­ contribute to civilian injuries and in- that are likely to injure cent of the officers carried Tasers. custody deaths. Policymakers and The researchers examined 762 use­ law enforcement officials want to officers and of-force incidents between January know whether CEDs and other 2002 and May 2006. Most injuries less-lethal weaponry are safe and suspects alike. were minor, and officers were sub­ effective, and how police should stantially less likely to be injured use them. than suspects, with 17 percent of force level used by deputies officers injured and 56 percent of Analysis of Information (59 percent of incidents) was soft suspects injured. from Specific Law empty hand control (e.g., holding Use of both soft hand tactics and Enforcement Agencies a suspect to restrain him), which increased the odds of officer injury hard hand tactics (e.g., using kicks Alpert’s research on use of force by 160 percent. or punches to restrain a suspect) by and less-lethal weapons, in part, officers more than doubled the odds focused on data gathered from Pepper spray decreased the odds of of officer injury. Hands-on tactics three law enforcement agencies — suspect injury by almost 70 percent, also increased the odds of injury to the Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff’s and a deputy aiming a gun at a sus­ suspects, as did the use of canines. Department, the Miami-Dade pect reduced his or her injury odds Taser use, however, was associated (Fla.) Police Department and the by more than 80 percent (the act with a reduction in the likelihood of Seattle Police Department. of pointing a gun alone often effec­ both officer and suspect injury. tively ends a suspect’s resistance). Richland County Sheriff’s The use of a canine posed, by far, Seattle Police Department Department the greatest injury risk to suspects, The Seattle Police Department Approximately 475 sworn officers increasing injury odds almost forty- (SPD) has about 1,200 sworn from the Richland County Sheriff’s fold. Suspects who displayed active officers. The agency started using Department (RCSD) serve the aggression toward deputies were Tasers in December 2000. The unincorporated portions of Richland also more likely to suffer injuries. SPD recorded 676 use-of-force County, S.C. The agency started incidents between December 2005 phasing in Tasers in late 2004. In contrast to the Miami-Dade and October 2006. Suspects suf­ During data collection, about 60 and Seattle Police Departments, fered injuries in 64 percent of the percent of deputies carried Tasers. Taser use by the RCSD had no incidents, while officers suffered effect on the likelihood of suspect injuries in 20 percent of the incidents. Researchers coded 467 use-of­ injury. Also in contrast to the Miami- Officers used hands-on tactics in force reports from January 2005 Dade Police Department, Taser use 76 percent of the incidents. The to July 2006. The most frequent by the RCSD had no effect on the next most frequent type of force Police Use of Force:The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics | 5 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 267 What Is Use of Force, and What Is a Use-of-Force Continuum? “ se of force” refers to the encounter with a civilian. “The use­ or the suspect. When police U“amount of effort required of-force continuum” is a phrase to in a democracy use force and by police to compel compliance describe this kind of guide. The con­ injury results, concern about 1 by an unwilling subject.” The tinuum of a particular agency may police abuse arises, lawsuits Fourth Amendment forbids unrea­ cover a full spectrum of actions from often follow and the reputa­ sonable searches and seizures, no-force, in which having officers tion of the police is threatened. and various other legal and policy present is enough to defuse the situ­ Injuries also cost money in med­ controls govern how and when ation or deter crime, to lethal force, ical bills for indigent suspects, officers can use force. Most agen­ in which officers use deadly weap­ workers’ compensation claims cies tightly control the use of ons. For a sample continuum, see for injured officers, or damages force, and supervisors or internal NIJ’s topic page. paid out in legal settlements affairs units routinely review or judgments. serious incidents. ▼ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/ law-enforcement/officer-safety/ 1. Definition by the International Many law enforcement agencies use-of-force/continuum.htm. Association of Chiefs of Police, instruct officers in, and have Police Use of Force in America, policy guides for officers regard­ When any kind of physical use of 2001, http://www.theiacp.org/ ing, appropriate responses to force is required, there is always Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/ 2001useofforce.pdf. an escalation of activities in an a chance of injury to the officer officers used was the Taser (36 Seattle and Richland County).2 When police in a percent), followed by pepper spray The large sample, representing (8 percent).1 more than 24,000 use-of-force democracy use force incidents, allowed the researchers Taser use was associated with a to use statistical techniques to and injury results, 48 percent decrease in the odds determine which variables were concern about police of suspect injury in a use-of-force likely to affect injury rates. The incident (it was not associated with use of physical force (e.g., hands, abuse arises, lawsuits a significant change in the odds fists, feet) by officers increased the of officer injury). The use of physi­ odds of injury to officers and sus­ often follow and the cal force by officers increased the pects alike. However, pepper spray odds of officer injury 258 percent. and CED use decreased the likeli­ reputation of the police Not surprisingly, the odds of officer hood of suspect injury by 65 and injury also increased when suspects 70 percent, respectively. Officer is threatened. resisted by using physical force or injuries were unaffected by CED when suspects used or threatened use, while the odds of officer injury to use a weapon. increased about 21 percent with pepper spray use. Combined Agency Analysis Longitudinal Analysis The researchers conducted a com­ bined analysis of use-of-force data To see if the introduction of CEDs from 12 large local law enforcement was associated with changes in agencies (including Miami-Dade, injury rates in individual police 6 | Police Use of Force:The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 267 departments, the researchers (CPD) and 35 suspects involved suspects (12 percent) were injured. reviewed monthly reports of in use-of-force situations. Unlike Most suspect injuries were cuts or use-of-force incidents and of the RCSD, the CPD does not abrasions, but there were also two officer and suspect injuries from use CEDs. dog bites, and one suspect was shot police departments in Austin, in the arm after firing at officers. Texas, and Orlando, Fla., both In nine incidents (out of 109), officers before and after the introduction in the RCSD reported that a Taser Suspect Perceptions 3 of CEDs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Media and Tactical Considerations for Law Enforcement
    Social Media and Tactical Considerations For Law Enforcement This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2011-CK-WX-K016 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. ISBN: 978-1-932582-72-7 e011331543 July 2013 A joint project of: U.S. Department of Justice Police Executive Research Forum Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 145 N Street, N.E. Suite 930 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20036 To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770. Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Contents Foreword ................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ........................................................... iv Introduction ............................................................... .1 Project Background.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 98 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2007 Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kit Kinports, Criminal Procedure in Perspective, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 71 (2007-2008) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9801-0071 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol, 98, No. I Copyright 0 2008 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN PERSPECTIVE KIT KINPORTS* This Article attempts to situate the Supreme Court's constitutional criminal procedure jurisprudence in the academic debates surrounding the reasonable person standard, in particular, the extent to which objective standards should incorporate a particular individual's subjective characteristics. Analyzing the Supreme Court's search and seizure and confessions opinions, Ifind that the Court shifts opportunisticallyfrom case to case between subjective and objective tests, and between whose point of view-the police officer's or the defendant's-it views as controlling. Moreover, these deviations cannot be explained either by the principles the Court claims underlie the various constitutionalprovisions at issue or by the attributes of subjective and objective tests themselves. The Article then centers on the one Supreme Court opinion in this area to address the question of "subjective" objective standards, Yarborough v.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Recruitment and Retention in the Contemporary Urban Environment
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Center on Quality Policing View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation conference proceedings series. RAND conference proceedings present a collection of papers delivered at a conference or a summary of the conference. The material herein has been vetted by the conference attendees and both the introduction and the post-conference material have been re- viewed and approved for publication by the sponsoring research unit at RAND.
    [Show full text]
  • FY2017 Annual Report Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
    FY2017 Annual Report Alabama Law Enforcement Agency [intentionally blank] Alabama Law Enforcement Agency 2017 Annual Report Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Law Enforcement statutorily appoints and oversees the Division Directors for the Department of Public Safety and the State Bureau of Investigation. The Office of the Secretary also consists of the following units: Homeland Security, Protective Services, Administration, Support Services, and Integrity. Homeland Security The Homeland Security Program works with federal, state and local partners to prevent and respond to terrorism in the state. Homeland Security works closely with the public and private sectors in law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire services, agriculture, public health, public safety, communications, environmental management, military and transportation. The Homeland Security Program is also the administrator for the Grants Administered State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). The purpose of the SHSGP is to support state and local efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events and to prepare the state for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the $11,652,000 security of the United States. In fiscal year 2017, the department administered $11,652,000 to state and local partners. Protective Services Protective Services consists of the Dignitary Protection and Uniform units. Protective Services is responsible for providing general law enforcement/police services at all state facilities, buildings, and other designated properties (primarily within the state Capitol complex in Montgomery), as mandated by §32-2-100, Code of Alabama, 1975; providing for the protection of certain state officers and visiting dignitaries to the state as mandated by §36- 33-1, et.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Pre-Trial Detention
    Detention Monitoring Tool Factsheet Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal detention should be the exception rather than the procedure. rule. At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent reasonable suspicion of the person having committed of the total prison population worldwide. They are the offence, and where detention is necessary and legally presumed innocent until proven guilty but may proportionate to prevent them from absconding, be held in conditions that are worse than those for committing another offence, or interfering with the convicted prisoners and sometimes for years on end. course of justice during pending procedures. This means that pre-trial detention is not legitimate where Pre-trial detention undermines the chance of a fair these objectives can be achieved through other, less trial and the presumption of innocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Reentry Strategy E M E N T R E E N T R
    P l a n n i n g a LANNING AND SSESSING A n P A d A s s e s s i n g a L a Law Enforcement w E n f o r c Reentry Strategy e m e n t R e e n t r Council of State Governments y Justice Center S t r a t e g y 100 Wall Street 4630 MontgomeryAvenue 504 West 12th Street 20th Floor Suite 650 Austin,TX 78701 New York, NY 10005 Bethesda, MD 20814 tel: 512-507-6653 tel: 212-482-2320 tel: 301-760-2401 fax: 512-474-5011 fax: 212-482-2344 fax: 240-497-0568 www.justicecenter.csg.org For More Information U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100VermontAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 To obtain details about COPS programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov . e080813162 Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy A report prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Matt Schwarzfeld Deirdre Mead Weiss Martha Plotkin Laura Draper This report was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum. It was completed under Cooperative Agreement 2005–HS–WX–K007 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning a Charged Suspect
    QUESTIONING A CHARGED SUSPECT "The police have an interest in investigating new or additional crimes after an individual is formally charged with one crime."(1) After a suspect has been arrested for one crime, officers who are investigating another crime may want to question him. In fact, this happens a lot because for some people committing crime is a way of life. They may be career criminals, they may have gone on a crime spree, or they may just commit crimes whenever it suits their purposes. In any event, when they are eventually arrested for one of their crimes, officers who are investigating other crimes may be lined up, waiting to question them. Can they lawfully do so? The answer depends mainly on whether the suspect has been charged with the crime that will be the subject of interrogation. If not, officers will ordinarily be free to question him so long as they comply with Miranda. On the other hand, if the suspect has been charged, officers must also comply with a set of rules that come from an area of law known as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment a suspect has a right to have counsel present whenever he is questioned about a crime with which he has been charged.(2) As we will explain, the suspect may, however, waive this right or he may invoke it. Although this may sound a lot like Miranda, it is quite different. For example, Miranda and Sixth Amendment rights attach at different times during an investigation, they are invoked in different ways, and the consequences of an invocation differ.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards Manual
    Delaware Police Accreditation Commission STANDARDS MANUAL January 19, 2021 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 STANDARDS FOR ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ROLE Section 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT ROLE AND AUTHORITY 1.1.1 Oath of Office 8 Section 2 LIMITS OF AUTHORITY 1.2.1 State Law Requirements 8 1.2.2 Constitutional Requirements 9 1.2.3 Search and Seizure 9 1.2.4 Arrest 9 1.2.5 Strip and/or Body Cavity Searches 10 Section 3 USE OF FORCE 1.3.1 Use of Force 10 1.3.2 Police Officer Defined 10 1.3.3 Warning Shots 10 1.3.4 Less Lethal Weapon and Control Devices 11 1.3.5 Providing Medical Aid 11 1.3.6 Use of Force Reporting and Review 11 1.3.7 Officer Involved Shooting 11 1.3.8 Firearms and Ammunition 12 1.3.9 Weapons Proficiency 12 1.3.10 Annual Weapons Proficiency Training 13 1.3.11 Annual Use of Force Training 13 1.3.12 Annual Use of Force Analysis 13 Section 4 DIRECTION 1.4.1 Direction 14 2 1.4.2 Duty to Obey Lawful Orders 14 1.4.3 Mission 14 1.4.4 Written Directives 15 Section 5 ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AND PERSONNEL ALTERNATIVES 1.5.1 Hiring Criteria 15 1.5.2 Basic Training Requirements 15 1.5.3 Part-time Officer In-service Training 15 1.5.4 Training Requirements for Use of Force and Firearms 16 1.5.5 Training Requirements for Seasonal Officers 16 1.5.6 Seasonal Officer Training Hours 16 1.5.7 Seasonal Officer Firearms Training Requirements 16 1.5.8 Non-sworn Personnel Training Requirements 16 Section 6 FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND AGENCY OWNED PROPERTY 1.6.1 Accounting 17 Section 7 COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AND CONDITIONS OF WORK 1.7.1 Conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Records Management Advice Internal Review/Investigation of Notorious
    Records Management Advice Issued: December 2015 Using Records Retention Schedules: Internal Review/Investigation of Notorious/Historically Significant Incidents within the Law Enforcement Agency’s Jurisdiction Purpose: Provide guidance to local law enforcement agencies on the identification and retention of notorious/historically significant incidents within the agency’s jurisdiction. The Law Enforcement Records Retention Schedule includes the following records series: DAN LE2010-059, Internal Review/Investigation – Notorious/Historically Significant Incidents. It is intended to cover internal review and investigation of incidents that (may) have enduring historical value for future research. Factors to consider Did the incident: • Cause controversy within the community, the county, or the state? • Involve a serious injury or fatality? • Involve a community-wide disaster (e.g., earthquake, mudslide, flood)? • Create a major public threat that required a significant law enforcement response (e.g. major protest, riot, demonstration, terrorist threat)? • Have a lasting impact on the community? • Result in a major modification to the agency’s policy, training, or equipment? • Cause a change in federal, state, or local law? • Result in the participation of or investigation by a federal agency/body (e.g., National Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, etc.)? • Attain significant contemporary public notoriety beyond the community? • Become the subject of extensive news media coverage, a book, or a feature film? • Become frequently cited in scholarly or professional literature or other resources? If you answered YES to any of the above then the records need to be appraised for transfer to Washington State Archives (WSA). Please contact your regional branch to organize appraisal and transfer; records declined by WSA may be destroyed.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Are Suspected of a Criminal Offence If You Are Suspected of a Criminal Offence
    If you are suspected of a criminal offence If you are suspected of a criminal offence Contents About this brochure 3 Arrest and questioning 3 Police custody 3 Your lawyer 4 The Probation Service 5 Rights and restrictions 5 Appearance before the Officer of Justice 6 What happens next? 6 Detention 7 Remand 7 Release 8 Preliminary hearing 9 Prosecution 10 Dismissal 10 In court 10 Compensation 11 Assistance 12 Other brochures 13 Further information 13 2 If you are suspected of a criminal offence About this brochure This brochure provides information about what to expect if you have been arrested for a criminal offence. It explains the role of the various people involved in the criminal justice system, how long you can be held in custody or on remand, and sets out your rights and responsibilities. It also tells you where you can obtain further information at each stage of the procedure. You can also contact your own lawyer or the local office of the Juridisch Loket (Legal Advice Centre). Details of other brochures and useful addresses are given at the rear of this brochure. Arrest and questioning You have been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. The police may wish to question you further at the police station. If so, they are entitled to hold you for up to six ‘working’ hours. The hours between midnight and 9 am do not count towards this period. For example, if you are taken to the police station at 9 o’ clock in the evening, the police can detain you for questioning until 12 noon the following day.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Report MISSION in Support of the Port of Seattle’S Mission, We: • Fight Crime, • Protect and Serve Our Community
    PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE 2020 Annual Report MISSION In support of the Port of Seattle’s Mission, we: • fight crime, • protect and serve our community. VISION To be the nation’s finest port police. GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Leadership • Integrity • Accountability Port of Seattle Commissioners and Executive Staff: It is my pleasure to present to you the 2020 Port of Seattle Police Department Annual Report. This past year was challenging in unprecedented ways. COVID-19 significantly impacted our day-to-day operations and our employees and their families. National civil unrest and demand for police reform led to critique and an ongoing assessment of the department. Changes in leadership, ten retirements, and a hiring freeze compounded the pressures and stress on your Police Department members. However, despite these challenges, I am proud to say that the high caliber professionals in the department stepped up. They adapted to the new environment and continued to faithfully perform their mission to fight crime, and protect and serve our community. Port employees, business partners, travelers, and visitors remained safe yet another year, because of the teamwork and outstanding dedication of the people who serve in your Police Department. As you read the pages to follow, I hope you enjoy learning more about this extraordinary team. On behalf of the exemplary men and women of this Department, it has been a pleasure to serve the Port of Seattle community. - Mike Villa, Deputy Chief Table of Contents Command Team . 6 Jurisdiction .........................................7 Community Engagement ...........................8 Honor Guard .......................................9 Operations Bureau .................................10 Port of Seattle Seaport . 11 Marine Patrol Unit .................................12 Dive Team .........................................12 SEA Airport .
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement Intelligence: a Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies
    David L. Carter, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies November 2004 David L. Carter, Ph.D. This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2003-CK-WX-0455 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Michigan State University. Preface The world of law enforcement intelligence has changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have been tasked with a variety of new responsibilities; intelligence is just one. In addition, the intelligence discipline has evolved significantly in recent years. As these various trends have merged, increasing numbers of American law enforcement agencies have begun to explore, and sometimes embrace, the intelligence function. This guide is intended to help them in this process. The guide is directed primarily toward state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies of all sizes that need to develop or reinvigorate their intelligence function. Rather than being a manual to teach a person how to be an intelligence analyst, it is directed toward that manager, supervisor, or officer who is assigned to create an intelligence function. It is intended to provide ideas, definitions, concepts, policies, and resources. It is a primer- a place to start on a new managerial journey. Every effort was made to incorporate the state of the art in law enforcement intelligence: Intelligence-Led Policing, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the FBI Intelligence Program, the array of new intelligence activities occurring in the Department of Homeland Security, community policing, and various other significant developments in the reengineered arena of intelligence.
    [Show full text]