Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2016

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

October 2019, NCJ 251922

Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 – Statistical Tables

Connor Brooks, BJS Statistician

s of the end of fscal-year 2016, federal agencies in the United States and

FIGURE 1

Distribution of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by department or branch, 2016

A

U.S. territories employed about 132,000 full-time law enforcement ofcers. Federal law enforcement ofcers were defned as any federal ofcers who were authorized to make arrests and carry frearms. About three-quarters of federal law enforcement ofcers (about 100,000) provided police protection as their primary function. Four in fve federal law enforcement ofcers, regardless of their primary function, worked for either the Department of Homeland Security (47% of all ofcers) or the Department

of Justice (33%) (fgure 1, table 1).

Department of
Homeland Security

Department of Justice
Other executivebranch agencies

Independent agencies

Judicial branch Legislative branch

Findings in this report are from the 2016 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers (CFLEO). Te Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted the census, collecting data on 83 agencies. Of these agencies, 41 were Ofces of Inspectors General, which provide oversight of federal agencies and activities. Te tables in this report provide statistics on the number, functions, and demographics of federal law enforcement ofcers.

  • 0
  • 10
  • 20
  • 30
  • 40
  • 50

Percent

Note: See table 1 for counts and percentages. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016.

Highlights

ƒƒIn 2016, there were about 100,000 full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in the United States and U.S. territories who primarily provided police protection, compared to 701,000 full-time sworn ofcers in general-purpose state and local law-enforcement agencies nationwide.
ƒƒBetween 2008 and 2016, the Amtrak Police had the largest percentage increase in full-time federal law enforcement ofcers (40%), followed by the National Park Service Rangers (29%) and the Bureau of Indian Afairs (27%).

ƒƒThe Bureau of Indian Afairs experienced the highest rate of assaults on ofcers in 2016 (143 assaults per 100 ofcers), which was more than triple the rate in 2008 (38 per 100) and more than 20 times the rate of any other agency.
ƒƒAbout two-thirds of all full-time federal law enforcement ofcers worked for either Customs and Border Protection (33%), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (14%), the FBI (10%), or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (9%).

List of tables

TabLE 1. Distribution of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by department or branch, 2016 TabLE 2. Full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in federal agencies, 2008 and 2016 TabLE 3. Full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in Ofces of Inspectors General, 2008 and 2016 TabLE 4. Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by primary function, 2016 TabLE 5. Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by sex and race or ethnicity, 2008 and 2016 TabLE 6. Sex and race or ethnicity of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in agencies employing 50 or more ofcers, other than Ofces of Inspectors General, 2016

TabLE 7. Sex and race or ethnicity of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in Ofces of Inspectors General employing 50 or more ofcers, 2016

TabLE 8. Assaults on federal law enforcement ofcers, 2008 and 2016

List of fgures

FIGURE 1. Distribution of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by department or branch, 2016 FIGURE 2. Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by primary function, 2016 FIGURE 3. Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by sex and race or ethnicity, 2008 and 2016

  • Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 - Statistical Tables | October 2019
  • 2

TabLE 1

Distribution of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by department or branch, 2016

Department/branch

Total Department of Homeland Security Department of Justice Other executive branch agencies Independent agencies Judicial branch

Number

132,110
62,125 43,666 15,414
4,943

Percent

100% 47.0 33.1 11.7
3.7

  • 4,141
  • 3.1

  • 1.4
  • Legislative branch
  • 1,821

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016.

TabLE 2

Full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in federal agencies, 2008 and 2016

  • Number of full-time
  • Number of full-time
  • Percent change,
  • Percent of all federal

ab

Department/agency Total Ofces of Inspectors General Total executive/judicial/legislative/independent federal law enforcement agencies, other than Ofces of Inspectors General

  • ofcers, 2008
  • ofcers, 2016

2008-2016 ofcers, 2016

  • 121,909
  • 132,110

3,869
8.4%
10.1%
100%
2.9%
3,514

  • 118,395
  • 128,241
  • 8.3%
  • 97.1%

Executive departments: Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Department of Commerce

Bureau of Industry and Security
648 103
514 108
-20.7%
4.9%
0.4% 0.1%
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

  • Administration, Ofce of Law Enforcement
  • 154

~~
126
38 11
-18.2
~
0.1
<0.1 <0.1
Ofce of Security Secretary’s Protective Detail

Department of Defense

~
Pentagon Force Protection Agency

Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Department of Health and Human Services

725 363
777 302

  • 7.2%
  • 0.6%

  • 0.2%
  • -16.8%

Food and Drug Administration, Ofce of

  • Criminal Investigation
  • 187

94
231
77
23.5%
-18.1
0.2%

  • 0.1
  • National Institutes of Health, Division of Police

Department of Homeland Security

  • Customs and Border Protection
  • 37,482

11,779
43,724 12,400
16.7%
5.3
33.1%
9.4

c

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mount Weather Police Federal Protective Service
84
900
~
78
1,007
26
-7.1 11.9
~
0.1 0.8
<0.1
3.6

c

Ofce of the Chief Security Ofcer Secret Service

Department of the Interior

  • 5,226
  • 4,697

-10.1
Bureau of Indian Afairs, Ofce of Justice

  • Services
  • 277

255
21
603
1,416
547
352 253
24
619
1,822
560
27.1% -0.8 14.3
2.7
28.7
2.4
0.3% 0.2
<0.1
0.5 1.4 0.4
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Rangers Park Police

Continued on next page

  • Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 - Statistical Tables | October 2019
  • 3

TabLE 2 (continued)

Full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in federal agencies, 2008 and 2016

  • Number of full-time
  • Number of full-time
  • Percent change,
  • Percent of all federal

Department/agency Department of Justice

  • ofcers, 2008
  • ofcers, 2016

2008-2016 ofcers, 2016

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

  • Explosives
  • 2,562

4,388
12,925 16,993
3,359
2,675 4,181
13,799 19,093
3,788
4.4%
-4.7
6.8
12.4 12.8
2.0% 3.2
10.4 14.5
2.9
Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Bureau of Prisons U.S. Marshals Service

Department of Labor

Division of Protective Operations

Department of State

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

Department of the Treasury

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police
~
1,049
207
15
1,215
182

  • ~
  • <0.1%

0.9% 0.1%
15.8%
-12.1%
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal

  • Investigation Division
  • 2,655

316
2,198
292
-17.2
-7.6
1.7

  • 0.2
  • U.S. Mint Police

Department of Veterans Afairs

Police Department

  • 3,175
  • 3,839

  • 20.9%
  • 2.9%

Other federal law enforcement agencies: Administrative Ofce of the U.S. Courts

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services

Amtrak

4,767
305 202
41
3,985
427 214
48
-16.4%
40.0%
5.9%
3.0%

  • 0.3%
  • Amtrak Police Department

Environmental Protection Agency

Criminal Investigation Division

Government Publishing Ofce

Uniform Police Branch

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ofce of Protective Services

Smithsonian Institution

Ofce of Protective Services

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States Police

Tennessee Valley Authority

Tennessee Valley Authority Police

U.S. Capitol Police

0.2%
17.1%
-17.7%
~
<0.1% <0.1%
0.5%

  • 62
  • 51

  • ~
  • 620

  • 156
  • 139
  • 12.2%
  • 0.1%

145
1,637
53
1,773
-63.4%
8.3%
<0.1%
1.3%

U.S. Postal Service

U.S. Postal Inspection Service

  • 2,324
  • 1,891

  • -18.6%
  • 1.4%

Note: Data for the Bureau of Industry and Security; the Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division; the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Internal Revenue Service were obtained from fedscope.opm.gov. Data for the Federal Protective Service came from the Department of Homeland Security website. ~Not applicable. Agency was not in the 2008 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers (CFLEO).

a

In 2008, agencies reported 1,561 full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in U.S. Territories and Commonwealths. Those ofcers are included in these numbers. The total for 2008 includes 141 ofcers from agencies that did not respond to the 2016 CFLEO.

b

In 2016, agencies reported 1,871 full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in U.S. Territories and Commonwealths. Those ofcers are included in these numbers.

c

The Federal Protective Service was included in the ofcer count for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the 2008 report. ICE reported having about 900 ofcers in the Federal Protective Service at that time, and they are listed separately in this report for both 2008 and 2016. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2008 and 2016.

  • Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 - Statistical Tables | October 2019
  • 4

TabLE 3

Full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in Ofces of Inspectors General, 2008 and 2016

Change,
Ofces of Inspectors General Total Executive departments:
2008

3,514

2016 2008-2016

3,869

a

355
Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce
166
16
149
12
-17
-4
Department of Defense Department of Education
345
88
328
80
-17
-8

  • Department of Energy
  • 48
  • 64
  • 16

65 30
-27
4
Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior
393 163 229
66
458 193 202
70
Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State
122 164
32
130 146
41
8
-18
9
Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Department of Veterans Afairs

Other federal Ofces of Inspectors General:

Agency for International Development
94 21
132
102
36
171
8
15 39

13
~
36 31
23
~

b

Amtrak Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and

b

  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • ~

9
40
~
25
6
47
6
~-3
7
Corporation for National and Community Service Environmental Protection Agency

b

  • Export-Import Bank of the United States
  • ~

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Housing Finance Agency General Services Administration Library of Congress National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Archives and Records Administration National Science Foundation
35
~
67
2
52
66
51 47 74
0
62
6
16
~7
-2 10
0

b

  • 7
  • 1

Ofce of Personnel Management Peace Corps Pension Beneft Guaranty Corporation
28
~~
34
55
6~~

bb

Railroad Retirement Board Securities and Exchange Commission
16
~
34
~
16 13 38
3
0~4~

b

Small Business Administration

b

Smithsonian Institution

  • Social Security Administration
  • 274

~
272
22
-2 ~

b

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset

b

  • Relief Program
  • ~

20
62 19
~

  • -1
  • Tennessee Valley Authority

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration U.S. Postal Service
304 511
278 522
-26
11

~Not applicable. Agency was not in the 2008 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers.

a

The 2008 total includes 18 ofcers from agencies that did not respond to the 2016 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers (CFLEO).

b

Agency was not in the 2008 CFLEO. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2008 and 2016.

  • Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 - Statistical Tables | October 2019
  • 5

  • FIGURE 2
  • FIGURE 3

Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by primary function, 2016
Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by sex and race or ethnicity, 2008 and 2016

Sex

Male

Criminal investigation
Corrections

Female

Police response/patrol

Race/ethnicity

b

White

Noncriminal investigation/ enforcement

b

Black

Court operations

Hispanic

Security/protection

2008

b,c a

  • 0
  • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Other

2016

Percent

  • 0
  • 20
  • 40
  • 60
  • 80
  • 100

Note: See table 4 for counts and percentages.

Percent

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law

  • Enforcement Ofcers, 2016.
  • Note: See table 5 for estimates.

a

In 2016, federal law enforcement agencies indicated that 257 (0.2%) ofcers were of unknown race.

b

Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to

TabLE 4

non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).

Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers,

c

Includes Asians, Native Hawaiians, Other Pacifc Islanders, American

by primary function, 2016

Indians, Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement

Number of Percent of

Ofcers, 2008 and 2016.

Primary function Total Police protection ofcers

132,110 100,250
82,336 11,611
6,303

total

100% 75.9% 62.3
8.8

TabLE 5

Criminal investigation Police response/patrol Non-criminal investigation/enforcement

Corrections

Percent of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers, by sex and race or ethnicity, 2008 and 2016

4.8

2008

100% 84.5 15.5 100% 65.7 10.4 19.8
2.9

2016

100% 86.3 13.7 100% 62.1 10.5 20.9
3.3
19,896
5,173
15.1%
3.9% 2.0% 3.1%

Sex

Male Female

Court operations Security/protection Function not reported

2,645 4,146

Race/ethnicity

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

aa

White Black

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016.

Hispanic

a,b

Asian

a,b

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacifc Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races
0.1 1.0 0.1
0.3 1.0 1.6

a,b b

  • Unknown race/ethnicity
  • 0.0
  • 0.2

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Excludes persons of unknown race/ethnicity.

a

Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).

b

Included in “other” in fgure 3. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2008 and 2016.

  • Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 - Statistical Tables | October 2019
  • 6

TabLE 6

Sex and race or ethnicity of full-time federal law enforcement ofcers in agencies employing 50 or more ofcers, other than Ofces of Inspectors General, 2016

Race/ethnicity
Native Hawaiian/ American
Sex

Male

88.1% 86.2 80.1 87.1 89.2 89.8 92.3 90.2 86.4 77.3 81.4 88.0 83.1 89.7 70.5 78.7 89.3 89.7 88.9
100.0
88.0 92.1 90.1 76.3

  • Other Pacifc
  • Indian/Alaska Two or

  • Agency
  • Number

43,724 19,093 13,799 12,400
4,729 4,181 3,839 3,788 2,675 1,891 1,773 1,215 1,119
777

  • Total
  • Female

11.9% 13.8 19.9 12.9 10.8 10.2
7.7

  • Total
  • White*

49.9% 60.5 83.3 61.4 76.2 79.1 62.4 77.1 80.0 56.6 59.9 78.9 88.2 51.9
9.2
77.0 77.3 69.6
2.8
84.4 67.5 85.4 37.9 73.7

Black*

4.9%
22.0
4.9 7.4
13.1
7.8
22.9
8.6 8.0
21.5 30.3
5.3

Hispanic

39.5%
8.6 6.3
25.5
6.8 8.9
10.3
9.6 4.4
14.2
6.4 8.1 5.0 2.8 8.1 8.4 5.9 9.6 0.6

Asian*

4.1% 1.2 4.2 5.0 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.9 6.0 2.5 3.6 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.2 3.0 2.1 0.0 1.7 4.8 1.2 2.2 1.9

  • Islander*
  • Native*

Recommended publications
  • Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach

    Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 89 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter Winter 1999 Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach 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 Kent Roach, Four Models of the Criminal Process, 89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 671 (1998-1999) This Criminology 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. 0091-4169/99/8902-0671 THM JOURNAL OF QMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 89, No. 2 Copyright 0 1999 by Northwestem University. School of Law Psisd in USA. CRIMINOLOGY FOUR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS KENT ROACH* I. INTRODUCTION Ever since Herbert Packer published "Two Models of the Criminal Process" in 1964, much thinking about criminal justice has been influenced by the construction of models. Models pro- vide a useful way to cope with the complexity of the criminal pro- cess. They allow details to be simplified and common themes and trends to be highlighted. "As in the physical and social sciences, [models present] a hypothetical but coherent scheme for testing the evidence" produced by decisions made by thousands of actors in the criminal process every day.2 Unlike the sciences, however, it is not possible or desirable to reduce the discretionary and hu- manistic systems of criminal justice to a single truth.
  • Informer January 2017

    Informer January 2017

    Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Office of Chief Counsel Legal Training Division January 2017 THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT -INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at (912) 267-3429 or [email protected]. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered directly to you via e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by visiting https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. This edition of The Informer may be cited as 1 INFORMER 17. Join THE INFORMER E-mail Subscription List It’s easy! Click HERE to subscribe, change your e-mail address, or unsubscribe. THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. No one but the FLETC Legal Division will have access to your address, and you will receive mailings from no one except the FLETC Legal Division.
  • Department and Agency Implementation Plans for the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security This Page Intentionally Left Blank

    Department and Agency Implementation Plans for the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security This Page Intentionally Left Blank

    Department and Agency Implementation Plans for The U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security This page intentionally left blank. Department and Agency Implementation Plans for The U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Acting Secretary’s Forward..................................................................6 Introduction........................................................................................8 Department/Agency Approach..........................................................9 Lines of Effort (“LOE”).....................................................................10 LOE 1: Participation.................................................................10 LOE 2: Protection and Access..................................................10 LOE 3: Internal U.S. Capabilities.............................................11 LOE 4: Partner Support............................................................12 Process/Cross Cutting........................................................................13 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning.............................................13 6 | Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary’s Forward In 2017, President Donald J.Trump signed a frst of its kind law recognizing the essential role of women around the world in promoting peace, maintaining security, and preventing confict and abuse.The Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (WPS Act) advances opportunities for women to participate in these efforts—both at home
  • Warrant for Arrest of Alien

    Warrant for Arrest of Alien

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Warrant for Arrest of Alien File No. ________________ Date: ___________________ To: Any immigration officer authorized pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and part 287 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, to serve warrants of arrest for immigration violations I have determined that there is probable cause to believe that ____________________________ is removable from the United States. This determination is based upon: the execution of a charging document to initiate removal proceedings against the subject; the pendency of ongoing removal proceedings against the subject; the failure to establish admissibility subsequent to deferred inspection; biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity and a records check of federal databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves or in addition to other reliable information, that the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law; and/or statements made voluntarily by the subject to an immigration officer and/or other reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law. YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien. __________________________________________ (Signature of Authorized Immigration Officer) __________________________________________ SAMPLE (Printed Name and Title of Authorized Immigration Officer) Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the Warrant for Arrest of Alien was served by me at __________________________ (Location) on ______________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this (Name of Alien) (Date of Service) notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language.
  • Seattle Police Department

    Seattle Police Department

    Seattle Police Department Adrian Diaz, Interim Chief of Police (206) 684-5577 http://www.seattle.gov/police/ Department Overview The Seattle Police Department (SPD) addresses crime, enforces laws, and enhances public safety by delivering respectful, professional, and dependable police services. SPD divides operations into five precincts. These precincts define east, west, north, south, and southwest patrol areas, with a police station in each area. The department's organizational model places neighborhood-based emergency response services at its core, allowing SPD the greatest flexibility in managing public safety. Under this model, neighborhood-based personnel in each precinct assume responsibility for public safety management, primary crime prevention and law enforcement. Precinct-based detectives investigate property crimes and crimes involving juveniles, whereas detectives in centralized units located at SPD headquarters downtown and elsewhere conduct follow-up investigations into other types of crimes. Other parts of the department function to train, equip, and provide policy guidance, human resources, communications, and technology support to those delivering direct services to the public. Interim Police Chief Adrian Diaz has committed the department to five focus areas to anchor itself throughout the on-going work around the future of community safety: • Re-envisioning Policing - Engage openly in a community-led process of designing the role the department should play in community safety • Humanization - Prioritize the sanctity
  • Geospatial Technology Working Group Meeting Report on Predictive Policing �

    Geospatial Technology Working Group Meeting Report on Predictive Policing �

    U.S. Department of Justice Geospatial Technology Working Group Meeting Report on Predictive Policing � Prepared by: Ronald E. Wilson Susan C. Smith John D. Markovic James L. LeBeau Scottsdale, Arizona � October 15-16, 2009 � NCJ 237409 In Attendance: • Belledin, Stacy – Lakewood (CO) Police Department • Bess, Michael – Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Police Department • Brown, Timothy – Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Program and Data Resources, National Institute of Justice • Buslik, Marc – Chicago (IL) Police Department • Groff, Dr. Elizabeth – Temple University • Hart, Dr. Timothy – University of Nevada, Las Vegas • Hubbs, Robert – Knox County (TN) Sheriff’s Office • LeBeau, Dr. James – Southern Illinois University, Carbondale • Mallard, Jim – Arlington (TX) Police Department • Markovic, John – Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office • Paulsen, Dr. Derek – Eastern Kentucky University • Scalisi, Nicole – Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office • Smith, Kurt – San Diego (CA) Sheriff’s Department • Smith, Susan – Shawnee (KS) Police Department/Geospatial Center of Excellence • Stallo, Mark – Dallas (TX) Police Department • Wartell, Julie – San Diego (CA) District Attorney’s Office • Waugh, Beth – Liberty Business Associates, LLC • Williams, D’Ondria – South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) • Wilson, Melissa – Hillsborough County (FL) Sheriff’s Office • Wilson, Ronald – Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Program and Data Resources, National Institute of Justice Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide input from the Geospatial Technical Working Group (TWG) regarding their thoughts and perspectives about predictive policing. It was specifically written in preparation for the Predictive Policing Symposium jointly hosted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The Geospatial TWG is supported and organized by NIJ.
  • PRE-CRIME and COUNTER-TERRORISM Imagining Future Crime in the ' War on Terror '

    PRE-CRIME and COUNTER-TERRORISM Imagining Future Crime in the ' War on Terror '

    doi:10.1093/bjc/azp023 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2009) 49, 628–645 Advance Access publication 11 May 2009 PRE-CRIME AND COUNTER-TERRORISM Imagining Future Crime in the ‘ War on Terror ’ Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering * Downloaded from This article looks at pre-crime in the context of counter-terrorism. Pre-crime links coercive state actions to suspicion without the need for charge, prosecution or conviction. It also includes measures that expand the remit of the criminal law to include activities or associations that are deemed to precede the substantive offence targeted for prevention. The trend towards anticipating risks as a driving principle in criminal justice was identifi ed well before 2001. However, risk and threat anticipation have substantially expanded in the context of contemporary counter-terrorism http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org frameworks. Although pre-crime counter-terrorism measures are rationalized on the grounds of preventing terrorism, these measures do not fi t in the frame of conventional crime prevention. The article argues that the shift to pre-crime embodies a trend towards integrating national security into criminal justice along with a temporal and geographic shift that encompasses a blurring of the borders between the states ’ internal and external coercive capacities. The counter-terrorism framework incorporates and combines elements of criminal justice and national security, giving rise to a number of tensions. One key tension is between the ideal of impartial criminal justice and the politically charged concept of national security. Pre-crime counter-terrorism measures can be traced through a number of interlinking historical trajectories including the wars on crime and drugs, at King's College London on May 5, 2010 criminalization and, more fundamentally, in colonial strategies of domination, control and repression.
  • 2020 Annual Report MISSION in Support of the Port of Seattle’S Mission, We: • Fight Crime, • Protect and Serve Our Community

    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 .
  • Ice Warrant of Arrest

    Ice Warrant of Arrest

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Warrant for Arrest of Alien File No. ________________ Date: ___________________ To: Any immigration officer authorized pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and part 287 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, to serve warrants of arrest for immigration violations I have determined that there is probable cause to believe that ____________________________ is removable from the United States. This determination is based upon: the execution of a charging document to initiate removal proceedings against the subject; the pendency of ongoing removal proceedings against the subject; the failure to establish admissibility subsequent to deferred inspection; biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity and a records check of federal databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves or in addition to other reliable information, that the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law; and/or statements made voluntarily by the subject to an immigration officer and/or other reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law. YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien. __________________________________________ (Signature of Authorized Immigration Officer) __________________________________________ SAMPLE (Printed Name and Title of Authorized Immigration Officer) Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the Warrant for Arrest of Alien was served by me at __________________________ (Location) on ______________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this (Name of Alien) (Date of Service) notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language.
  • Selection Process Amtrak® Police

    Selection Process Amtrak® Police

    Stage 4.1 Selection Process SM Post-Offer Psychological Examinations* Protecting“America’s Railroad ” Candidates who successfully complete the ® Stage 1 interview phase will be administered a post- Amtrak Police Department Position Posting and Resume Review offer psychological examination. Candidates Selected applicants who meet or exceed basic that have successfully completed the above qualifications for employment will be scheduled stages will be scheduled for an interview with a for the Orientation/Testing. psychologist. Stage 1.1 Stage 5 Physical Agility Testing* Final non-medical stage The position of Police Officer requires that All interviews, testing, and background applicants meet Physical Agility Standards and investigations are completed and reviewed. Requirements, which include: Stage 6 Test Standard Medical Examination Candidates must successfully pass a medical 1 bench press 57% of your body weight examination and drug test for use of illegal Agility run 20.6 seconds substances. 300 meter run 92 seconds Stage 7 Push-up 12 Candidate Notification 1.5 mile run 19 min 45 sec All candidates who successfully completed all stages of the selection process and who will be Stage 2 offered a position will be notified by a Human Orientation/Testing Capital Department representative. The candidate will be provided with an Note: The entire selection process may take up to 12 months to application. The written examination (police and complete. security officers), typing test (communication * Police Officers Only officers) and pre-offer written psychological test (police officers only) will be administered at the Probationary Period Orientation. Candidates eligible for appointment to the Stage 3 Amtrak Police Department will be subject to Interview a 12 month probationary period from the Successful candidates will undergo an oral date of railroad police commission receipt.
  • The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Instruction

    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Instruction

    Department of Homeland Security DHS Directives System Instruction Number: 257-01-001 Revision Number: 01 Issue Date: 01/18/2018 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT INSTRUCTION I. Purpose This Instruction implements the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive 257-01, Rev. 1 “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act” and establishes the procedures with respect to qualified retiring, retired, separated and separating law enforcement officers1 and the application of the relevant provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), as amended. II. Scope This Instruction applies throughout the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “qualified retired law enforcement officers” as set forth in LEOSA. This Instruction applies to DHS Components' handling of LEOSA matters with such individuals who meet the definition of a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” who have retired or separated from DHS Components since DHS was formed in 2003; with future such individuals; and with such individuals from predecessor agencies when these individuals make LEOSA inquiries with appropriate DHS successor Components. III. Authorities A. Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 926C, “Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers” [Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, as amended] B. Title 18, U.S.C. § 922, “Unlawful Acts” 1 The 2017 DHS Lexicon defines a law enforcement officer as: Position occupied by an employee who is authorized by statute to enforce the laws of the United States, carry firearms, and make criminal arrests in the performance of their assigned duties. Includes designated U.S. Coast Guard officers and members. 1 Instruction # 257-01-001 Revision # 01 IV.
  • HR 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act” and S. 1132

    HR 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act” and S. 1132

    H.R. 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” and S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act” and H.R. 4310, the “National Defense Authorization Act” On 22 July 2004, President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 108-277, went into effect immediately. The bill exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. On 12 October 2010, President Barack H. Obama II signed S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 111-272, went into effect immediately. The bill improves the ability of retired officers to comply with the documents required by existing Federal law when carrying a firearm under 18 USC 926C and makes other modifications to existing law. On 2 January 2013, President Barack H. Obama II signed H.R. 4310, the “National Defense Authorization Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 112-239, went into effect immediately. The Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA) as amended can be cited as 18 USC 926B (for active duty law enforcement officers) and 18 USC 926C (for retired or separated officers). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about LEOSA: Who is eligible to carry concealed firearms under this legislation? Qualified law enforcement officers employed by or retired from a local, State or Federal law enforcement agency. A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee