sign in sign up
<<
Home , Al Cannon, Connecticut State Police, Delaware State Police, Florida Highway Patrol, Georgia State Patrol, Idaho State Police

PUBLIC SAFETY The Impact of Terrorism on State Law Enforcement By Chad Foster and Gary Cordner

Traditionally, state-level law enforcement has represented about 10 percent of total employment in the . In keeping with this employment level, state law enforcement has traditionally played an important, but relatively small role in the overall picture of policing America. The information collected for this project, however, indicates an expanding role for state law enforcement since 2001, partly due to new roles and responsibilities associated with homeland security, and partly because are filling gaps and vacuums created by shifts in federal law enforcement priorities. Thus, while it is true that all types of police agencies have been significantly affected post Sept. 11, it seems that state law enforcement agencies have been affected the most.

In recent years, established the Arizona tablished in 1835.2 Most state agencies, however, are Counter Terrorism Information Center, a combined relatively new. The proliferation of the interstate facility/information system that supports the analy- highway system during the mid-20th century and the sis and sharing of law enforcement information. New need for traffic safety and enforcement forced most York hired 120 new state troopers to guard critical states to establish or expand their state law enforce- infrastructure along the northern border. The state of ment agency. Washington implemented an explosive detection ca- Although the structure and function of these agen- nine program to provide additional security screen- cies varies among states, similar characteristics ex- ing at terminals to its ferry system, the largest in the ist. A common component of most state law enforce- United States.1 ment agencies is a criminal investigation division. These developments all suggest heightened roles Roughly 50 percent of all states use a unified model for state law enforcement agencies since the Sep- or one that combines police/highway function tember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Not only are state and investigation responsibilities into a single depart- police organizations taking on these new terrorism- ment. The other half of states have a separate bureau related responsibilities, they and their local counter- of criminal investigation that works independently parts are shouldering many new burdens because of or within the state attorney general’s office. shifting federal priorities. In addition to highway safety and criminal inves- In 2004, The Council of State Governments (CSG) tigations, general purpose agencies play many other and Eastern University (EKU) conducted lead and supporting roles in the states. For example, a 50-state survey of law enforcement agencies and these agencies often provide states with: special convened an expert work group to examine how these weapons and tactics teams; search and rescue units; changing conditions are affecting police and their marine and aviation assets; crime labs; criminal his- traditional duties and to form recommendations for tory repositories; uniform crime reporting; statewide states. As state policy-makers and legislators seek information systems; training for local law enforce- policy improvements, results from this terrorism-pre- ment; and statewide communication, intelligence and vention study and recently drafted guidance may help analysis. them understand current conditions and strategic di- According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,3 there rections for the future. were roughly 700,000 full-time, sworn state and lo- cal law enforcement personnel in 2000. Within this State Law Enforcement— total, state law enforcement agencies account for Yesterday and Today roughly 56,000 officers. The Federal Bureau of In- Today, general purpose state law enforcement vestigation, on the other hand, employed just 11,523 agencies exist in all states but Hawaii. General pur- special agents in 2000.4 Law enforcement numbers pose agencies or departments typically fall under the substantially increase at all levels of government, rubric of state police, state patrol or especially at the state and federal levels, once spe- departments. One of the oldest and most well-known cial with arrest and firearm authorities state police organizations is the Texas Rangers, es- are considered (e.g., alcoholic beverage control, fish

532 The Book of the States 2005 PUBLIC SAFEETY and wildlife, state park services). views suggest three. First, more than 10 percent of Local police departments and sheriffs’ offices pro- state agencies report allocating fewer resources for vide the bulk of law enforcement services to rural traditional criminal investigation and drug enforce- communities. As with many other services, however, ment following Sept. 11. Therefore, it is likely that rural areas are severely constrained by the lack of some resources have been shifted internally among law enforcement resources. In 1999, for example, competing public safety problems and priorities. In- 52.4 percent of all local law enforcement agencies terviews with state officials in 2004 support the con- employed less than 10 sworn personnel while 5.7 clusion that other crime fighting efforts have suffered percent employed just one sworn officer.5 For this as a result of new terrorism-related demands. This reason, state police departments often play enhanced may be especially troublesome for states experienc- roles in rural areas by providing critical support ser- ing problems with other types of crime, such as syn- vices to smaller local agencies. thetic drugs (e.g., methamphetamines, prescription Generally speaking, state law enforcement agen- drug abuse), new violent gang activities, identity theft cies existed in a fairly stable environment prior to and cybercrimes. Sept. 11, fulfilling traditional roles. The cata- Second, state police organizations are receiving strophic events on Sept. 11 served as a wake-up funds and resources through a number of federal grant call to the nation regarding the threat of terrorism. programs such as the State Homeland Security Pro- More specifically, it appeared to create and shift gram and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention responsibilities and paradigms among all layers of Program. Although state law enforcement agencies law enforcement. will likely see a small portion of these funds, roughly $1.5 billion was allocated to states for these two pro- Changing Roles and Responsibilities grams in 2005.7 According to a 50-state survey by CSG and EKU Third, interviews with state officials suggest they in the spring of 2004, state law enforcement agen- are simply doing more with less. For example, much cies are greatly involved in their state’s homeland of the overtime pay incurred during heightened lev- security initiatives, and are being stretched thin to- els of alert, participation on multijurisdictional task day due to these new roles and changing federal pri- forces and working groups, and exhaustive planning orities.6 and coordination have been absorbed internally. And, Roughly 75 percent of state agencies say they ei- these new responsibilities come at a time when state ther have a great amount of involvement or serve as police organizations, like local agencies across the their state’s leader in terrorism-related intelligence country, face personnel shortfalls due to National gathering, analysis and dissemination. In addition, Guard and reserve activations. more than 50 percent of state agencies report similar How do state law enforcement measure against involvement in homeland security planning and co- local agencies? In general, law enforcement relation- ordination at the state level, conducting vulnerabil- ships and responsibilities continue to be assessed and ity assessments of critical infrastructure, providing redefined at all levels, and will evolve due to the protection for this infrastructure and dignitaries, and changing nature of terrorist threats, prevention needs emergency response to terrorism-related incidents. and transforming operations and tactics. The survey How are these responsibilities affecting state po- results do suggest, however, that certain responsi- lice in terms of resource allocation? In comparison bilities are more state or local in nature. State agen- to the period before Sept. 11, more than 70 percent cies were more likely to report allocating more or of state agencies report allocating more or much more much more resources to the following operational resources for: security of critical infrastructure, spe- responsibilities: intelligence gathering, analysis and cial events and dignitaries; intelligence gathering, sharing; security for critical infrastructure, special analysis and sharing; and terrorism-related investi- events and dignitaries; and commercial vehicle en- gations. Furthermore, at least 50 percent of state po- forcement. Conversely, local agencies were more lice organizations say more or much more resources likely to indicate allocating more or much more re- have been allocated for: airport, border and port se- sources to community policing, drug enforcement curity; commercial vehicle enforcement; high-tech/ and traditional criminal investigation. computer crime investigation; operational assistance to local agencies; and preventive . Shifting Federal Priorities These resources are likely generated from a num- According to the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004, ber of possible sources; the survey results and inter- “the concern with the FBI is that it has long favored

The Council of State Governments 533 PUBLIC SAFETY

Table A: State Law Enforcement Agencies

Officers assigned to respond Percent change in Sworn officers to calls Officers employees, 1996–2000 Percent Percent State per 10,000 Name of state agency Total Number of total Number of total population residents Total Sworn Civilian Alabama Department of Public Safety .... 1,201 628 52% 437 70% 4,447,100 14 1 8 (6) ...... 409 232 57 155 67 626,932 37 (9) (20) 12 Arizona Department of Public Safety ..... 1,872 1,050 56 782 74 5,130,632 20 12 10 14 ...... 913 559 61 330 59 2,673,400 21 28 7 86 California Highway Patrol ...... 9,706 6,678 69 6,046 91 33,871,648 20 6 7 4 State Patrol ...... 909 654 72 500 76 4,301,261 15 13 13 12 State Police ...... 1,692 1,135 67 585 52 3,405,565 33 9 11 6 State Police ...... 827 580 70 280 48 783,600 74 9 7 12 Highway Patrol ...... 2,138 1,658 78 1,539 93 15,982,378 10 (3) (5) 3 State Patrol ...... 1,785 786 44 650 83 8,186,453 10 (38) (10) (50) Hawaii (a) State Police ...... 510 292 57 258 88 1,293,953 23 94 52 207 State Police ...... 3,792 2,089 55 939 45 12,419,293 17 6 5 7 ...... 1,941 1,278 66 570 45 6,080,485 21 3 6 (2) State Patrol ...... 599 455 76 443 97 2,926,324 16 28 5 311 ...... 694 457 66 457 100 2,688,418 17 (8) (17) 17 ...... 1,670 937 56 481 51 4,041,769 23 (1) (5) 5 ...... 1,438 934 65 542 58 4,468,976 21 17 7 43 State Police ...... 495 325 66 225 69 1,274,923 25 4 (4) 24 State Police ...... 2,328 1,575 68 1,575 100 5,296,486 30 (4) (3) (6) Massachusetts State Police ...... 2,590 2,221 86 2,221 100 6,349,097 35 (10) (13) 15 ...... 3,189 2,102 66 1,310 62 9,938,444 21 2 (3) 12 ...... 791 548 69 469 86 4,919,479 11 13 13 11 Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol ...... 1,031 532 52 332 62 2,844,658 19 32 (1) 102 Missouri State Highway Patrol ...... 2,170 1,080 50 753 70 5,595,211 21 4 8 0 Highway Patrol ...... 280 205 73 175 85 902,195 23 1 (3) 15 State Patrol ...... 640 462 72 382 83 1,711,263 27 0 0 2 Highway Patrol ...... 597 414 69 414 100 1,998,257 21 14 10 22 State Police ...... 389 315 81 237 75 1,235,786 25 17 29 (16) State Police ...... 3,682 2,569 70 1,297 50 8,414,350 21 1 (5) 18 State Police ...... 649 525 81 350 67 1,819,046 29 (22) 21 (68) ...... 4,948 4,112 83 2,439 59 18,976,457 22 6 4 21 North Carolina State Highway Patrol ..... 1,810 1,416 78 1,133 80 8,049,313 18 3 3 6 North Dakota Highway Patrol ...... 193 126 65 92 73 642,200 20 4 5 2 State Highway Patrol ...... 2,552 1,382 54 1,151 83 11,353,140 12 7 (1) 17 Highway Patrol ...... 1,420 782 55 555 71 3,450,654 23 6 3 10 State Police ...... 1,409 826 59 450 54 3,421,399 24 13 0 39 Pennsylvania State Police ...... 5,694 4,152 73 2,854 69 12,281,054 34 7 1 30 Rhode Island State Police ...... 268 221 82 148 67 1,048,319 21 14 15 9 Highway Patrol ...... 1,220 977 80 977 100 4,012,012 24 11 10 15 South Dakota Highway Patrol ...... 233 153 66 0 0 754,844 20 2 (1) 8 Tennessee Department of Safety ...... 1,715 899 52 800 89 5,689,283 16 10 17 3 Texas Department of Public Safety ...... 7,025 3,119 44 1,880 60 20,851,820 15 4 9 1 Highway Patrol ...... 441 397 90 257 65 2,233,169 18 10 12 (6) State Police ...... 513 304 59 239 79 608,827 50 15 5 35 State Police ...... 2,511 1,883 75 1,464 78 7,078,515 27 12 13 7 ...... 2,145 987 46 689 70 5,894,121 17 4 9 0 West ...... 1,044 681 65 502 74 1,808,344 38 15 14 15 State Patrol ...... 665 508 76 340 67 5,363,675 9 (2) 2 (14) Highway Patrol ...... 295 148 50 133 90 493,782 30 (2) (2) (2)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law Enforcement Management and included June 30, 2000. Population data are Bureau of the Census figures for Administrative Statistics, 2000: Data for Individual State and Local Agen- April 1, 2000. Number of officers per 10,000 residents excludes part-time cies with 100 or More Officers NCJ 203350, 2000 LEMAS survey, March 2, employees. Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative percent change in 2004 number of employees. Note: Personnel data are for full-time employees during the pay period that (a) Hawaii has no statewide .

534 The Book of the States 2005 PUBLIC SAFEETY

Table B: Operating Expenditures and Asset Forfeiture Receipts of State Law Enforcement Agencies, 2000

Annual operating expenditure Estimated asset forfeiture receipts Name of agency Total Per employee Per officer Per resident Total Per employee Per officer Alabama Department of Public Safety .... $87,377,852 $72,754 $139,137 $20 $420,000 $350 $669 Alaska State Troopers ...... 54,674,300 133,678 235,665 87 142,190 348 613 Arizona Department of Public Safety ..... 123,655,000 66,055 117,767 24 2,440,824 1,304 2,325 Arkansas State Police ...... 58,486,323 64,060 104,627 22 218,383 239 391 California Highway Patrol ...... 917,355,000 94,054 137,370 27 1,467,323 150 220 ...... 66,223,000 72,733 101,258 15 282,028 310 431 ...... 116,645,912 68,940 102,772 34 1,073,540 634 946 ...... 67,895,100 81,214 117,061 87 600,933 719 1,036 ...... 141,237,296 66,060 85,185 9 1,649,453 771 995 ...... 112,846,027 62,849 143,570 14 2,082,929 1,160 2,650 Hawaii (a) ...... 47,000,000 90,385 160,959 36 0 0 0 ...... 373,040,400 98,376 178,574 30 4,334,554 1,143 2,075 Indiana State Police ...... 105,917,669 54,569 82,878 17 616,455 318 482 ...... 36,047,438 59,681 79,225 12 119,894 199 264 Kansas Highway Patrol ...... 24,720,000 35,517 54,092 9 942,252 1,354 2,062 Kentucky State Police ...... 125,000,000 74,850 133,404 31 500,000 299 534 Louisiana State Police ...... 126,863,639 88,222 135,828 28 757,194 527 811 ...... 41,000,000 82,828 126,154 32 20,000 40 62 ...... 250,681,088 107,681 159,163 47 563,000 242 357 Massachusetts State Police ...... 223,577,991 86,324 100,665 35 675,000 261 304 Michigan State Police ...... 268,719,900 84,265 127,840 27 0 0 0 Minnesota State Patrol ...... 60,226,000 76,139 109,901 12 21,886 28 40 Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol ...... 49,200,000 47,721 92,481 17 234,054 227 440 Missouri State Highway Patrol ...... 151,951,352 68,370 140,696 27 1,752,687 789 1,623 ...... 17,000,000 59,649 82,927 19 250,000 877 1,220 ...... 33,000,000 51,563 71,429 19 5,710,479 8,923 12,360 ...... 51,465,459 86,207 124,313 26 234,253 392 566 New Hampshire State Police ...... 31,000,000 75,887 95,827 25 200,000 490 618 ...... 203,087,000 55,157 79,053 24 3,784,000 1,028 1,473 ...... 40,000,000 61,633 76,190 22 119,894 185 228 New York State Police ...... 395,060,000 79,044 96,075 21 12,974,038 2,596 3,155 North Carolina State Highway Patrol ..... 134,000,000 74,033 94,633 17 1,649,453 911 1,165 North Dakota Highway Patrol ...... 12,000,000 62,176 95,238 19 4,000 21 32 Ohio State Highway Patrol ...... 202,000,000 79,154 146,165 18 1,052,954 413 762 ...... 86,148,417 59,971 110,164 25 1,476,833 1,028 1,889 ...... 190,000,000 134,847 230,024 56 131,957 94 160 Pennsylvania State Police ...... 511,795,000 89,883 123,265 42 4,042,325 710 974 Rhode Island State Police ...... 37,724,490 140,763 170,699 36 232,600 868 1,052 South Carolina Highway Patrol ...... 55,910,979 45,829 57,227 14 1,161,184 952 1,189 South Dakota Highway Patrol ...... 13,300,000 56,596 86,928 18 119,894 510 784 Tennessee Department of Safety ...... 139,538,000 81,363 155,215 25 544,420 317 606 Texas Department of Public Safety ...... 350,560,935 49,902 112,395 17 7,500,000 1,068 2,405 ...... 34,800,000 78,202 87,657 16 75,000 169 189 ...... 30,000,000 54,348 87,464 49 65,900 119 192 Virginia State Police ...... 198,236,160 75,389 105,277 28 149,827,242 56,979 79,568 Washington State Patrol ...... 157,193,811 73,284 159,264 27 288,289 134 292 West Virginia State Police ...... 73,526,273 69,528 107,968 41 410,000 388 602 ...... 49,113,600 73,634 96,680 9 16,300 24 32 ...... 15,800,000 53,469 106,757 32 0 0 0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law Enforcement Management and agency employees with a weight of .5 assigned to part-time employees. Com- Administrative Statistics, 2000: Data for Individual State and Local Agen- putation of per officer expenditure includes all sworn agency employees with cies with 100 or More Officers NCJ 203350, 2000 LEMAS survey,March 2, a weight of .5 assigned to part-time officers. Computation of per resident 2004. expenditure is based on state population. In some cases, data are estimates Note: Budget data are for the calendar or fiscal year that included June 30, provided by agency. 2000. Capital expenditures such as equipment purchases and construction (a) Hawaii has no statewide law enforcement agency. costs are not included. Computation of per employee expenditure includes all

The Council of State Governments 535 PUBLIC SAFETY its criminal justice mission over its national security of alternatives to improve terrorism prevention at the mission.”8 In 2002, the FBI announced a reshaping state level. As states develop strategies concerning of priorities to guide future activities, with the new prevention and to a lesser extent, emergency re- number one priority being “Protecting the United sponse, they should consider the following recom- States from terrorist attacks.”9 mendations.12 Shifting federal law enforcement priorities since  Intelligence fusion centers and analysts. “Fu- Sept. 11 have forced state and local agencies to as- sion centers are an integral part of a state’s sume greater roles for those previously held federal strategy regarding the prevention of terror- responsibilities (e.g., financial crimes, bank robber- ism,” said Colonel Bart Johnson of the New ies, , drug trafficking). These public York State Police. The centralization of in- safety and crime issues have not disappeared since telligence sharing and analysis at the state Sept. 11, and state and local law enforcement agen- level, through one physical center or network cies are obligated to address these deficiencies by of facilities, provides a means to gather and assigning new personnel and shifting resources. Al- analyze disparate networks of information though the FBI may still be involved in these cases, more effectively and efficiently. they are much more selective today than before Arizona was one of a handful of states to es- 2001.10 tablish an information fusion center after Sept. In addition to the strain on state resources, state 11. The Arizona Counter Terrorism Information officials are concerned that the shift by the FBI away Center is nationally recognized for providing from traditional crimes will cascade to the state and tactical and strategic intelligence support to law local levels, thus hindering efforts to screen and ana- enforcement officials across the state and for lyze possible precursor crimes for linkages to larger- being uniquely located with the FBI’s Joint Ter- scale terrorist activities. There is a strong indication rorism Task Force. that a nexus exists among types of criminal activity, According to the National Criminal Intelli- including illegal drug operations, money laundering, gence Sharing Plan released in 2004, “Analy- fraud, identity theft and terrorism.11 sis is the portion of the intelligence process that transforms the raw data into products that are Where Should States Focus Future Efforts? useful...without this portion of the process, we CSG convened an expert work group in 2004 to are left with disjointed pieces of information to explore these changing conditions and a broad range which no meaning has been attached.”13 Today,

Table C: Homeland Security Roles for State Law Enforcement

State law enforcement agencies level of involvement in their state’s homeland security initiatives No involvement or Moderate Great amount or our very little involvement involvement agency is the leader Source of homeland security announcements for the public ...... 30.7% 35.5% 33.9% Distribution of the state’s federal homeland security funding ...... 48.4 22.6 29.0 Coordinates homeland security activities in the state ...... 16.1 30.7 53.2 Serves as state’s primary contact to DHS and other federal agencies for homeland security ...... 32.8 27.9 39.3 Conducting critical infrastructure, key asset and vulnerability assessments ...... 9.7 33.9 56.5 Homeland security training for law enforcement ...... 16.1 38.7 45.2 Homeland security education/training for the public ...... 51.6 25.8 22.6 Homeland security planning for the state ...... 11.3 27.4 61.3 Terrorism-related intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination ...... 4.9 19.7 75.4 Emergency response to terrorism-related incidents ...... 16.4 27.9 55.7 Protection of dignitaries ...... 12.9 29.0 58.1 Protection of critical infrastructure ...... 22.6 24.2 53.2

Source: The Council of State Governments and Eastern Kentucky University National Survey of State and Local Law Enforcement Agen- cies, 2004. Note: Total state law enforcement population = 73; number of collected surveys = 61; survey response rate = 84 percent.

536 The Book of the States 2005 PUBLIC SAFEETY

terrorism and crime prevention missions require ties in identifying terrorist suspects.”14 a much more proactive approach to identify ter- To foster intergovernmental cooperation, the rorists before they act and interdict attacks that work group recommends that states: draft and are occurring. To meet this new need, states implement a statewide counterterrorism pro- should pursue specialized intelligence analysts gram for the law enforcement community; de- and improved analytical tools. The Florida Leg- velop standardized training programs and tools; islature, for example, authorized more than 30 build partnerships with key residential, commer- new intelligence analyst positions following cial property owners and security personnel and Sept. 11 to address this need. provide them with resources and tools to iden-  Collaboration among law enforcement partners. tify and report suspicious activities; and develop “Terrorism prevention and response requires law and implement a public education and outreach enforcement agencies at all levels to work to- plan that establishes and formalizes public in- gether, exchange information, train and coordi- formation policies and procedures that relate to nate efforts to a much greater extent than has terrorism prevention and response. ever occurred,” said Al Cannon of  Integration with the criminal justice system. Not Charleston County, South Carolina. only must state agencies work closely with their The 9/11 Commission also recognized the im- local and federal counterparts, they must inte- portance of integrating law enforcement assets grate terrorism prevention responsibilities into at all levels of government. They cite the the criminal justice system at large. “It’s now nation’s 66 Joint Terrorism Task Forces as a more important than ever to incorporate terror- model intergovernmental approach. According ism prevention into law enforcement’s toolbox to the Commission, state and local law enforce- of crime fighting programs,” said Representa- ment agencies “need more training and work tive John Millner of Illinois. with federal agencies so that they can cooper- Law enforcement officials generally agree that ate more effectively with those federal authori- an association exists among types of criminal

Table D: States’ Allocation of Law Enforcement Resources

Change in state law enforcement agencies’ allocations of resources since Sept. 11, 2001 Fewer or much No More or many fewer resources change more resources ...... 0.0% 44.1% 55.9% Border security ...... 0.0 50.0 50.0 Commercial vehicle enforcement ...... 0.0 43.1 56.9 Community policing ...... 0.0 75.6 24.4 Drug enforcement and investigation ...... 20.7 58.6 20.7 Forensic science/crime lab services ...... 8.2 57.1 34.7 High tech/computer crime investigation ...... 7.8 41.2 51.0 Intelligence gathering, anaylsis and sharing ...... 3.2 4.8 91.9 Investigation of local agencies ...... 3.9 88.2 7.8 Local agency operational assistance ...... 8.3 38.3 53.3 Port security ...... 0.0 43.8 56.3 Preventive patrol ...... 3.8 37.7 58.5 Responding to calls for service ...... 7.1 53.6 39.3 Security for critical infrastructure ...... 1.9 3.7 94.4 Security for special events and dignitaries ...... 1.7 13.6 84.8 Terrorism-related investigations ...... 1.7 23.3 75.0 Tranditional criminal investigation ...... 13.3 78.3 8.3 Traffic safety ...... 7.7 73.1 19.2

Source: The Council of State Governments and Eastern Kentucky University National Survey of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004. Note: Total state law enforcement population = 73; number of collected surveys = 61; survey response rate = 84 percent.

The Council of State Governments 537 PUBLIC SAFETY

activity and terrorism. “Some terrorist opera- Today, state police organizations are taking many tions do not rely on outside sources of money lead and supporting roles in the realm of terrorism and may now be self-funding, either through le- prevention. They provide a critical information shar- gitimate employment or low-level criminal ac- ing and analysis capability at the state level and link tivity,” says the 9/11 Commission.15 “Counter- between local and federal authorities. Their role is terrorism investigations often overlap or are especially important in rural areas of states where cued by other criminal investigations, such as resources are scarce. Thus, they provide a critical money laundering or the smuggling of contra- link among large and small local agencies. band. In the field, the close connection to crimi- In addition, state troopers patrol the interstate and nal work has many benefits.”16 state highways and serve as “eyes and ears” for sus- Therefore, states should embrace an “all picious activities, and would play a critical role in crimes” approach to terrorism prevention. This managing mass evacuations and aid for disaster ar- strategy ensures that possible precursor crimes eas. State police continue to play important roles are screened and analyzed for linkages to larger- guarding border crossings, seaports, airports and criti- scale terrorist activities. Also, states should de- cal infrastructure. Furthermore, their specialized ser- velop and implement protocols to leverage all vices (e.g., SWAT, canine units, air and marine as- criminal justice and regulatory personnel, re- sets) are often requested at the local levels, and are sources and systems, including: local law en- important assets to deter, interdict and respond to acts forcement; probation and parole officers; court of terrorism. documents such as pre-sentence investigations; State policy-makers should be informed about and other state and local regulatory agencies. these changing conditions, as well as the risks that  Governance and legal issues. The work group accompany them. For example, should drug enforce- addressed a number of state-level governance, ment resources be sacrificed at the expense of ter- planning and legal issues affecting state law en- rorism prevention? What new structures, capabili- forcement and general terrorism prevention du- ties, and resources benefit both responsibilities? Po- ties. First, states should consider regional ap- lice organizations are becoming more proactive proaches for homeland security planning and through new information-led policing initiatives and operational purposes. Creating or realigning tools such as crime mapping. Can state-level fusion existing regions or zones helps to remove or centers support these new general crime fighting ini- reduce local jurisdictional barriers for opera- tiatives? tional purposes and may enhance the distribu- “The fact remains that the Sept. 11 terrorists lived tion of federal grants. and shopped in small towns across the country, fre- States should also assign a principal point of quented bars and other establishments in these small oversight and review for homeland security towns, rented cars and drove across states, and took through a legislative committee or multi-branch flying lessons at small regional airports,” stressed commission. In many states, disparate oversight Sheriff Cannon. “If not the state, then who should is provided through individual disciplines and take the lead in establishing and maintaining the un- policy areas such as agriculture, military affairs, precedented cooperation required to prevent a future public health and public safety. Similarly, cer- attack?” tain aspects of the homeland security mission Today, a tremendous opportunity exists for states should be codified into law, such as key terms to leverage their law enforcement resources to pre- and definitions, general duties and responsibili- vent future acts of terrorism, and improve overall ties for the primary state-level stakeholders, and public safety. strategic planning processes. Finally, as a condition of accepting federal funds, states should ensure that state and local Authors’ note: agencies have plans in place to sustain newly This project was supported by Grant No. 2003-DT-CX- acquired equipment and capabilities for the long 0004 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office term. Future homeland security grant proposals of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of and initiatives, therefore, should sufficiently view in this document are those of the authors and do not demonstrate these long-term obligations, strat- necessarily represent the official policies of the U.S. De- egies and plans. partment of Justice.

538 The Book of the States 2005 PUBLIC SAFEETY

8National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The 9/11 Notes Commission Report, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1The Council of State Governments and Eastern Ken- Inc., 2004), 423. tucky University, National Study—The Impact of Terror- 9The Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Facts and Fig- ism on State Law Enforcement, 2004 (Through support ures 2003,” http://www.fbi.gov/priorities. priorities.htm. from the National Institute of Justice). http://www.csg.org, 10See note 1 above. keyword: protect. 11Ibid. 2Texas Department of Public Safety, “Historical Devel- 12Ibid. opments,” http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/ 13Global Intelligence Working Group, The National texas_rangers. Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, 2004 Global Justice 3Matthew J. Hickman and Brian A. Reaves, Law En- Information Sharing Initiative, (Washington, D.C.: Office forcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 2000: of Justice Programs), 7. Data for Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or 14National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The 9/11 More Officers, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Sta- Commission Report, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, tistics, 2004), xiii. Inc., 2004), 390. 4Matthew J. Hickman and Brian A. Reaves, Federal Law 15Ibid., 383. Enforcement Officers, 2000, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 16Ibid., 424. Justice Statistics, 2001), 2. 5Matthew J. Hickman and Brian A. Reaves, Law En- forcement Management and Administrative Statistics: Lo- cal Police Departments, 1999, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau About the Authors of Justice Statistics, 2001), 2. Chad Foster is a public safety and justice policy ana- 6See note 1 above. lyst with The Council of State Governments. 7U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year Gary Cordner, Ph.D., is a professor with the College 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guide- of Justice & Safety at Eastern Kentucky University. lines and Application Kit, 2.

The Council of State Governments 539