According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), incidents of tax return fraud have increased in recent years, and gang involvement in this criminal activity mirrors that trend. Gangs perpetrate tax return fraud by utilizing facilitators, such as employees of tax preparation companies. Prison gangs often employ females or other facilitators on the street to assist them, and communicate by legal mail to avoid law enforcement detection. While some of the fraud is committed using gang members’ information, gangs are also threatening and/or paying individuals a fixed amount for the personal identifying information and committing identity theft. The illicit revenues from these schemes are subsequently used to supplement traditional criminal activities and in overall furtherance of the gang.
Increasing criminal activity among Juggalos is of concern due to the ease with which these transitory and loosely affiliated criminal sub-sets are able to form and break off of the well established Juggalo sub-culture of over one million followers. Their crimes are characterized by acts of violence and destruction directed against law enforcement, members of the community, public/private property, and other members of their group. Juggalos are classified as a gang in the states of Arizona, California, Pennsylvania and Utah. Despite this narrow classification, Juggalo-related crime has been documented in at least 20 other states according to law enforcement and open-source reporting.
A guide to principles used in online investigations conducted by federal law enforcement agents was authored by a special working group convened by the Department of Justice in 1999. The working group included members of the FBI, Treasury, Secret Service, IRS, ATF, Air Force and even NASA who worked to create a standard guide for federal agents engaged in online criminal investigations.
These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether. Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
As articulated in the United States Constitution, one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment is the right of persons and groups to assemble peacefully. Whether demonstrating, counterprotesting, or showing support for a cause, individuals and groups have the right to peacefully gather. Law enforcement, in turn, has the responsibility to ensure public safety while protecting the privacy and associated rights of individuals. To support agencies as they fulfill their public safety responsibilities, the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) developed this paper to provide guidance and recommendations to law enforcement officers in understanding their role in First Amendment-protected events. This paper is divided into three areas, designed to provide in-depth guidance for law enforcement.
This standard establishes minimum performance requirements and methods of test, including safety and handling aspects, for hand -held aerosol tear gas (less -than -lethal) weapons used by law enforcement agencies. These devices are used by law enforcement officers to incapacitate or distract one person or several whose behavior must be modified when the situation is not sufficiently dangerous to require the use of a firearm. The scope of this standard is limited to hand-held tear gas weapons that incorporate ortho-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS) or alpha-chloroacetophenone (CN) as the active agent (lacrimator), sprayed from an aerosol dispenser.
Law enforcement officers of the 21st century encounter many of the same challenges and issues their predecessors faced during the late 20th century. Incidents involving hostage rescue, vehicle pursuit, attempted suicide, the need to detain or control unruly individuals and crowds, and domestic disturbances continue to dominate daily activities. However, technology advances have matured, and new tactics provide law enforcement officers with additional options for handling many of these situations. A difficult aspect of civil law enforcement continues to be the need to manage individuals or groups when more than a show of force or voice commands are required and deadly force is neither authorized nor the preferred method of resolution. To meet this need, many Federal and State agencies and local law enforcement departments have developed and used less-lethal technology.
The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) assesses with high confidence that in 2009, Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) were operating in the United States in at least 1,286 cities spanning all nine Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) regions, based on law enforcement reporting. Moreover, NDIC assesses with high confidence that Mexican DTOs in at least 143 of these U.S. cities were linked to a specific Mexican Cartel or DTO based in Mexico—the Sinaloa Cartel (at least 75 cities), the Gulf Cartel/Los Zetas (at least 37 cities), the Juárez Cartel (at least 33 cities), the Beltrán-Leyva DTO (at least 30 cities), La Familia Michoacán (at least 27 cities), or the Tijuana Cartel (at least 21 cities). NDIC assesses with high confidence that Mexican DTOs will further expand their drug trafficking operations in the United States in the near term, particularly in the New England, New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and Florida/Caribbean Regions. NDIC also believes that Mexican DTOs will maintain the present high level of availability for heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine because the conditions in Mexico and in the United States that enabled and motivated the DTOs to increase production and availability of those drugs have not significantly changed.
U.S. Department of Justice cellular service provider data retention guide originally obtained by American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.
We recognize that PRPD faces significant challenges as Puerto Rico’s primary law enforcement agency. The unconstitutional acts that we have identified arise at a time of crisis in public safety. Contrary to national trends, violent crime increased overall in Puerto Rico by 17% from 2007 to 2009. In 2010, Puerto Rico saw the second highest number of murders in its history, a trend that is escalating in 2011. The clearance rate for murders remains below the national average. Some Puerto Rico officials maintain that drug trafficking and social deterioration are fueling the wave of violent crime. However, increasing crime cannot be used to justify continued civil rights violations or the failure to implement meaningful reforms. Constitutional policing and effective law enforcement are inextricably bound. Public safety depends on the trust and cooperation of the community, which in turn depends on constitutional police practices that respect civil rights. Our previous efforts in working with large police departments strongly suggest that by addressing the civil rights concerns we raise in this report, the Commonwealth will not only meet its constitutional duty, but also reduce crime, improve public safety, and increase community confidence.
In 2009, the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) assessed that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) were operating in the U.S. in at least 1, 286 cities spanning nine regions. Moreover, NDIC assesses with high confidence that Mexican DTO’s in at least 143 of these U.S. cities were linked to a specific Mexican Cartel or DTO based in Mexico—the Sinaloa Cartel (at least 75 cities), the Gulf Cartel/Los Zetas (at least 37 cities), the Juárez Cartel (at least 33 cities), the Beltrán-Leyva DTO (at least 30 cities), La Familia Michoacán (at least 27 cities), or the Tijuana Cartel (at least 21 cities). NDIC assesses with high confidence that Mexican DTOs will further expand their drug trafficking operations in the United States. Due to the rise in violence throughout the Southwest Region and Mexico, members of the Cartels, their associates and their families have been suspected of moving into many U.S. cities along the border. As a result, agencies are requesting information on ways to identify those involved with drug trafficking organizations. The information included in this report is not set in stone as many of these criminal organizations are dynamic and will alter their methods and trends frequently to avoid detection by law enforcement.
(U//LES) Gang members and criminals nationwide are targeting law enforcement officials, military, government vehicles, and residences in search of weapons, equipment, police badges, body armor, and uniforms.a These incidents suggest that some gangs are becoming more brazen, tactical, and willing to engage law enforcement and rival gang members in potentially lethal encounters. The National Gang Intelligence Center assesses that these thefts could also allow gang members and criminals to impersonate law enforcement officers to gain better access to their targets.
(U//LES) Gang infiltration of law enforcement, government, and correctional agencies poses a serious security threat due to the access they have to restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage, sensitive information pertaining to investigations, and access to personal information or protected persons, whom they may view as potential targets for violence. Gang members serving in law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities compromise security, criminal investigations and operations, and agency integrity. Compromised law enforcement officers and correctional staff assist gang members in committing their illicit activities, disrupt legitimate law enforcement efforts to investigate such activities, thereby protecting members from discovery and apprehension. Gang members, gang associates, and their family members most commonly infiltrate law enforcement through non-sworn civilian positions. Police dispatchers and records clerks have access to confidential information than officers do and are not always subjected to in-depth background checks prior to employment. However, a number of gang members and former gang members have served as sworn law enforcement and correctional officers.
(U//LES) DoJ “Paths to Radicalization” Briefing, June 2010.
In order for criminal justice professionals to effectively combat terrorism/extremism, it is imperative to obtain as much information as possible. Extremist groups often develop languages of their own. Some have created terms that are unique in the English language, while others have given new or expanded meaning to relatively common words and phrases. In addition, certain symbols, events, organizations, and individuals have particular significance for members of some extremist organizations, none of which may be familiar to an investigator or prosecutor who has not previously been involved with such cases. Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a glossary designed primarily as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations. Included are terms that may be germane to members of an extremist movement. Also defined are words that are singularly employed by specific extremist groups. Legal terms that have been given new meanings by groups’ adherents are also defined. Similarly, certain terms that describe activities and tactics commonly undertaken by extremists are also included. Significant groups, organizations, movements, and publications that are important for an understanding of terrorism/extremism in the United States and that may be encountered by law enforcement officers and prosecutors are also documented. Inasmuch as this publication is primarily intended to define terms, individuals indexed by name are limited in occurrence. However, there are some people who are of such importance to certain segments of the extremist movement that their very names are equated with that cause. Therefore, some of the better-known terrorists are included.
Confidential Law Enforcement Telephone, Cellular, Satellite & VoIP Investigation Guide, March 10, 2010.
This document identifies recommended actions and guidance for state and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) to effectively integrate the fire service into the fusion process. Within the context of this document, the fire service is defined as including fire and emergency operations, emergency medical service operations, rescue operations, hazardous materials operations, fire prevention/protection, fire investigation, incident management, and responder safety.
The law enforcement-private security (LE-PS) partnerships featured here were formed or expanded to address a range of critical needs: to avert or respond to a terrorist attack, support urban downtown revitalization, marshal resources to combat financial crimes, compensate for law enforcement budget cuts, improve safety at special events, improve security for the nation’s infrastructure, and bring community policing approaches and new resources to bear on crimes against residents and businesses. Many of the partnerships have been able to measure success not only by meetings and exchanges of information but also by crimes prevented and solved.
Digital currencies combine the intrinsic value of gold and other precious metals as well as the designated value of national currencies with the worldwide reach of the Internet to create an ideal mechanism for international money laundering. Users can anonymously fund digital currency accounts, send those funds (sometimes in unlimited amounts) to other digital currency accounts worldwide, and effectively exchange the funds for foreign currencies—often while bypassing U.S. regulatory oversight.
Intelligence operations have been reviewed, studied, and slowly but steadily transformed. Most efforts have focused on reorganizing intelligence infrastructures at the federal level; however, corresponding efforts have been made to enhance state and local law enforcement intelligence operations. Such enhancements make it possible for state and local law enforcement agencies to play a role in homeland security. Perhaps more important, improvements to intelligence operations help local law enforcement respond to “traditional” crimes more effectively.
To facilitate the development of a nationwide, integrated, inter-connected fusion center capability, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) have partnered to develop and deploy the Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program. This program has been developed in coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI); the Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and experts from the State and local community—including the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global), the Criminal
Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC), and the Global Intelligence Working Group (GIWG).
Law enforcement needs timely and secure access to services that provide data wherever and whenever for stopping and reducing crime. In response to these needs, the Advisory Policy Board (APB) recommended to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division authorize the expansion of the existing security management structure in 1998. Administered through a shared management philosophy, the CJIS Security Policy contains information security requirements, guidelines, and agreements reflecting the will of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies for protecting the sources, transmission, storage, and generation of Criminal Justice Information (CJI); and the Personally Identifiable Information derived from CJI.
U.S. DOJ Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations
According to the Supreme Court, a “‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property,” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984), and the Court has also characterized the interception of intangible communications as a seizure. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 59-60 (1967). Furthermore, the Court has held that a “‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.”
What is a SAR?
•“Official documentation of observed behavior that may be indicative of intelligence gathering or preoperational planning related to terrorism, criminal, or other illicit intention”
• SAR process focuses on what law enforcement agencies have been doing for years—gathering information regarding behaviorsand incidentsassociated with crimeand establishing a process whereby information can be shared to detect and prevent criminal activity, including that associated with domestic and international terrorism
• Examples: Surveillance, photography of facilities, testing of security