National Institute of Justice (NIJ): improving the effectiveness of law enforcement via homeland security technology improvements (Keynote Address)

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Keynote Address ◽  
Security Technology ◽  
National Institute Of Justice

Current State of (Dis)Integration: Public Health and Fusion Centers

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Minks ◽  
Anke Richter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Fusion Centers ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Public Health Information

AbstractObjectiveResponding to large-scale public health emergencies relies heavily on planning and collaboration between law enforcement and public health officials. This study examines the current level of information sharing and integration between these domains by measuring the inclusion of public health in the law enforcement functions of fusion centers.MethodsSurvey of all fusion centers, with a 29.9% response rate.ResultsOnly one of the 23 responding fusion centers had true public health inclusion, a decrease from research conducted in 2007. Information sharing is primarily limited to information flowing out of the fusion center, with little public health information coming in. Most of the collaboration is done on a personal, informal, ad-hoc basis. There remains a large misunderstanding of roles, capabilities, and regulations by all parties (fusion centers and public health). The majority of the parties appear to be willing to work together, but there but there is no forward momentum to make these desires a reality. Funding and staffing issues seem to be the limiting factor for integration.ConclusionThese problems need to be urgently addressed to increase public health preparedness and enable a decisive and beneficial response to public health emergencies involving a homeland security response.

Disclosure, Security, Technology

2021 ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
Darryl K. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Digital Evidence ◽  
Security Technology ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
Trial Evidence

Criminal disclosure rules in all common law jurisdictions are organized around the same sets of conflicting aims. Pre-trial evidence disclosure is essential to fair and accurate adjudication. Yet certain types of information, such as identities of undercover operatives and ongoing law enforcement surveillance, must be kept confidential. Beyond these tensions, disclosure practices face new challenges arising primarily from evolving technology and investigative tactics. This chapter describes divergent approaches across common law jurisdictions—especially among U.S. states—to these challenges and offers explanations for their differences. It also sketches the technology-based challenges that discovery schemes face and offers options, or tentative predictions about their resolution. Differences often turn on who decides whether to withhold information from the defense—judges or prosecutors—and when certain information must be disclosed. Broader disclosure regimes tend to put greater trust in judicial capacity to dictate or at least review hard questions about the costs, benefits, and timing of disclosure; narrower systems leave more power in prosecutors’ hands. Technology has multiplied challenges for disclosure policy by vastly increasing evidence-gathering tactics and thus the nature and volume of information. Disclosure rules adapted fairly easily to the rise much forensic lab analysis. But fast-growing forms of digital evidence is more problematic. Defendants may lack the time to examine volumes of video and technical resources to analyze other data; sometimes prosecutors do as well. The chapter identifies some possible solutions emerging through technology and law reform, as well as trend toward greater judicial management of pre-trial disclosure.

scholarly journals Mapping Interfacial Regimes of Control: A Qualitative Analysis of America’s Post-9/11 Security Technology Infrastructure

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-243
Author(s):  
Emma Knight ◽  
Alex Gekker
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Analysis Software ◽  
Security Technology ◽  
Department Of Homeland Security ◽  
Data Analysis Software

Recent technological advancements in surveillance and data analysis software have drastically transformed how the United States manages its immigration and national security systems. In particular, an increased emphasis on information sharing and predictive threat modeling following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has prompted agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security to acquire powerful data analysis software from private sector vendors, including those in Silicon Valley. However, the impacts of these private sector technologies, especially in the context of privacy rights and civil liberties, are not yet fully understood. This article interrogates those potential impacts, particularly on the lives of immigrants, by analyzing the relational database system Investigative Case Management (ICM), which is used extensively by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to track, manage, and enforce federal immigration policy. As a theoretical framework, the we use Benjamin Bratton’s concept of the “interfacial regime,” or the layered assemblages of interfaces that exist in modern networked ICT infrastructures. By conducting a document analysis, we attempt to visually situate ICM within the federal government’s larger interfacial regime that is composed by various intertwined databases both within and outside the government’s realm of management. Furthermore, we question and critique the role ICM plays in surveilling and governing the lives of immigrants and citizens alike.

Implementation and effectiveness of the National Incident Management System’s Incident Command System in law enforcement since 2003

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-417
Author(s):  
John K. Nichols, MS, LCC ◽  
Magdalena Denham, EdD
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
The United States ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command System ◽  
National Incident Management System ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Open Question

This paper investigates the use of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)’s Incident Command System (ICS) in law enforcement since Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 was issued in 2003. It attempts to answer the following questions: (a) To what degree has law enforcement adopted the NIMS style ICS?; (b) To what degree has the NIMS/ICS framework been applicable to law enforcement?; and (c) Is the NIMS style ICS effective in the law enforcement response environment? The research includes a review of relevant case studies and literature and also includes the analysis of a survey instrument sent to 1,220 current and former law enforcement practitioners across the United States. The survey includes both open- and closed-ended questions. The data from closed-ended questions were compiled and displayed. Data from open-ended questions were grouped thematically. Responses were then assessed and compared with information gleaned from the literature review. Results indicate the system has been widely adopted by law enforcement, and its use is applicable and effective in some law enforcement responses. Its use in the highly chaotic initial phase of incidents, however, remains an open question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document