Law enforcement agency powers

Last updated

A law enforcement agency (LEA) has powers, which other government subjects do not, to enable the LEA to undertake its responsibilities. These powers are generally in one of six forms:

Contents

The types of powers and law exemptions available to a LEA vary from country to country.

They depend on the social, legal, and technical maturity of the country, and on the resources available to LEAs generally in the country. Some countries may have no laws regarding a particular type of activity by its subjects at all, while other countries might have very stringent laws on the same type of activity. This will impact significantly on the legal structures, if any, that govern how an LEA can operate, and on how the LEA's use of powers is overviewed.

Law enforcement agency powers are part of a broad range of techniques used for law enforcement, many of which require no specific legislative support or independent overview.

See law enforcement techniques for a list of other law enforcement techniques.

Overview of use of powers

The powers and law exemptions granted to an LEA allow the LEA to act in a way which would typically be regarded as violating the rights of law complying subjects. Accordingly, to minimise the risk that these powers and law exemptions might be misused or abused, many countries have in place strong overview regimes to monitor the use and application of the LEA's powers and law exemptions. Overview regimes can involve judicial officers, be provided by internal audit services, by independent authorities, by the LEA's governing body, or some other civil mechanism.

Generally, the use of powers and law exemptions fall into two loose categories:

While a LEA's powers and law exemptions are not usually explicitly categorised in this way, they do fall into these two broad categories in this manner and can be identified by the types and level of overview applied to the use of the powers and law exemptions. The former group can have strong and multiple levels of overview, typically for every exercising of the power or law exemption, and the latter group can have no overview other than an exceptional response for some extreme malutilisation of the power or law exemption.

Due to their nature, specifically allocated powers have a greater impact on subjects, whereas law exemptions have a lesser impact on subjects. For example, the use of deadly force is normally an explicitly granted power. This is distinct from the carrying of a firearm in a public place. The latter is normally a law exemption. The discharging of a firearm is normally subject to significant overview, whether or not person injury or property damage occurred, whereas the carrying of a firearm in compliance with the law exemption requires no reporting or overview.

Approval and internal overview

Typically personnel of an LEA cannot just exercise a power of their own volition. In order to exercise a power, an officer of an LEA must argue for and get approval, from either a senior officer of the LEA or a judicial officer. The senior officer or the judicial officer have a responsibility to ensure that use of a power is necessary and does not unnecessarily violate the rights of subjects.

Judicial overview

Judicial overview of LEA powers is typically in the form of the LEA having to provide grounds for the exercising of the power to a judicial officer in order to get approval, each time the power is to be exercised. Typically, in line with the separation of authority, the judicial officer is external to the LEA. Judicial overview is typically required for the more intrusive powers. The judicial approval for the use of a power is usually called a warrant, for example, a search warrant for the intrusive search and seizure of a subject's property, or a telecommunications interception warrant to listen to and copy subjects' communications:)

Civil and external overview

Civil overview can be applied to internally approved use of powers and also to judicial approval of powers. Civil overview is normally after the event reporting on the frequency and effectiveness of the use of the powers to open fora accessible to the public.

External overview can be done by auditors, or specifically created general overview authorities, for example ombudsmen. The reports, or at least summaries of the reports, of these entities on the LEA's use of powers or law exemptions is typically available to the public. For example, the Australian Federal Police's controlled operations are subject to open civil review by its governing body, the Parliament of Australia. [1] [2]

Internal review

Internal review involves formal reviews done by the LEA itself on the use of its powers and law exemptions. Often, as part of this process, every time a certain power is used an incident report detailing the circumstances requiring the use of the power and the outcomes of the use of the power must be completed. For example, a use of force report. These reports are then collated and analysed to determine if there are any patterns of misuse, overuse, or process change or LEA personnel training requirements required. [3]

Abuse of powers and law exemptions

The abuse, or perceived abuse, or lack of openness and reporting on the use, of powers and law exemptions by an LEA, can give rise to lack of confidence and respect by subjects in the LEA. Where there is abuse of its powers and law exemptions by an LEA, and no or ineffective overview of its activities, the LEA can come to be referred to as a secret police agency.

Communications interception

The interception of communications is usually the interception of electronic voice or data connections, and is typically called telecommunications interception (TI). In some countries TI is called wire tapping. Other forms of communications interception can be intercepting radio transmissions and opening physical mail items.

In a civil society or democratic society, governing bodies give their law enforcement agencies specific powers to intercept telecommunications via specific laws, for example, in Australia with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, [4] in the United Kingdom via the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and in the United States with 18 USC §2516. [5]

The use of TI powers by a LEA is typically subject to strong overview from outside of the LEA. For example, in Australia an ombudsman has strong intrusive powers to monitor and review an LEA using TI. [4]

Intrusive seizure

Intrusive seizure can include:

Property seizure by entering premises

Law enforcement agencies are specifically given the authority to seize property, for the example the Federal Bureau of Investigation [6] The power to search and seize property is typically granted in an instance via an instrument called a search warrant.

Legal deception powers can include:

Assumed identities

Law enforcement agency personnel when they take on assumed identities are often referred to as covert officers or undercover officers. The use of such methods in open societies are typically explicitly authorised and is subject to overview, for example in Australia under the Crimes Act 1914, [7] and in the United Kingdom under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [8]

Controlled operations

Controlled operations, an action by a law enforcement agency to allow a criminal act to occur, for example the importation of illicit substances, so that as many of the subjects involved in the act can be identified as possible during the process of importation. A controlled operation typically includes the substitution of all of the illicit substances, or the significant majority of them, by the law enforcement agency with similar looking but benign materials.

In open societies, controlled operations are specifically legislated for to be used by law enforcement agencies and are subject to overview, for example in Australia. [9]

Intrusive surveillance

Intrusive surveillance typically means entering or interfering with the private and confidential space and property of a subject. Intrusive surveillance typically requires the law enforcement agency to be enabled for a law enforcement agency, for example in Australia, [10] and in the United Kingdom. [8] Recent advances in technology have made surveillance easier to achieve and, in some instance, even commonplace. [11]

Use of force

Use of force powers can include:

Constraint of liberty

Constraint of liberty powers can include:

Jurisdictional override

Sometimes, a law enforcement agency will not normally have the jurisdictional authority to be involved in enforcing compliance of, or investigating the non compliance with, a law unless that law or the non complying subject crosses over multiple jurisdictions, or the non compliance is especially severe.

For example, in the United States while kidnapping is typically initially a state jurisdictional matter, the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation is allowed to take responsibility when the matter crosses state boundaries by virtue of the act(s) then becoming a federal matter. [13]

Direction

The power of direction allows a LEA to direct a subject to either carry out some act or provide information with the subject having no right to refuse, even if the outcome is to incriminate the subject, that is, any explicit, implied, or de facto right to silence is overridden.

This power when provided to an LEA in a civil society or democratic society is typically counterbalanced by the subject not being able to be prosecuted as a result of them complying with the direction, but they can be prosecuted if they do not comply. They can be prosecuted if other law enforcement outcomes have the otherwise same effect. A subject can be prosecuted using information obtained from another subject under direction.

An example of this power of direction is held by the Australian Crime Commission. [14] The Australian Federal Police (AFP) also has a power of direction, but this is limited to being applied to AFP appointees. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counterterrorism</span> Activity to defend against or prevent terrorist actions

Counterterrorism, also known as anti-terrorism, relates to the practices, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, law enforcement, businesses, and intelligence agencies use to combat or eliminate terrorism.

Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance</span> Intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population

Mass surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens. The surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments or governmental organizations, such as organizations like the NSA, but it may also be carried out by corporations. Depending on each nation's laws and judicial systems, the legality of and the permission required to engage in mass surveillance varies. It is the single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes. It is also often distinguished from targeted surveillance.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), also known as the "Digital Telephony Act," is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

Lawful interception (LI) refers to the facilities in telecommunications and telephone networks that allow law enforcement agencies with court orders or other legal authorization to selectively wiretap individual subscribers. Most countries require licensed telecommunications operators to provide their networks with Legal Interception gateways and nodes for the interception of communications. The interfaces of these gateways have been standardized by telecommunication standardization organizations. As with many law enforcement tools, LI systems may be subverted for illicit purposes.

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, December 31, 2005, for most of the title's provisions. This was extended twice: on December 22, 2005 the sunset clause expiration date was extended to February 3, 2006 and on February 2 of the same year it was again extended, this time to March 10.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section summary of Title II of the Patriot Act</span>

The following is a section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures gave increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, of 31 December 2005, for most of the title's provisions. On 22 December 2005, the sunset clause expiration date was extended to 3 February 2006.

Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to law enforcement:

A law enforcement agency (LEA) is any government agency responsible for the enforcement of the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of mass surveillance in the United Kingdom

The use of electronic surveillance by the United Kingdom grew from the development of signal intelligence and pioneering code breaking during World War II. In the post-war period, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was formed and participated in programmes such as the Five Eyes collaboration of English-speaking nations. This focused on intercepting electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities over time. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed bulk collection and surveillance capabilities, including collection and sharing collaborations between GCHQ and the United States' National Security Agency. These were commonly described by the media and civil liberties groups as mass surveillance. Similar capabilities exist in other countries, including western European countries.

Mass surveillance in Australia takes place in several network media, including telephone, internet, and other communications networks, financial systems, vehicle and transit networks, international travel, utilities, and government schemes and services including those asking citizens to report on themselves or other citizens.

Immigration Enforcement (IE) is a law enforcement command within the Home Office, responsible for enforcing immigration law across the United Kingdom. The force was part of the now defunct UK Border Agency from its establishment in 2008 until Home Secretary Theresa May demerged it in March 2012 after severe criticism of the senior management. Immigration Enforcement was formed on 1 March 2012, becoming accountable directly to ministers.

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) (“the Act”) is a piece of privacy legislation enacted by the Parliament of New South Wales the most populous state in Australia. It replaced the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW). The Act makes it an offence to record private conversations apart from in specific and defined circumstances. It makes provision for law enforcement officers to apply for warrants authorising the use of such devices and the circumstances in which judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales might issue such warrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (original Act) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce a statutory obligation for Australian telecommunication service providers (TSPs) to retain, for a period of two years, particular types of telecommunications data (metadata) and introduces certain reforms to the regimes applying to the access of stored communications and telecommunications data under the original Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigatory Powers Act 2016</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 29 November 2016. Its different parts came into force on various dates from 30 December 2016. The Act comprehensively sets out and in limited respects expands the electronic surveillance powers of the British intelligence agencies and police. It also claims to improve the safeguards on the exercise of those powers.

In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law. Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers. In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable." Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.

References

  1. ↑ "Controlled Operations Annual Report 2006-07" (PDF). Australian Federal Police. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2009. Retrieved February 4, 2008.
  2. ↑ "Controlled Operations Inspections Report 2005-06". Commonwealth Ombudsman. Archived from the original on August 29, 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2008.
  3. ↑ ACT Policing media release Police weapon discharge report 1 June 2005 Archived 23 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  4. 1 2 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979
  5. ↑ United States Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 119 Section 2516 - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
  6. ↑ United States Code Title 18 Part II Chapter 205 Section 3107 - Service of warrants and seizures by Federal Bureau of Investigation
  7. ↑ Part IAC of the Crimes Act 1914 - Assumed Identities
  8. 1 2 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Part II - Survaillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources
  9. ↑ Crimes Act 1914 Part IAB - Controlled Operation for Obtaining Evidence about Commonwealth Offences
  10. ↑ Surveillance Devices Act 2004
  11. ↑ Vysotsky, Stanislav. ""It wasn't on. I wasn't using it." Google Glass, Public Surveillance, and Entitlement".
  12. ↑ United States Code Title 18 PArt II Chapter 203 Section 3052 - Powers of Federal Bureau of Investigation
  13. ↑ United States Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 55 Section 1201
  14. ↑ Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 - Section 30 Failure of witnesses to attend and answer questions
  15. ↑ Austral Federal Police Act 1979 - Section 40VE - Directions to AFP appointee

See also

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.