Tag Archives: Intelligence systems

USA confidential informant management draws international attention

Posted on by

A recent article published by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21939453  highlighted many of the concerns that have already been raised in the USA about the way in which confidential informants are currently managed in the US. What will be of interest to law enforcement is not the content of the report for similar issues frequently appear in US media, but the fact that the issues  raised have reached a threshold that they are of interest outside the US.

In recent years there has been an increase in the amount of public interest and scrutiny applied to how confidential informants are managed. Increasing public concern will dictate how law enforcement manages confidential informants in the future. If the experience of UK law enforcement  is anything to go by and all the indicators are that circumstances are being replicated then many agencies in the US need to take a good look at the structures they have in place to manage confidential informants.  The UK experience began with one or two ‘bad cases’ coming to the public notice, increasing criticism from judiciary and other public bodies, greater interest from citizens and more adverse reporting in the media particularly with regard to confidential informant related corruption and privacy violations.  In the UK this led to firstly the creation by police chiefs of national standards for confidential informant management and secondly the introduction of legislation pertaining to the management of confidential informants.

One only has to look at media reporting in the USA to see where there has been an increase in adverse comments about how confidential informants are managed to realize that there is significant debate going on. Added to this is the fact that both the Federal Government and a number of states have introduced legislation pertaining to confidential informant management and one can grasp that it is only time before other states follow suit.

There are a number of elements that form the core of public concern about how confidential informants are managed:

  •  The lack of accountability in regard to law enforcement actions with confidential informants.
  • The potential violation of citizens’ privacy rights by law enforcement when using confidential informants.
  • The risks that confidential informants are exposed to in return for limited potential benefit.
  • Concerns about the administration of justice with regard to the uncorroborated testimony of confidential informants and ‘big fish’ walking free because they have passed information relating to ‘little fish’.

A significant number of US agencies have recognized that the expectation that citizens now have in relation to the interaction between law enforcement and confidential informants. Such agencies have introduced specific training for their officers, new and comprehensive policies relating to confidential informants, and software to significantly enhance record keeping pertaining to confidential informants thus providing appreciably higher levels of accountability in all aspects of the business.

Other agencies seem totally unaware of the change in public expectation or are unwilling to invest resources to meet those expectations. Burying one’s head in the sand or crossing one’s fingers may seem like reasonable options but such an approach did not satisfy a court in Florida when it awarded $2.6 million dollars for the mismanagement of Rachael Hoffman, a confidential informant working for Tallahassee Police Department.

John regularly advises ABM in relation to the development of abmpegasus software for managing confidential informants. He has written two books on managing confidential informants and is an internationally recognized expert on confidential informantmanagement. His latest title, Managing Intelligence; A Guide for Law Enforcement Professionals, will be published in June and deals with the structures necessary for an agency to have an effective intelligence system.

abmpegasus is a modular piece of expert-led software that helps law enforcement agencies and police manage confidential informants, intelligence and covert operations in accordance with best practice, policy and legislation.

If you would like more information on the abmpegasus confidential informant management software please contact Dawn Starling on dawn.starling@abmsoftware.com  t: +1 703-326-1366 or complete an ABM Software contact form and a member of our team will get in touch.

If you would like advice or further information on confidential informant  related matters please to contact John at john.buckley@abmsoftware.com or contact +1 703-326-1366

 

Major City Chief advocates key aspects of Intelligence Led Policing

Posted on by

Our regular commentator John Buckley steps away from his usual topic of managing confidential informants to discuss the wider issue of intelligence led policing:

Unfortunately, there remain a significant number of senior managers in law enforcement who have no real understanding of the concept of intelligence led policing and how it should be used to protect citizens and enhance public safety. All too often we find managers who may mention ‘intelligence led policing’ in a sound-bite but then continue the conversation by demonstrating their lack of understanding of what the concept entails.  It is therefore refreshing to read of a Chief who not only advocates the concept but actually gets what it is about. In an article for the Baltimore Sun newspaper dated 31st March 1013, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-batts-homicide-20130330,0,535844.story.  Referring to ‘five strategic pillars’, not only captures the key points of intelligence led policing but pretty much gets them in the order in which they should be considered. We can explore how the Police Department’s strategy follows the concept of intelligence led policing:

  1. “…concentration on violent offenders, gang members and guns…”  The first thing to do in intelligence led policing is for a Chief to identify their policing priorities and make sure that the police department is working towards those priorities. Law enforcement has limited resources. They can’t do everything and it is the Chief’s job to decide what are the most important things for their department to deal with.
  2. 2.      “…community engagement.”   There are many who perceive intelligence led policing as being a concept that is in conflict with that of community policing.  In reality it is the opposite – intelligence led policing and community policing feed off each other. There should be no conflict.  It is from within communities that a significant amount of information for intelligence purposes will originate. If law enforcement officers are not in those communities then they won’t get the intelligence they need to protect those communities.
  3. “…creating an ability to produce more actionable and timely intelligence…”  Unless an agency puts in place structures to collect information, process it to intelligence and use that intelligence to combat crime it is failing in its duty. It should be noted that intelligence is not analysis of crime figures. While analysing crime statistics can help it should never be confused with intelligence led policing.
  4. 4.      “…encouraging better data-sharing with our state and federal partners…” There is little point in having intelligence unless structures are in place to share it internally and externally with those who can make use of it. All too often intelligence ends up in some detective’s desk drawer or hidden forever in a stand alone computer.
  5. 5.      “…ethics, integrity and accountability.”  Gathering and using intelligence by its very nature engages civil liberty issues and raises legitimate concerns with the public. Furthermore, many intelligence gathering techniques involve significant risks, all of which need to be documented and managed. Only by building intelligence management structures that operate on an ethical basis and keeping effective records can law enforcement hope to maintain community support for intelligence related activities.

Intelligence led policing strategy is a highly effective policing strategy. It can be implemented within any police agency and if done properly will enhance public safety and prevent crime. Unfortunately, while many are happy to talk the talk, fewer take the time to understand the how to actually walk the walk.

John regularly advises ABM in relation to the development of abmpegasus™ software for managing intelligence. His latest title, Managing Intelligence; A Guide for Law Enforcement Professionals, will be published in September. John can be reached at john.buckley@abmsoftware.com

abmpegasus™ is a modular piece of expert-led software that helps law enforcement agencies and police manage information, intelligence and covert operations in accordance with best practice, policy and legislation.

If you would like more information on the abmpegasus intelligence management software please contact Dawn Starling on dawn.starling@abmsoftware.com t: +1 703-326-1366 or complete an ABM Software contact form and a member of our team will get in touch.

15,000 people fight back against fraudsters…

Posted on by

Action Fraud, the UK’s first national fraud reporting centre, has had 15,000 web reports and calls in the last six months from members of the public who have joined the fight against fraud.

informants pay off

Posted on by

The Police Service of Northern Ireland revealed last week that they have arrested 900 suspects and seized £17.4m worth of drugs, £3.5m of black market goods including contraband cigarettes, £0.5m worth of vehicles and £350k in cash as a result of informants and intelligence-led operations over the last 12 months. As reported on the UTV News website, PSNI spent £405,000 on intelligence sources last year – the latest figures show that such activity clearly delivers impressive results and demonstrates the fact that, when used carefully and intelligently, informants are an invaluable tool in the fight against crime.

CIFAS – the UK’s Fraud Prevention Service, has released Staff Fraudscape

Posted on by

The 28-page report that lays bare the frauds recorded by the Members of the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database during 2009.

Key Findings;

  • A 45% increase in staff fraud in 2009, compared with 2008.
  • A rise in theft offences such as fraudulent withdrawals from customer accounts and theft of cash.
  • An overall decrease in employment application fraud (where applications for employment contain serious discrepancies or lies): with a remarkable divergence between unsuccessful employment application frauds (a decrease of 40.48% in 2009) and successful employment application frauds (which saw a 30% increase from 2008).
  • A steep rise in the average length of service of a staff fraudster (prior to being recorded to the database for a proven fraud) to nearly 4.5 years in 2009, from just over 1.5 years in 2008.
  • An alarming 113% increase in cases of unlawful obtaining or disclosure of personal data.

See Full report: Staff Fraudscape Report

Do “Joined up” systems, people and processes reduce investigation costs and improve results?

Posted on by

Many clients I speak with have the legacy of trying to pull data from disperate corporate systems.  Not only is this futile and error prone it is a very lengthy process which misses key information and delays the real investigation.  Documents cannot be found, logged intelligence reports are missed and it seems that even working practices within the investigation are different depending on the background of the investigators involved.  All his makes measuring success difficult and unreliable.  Every successful solution has three core components People, Process, Systems.  From what I’m seeing it looks like very little time is put into the reviewing of outdated and broken process and making sure that people are ready to take and use new technologies and that most time is spent throwing IT at the problem and saying “job done” when in effect it’s only just started…  I’d like to hear off anybody who has good or bad experiences of this…

Intelligence at the right time

Posted on by

Like many I have been watching the increasing debate about Police Officers having to patrol alone as opposed to being in pairs. During my service, I as a rule only patrolled alone and the general rule of thumb was on nights you were paired off. This was done for officer safety. I still live in the Force area where I was a serving police officer and this does not appear to have changed and obviously still works for this Force, however this does not mean it will work for all Forces and, going further, separate Divisions within the Forces. We have seen articles from the Times and the Daily Mail reporting on the issue and in particular how Facebook is being used to gain support for single patrolling to be looked at more closely. It is interesting how modern technology is being utilised to bring information to many, from a single data point and of course many are Police Officers who are accessing the Facebook page. Officer safety is the main concern and rightly should be, but if Intelligence can be made available to Response Officers, Neighbourhood Officers and other patrolling Officers then it can go a long way to providing them with the ability to carryout an immediate risk assessment before they knock on a door, stop a vehicle or speak to an individual in the street. The key, of course, is getting this intelligence onto a system quickly and efficiently and then making it available equally as efficiently. ABM have these systems available whether it be the ability to add information via mobile technology or Covert Policing methods, it can be collated into the single system. This means that when accessing the intelligence system it is right up to date. An important tool for any Police Officer or PCSO who may be patrolling alone.