Comp_Sci_in_Law_Enforcement

Computers in Law Enforcement XXXXX SCI 350B Professor Garcia 24 February 2008 Computers in Law Enforcement Computers are a part of everyday activities and especially in the exchange of information. Law Enforcement is no different. Law Enforcement agencies have a wide array of innovative computers and databases available to them. Long are the days of having to watch for a light to go off at a call box and the only weapons you had were your hands, a baton and a gun. Technology has long been a part of law enforcement from the time of the first radio boxes to the newest in thermal imaging, biometrics and even compliance aids. There are numerous information databases available to law enforcement agencies. There are databases to hold criminal records, serial numbers of stolen property, ballistic data, fingerprints or DNA (Dempsey, 102). An agency can post a bulletin on California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) and in a matter of seconds; it can be viewed by hundreds of other agencies (Dempsey, 102). This is very important when an agency to trying to get information to other agencies. CLETS holds information regarding persons and property. Information systems allow a single entity such as “as a prosecutor’s office or a police department—to share information within itself and allows multiple agencies to share information with each other (Morton)”. Collecting and storing DNA has ethical issues, especially when it is held on a computer. A persons DNA profile can be taken without being invasive. It is how DNA information is stored that can be controversial. With it being stored on a computer, computers are susceptible to being “hacked” into and their data can fall into the wrong hands. Having DNA is important because it can cross check DNA from older cases and can exonerate or identify persons of interest (Duster). The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is another information system that is available to law enforcement. NCIC was incepted in 1967 and “Its current enhanced version, NCIC 2000, came on-line in July 1999 (Dempsey, 102).” NCIC holds information on warrant suspects, stolen property and any other information that an agency may want to share with other agencies (Dempsey, 103). Yoshikawa adds that NCIC also contains information on property such stolen and recovered guns and information on persons including missing persons, people on parole or probation and sex offenders. According to Dempsey, this system provides real time information to anyone using one of its terminals. This makes NCIC a critical database for law enforcement. This system is updated once a person is booked into jail on the warrants, or the property is entered as recovered (Yoshikawa). Yoshikawa says the accuracy of NCIC is only as accurate as the person entering the information. CLETS is a state database that local and state authorities have access to. CLETS holds information on restraining orders, parole and probation holds and warrant information. This database is audited every two years by the California Department of Justice in which they send of list of random cases to review for accuracy. Yoshikawa says that there is one very important safeguard printed on the top of every inquiry, there is a statement that says, “Do not arrest or detain solely on this information. Contact the Originating Agency to Confirm.” Yoshikawa is the Records/Dispatch Supervisor for the Shafter Police Department and is extremely familiar with CLETS and NCIC. She said that a way to keep the information accurate is monthly audits by the NCIC. She said that she also sends letters to victims of “stolen vehicles, stolen guns and missing persons,” to make sure that nothing has changed in the information in the case. This puts part on the responsibility to the victims and insures that the information is kept up to date. Having the letters sent out to the victims also ensures that the records are up to date because people may not report a recovery of a vehicle, gun or is someone returned home. Yoshikawa said that in her 17 years as a Dispatcher and Records Supervisor that she “has not seen many instances where wrong information was acted upon.” She said that there has been a few warrants that were no longer active that were still in the database as active and this is a prime example of how it’s up to the people entering information to make sure it’s accurate. Yoshikawa said that she has heard of instances where a person has been pulled out of a car at gun point during a “high risk felony stop” because the record showed the car as stolen, when it was not stolen. She stated that this opens the officers involved, department, city and the dispatcher to civil liability. Having the threat of civil liability is yet another way to keep the people who have access to these databases honest. An ethical issue involved in these databases is who is able to access them and their information. To have access to all this vital and personal information, one must be qualified. To be able to run people through CLETS/NCIC or any other law enforcement database, one must go through a background process according to Yoshikawa. She said a person must have their fingerprints ran through the US Department of Justice to make sure that a person does not have any outstanding warrants or has a felony criminal record. She also said that there is either a 4 or 8 hour training course, dependent upon how much of the database’s information that person gets access to. Another safeguard is that access may only be granted on a need to know basis, meaning that a person cannot run a person or item through CLETS or NCIC merely because they want to. There must be some reason that law enforcement needs the information (Yoshikawa). This means that it would be a violation for someone who has access to use the information or databases for their own personal use and would have their access abilities taken away from them. Yoshikawa also stated that misuse of information is a misdemeanor and can be punishable by jail time. This ensures that everyone is using the databases correctly and ethically. The integration and linking of these systems is crucial. According to Burgess via Mercer’s article, information systems, “boost police productivity, national security and border protection”. “The information shared includes all criminal justice related data, including photographs, fingerprints, DNA identification records, case records, court calendars, electronic messages and documents (Morton)”. Morton is describing the connection between local, state and federal databases. It is imperative that these databases be connected to each other to form more of a “web of communication” than a “line of communication.” Morton says that integration of information is what turns several individual information systems into an “effective criminal justice system.” Morton says, “an integrated criminal justice information system uses technology to allow the seamless sharing of information at critical decision points throughout the justice system. In many states today, integration efforts are under way (Morton)”. Everything must be linked in order to make these systems more complete and reliable. Having an integrated information system that is reliable and contains a vast amount of information makes law enforcement safer and more effective. The integrated systems also keep agencies from having to contact each and every agency to find out if a person is wanted or a piece of property has been stolen. Some of the latest technological improvements to law enforcement are the use of the internet and the use of high powered computers. The internet has proven to be an invaluable tool to law enforcement. The Internet has also been helpful in apprehending suspects by the use of community pages such as MySpace and Facebook (Grider). There are also internet sites that agencies utilize to give information to the public. These internet sites are those such as Megan’s Law that gives information about registered sex offenders, FBI’s website gives a magnitude of information ranging from terrorism to most wanted. Local agencies may also post Most Wanted pages on their sites such as that found at Shafter.com. There are also internet sites solely for the use of Law Enforcement. These are websites such as PictureLink and CalPhoto which enables officers to access databases to find pictures of people to add to a photo lineup by accessing state wide databases containing booking photos (Grider). AutoTrack is another internet site that allows officers to track people by viewing people’s financial records, phone records and is linked to credit bureaus (Grider). One of the most controversial websites is the Megan’s Law website. One hand, people feel that they should know who is in living in their neighborhoods and close to their children. They feel they are entitled to know if there is a sexually violent person living next to them or if a person was convicted of a sexual crime against children. On the other hand, some sex registrants say that it violates their rights to have their picture and personal information up on a website because some say they were wrongfully convicted or that they have changed. Some registrants say that it creates undo problems for them. According to Beyer-Kendall and Cheung, “majority of such laws have created a false sense of safety because they address only convicted sex offenders.” This means that there could still be (and are) people who are dangerous living around children that are not on the website simply because they haven’t been caught yet. Therefore, though it may increase safety, it is not an absolute and complete list of dangerous or violent offenders. According to Yoshikawa, if a person is convicted say in California, and they move to Nevada, they may not have to register as a sex offender, and therefore would not be on the Megan’s Law website. This is because when a person moves to a different state, they evaluate the penal code under which they were convicted (CA) and if it doesn’t measure up to a registration offense in the new state of residence (NV), the person will not have to register, explained Yoshikawa. For example, a person convicted of passion of child pornography, though it is a Federal crime according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, only in California would a person convicted of this crime have to register as a sex offender. This difference in registering causes many people to fall through the cracks, and makes the use of the website flawed. The information on the website is updated automatically when entered by a records person, such as when a person moves and they have to re-register or update their information, but again, it is only as accurate as the person who is entering the information explained Yoshikawa. She stated that there are safe guards put in place, such as when a dispatcher or record keeper enters information, it is supposed to be double checked by another person to verify its accuracy. However, once again, it is only as good as the human error factor. Not only is having internet an invaluable tool when one is at the station, it can be even more crucial when in the field. This is made possible by the advent of Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) which are laptops mounted in patrol cars, mobile internet and wireless technology. According to Hampton and Martin “telematics systems are increasingly prevalent.” MDTs are mounted in the car so that the driver is able to operate and run searches in the databases while in motion and while stopped. Hampton and Martins research showed that the “Mobile Data Terminal improved the productivity of double-crewed patrol cars…” The whole goal of having MDTs in cars is to help officers in the field have access to critical and accurate data about the people they are dealing with. This is a very large step in the improvements in the technology that is available for law enforcement. These mobile computers are also equipped with mobile internet so that they can have full connectivity to all the internet sites that would be available if the officer was using a hard wired PC at the station. This means that they would be able to access on the websites that are both law enforcement sensitive and sites that are not law enforcement sensitive sites. By doing this, this gives the officers in the field almost instantaneous access to important information. The officers can view the information as soon as it is updated on the websites and databases. They are also able to view calls for service inputted by their dispatchers, so it gives the officers enhanced safety because people cannot use traditional radio scanners to hear all their calls. The dispatcher can also enter sensitive information to aid in officer safety. Works Cited Beyer Kendall, Wanda D., and Monit Cheung. "Sexually Violent Predators and Civil Commitments Laws." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse os 13 (2004): 41-57. Academic Search Elite. EbscoHost. CSU Bakersfield, Bakersfield. 21 Feb. 2008. Keyword: Sex Offender Website. "Child Pornography Fact Sheet." National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 15 Aug. 2007. 20 Feb. 2008 . Dempsey, James X. "Overview of Current Criminal Justice Information Systems." Portal. 2000. Center for Democracy and Technology. 20 Feb. 2008 . Duster, Troy. "Explaining Differential Trust of DNA Forensic Technology: Grounded Assessment or Inexplicable Paranoia'" American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34th ser. 34 (2006). 21 Feb. 2008 . Grider, Christopher D. Personal interview. 21 Feb. 2008. Grider, Christopher D. "Shafters Most Wanted." City of Shafter. 15 Feb. 2008. Detective. 19 Feb. 2008 . Hampton, Paul, and Langham Martin. "A Contextual Study of Police Car Telematics: the Future of in-Car Information Systems." Ergonomics os 48 (2005): 109-118. 21 Feb. 2008 . Mercer, Neil. "Police Want National Database That 'Talks' Murderers Walking Free." The Mercury 17 Jan. 2007. Lexis-Nexis. CSU Bakersfield, Bakersfield. 21 Feb. 2008. Keyword: Police Computer Technology. Morton, Heather. "Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems." National Conference of State Legislatures. 1 Nov. 2001. Policy Associate. 20 Feb. 2008 . Yoshikawa, Lynn. Personal interview. 22 Feb. 2008.