Processing of reliable information is the cornerstone of successful law enforcement

Dec 30, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In a recent news item Digicel is claiming that it faces challenges with regard to implementing wiretapping systems as required by law and which it is hoped, will enhance the intelligence apparatus of the various law enforcement agencies.
This is not an attempt to second guess that service provider except to say that it is a reasonable expectation that they would have examined all relevant factors before making public their incapacity to deliver at this time. I support the oft repeated position that law enforcement interventions can be enhanced significantly through intelligence.
We hear of intelligence led policing; intelligence gathering and a gamut of in-vogue catch phrases which for my part I would like to see translated into more successes namely the prosecution of offenders regardless of social and/or other status. That said, I believe that among the several challenges affecting the image of law enforcement in Guyana (as in other countries) are those related to crises of integrity; initiative; innovation; intelligence; and imagination. However, in this letter I will address the issue of intelligence which impacts on the other four ‘Is’.
Mr. Editor, the intelligence methodologies applied in preventing and detecting crime in its myriad forms whether gathered manually or via technology need to be researched and modified for our domestic situation, keeping in view the evolving nature of crime in terms of disregard for national borders.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that intelligence gathering for its own sake does not address the real issue of prevention and detection. In reference to analysis as the key factor in the transformation of information to intelligence the British National Crime Squad observed that “…analysis organises and interprets the intelligence in a way that significantly enhances its value and the possibility of its success in combating organised crime. Analysis identifies and predicts trends, patterns or problem areas requiring action.”
Law Enforcement Analytic Standards purport that analysis supports good resource management and is directly involved in creating situational awareness, in assisting in decision making, and in providing knowledge bases for law enforcement action.
It is for these critical reasons that every agency should have some analytic capability (International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Inc. 2004). In essence therefore the processing of reliable information is the cornerstone of successful law enforcement.
Mr. Editor, if our law enforcement interventions are to avoid odium and ridicule we have an obligation to ensure that our results-oriented efforts are in keeping with ethical international good practices. Notwithstanding the possibility that Guyana may not be optimally utilizing an extensive intelligence framework in its law enforcement initiatives due to various constraints, it is perhaps apposite to note that intelligence units within large more resource-driven law enforcement agencies face limited utilization due in part to failures in structure or direction.
In this regard perhaps the most common limitation is the failure to analyse information which is simply stored in a database awaiting access thus resulting in limited utility.
In other words information can be used more effectively if the crime intelligence unit examines, analyses, and compares collected information instead of operating in a system which allows passive storage of information.
Another aspect of underutilization is seen when the primary function of the unit is simply responding to information requests but not providing proactive analyses. Furthermore, in some instances when the unit performs some type of analysis, no distinction is made about the different types of intelligence outputs and how they can contribute to the overall goals.
This is likely to result in a less than optimum level of support and awareness on crime issues and crime threats when in reality, the desirable thing would be for the unit to be integrally involved as a proactive guide in investigations in scenarios requiring a high degree of interaction and interchange of information and ideas between analysts and investigators, and by extension an enhanced quality of analysis.
As we are on the subject of intelligence analysis it may be appropriate to identify the cognitive abilities analysts are expected to possess including: Written Expression; Reading Comprehension; Inductive Reasoning; Deductive Reasoning; Pattern Recognition; Oral Comprehension; and Information Ordering. Timothy S. Bynum in Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement suggests that the team of analysts should comprise, “Patrol officers because they have the most frequent contact with the problem. Crime analysts because they know and understand available data. Sergeants and lieutenants (in our case middle management officers) because they provide supervisory support. Possibly external researchers because they have the expertise in research methods and data analysis.” (2006).
Another weakness in the organisational culture of intelligence units which I am sure that we have suffered at one time or another in the past is the unwillingness to share information sometimes even within the same organisation. Intelligence units acting as gatekeepers have been known to gather information from diverse sources which they hoard or are reluctant to share; a practice that is dysfunctional, wastes resources, and contributes to the reluctance of field operatives to submit information.
Following a national summit on information-sharing problems funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) proposed the development of a plan to overcome five barriers that inhibit intelligence sharing including lack of communication among agencies; lack of equipment (technology) to develop a national data system; lack of standards and policies regarding intelligence issues; lack of intelligence analysis; and poor working relationships/unwillingness to share information.
Therefore at a policy level there must be direction that intelligence is proactively shared with the people who need the information, both inside the organisation and with sister agencies. Editor, I avoided mentioning external agencies in the information sharing mix which though desirable is subject to the vagaries of diplomacy and international relations. However, there are caveats which must be observed in the dissemination of information in the law enforcement context; care must be taken to ensure security of the information so that an investigation will not be compromised. I recall during the infamous crime wave of 2002-2005 that ranks going on operations were required to hand in their personal cellular phones since the bandits seemed to be always two jumps ahead.
One spin off of that period is the requirement now that every SIM card for cellular phones to be registered relative to the wiretapping legislation. Each type of intelligence (whether tactical or strategic) has a different role to fulfill, but it must be guided by sensitivity to the values inherent in information gathered; these include: Accuracy; Objectivity; Usability; Relevance; Readiness; and Timeliness.
When performed properly, the different forms of intelligence can guide investigations; provide insights for resource allocation; suggest when priorities should be expanded or changed; suggest when new training and procedures may be needed to address changing threats; and permit insight when there is a change in the threat level within a specific community or region. Mr. Editor, with renewed energy and commitment in addressing the issue of intelligence analysis – particularly as a guide for law enforcement investigators and decision makers there is no way that we cannot eliminate perceptions – wherever they may exist, of another set of five is namely incompetence; intransigence; inaction; incapacity; and inadequacy.
Patrick E. Mentore

---

---