Law Enforcement: Intelligence-Led Policing
Dr. Pete Conis
Intelligence-Led Policing and Civil Liberties
December 17, 2010
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a policing model that has emerged in recent years which is “built around risk assessment and risk management”. The leading definition is that ILP is “a strategic, future-oriented and targeted approach to crime control, focusing upon the identification, analysis and ‘management’ of persisting and developing ‘problems’ or ‘risks’” (de Lint, 2006). In simpler terms, it is a model of policing in which intelligence serves as a guide to operations, rather than the reverse (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2007). Peterson (2005) explains ILP as follows: Intelligence-led policing is a collaborative enterprise based on improved intelligence operations and community-oriented policing and problem solving, which the field has considered beneficial for many years. To implement intelligence-led policing, police organizations need to reevaluate their current policies and protocols. Intelligence must be incorporated into the planning process to reflect community problems and issues. Information sharing must become a policy, not an informal practice. Most important, intelligence must be contingent on quality analysis of data. The development of analytical techniques, training, and technical assistance needs to be supported. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 revealed the life-and-death importance of enhancing U.S. intelligence operations. Since that day, a tremendous amount of attention has been focused on the need for constructive changes in law enforcement intelligence (Peterson, 2005). The view that terrorism can be treated as a form of criminal behavior that requires no more than ”normal policing” is particularly stressed by those who argue that civil liberties are at grave risk when governments use the ‘menace’ of terrorism as an...
References: Albanese, J. (1984). Justice, Privacy, and Crime Control. New York, NY: University Press of America.
Bloss, W. (2007). Escalating U.S. Police Surveillance after 9/11: an Examination of Causes and Effects. Surveillance & Society, 208-228.
Cole, G. (2004). The American System of Criminal Justice 10th Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
de Lint, W. (2006). Intelligence in Policing and Security: Reflections on Scholarship. Policing & Society, 1-6.
del Carmen, R. (2004). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice 6th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Heymann, P. B. (2002). Civil Liberties and Human Rights in the Aftermath of September 11. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 441-456.
Peterson, M. (2005). Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Robertson, K. (1987). Intelligence, Terrorism and Civil Liberties. Conflict Quarterly, 43-62.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2007). Intelligence-Led Policing: A Definition. RCMP Criminal Intelligence Program.
Smith, R. M. (2004). Arraigning Terror. Dissent, 39-44.
Whitaker, R. (2003). After 9/11: A Surveillance State? In C. Brown, Lost Liberties: Ashcroft and the Assault on Personal Freedom (pp. 52-74). New York, NY: The New Press.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document