The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Local Prosecutors’ Response to Terrorism 

Author(s): M. Elaine Nugent, James L. Johnson, Brad 

Bartholomew, Delene Bromirski 

Document No.: 211202 

Date Received: September 2005 

Award Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1025

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Local Prosecutors’ Response to Terrorism 

M. Elaine Nugent 

James L. Johnson 

Brad Bartholomew 

Delene Bromirski 

American Prosecutors Research Institute 

99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2003-IJ-CX-1025 awarded by the National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... ii 

1. Introduction: A Review of the Literature........................................................................2

2. Project Methodology..........................................................................................................8

3. State and Local Anti-Terrorism Legislation .................................................................17 

4. Prosecutors’ Experience With Homeland Security: Survey Results ..........................23

5. Case Studies of Five Local Prosecutors’ Offices’ Response to Terrorism..................37

6. Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................60

Appendix A: Statutory Matrices 

Appendix B: Additional Survey Data 

i

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Executive Summary 

INTRODUCTION

Since September 11, 2001, 45 states and the District of Columbia have enacted antiterrorism legislation. The various laws cover a wide range of activities and motivations, and in 

some instances, create new classes of offenses or overlap federal legislation. The enactment of 

anti-terrorism legislation at the local level has implications for prosecutors’ role in homeland 

security; however, exactly what this role will be, is unclear. In fact, this raises four key 

questions: 

1. What are the new or changed responsibilities given to prosecutors under their states’ 

anti-terrorism legislation?1

2. How are these responsibilities implemented at the local level, and to what extent have 

these new responsibilities changed local priorities?

3. What are the challenges associated with integrating local, state, and federal prosecution 

of terrorism-related acts, and how are these challenges overcome? 

4. What are the challenges associated with responding to homeland security threats and the 

strategies used to overcome these challenges? 

To answer these questions, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) 

conducted an exploratory study to examine how prosecutors can best respond to terrorism in a 

post-911 legislative environment. The study consisted of a statutory review of the new/amended 

state anti-terrorism legislation, a survey of the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country, and case 

studies of five local prosecutors’ offices. The goal of the study is to ensure that prosecutors have 

the most current information about the enforcement of anti-terrorism statutes in order to ensure 

that the local efforts complement and not conflict with federal efforts. 

 

1

 Anti-terrorism legislation was defined as legislation aimed at preventing and punishing acts of terrorism or 

providing support for terrorism, supporting intelligence gathering, and ensuring homeland security. 

ii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT METHODOLOGY

Following the legislative sessions of early 2002, the National District Attorneys Association 

conducted a preliminary review of state anti-terrorism legislation codified after September 11, 

2001. APRI used this review to conduct a comprehensive statutory analysis of new or amended 

legislation enacted between September 2001 and October 2003. Content analyses of the state 

statutes yielded four major types of legislation: 

1. Newly created criminal offenses, 

2. Enhancements/amendments to existing offenses, 

3. Added responsibilities for local prosecutors, and 

4. Enhancement/changes to intelligence gathering responsibilities and capabilities. 

The passage of anti-terrorism legislation at the state level has the potential to impact local 

prosecutors, who are responsible for enforcing state laws. As such, APRI designed a survey to 

examine local prosecutors’ involvement in homeland security and the ways in which their 

offices’ organizational structure has changed to facilitate their involvement. Other issues 

explored in the survey include how prosecutors are using new/amended anti-terrorism laws, 

specific challenges in applying new and amended laws, and training needs related to homeland 

security. The survey was administered to the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country.2

APRI used the survey results to define criteria to measure the level of prosecutorial

involvement in homeland security in order to identify five sites for more intensive case study. 

APRI selected the following five local prosecutors’ offices, which, according to their survey 

results, were actively engaged in homeland security efforts: 

• Monmouth County, New Jersey Prosecutor’s Office; 

• Los Angeles County, California District Attorney’s Office; 

 

2

 APRI received 70 completed surveys for an overall response rate of 62.5 percent. 

iii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Queens County, New York District Attorney’s Office; 

• Franklin County, Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; and 

• Bucks County, Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Office. 

INVOLVEMENT IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Shortly after 9/11, policymakers began reviewing existing laws to ensure punishment of 

terrorist acts and to deter potential terrorists from carrying out their criminal acts. The result was 

an assortment of new and amended legislation. Between September 2001 and October 2003, 45 

states created a total of 144 new offenses and amended 167 existing statutes. State statutes that 

address terrorism are critical for helping prosecutors’ offices understand what, if any, role they 

play in responding to homeland security. Hence, it is important that prosecutors become aware 

of the available statutes. Among the prosecutors’ offices surveyed, 71 percent indicated they 

were aware of their state’s new legislation and 48 percent were aware of the amended legislation. 

An essential component in the war on terrorism for local prosecutors is involvement in 

homeland security issues. Of the 70 local prosecutors’ offices that responded to the survey, 71 

percent reported being involved with homeland security at the local, state, and/or federal level. 

At the local level, prosecutors’ offices are actively involved in prevention of terrorism and 

responding to terrorist threats. At the state and federal level, local prosecutors are more involved 

with detection, planning, and investigation. 

Some prosecutors’ offices, recognizing that they had a role to play in homeland security 

issues, made changes within their offices in order to implement their new or changed 

responsibilities. The most frequent change made by local prosecutors was the participation on an 

anti-terrorism task force (59 percent), followed by coordinating efforts with the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office (57 percent). Creating a specialized unit or designating prosecutors to handle terrorismiv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
related cases is a significant change that few local prosecutors’ offices have yet to make – only 

15 percent of the surveyed offices. This may be due in part to the fact that most prosecutors do 

not view their responsibilities as having been significantly affected. In fact, 52 percent of the 

prosecutors’ offices that responded to APRI’s survey indicated that their ability to respond to 

terrorism has not changed, as compared with 11 percent who felt it was now easier (the 

remainder were unsure). Moreover, many of the prosecutors’ offices, as evidenced by the case 

studies, already have specialized units (such as organized crime, economic crime, etc.) that are 

uniquely situated to handle terrorism crimes as result of their familiarity with complex cases and 

the fact that many of the “precursor crimes” (e.g., offenses that may be precursors to terrorist 

offenses such as identity theft, money laundering, counterfeit identification, etc.) are already 

handled by specialized units. 

Each jurisdiction studied by APRI had implemented some type of specialized terrorism 

unit or had designated personnel specifically handle terrorism-related cases. Three of the 

jurisdictions also instituted policy/practice changes. In particular, Los Angeles and Queens 

County both have designated staff to work exclusively on terrorism issues. The Los Angeles 

County District Attorney’s Office has detailed several investigators to work full-time on task 

forces. Several Queens County and Bucks County investigators have been assigned to various 

task forces and some are cross-deputized as U.S. Customs agents. In addition, there are 

specialized attorneys who prosecute precursor crimes in Queens County. Monmouth County 

initiated an innovative organizational change when the County Prosecutor established an Office 

of Homeland Security, Research, and Planning within the investigative division of the office in 

2002. The mission of the new office is “to develop and implement strategies which will help 

recognize, prepare for, protect against, prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks 

v 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
within the County of Monmouth or in other areas affecting Monmouth County.”3

 Monmouth 

County has also instituted a four-hour mandatory training program on terrorism for all 

employees. 

PROSECUTORS’ USE OF ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION

Emphasis on Precursor Crimes 

Prompted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some states amended their legislation to explicitly 

link previous criminal offenses to terrorism. As a result of these legislative changes, the most 

common role of the local prosecutor in the nation’s effort to fight terrorism seems to be the 

investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of precursor crimes. Four of the five prosecutors’ 

offices studied by APRI have made concerted efforts to use their state’s new/amended antiterrorism legislation to connect precursor crimes to terrorism. In particular, the strategies that 

have been adopted by the various prosecutors’ offices studied focus on disrupting potential 

terrorism plans through criminal prosecution of state offenses (e.g., identity theft, fraudulent 

documents, and money laundering) and by using state legislation to help build intelligence for 

federal investigative and prosecutorial efforts. 

Of the jurisdictions that reported prosecuting terrorism-related precursor crimes prior to 

9/11, 60 percent have prosecuted more of these crimes, while 40 percent have prosecuted the 

same amount since 9/11. Specifically, among prosecutors who are involved in homeland 

security, many report an increased emphasis on the following crimes: 

• Identity theft (36 percent), 

• Counterfeit driver’s license (23 percent), 

 

3

 Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Division of Investigation General Order establishing the Office of Homeland 

Security, Research, and Planning. June 27, 2002. Number GO-09-2002. 

vi 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Money laundering (16 percent), 

• High tech/computer crimes (14 percent), and 

• Security offenses (10 percent). 

One pattern that quickly emerges from the investigative and enforcement efforts of 

precursor crimes suggests that there may be a continuum of intensity in the prosecutor’s level of 

involvement in enforcing, investigating, and prosecuting these offenses. In other words, some

offices have adopted a support role; others have taken a dual support and action role, whereas 

others have implemented an action role. Interestingly, this pattern seems to coincide with the 

prosecutors’ offices’ perceptions about the “target richness” of their respective jurisdictions. 

Those offices that have chosen a support role perceive their jurisdiction to have no or few 

possible targets, those in a dual support/action role believe there are some medium to high profile 

targets, and those who have taken an active role view their jurisdiction as target rich, with many 

high profile targets. 

Support Role. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Bucks County, Pennsylvania District 

Attorney’s Office has put in place mechanisms that allow them to support the enforcement, 

investigation, and prosecution of precursor crimes and terrorism-related offenses, particularly in 

terms of their involvement with enforcement and investigative task forces. All 16 investigators 

in the office have been cross-designated as U.S. Marshals to help support enforcement and 

investigation efforts. Prosecutors attend the State Attorney General’s monthly task force 

meeting and consult with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on terrorism prosecution but to date have 

not been called upon to handle any precursor crimes. In addition, the District Attorney’s Office 

has assigned three of its investigators to help the FBI with its watch list. 

vii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Dual Support & Action Role. The Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, through its 

gang unit, provides support to the U.S. Attorney in his efforts to respond to terrorism. The gang 

unit was selected because members of the unit are specially trained for intensive intelligence 

gathering and investigation, which the prosecutor believes can help bolster the efforts of federal 

law enforcement. In addition, the gang unit screens its own cases, and the prosecutors have been 

instructed to review cases for information that may indicate the offenses are precursor crimes 

related to terrorism. 

Two examples of how the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has played a 

dual support and action role are 1) their involvement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the 

investigation and arrest of a trucker who threatened to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New 

York, and 2) the prosecution of a local resident who threatened to bomb a local shopping mall. 

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office also identified an emerging trend in burglaries that they 

believed could be related to terrorism, namely an increase in the number of burglaries and theft 

of night vision binoculars and guns with telescopes. This information was provided to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, and the prosecutor’s office is working with local and federal law enforcement 

to continue to develop intelligence on this trend to determine if it is indeed related to terrorism. 

The County Prosecutor’s Office in Monmouth County, New Jersey has adopted a 

different approach to its dual support/action role. As the chief law enforcement officer in the 

county, the County Prosecutor’s Office determined that one of its major contributions to 

enforcement and investigation would be to serve as a conduit of information between various 

agencies. The county has established municipal counter terrorism coordinators who coordinate 

leads that come from residents and law enforcement in the various municipalities. This 

viii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
information is passed to the county’s terrorism coordinator, who is a member of the County 

Prosecutor’s staff. 

As information comes in from the municipal coordinators, the county coordinator reviews 

it, makes follow-up inquiries (as needed), and then sends the information to the state and federal 

task forces for review. Leads returned by the state or federal task forces may be investigated by 

the local police department or the County Prosecutor’s Office. In addition, information is 

entered into a statewide database that can be cross-referenced against similar information from

other sources. The database contains information on terrorism, gangs, and organized crime. 

Much of the information entered related to terrorism as a result of the County Prosecutor’s 

Office investigations focus on precursor crimes such as fraudulent documents. This allows the 

County Prosecutor to identify any patterns, gather intelligence, and provide information to the 

state and federal task forces. The County Prosecutor’s office has also been involved in hundreds 

of investigations of anthrax scares and other terrorism-related hoaxes. 

Action Role. The investigative and prosecutorial aspect of the Queens County, New 

York District Attorney’s Office response to terrorism is intensely focused on fraudulent 

identification documents and identity theft. In the first five months after the 9/11 attacks, the 

Governor of New York created the Fraudulent Identification Task Force (FIDTF) to target the 

illegal manufacture, sale, and distribution of forged or fraudulent identification documents such 

as passports, drivers’ licenses, non-driver photo identification cards, and other identification 

documents. The Queens County District Attorney’s Office participated in two FIDTF 

operations. The first focused on Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) operations and the second 

focused on the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). 

ix 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
As a result of the FIDTF operations at the DMV, the District Attorney’s Office and its 

partners screened 450 cases, made 420 arrests, seized 2,000 documents, and confiscated 

equipment used to make fraudulent documents during the four-month investigation. In addition, 

the District Attorney’s Office worked with the DMV to change its policies regarding the 

replacement of out-of-state drivers’ licenses to require a more rigorous review of identification 

documents. The TLC operation yielded 500 arrests of persons suspected of falsifying their 

identification in order to obtain taxi/limousine licenses. 

Another initiative by the Queens County District Attorney’s Office involved the review 

of airport personnel security badges. The airport task force conducted criminal history 

background checks on all 40,000 employees at JFK and La Guardia international airports. The 

checks revealed that 127 persons had used falsified or fraudulent identification documents to 

obtain their security badges. Criminal charges were filed in 97 of the cases. Using a newly 

amended statute that made the offering of a false instrument for identification a Class E felony, 

carrying a penalty of up to four years in prison, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office 

successfully prosecuted 35 of the cases as of the time of this study. In addition, immigration 

violations were filed in 22 of the cases. Since the concentrated effort began, precursor crimes 

such as identity theft and falsification of identification documents has become a significant part 

of the prosecutor’s office caseload – growing from around one percent to between 11 and 13 

percent of the total cases filed. 

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has also taken an active role in local 

and federal investigation and prosecution of precursor crimes and terrorist-related activities. An 

investigator from the organized crime division and three prosecutors were originally assigned to 

x 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
work on precursor crimes exclusively.4

 The investigator is assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism

Task Force (JTTF) and is involved in intelligence gathering and case development. This 

coordinated investigative effort maximizes the benefits of local and federal legislation. For 

example, for many cases, it is easier and quicker to obtain search warrants through the state 

rather than the federal courts. 

In addition, from the investigator’s work on the task force, which includes surveillance, 

interviewing suspects through consensual encounters, and arrests for involvement in precursor or 

lesser crimes, criminal cases are identified and screened locally and federally. The prosecutors 

in the organized crime division may evaluate cases and discuss prosecution with the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office. Most of the precursor crimes, such as selling counterfeit merchandise, money 

laundering, credit card fraud, and fraudulent documents, are prosecuted by the District 

Attorney’s Office. Overall, approximately 75 percent of the terrorism-related cases have resulted 

in either state or federal prosecution. 

Increased Penalties and Criminalization of Offenses 

One specific purpose for amending state legislation was to increase penalties for some

terrorism-related offenses. Even with these enhanced penalties, only five percent of responding 

jurisdictions indicated that they have used new and/or amended legislation to enhance sentencing 

in terrorism-related convictions. In addition, 15 percent of the responding offices indicated that 

the legislative changes have not changed their pre-existing sentencing structure and 61 percent 

have yet to have the opportunity to use the statutes. 

 

4

 At the time of the study, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors had just approved funding for the District 

Attorney’s Office to hire 10 additional investigators, who will work exclusively on terrorism and terrorism-related

cases. 

xi 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Legislators also responded to the 9/11 attacks by criminalizing certain behaviors that had 

not been deemed criminal prior to 9/11. For example, many states had pre-existing statutes that 

dealt with threats, hoaxes, and false reports. Nevertheless, 33 states enacted new laws and 40 

states amended an existing law to deal with these activities. Even though prosecutors applaud 

the efforts of legislators to criminalize certain behaviors, 77 percent of local prosecutors’ offices 

have yet to encounter a situation in which they could take advantage of the new and/or amended 

statutes. In fact, only 15 percent of responding jurisdictions claimed that the new anti-terrorism

statutes adequately addressed their needs such as improving intelligence gathering abilities. 

When considering only those jurisdictions that had an opportunity to use their state’s new or 

amended statutes, 67 percent claimed that the statutes adequately addressed the needs of 

prosecutors. Overall, prosecutors are unsure about the effectiveness and utility of the 

new/amended legislation. Of those prosecutors’ offices that have experience using their state’s 

new/amended legislation and were able to comment on the effectiveness, most stated that the 

legislation gave them more options (in the form of available charges and penalties) and has 

improved their evidence/intelligence gathering resources. Prosecutors who felt the statutes were 

ineffective indicated that the statutes are too limited in scope to receive regular use by 

prosecutors. 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Involvement on Anti-Terrorism Task Forces 

A key element of a comprehensive response to homeland security is coordination 

between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices. 

Participation on Anti-Terrorism Task Forces (ATTF) and/or Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) 

xii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
is the primary means of coordination with other agencies for prosecutors’ offices.5

 APRI’s 

survey revealed that 59 percent of the offices surveyed reported serving on some type of antiterrorism task force in response to the new legislation. The prosecutor’s level of involvement on 

these task forces varies from attending meetings to involvement in joint investigations to colocation of staff. For some offices, participation on task forces falls on the prosecutor’s 

investigative staff, whereas for others, an assistant prosecutor or the chief prosecutor handles this 

responsibility. 

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office assigned one investigator to work 

full-time with the JTTF. The investigator works with the JTTF to help obtain state search 

warrants when needed, helps review cases to make recommendations as to who should prosecute 

the case (i.e., the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the District Attorney’s Office), and works closely 

with the prosecutors on all cases to be prosecuted. At the time of APRI’s study, the District 

Attorney’s Office had received funding from the County Board of Supervisors to place 10 

additional investigators on the JTTF. 

The Queens County District Attorney’s Office has also participated in many different 

local, state, and federal task forces. These task forces include: 

• Fraudulent Identification Task Force: created by the governor to target the manufacture, 

sale, and distribution of fraudulent identity documents and consisting of representatives 

from local, state, and federal law enforcement, state Office of Public Security, 

Department of Motor Vehicles, Port Authority of New York, the New York Inspector 

General’s Office, ICES, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S.

Postal Inspection, and the Social Security Administration Inspector General’s Office. 

• Airport Security Identification Display Area Task Force: to conduct identity and criminal 

background checks on all airport personnel who have access to secure and restricted 

areas; task force members included many of the same from the FIDTF as well as the 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the TSA, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

 

5

 The ATTF is headed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and focuses on investigation and prosecution, whereas the 

JTTF is headed by the FBI and focuses primarily on investigation.

xiii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• El Dorado Task Force: focused on locating criminal offenders scheduled for deportation. 

• JTTF: assignment of three prosecutors6

 to screen and charge fraudulent identity 

document cases and intelligence gathering. 

• Anti-Terrorism Working Group: created and run by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the 

Eastern and Southern Districts of New York to coordinate the efforts of local law 

enforcement agencies and prosecutors in the New York City metropolitan area with 

regard to fraudulent identification and money laundering. 

Information Sharing 

The ability to have access to timely and accurate information is another instrument used 

by local prosecutors to coordinate their efforts with other agencies. In general, information 

sharing at the local level between local justice officials has been considered sufficient, even 

though improvements can be made. In contrast, information sharing between federal law 

enforcement agencies and local agencies has been more limited. A recent Homeland Security 

Advisory Council report finds that considerable work needs to be done to ensure that proper 

information is exchanged between federal and local enforcement agencies.7

 

All of the jurisdictions studied receive terrorism alerts and regular communication 

through electronic mail servers and facsimiles. A large percentage of survey respondents (70 

percent) reported being involved in intelligence sharing with local, state, and federal agencies. 

Of those jurisdictions, 46 percent report information to state or federal agencies on investigative 

targets and 44 percent report on potential threats. Only 17 percent of the jurisdictions report 

security alerts, this may be due to the fact that terrorism is heavily monitored at the federal level 

and most information about security alerts received by local prosecutors may have come from

the federal government. 

 

6

 As a result of limited resources, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office has been forced to reduce the 

number of full-time prosecutors assigned to the JTTF from three to one, who is on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

7

 Fiorill, Joe. “U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Anti-terrorism Efforts.” Available 

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_12_13.html#6C00626D. Retrieved December 14, 2004. 

xiv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office has focused much of its efforts on 

information sharing through the creation of municipal counter-terrorism coordinators who serve 

on the frontline of information gathering. The municipal coordinators provide information to the 

county coordinator, in the County Prosecutor’s Office, who in turns acts as the liaison with the 

state Office of Counter-Terrorism and the FBI. The County Prosecutor’s Office operates as a 

clearinghouse of information, filtering intelligence data through local, state, and federal levels. 

CHALLENGES FACING LOCAL PROSECUTORS

Intelligence Gathering and Information Sharing 

One goal of APRI’s study was to gather information about the challenges facing local 

prosecutors as they begin to prosecute terrorism cases under new state laws. The most frequently 

cited challenges involved investigative issues, such as intelligence gathering and information 

sharing with federal agencies, and case processing issues, such as obtaining resources to conduct 

more intense screening and investigative work, as well as the volume of work involved with 

terrorism-related cases. Additionally, loopholes in the legislation, discovery issues, legal 

challenges, and judicial interpretation of the statutes were listed as challenges by nearly a third of 

the prosecutors. 

Many of the legislative changes were designed to make it easier for investigators to 

gather intelligence. However, according to the survey results, only eight percent of responding 

offices reported that the new and/or amended statutes adequately addressed the needs of 

investigators. Among those offices that had used the new/amended statutes, the number of 

prosecutors who thought the statutes adequately addressed the needs of their investigators 

increased from 10 percent to nearly 44 percent. More than three-quarters of the jurisdictions that 

xv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
reported using the new and/or amended statutes experienced no change when it came to their 

ability to perform most investigative activities such as intelligence gathering, conducting 

wiretaps, accessing mobile phone or pager records, using public space for videotaping, or issuing 

search warrants on bank records. 

Investigations 

Legislative changes in response to the war on terror have impacted how law enforcement 

agencies conduct their investigations. APRI asked local prosecutors’ offices if the changes 

within law enforcement (such as increased participation in anti-terrorism task forces or fewer 

investigative resources for certain types of offenses) have placed more demands on their 

investigators or prosecutors. More than half (56 percent) of the jurisdictions did not see changes 

in law enforcement as placing more demands on their prosecutors or investigators. Among the 

jurisdictions that did see an increase in demand on their prosecutors or investigators, the most 

frequently identified demand was an increased caseload and strained resources. Other demands 

include allocating more resources to investigations and screening of cases, following up on the 

increased number of violations, and an increase in pre-charge work. 

As a result of their increased involvement in terrorism-related investigations, prosecutors’ 

offices report that they have encountered the following challenges: 

• Multi-jurisdictional issues: information exchange/coordination with local, state, and 

federal enforcement agencies and inter-/intra-state issues. 

• Case processing issues: volume of work involved, proving the crime, identifying the 

perpetrator, security clearance, and witness cooperation. 

• Investigative issues: evidence collection, intelligence gathering, obtaining multijurisdictional search warrants, information sharing with federal agencies, contaminated 

evidence, and finding witnesses. 

• Legal issues: elements of the statute, discovery issues, legal challenges, judicial 

interpretation of the statute, and loop holes in legislation. 

xvi 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Other issues: lack of law enforcement training, media/publicity limiting the jury pool 

and other challenges. 

Training 

Seventy-two percent of the responding offices believe that prosecutors in their office 

have not received adequate training to handle terrorism cases. However, since so few 

jurisdictions have actually had the opportunity to investigate or prosecute a terrorist incident 

under their state’s new or amended statutes, this finding must be interpreted with care. Some

jurisdictions treat terrorism the same as other cases and therefore do not see a need for additional 

training. Others attribute their lack of training to insufficient funding or limited opportunities. 

Methods for Overcoming Challenges 

To overcome the investigative and multi-jurisdictional challenges, most prosecutors 

became involved in task forces and increased their efforts to share and obtain information. In the 

case study sites, the prosecutors report instituting regular meetings with the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices to discuss cases and make decisions about prosecution. More than half also indicated 

that they had used training for law enforcement to help overcome problems with investigations

as well as the multi-jurisdictional issues they faced. 

Another tool in the fight against terrorism is the use of or participation in joint 

investigations with state or federal agencies. APRI’s survey revealed that slightly more than 38 

percent of respondents have participated in joint investigations or prosecutions of terrorist 

crimes/incidents with state and/or federal agencies. 

xvii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CONCLUSION

Local prosecutors have made concerted efforts to play a vital role in the war on terrorism. 

New and amended state anti-terrorism legislation has both increased and changed prosecutors’ 

responsibilities in regards to how they investigate and prosecute terrorism cases. These changes, 

particularly an increased focus on precursor crimes, have presented many challenges for local 

prosecutors as they have attempted to implement their new responsibilities. 

States’ responses to 9/11 through their enactment of anti-terrorism legislation 

undoubtedly have implications for local prosecutors who are charged with enforcing state laws. 

What are the new or changed responsibilities given to prosecutors under this new or amended 

legislation? Overall, prosecutors’ primary responsibilities have not been affected by the 

legislation, but in 45 states, prosecutors now have additional criminal offenses to prosecute or 

investigate. Many of these new offenses focus on threats, hoaxes, and false reports as well as 

actual incidents of terrorism. 

The second question that arises from the study is how prosecutors have implemented 

their new or changed responsibilities at the local level and the extent to which the responsibilities 

have affected local priorities. Most prosecutors (71%) report that they are involved with 

homeland security at the local, state, and/or federal level. At the state and local levels,

prosecutors have changed their process for screening, investigating, and prosecuting certain 

criminal offenses (i.e., precursor crimes) and have placed more emphasis on intelligence 

gathering. Additionally, prosecutors have implemented information sharing networks or become

part of federal information sharing networks. 

The third question to be answered focuses on the challenges local prosecutors face with 

regards to integrating local, state, and federal prosecution of terrorism-related acts and how these 

xviii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
challenges are overcome. APRI’s study found that very few prosecutors had experience in this 

area. In fact, only 16 percent of the offices surveyed had prosecuted a terrorism-related case. 

Among those offices that did have experience, the most significant challenge faced was in the 

area of investigations. In terms of investigative challenges, prosecutors cited multi-jurisdictional 

investigations, evidence collection, intelligence gathering, and information sharing with federal 

agencies as the most significant. 

In general, the most significant finding of the study was that only a few prosecutors had 

developed a well-defined role for their office in responding to terrorism. This may be due in part 

to the fact that many prosecutors had not used the new or amended legislation as of one year ago 

when the survey was administered. Until prosecutors have had the opportunity to gain 

experience with the new/amended legislation, it would be premature to draw conclusions about 

the utility of the new or amended legislation. However, as more prosecutors use the legislation it 

will be important to further study whether or not the various statutes are lacking elements 

deemed critical by prosecutors to help them respond to terrorism. 

Another recurring theme throughout the findings deals with information sharing. 

Although the majority of prosecutors view this as a critical element of a terrorism response, most 

also felt that information sharing was more of a “one-way” street and a significant challenge to 

be addressed. Clearly, the information generated at the local level is vital for federal antiterrorism efforts, but as prosecutors have more opportunity to use their statutes, particularly for 

precursor crimes, information at the federal level will be vital to local prosecutors in helping to 

establish links. Further research is needed to fully explore the challenges of information sharing 

and strategies for its improvement. 

xix 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Finally, the survey findings and the results of the case studies seem to indicate that 

defining the local prosecutor’s role in responding to terrorism will be evolutionary. The largest 

prosecutors’ offices in the country—those offices generally found in target-rich environments 

and most likely to have the resources to dedicate to homeland security—vary dramatically in the 

extent to which they are working to address terrorism. A few, as highlighted in this study, have 

initiated comprehensive and innovative anti-terrorism strategies with limited resources and very 

little access to specialized training. As these experiences are shared, and as more prosecutors 

have an opportunity to use their new/amended statutes, it is believed that more prosecutors will 

begin to define their roles. 

xx 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Local prosecutors have long been recognized as enforcers of state laws and order 

maintainers.8

 In carrying out these roles, prosecutors’ responsibilities include creating safe 

communities by holding offenders accountable for their actions. In the past century, the local 

prosecutorial function has evolved dramatically in keeping with the changing environmental 

context in which prosecutors operate.9

 This evolution has included purview over an ever 

increasing number and variety of criminal offenses, efforts to prevent and treat criminal activity, 

increased investigative responsibilities, and provision of assistance to victims of crime, to cite 

just a few of the major changes in prosecution. 

Today, the topic of terrorism is woven into our political and social discourse. The 9/11 

attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has served to move terrorism from the 

periphery to the forefront of our collective public consciousness.10 Post-9/11 terrorism concerns 

extend to our nation’s prosecutors as well. As the people’s attorney, prosecuting criminal 

offenses on behalf of the state, the prosecutor’s role is likely to evolve again with the widespread 

enactment of new legislation aimed at preventing, criminalizing, or enhancing penalties for 

terroristic activities or activities that support terrorism. Many American states have sought to 

join the federal government in the fight against terrorism by creating new legislation aimed 

specifically at crimes related to terrorism.

11 

 

8

 National Research Council. What’s Changing in Prosecution? Report of a Workshop, Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press, 2002. 9

 Jacoby, Joan E. “The American Prosecutor in Historical Context,” The Prosecutor, 31 (May/June 1997): 33-38. 10 Turk, Austin T. “Confronting Enemies Foreign and Domestic: An American Dilemma.” Criminology & Public 

Policy 1 (July 2002): 345-350. 11 Lyons, Donna. States Enact New Terrorism Crimes and Penalties. NCSL State Legislative Report: Analysis of 

State Actions on Important Issues, 27 (November 2002): 1-5. 

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In 2002, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) completed a summary of 

state anti-terrorism statutes passed since September 11, 2001.12 Using this report along with 

updates to state legislation using the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) 

website,13 the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) found that 45 states had enacted 

new terrorism legislation aimed at creating a new offense regarding terrorist acts. An example of 

a newly created offense could be found in the state of New Jersey under Assembly Bill 911, 

which criminalizes the act of providing material support or resources for terrorism.

14 Laws such 

as these create new offenses that are clearly separate from other existing offenses. 

 Forty states had enacted legislation that amends pre-existing laws in order to create a 

more effective prosecutorial tool. The state of New York enacted such an amendment through 

Assembly Bill 1297, which “expands the death penalty list of aggravating factors to include the 

use of a chemical, biological, or radiological weapon.”15 Legislation of this type is designed to 

enhance penalties for a pre-existing offense. 

 A smaller number of states (14) enacted legislation designed to enhance or change 

intelligence gathering responsibilities and capabilities. Texas Public Law 2003,c.1312 is an 

example of such legislation. This law “requires the governor to direct a statewide homeland 

security strategy” and “designates the department of public safety as the repository for collecting 

criminal intelligence information about terrorist activity.”16 Laws of this type usually involve 

structural or procedural changes within state intelligence gathering agencies. 

 

12 Miranda, Teresa P. Overview of State Criminal Legislation Passed in Response to 9/11/01, National District 

Attorney’s Association, 2002. 13 National Conference of State Legislatures. “Terrorism Crime and Penalties.” Available 

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/terrorismcrime.htm. Retrieved December 6, 2004. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Four states enacted new or amended laws designed to create or enhance a state’s first 

response abilities and safety in the event of a terrorist attack. For example, Texas Public Law 

2003,c.1022 “authorizes the temporary quarantine if an environmental or toxic agent is 

introduced into the environment – including by means of terrorism.”

17 This would allow for a 

first responder contingency to isolate those individuals and areas that have been exposed to the 

agent, thereby decreasing the chances for further exposure. Legislation of this type is often 

employed to create and/or update a state’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to a terrorist 

attack within its borders. 

RESEARCH ON LEGISLATIVE CHANGES 

States have an important role in efforts to respond to the terrorist threat in the 

United States. Given that such violence is criminal conduct, state criminal 

enforcement is relevant. Domestic terrorism is a threat, and the states have a 

primary responsibility to protect citizens.18

State anti-terrorism laws are relatively new; hence, there is little research that documents 

how prosecutors are enforcing these laws or the new challenges created by the laws. Of 

particular concern are issues surrounding proof of motivation, access to information, information 

sharing between local and federal agencies, and concurrent jurisdiction with federal prosecutors. 

In order to ensure that local prosecutors are equipped and prepared to effectively bolster the 

efforts of the federal government and take on appropriate roles in homeland security. These 

issues must be addressed , and are the focus of APRI’s study of local prosecutors’ offices 

response to terrorism. 

 

17 Ibid. 18 Donohue, Laura K., and Juliette N. Kayyem. “Federalism and the Battle over Counterterrorist Law: State 

Sovereignty, Criminal Law Enforcement, and National Security,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25 (JanuaryFebruary 2002):1-18.

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Although empirical research remains sparse on these issues, an attempt to address the 

challenge of information sharing between local and federal law enforcement agencies has been 

made. In 2002, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in conjunction with the U.S. 

Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) hosted a two-day forum

designed to bring together local and federal law enforcement executives from across the nation in 

an attempt to identify challenges remaining in constructing a successful line of dialogue. At the 

end of the two days, the PERF staff identified seven priority areas of concern:19 

• Promoting effective local-federal partnerships 

• Security clearances and information sharing 

• Joint terrorism task forces 

• FBI strategies 

• Intelligence 

• Multi-jurisdictional information sharing 

• Training and awareness 

The sharing of information in particular, amounts to a critical area of concern for local 

prosecutors and federal officials alike.20 

RESEARCH ON LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO HOMELAND SECURITY

In order for local prosecutors to delve into the world of homeland security, their efforts 

must support and not conflict with those of federal prosecutors. Research on counter-terrorism

 

19 Murphy, Gerald R., and Martha R. Plotkin. Protecting Your Community From Terrorism: Strategies for Local 

Law Enforcement. Volume 1: Local-Federal Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum,

2003. Available http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1362. 20 Fiorill, Joe, “U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Antiterrorism Efforts” Global 

Security Newswire, December 13, 2004. Available 

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/print.asp?story_id=6C00626D-18A6-4F3C-B550-FE2BBD4950EB. 

Retrieved December 13, 2004. 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
law and policy can provide a useful framework for interpreting what prosecutors’ responsibilities 

should be, how to focus priorities, and what challenges prosecutors face. As a result of the surge 

in attention paid to anti-terrorism legislation since 9/11, state anti-terrorism legislation has 

provided local prosecutors with tools to punish those who commit criminal acts that serve as 

precursors to a terrorist attack.21 

The increasing prominence of precursor crimes, defined as crimes such as identity 

theft/counterfeit drivers licenses; racketeering/money laundering; providing material support for 

terrorism; obtaining information regarding a vulnerable target; use of commercial transportation 

to commission of a felony; and disorderly conduct at an airport, within the prosecutorial 

community comes about largely from new and amended legislation that often serves to enhance 

the penalties for existing crimes. Legislation of this sort has also been said to prohibit 

“expressive activity in furtherance of the terrorist organizations’ aims.”22 For the local 

prosecutor who is involved, a significant burden is placed upon his/her shoulders with the 

addition of precursor crimes because of the need to prove a terrorist motivation on the part of the 

defendant.23 

In recent years, America has been beset by a growing number of terrorist hoaxes. In 

1998 alone, there were 145 hoaxes involving chemical and biological substances.24 In the post9/11 environment and as a result of anthrax incidents, legislators have increasingly demonstrated 

that such threats and hoaxes will be punished. Since 9/11, the number of states with laws 

 

21 Miranda, Teresa P. Overview of State Criminal Legislation Passed in Response to 9/11/01, National District 

Attorney’s Association, 2002. 22 Donohue, Laura K., and Juliette N. Kayyem. “Federalism and the Battle over Counterterrorist Law: State 

Sovereignty, Criminal Law Enforcement, and National Security,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25 (JanuaryFebruary 2002):1-18. 23 McMillion, Rhonda, “Measuring the Legal Response: ABA task force gives input to Congress on anti-terrorism

legislation,” ABA Journal December 2001. 24 Donohue, Laura K., and Juliette N. Kayyem. “Federalism and the Battle over Counterterrorist Law: State 

Sovereignty, Criminal Law Enforcement, and National Security,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25 (JanuaryFebruary 2002):1-18.

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
criminalizing terrorist hoaxes has risen, placing local prosecutors “on the frontline with respect 

to hoaxes, threats and false reports.”25 

Prosecuting precursor crimes arguably provides some level of deterrence and hence, aids 

in the prevention process; however, local prevention efforts cannot end there. Local law 

enforcement personnel must also contribute through the gathering and dissemination of 

intelligence regarding potential terrorists. 

Local law enforcement can acquire this type of intelligence from within their 

communities as well as through the federal government. For this to happen, the general public 

and local law enforcement communities will have to work together. While no empirical study 

currently exists to verify this claim, it has been argued that a possible solution can be realized 

through the implementation of law enforcement initiatives such as community policing, which 

aims at bringing law enforcement and the public together thereby helping local law enforcement 

to “build stronger bonds with their diverse communities as they continue to address crime, fear 

and the terrorist threat.”26

Although there have been numerous efforts since 9/11 to improve information sharing, 

most policymakers and law enforcement agencies recognize that more is needed to improve the 

nation’s response to terrorism. Anecdotal reports from local law enforcement and local 

prosecutors indicate that intelligence sharing remains largely a “one-way” street, with local 

agencies giving far more than they receive. This point was recently underscored by a federal 

advisory panel reporting on the current state of the intelligence community. The report 

recommends the implementation of more federal resources for state and local intelligence 

 

25 Miranda, Teresa P. Overview of State Criminal Legislation Passed in Response to 9/11/01, National District 

Attorney’s Association, 2002. 26 Davies, Heather J., and Gerald R. Murphy. Protecting your Community From Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law 

Enforcement. Volume 2: Working With Diverse Communities. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 

Forum, 2004. Available http://www.mipt.org/pdf/Protecting-Your-Community-From-Terrorism-Vol2.pdf. 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
programs as well as the creation of a more efficient system by which intelligence would be 

disseminated from one agency to another at all levels of government and between all levels of 

enforcement agencies.27 

OVERVIEW OF APRI’S TERRORISM STUDY 

In an attempt to address several of the issues raised in the literature, APRI conducted a 

study of local prosecutors’ response to terrorism by examining state anti-terrorism legislation and 

how it impacts prosecutors. The exploratory study consisted of a review of new state antiterrorism legislation and amendments to existing statutes; a survey, designed to measure 

prosecutors’ experience with new legislation and the role they play in homeland security; and a 

series of in-depth case studies of five prosecutors’ offices. 

 The methodology used by APRI for each of these tasks is discussed in the second 

chapter. The third chapter focuses on the findings of the statutory analysis and highlights 

patterns across states as well as findings from the survey with regard to effectiveness and utility 

of the new or amended statutes. The fourth chapter details the survey results. In this chapter, the 

results of the descriptive analyses are presented and the initial findings with regard to research 

questions are discussed. The fifth chapter discusses the major roles identified as part of the case 

studies and describes how the five prosecutors’ offices have operationalized these roles into 

strategies. Chapter 6 presents APRI’s conclusions regarding the new and/or changed 

responsibilities given to prosecutors, changes in policy and practice, the challenges facing local 

prosecutors, and the policy implications of the study findings. 

 

27 Fiorill, Joe, “U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Antiterrorism Efforts” Global 

Security Newswire, December 13, 2004. Available 

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/print.asp?story_id=6C00626D-18A6-4F3C-B550-FE2BBD4950EB. 

Retrieved December 13, 2004. 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 2 

PROJECT METHODOLOGY

PROJECT GOALS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and as of 

October 2003), 45 of the 50 states have either created or amended legislation aimed at preventing 

and punishing terroristic acts in their state. Presumably, these legislative changes will enhance 

the role local prosecutors play in homeland security as well as complement the roles and 

responsibilities of federal prosecutors. However, the legislative changes that have occurred 

potentially create new roles for prosecutors, and as part of the NIJ-funded Prosecutors for the 

21st Century Study Group prosecutors cited homeland security and terrorism as areas for more 

intensive study.28

As a result, in early 2002, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) conducted a 

cursory review of anti-terrorism legislation to aid in the development of a policy statement for its 

membership and convened a national conference to discuss the issues facing prosecutors in their 

efforts to aid in the war on terrorism. As an outgrowth of these efforts, APRI proposed an 

exploratory study that would shed new light on how prosecutors can best respond to terrorism. 

The goal of this study was to assess local prosecutors’ enforcement of new state legislation, 

changes in prosecutorial responsibilities in a post-September 11th environment, changes in 

priorities and the practical implications of these changes, and new challenges encountered, 

particularly those that affect the integration of local, state, and federal efforts. The study 

attempted to accomplish these goals by addressing the following research questions: 

 

28 The Prosecutors for the 21st Century Study Group was conducted by APRI as part of an effort to define goals and

objectives for prosecutors and translate these into quantifiable performance measures. One outcome of the study 

group was the development of a research agenda, which articulated a number of topics of interest to prosecutors that 

have not been thoroughly or empirically studied. 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5. What are the new or changed responsibilities given to prosecutors under their states’ 

anti-terrorism legislation?29

6. How are these responsibilities implemented at the local level, and to what extent have 

these new responsibilities changed local priorities?

7. What are the challenges associated with integrating local, state, and federal prosecution 

of terrorism-related acts, and how are these challenges overcome? 

8. What are the challenges associated with responding to homeland security threats and the 

strategies used to overcome these challenges? 

METHODOLOGY

In an effort to address the above mentioned research questions, APRI performed a 

comprehensive statutory review of anti-terrorism legislation enacted or amended since 

September 11, 2001 through October 2003, disseminated a survey to the nation’s largest local 

prosecutors’ offices, and conducted in-depth case studies. Each research technique used is 

detailed below. 

Statutory Review and Policy Analyses 

Following the legislative sessions of early 2002, an NDAA policy attorney reviewed state 

terrorism legislation codified after September 11, 2001 in all 50 states for legal and process 

issues considered most likely to impact local prosecutors. APRI staff used this initial statute 

review as the basis for a more comprehensive statutory analysis of new or amended legislation 

enacted between September 2001 and October 2003. Content analyses of the statutes yielded 

four major types of legislation: 

5. Newly created criminal offenses, 

6. Enhancements/amendments to existing offenses, 

7. Added responsibilities for local prosecutors, and 

 

29 Anti-terrorism legislation was defined as legislation aimed at preventing and punishing acts of terrorism,

supporting intelligence gathering, and ensuring homeland security. 

9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8. Enhancement/changes to intelligence gathering responsibilities and capabilities. 

APRI used the categories to develop a typology of legislation in the form of two separate 

matrices. The first matrix, titled Key Elements of Anti-Terrorism Legislation, illustrates which 

states have passed new or amended legislation, statutes that add responsibilities for prosecutors, 

or statutes that address intelligence gathering. In addition, statutes that coincide with a particular 

type of legislation are identified by individual states. The second matrix, titled State Criminal 

Anti-Terrorism Legislation, is organized by the 50 states, pertinent state legislation as identified 

by NDAA, and the four major types of legislation. APRI divided the state legislation into the 

following four categories: 1) statutes that criminalize precursor crimes, 2) statutes directed at 

threats, hoaxes, and false reports, 3) statutes that punish actual incidents of terrorism, and 4) 

statutes designed to enhance the ability to investigate and prosecute terrorist incidents. Both 

matrices are posted on APRI’s website for prosecutors to reference and are included in Appendix 

A of this report. 

Prosecutor Survey 

APRI used a judgment sample to survey the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country.30 A 

judgment sample was used because it was believed that prosecutors in large jurisdictions would 

have the most experience with the new and/or amended state legislation. Furthermore, the intent 

of the survey was not to generalize the results to all local prosecutors’ offices in the country. 

The survey questions focused on the legal framework and organizational structure in which 

local prosecutors operate. Specifically, APRI used the survey to quantify prosecutors’ 

experience with the new legislation and involvement in homeland security, to identify the 

challenges facing prosecutors in applying new and existing laws, and to elicit details about 

 

30 A jurisdiction was defined as large if it had a population equal to or greater than 500,000. 

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
training needs related to homeland security. In addition, the survey was used as a tool to select 

offices for case study. Some of the variables used to measure an office’s response to antiterrorism legislation are listed below:

• Awareness of new state statutes 

• Number of cases investigated and/or prosecuted under new and/or amended statutes 

• Number of cases resolved by type of disposition 

• Number and type of staff involved in terrorism-related cases 

• Prosecution of precursor crimes related to terrorism and how such crimes are 

determined to be related to terrorism 

• Procedural/organizational changes in the office in response to the 9/11 attacks 

• Participation in anti-terrorism task forces 

• Types and frequency of information sharing with other local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies 

• Perceived impact of the new legislation on ability to respond to terrorism 

• Perceived challenges and value of new intelligence gathering methods 

For the purpose of the study, APRI used the FBI’s definition of terrorism: an act of 

terrorism is any criminal act committed with the specific intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian 

population; influence the policy of any government by intimidation or coercion; affect the 

conduct of any government; or substantially impair public services including transportation, 

communications, and utilities.31 A precursor crime was defined as any criminal offense that may 

directly assist in the commission of a terrorist act.

The survey instrument was divided into the following seven sections: 

• Background information on the jurisdiction 

 

31 FBI “Terrorism 2000/2001.” Available http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm. Retrieved 

April 14, 2004. 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Experience with state legislation 

• Organizational changes 

• Challenges facing local prosecutors 

• Methods used to overcome challenges 

• Coordination with other agencies 

• Training needs. 

Surveys were mailed or faxed to all 112 offices and participants were given 14 days to 

complete and return the survey. A second mailing/faxing was conducted immediately after the 

14-day response period elapsed to those offices that had not responded. Those offices were 

given an additional 14 days to respond. Surveys were distributed a third and final time via 

facsimile the day after the second deadline to nonrespondents. This time, nonrespondents were 

given 10 days to complete the survey. 

Overall, 70 jurisdictions completed the survey, which produced a response rate of 62.5 

percent. Exhibit 2-1 shows the response rate by population range. 

Exhibit 2-1 

Response Rate by Population Range

Offices Surveyed Response Rate 

< 500,000 1 0% 

(n=0) 

500,000 - 699,999 37 62% 

(n=23) 

700,000 - 899,999 26 54% 

(n=14) 

900,000 - 999,999 11 64% 

(n=7) 

1 million - 3 million 33 67% 

(n=22) 

> 3 million 4 100% 

(n=4) 

 N=112 

12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APRI conducted descriptive analyses in the form of frequencies on the variables in the 

survey to discover general response patterns as well as a series of cross-tabulations to determine 

patterns in experiences/perceptions with the new legislation and other contextual variables (see 

Chapter 4 for a summary of the results). 

CASE STUDIES

Based on the survey results, APRI selected 13 criteria to perform categorical analyses in 

which to select five jurisdictions for intensive case studies. The 13 criteria were placed in a 

matrix along with the 27 jurisdictions that reported on their completed survey that they had 

investigated and/or prosecuted some type of terrorist offense under their state’s new and/or 

amended terrorism statutes (see Chapter 4). Jurisdictions were given a point for each criterion 

they indicated meeting, for example, a specialized terrorism unit. Factors analyzed for case 

study selection included the following: 

1. Office investigated and/or prosecuted some type of terrorist offense under their state’s 

new and/or amended terrorism statutes 

2. Office was involved in homeland security. 

3. State had terrorism legislation prior to September 11, 2001. 

4. Office had prosecuted precursor crimes related to terrorism. 

5. Office experienced an increase in the number of precursor crimes prosecuted. 

6. Office had a specialized terrorism/homeland security unit. 

7. Office had a protocol for handling terrorism cases. 

8. Office considered the new and/or amended statutes effective in combating terrorism. 

9. Office believed that the terrorism statutes addressed the needs of prosecutors. 

10. Office believed that the terrorism statutes addressed the needs of investigators. 

11. Office is involved in intelligence sharing with local, state, and/or federal agencies. 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12. Personnel participated in joint investigations or prosecutions of terroristic crimes with 

state and/or federal agencies. 

13. Office serves on an Anti-Terrorism Task Force or committees dedicated to responding 

to or investigating terrorism.

After an initial review of the above-mentioned criteria, the list of 27 jurisdictions was 

narrowed to nine. If a state had more than one jurisdiction that scored in the top nine, only the 

highest scoring jurisdiction in that state was considered for selection. APRI then conducted 

telephone interviews to clarify some of their survey responses and to further investigate the 

extent to which the offices met the selection criteria. This process led to the selection of the final 

five sites.32

The five sites (Monmouth County, New Jersey; Los Angeles County, California; Queens 

County, New York; Franklin County, Ohio; and Bucks County, Pennsylvania) were selected 

because they appeared to have the most comprehensive response to terrorism. Also, jurisdictions

such as Queens County and Los Angeles County are heavily populated and have several 

vulnerable targets. Each jurisdiction indicated being involved on some type of terrorism task 

force; sharing intelligence with local, state, and/or federal agencies; and either having a 

specialized terrorism unit/attorneys or office protocol for handling terrorism. 

APRI conducted an intensive site visit to each of the five jurisdictions selected. APRI 

developed a site visit protocol and interview guide to standardize the interviews across sites. The 

interview guide covered the following topics: 

• Specialized terrorism unit 

• Case processing issues 

 

32 Ideally, to increase the generalizability of the study results, APRI would have selected significantly more offices 

for case study. However, because of the exploratory nature of the study and the amount of resources available, the 

conduct of additional case studies was not possible. Future research efforts may consider additional case studies, 

thereby increasing the overall sample and reducing external validity issues. 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Office protocol for terrorism-related offenses 

• Challenges encountered and methods used to overcome them 

• Information sharing with local, state, and/or federal agencies 

• Partnerships or involvement in anti-terrorism task forces 

• Overall strengths and weaknesses of the office’s response to terrorism and how their 

efforts could be improved. 

The site visits consisted of in-depth interviews with the chief prosecutor, assistant 

prosecutors responsible for handling terrorism-related cases, investigators, law enforcement 

officers, U.S. Attorneys, and members of anti-terrorism task forces. 

Analytic Techniques

The information collected from the case studies was analyzed through content analyses 

and pattern matching. APRI further operationalized the selection criteria into 13 different 

criteria for content analyses. The site reports produced by APRI to memorialize the site visits, 

along with the interview notes, and where available, external documents collected during the site 

visits, were reviewed by the principal investigator to count the number of times references were 

made to the concepts or words. 

With frequency distributions of core concepts developed for each site, APRI conducted 

cross-site comparisons to identify whether or not any patterns emerged from the case studies in 

terms of how prosecutors have defined their role. From the 13 criteria, APRI identified five 

dominant patterns/strategies that define the local prosecutors’ role in responding to terrorism: 

• Local investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of pre-cursor crimes 

• Active involvement in federal, state, and local task forces 

• Development and use of information sharing networks 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Creation of new organizational structures, policies, and training in support of antiterrorism efforts 

• Coordination with emergency management services and other first responders 

Of the five prosecutor’s offices selected for case study, three (Monmouth County, New Jersey; 

Los Angeles County, California; and Queens County, New York) used elements from each of the 

five strategies listed above as part of their overall effort to respond to terrorism. The remaining 

two sites (Franklin County, Ohio and Bucks County, Pennsylvania) concentrated their efforts in 

fewer areas. Across the five areas, there are a number of similarities between sites, and for this 

reason, Chapter 5 is organized by the different strategies that emerged from the case studies 

rather than by each site. 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 3 

STATE AND LOCAL ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION

In the wake of 9/11, policymakers at all levels of government began reviewing the laws 

in place to ensure punishment for terrorists and to deter would-be terrorists from carrying out 

their criminal activities. The result was an array of new and amended legislation. Between 

September 2001 and October 2003, 45 states passed 67 new statutes concerning terrorism, 

creating an aggregated total of 144 new offenses at the state level. In addition, the states passed 

167 amendments to existing statutes. 

An analysis of the statutes passed and amended revealed four major classes of legislation: 

1. Statutes that criminalize precursor crimes (i.e., those crimes that may be precursors to 

terrorist incidents such as identity theft, money laundering, sale of illegal drugs, loitering, 

and sale of counterfeit merchandise); 

2. Statutes directed at threats, hoaxes, and false reports; 

3. Statutes that punish actual incidents of terrorism; and 

4. Statutes designed to enhance the ability of enforcement agencies to investigate and 

prosecute incidents of terrorism. 

Some of the new statutes also mandate the creation of a state agency to oversee homeland 

security issues and task forces to address terrorism. Many of the amended statutes cover the 

same areas as the new legislation, but the amended legislation generally focuses on sentencing 

enhancements for terrorist-motivated crimes. Some also address intelligence gathering 

techniques such as wiretaps and search warrants. 

APRI prepared two matrices based on the statutory analyses, which are included in 

Appendix A. The first matrix shows which states enacted new statutes, amended statutes, added 

prosecutorial responsibilities, or enhanced intelligence gathering. The second matrix enumerates 

the content of the legislation. 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Statutes That Criminalize Precursor Crimes

In late 2001, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) began to explore how 

the emphasis on homeland security might impact local prosecutors, and in doing so, began 

developing a policy statement. In this statement, NDAA laid the foundation for the adoption of 

the term “precursor” crime as a means to define those criminal offenses that would be prosecuted 

locally that may be precursors to terrorist incidents.33

APRI’s review of the legislation found that states enacted a total of 35 new laws and 

amended 37 existing types of statutes dealing with precursor crimes.34 The offenses criminalized 

or amended to include terroristic motivation include the following: 

• Identity theft 

• Counterfeit driver’s licenses or obtaining a driver’s license through use of false 

information 

• Racketeering

• Money laundering 

• Providing material support for terrorism

• Obtaining information regarding a vulnerable target 

• Use of commercial transportation in the commission of a felony 

• Disorderly conduct at an airport 

• Possession of hazardous materials 

• Security offenses 

In large part, the states already had laws codified dealing with identity theft. In fact, 11 

states amended their statutes to include terror motivation, to elevate the class of offense (e.g., 

 

33 F.S. § 322.212(d) (effective 10/1/01). 34 The numbers provided in this section are based on an analysis of statutes passed between September 2001 and 

October 2003. 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
from a C felony to a B felony), and to enhance the penalty. Eight states amended existing 

racketeering laws, five states amended their counterfeit driver’s licenses and another five 

amended their money laundering statutes. 

Most of the new laws enacted focused on identity theft and providing material support for 

terrorism (11 states each). Four states enacted new laws dealing with hazardous materials. 

Statutes Directed at Threats, Hoaxes, and False Reports

As with precursor crimes, many states had existing statutes dealing with threats, hoaxes, 

and false reports. Nevertheless, 33 states enacted new laws dealing with these activities. The 

most common statute enacted dealt with threats involving terrorism or weapons of mass 

destruction (enacted by 11 states). Eight states passed laws that criminalize hoaxes, and seven 

states criminalized the possession of imitation bombs or imitation weapons of mass destruction. 

In addition, six states passed laws regarding falsely reporting an incident. 

In total, 40 states amended an existing law that dealt with threats, hoaxes, and false 

reports. The majority of states that passed amendments focused on falsely reporting a terrorist 

incident (n=16). Twelve states amended statutes to include the making of terroristic threats 

(n=12). Five states, with existing legislation regarding hoaxes, passed amendments to the 

statutes that dealt with the possession of an imitation bomb or weapon of mass destruction. 

Statutes That Punish Actual Incidents of Terrorism

By the nature of their definition, many of the crimes that fall into the category of 

“precursor crimes” were already state offenses prior to 9/11, and as such, one would not 

necessarily expect to find a large number of new statutes being enacted. On the other hand, these 

state laws may not have included explicit language regarding terrorism, so might expect to see 

amended statutes that include language regarding terrorism. In fact, it would appear that 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
relatively few states had statutes that punish actual incidents of terrorism prior to September 11, 

2001, compared with states that had existing precursor crime statutes: between September 2001 

and October 2003, states had created a total of 58 laws and amended another 57 existing statutes. 

The two most common new statutes enacted defined terrorism as a specific offense 

(enacted by 18 states) and created a weapons of mass destruction offense (enacted by 17 states). 

Among the amended statutes, murder was the most commonly amended (by 16 states) to include 

terroristic motivation and frequently to enhance the sentence. Weapons of mass destruction, 

criminal mischief, computer crimes, using telecommunications to commit terrorism, and 

poisoning food or water were the next most frequent amendments. 

Statutes That Enhance Investigation and Prosecution

Changes in criminal code will influence enforcement and prosecution with regard to 

terrorism but the impact of that change is not yet fully understood. One of the major questions 

that must be answered before the utility and effectiveness of the new/amended laws can be 

assessed is whether or not the statutes create new responsibilities or add more tools to help 

investigators and prosecutors. Among the statutes enacted or amended, 10 primary topics were 

identified: 

• Asset forfeiture; 

• DNA evidence; 

• Other evidence; 

• Use of Grand Juries; 

• Obstruction of terrorism prosecution; 

• Pleas and sentencing; 

• Statute of limitations; 

• Wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas; and 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Public health law violations. 

In total, 16 states enacted new statutes dealing with one of the topics identified above, 

and 32 amended existing statutes. The most common new law enacted focused on the 

obstruction of terrorism prosecution (enacted by eight states). Such laws give prosecutors and 

law enforcement more leverage with suspects and defendants to ensure their cooperation. 

Sixteen states amended their statutes with regard to wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. 

EXPERIENCE WITH NEW LEGISLATION AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS

State statutes that deal with terrorism are critical for helping prosecutors’ offices 

understand what, if any, role they play in responding to homeland security. As such, it is 

important that prosecutors are aware of the available statutes. Among the prosecutors’ offices 

surveyed, 71 percent indicated they knew of new legislation and 48 percent reported they were 

aware of amended legislation. 

Further analysis of the survey results, as part of the statutory review, revealed that not all 

prosecutors’ offices that responded to the survey were familiar with their state’s anti-terrorism

legislation. For example, California enacted two new statutes and passed seven new 

amendments. However, one prosecutor’s office (out of the eight from California in the survey 

sample) reported that their state had not passed new anti-terrorism legislation; similarly, three of

the eight prosecutors’ offices from California reported that there were no amendments made to 

existing statutes. There were similar findings in six other states, which would indicate that at 

least some local prosecutors’ offices are not knowledgeable about the tools available to them in 

responding to homeland security. 

Overall, prosecutors are unsure about the effectiveness and utility of the new and 

amended legislation. In fact, 52 percent of the prosecutors’ offices that responded to APRI’s 

21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
survey indicated that their ability to respond to terrorism has not changed, as compared with 11 

percent who felt it was now easier (the remainder were unsure). It is important to note that most 

prosecutors’ offices have not had an opportunity to use the statutes and thus, did not comment on 

the utility. Of those prosecutors’ offices that have new or amended statutes and felt they had 

enough experience to comment on the effectiveness, most pointed to the fact that the 

new/amended legislation gives them more options (in the form of available charges and 

penalties) and has improved their evidence/intelligence gathering resources. Prosecutors who 

felt the statutes were ineffective indicated that the statutes are too limited in scope to receive 

regular use by prosecutors. The next chapter, which focuses on the survey results, provides 

additional detail about prosecutors’ experiences with their anti-terrorism statutes. 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 4 

PROSECUTORS’ EXPERIENCE WITH HOMELAND SECURITY: SURVEY RESULTS

To better understand how prosecutors’ roles have changed in a post-9/11 environment 

and the extent to which they have used the new/amended anti-terrorism legislation in their states, 

APRI conducted a survey of the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country. The survey examined 

local prosecutors’ involvement in homeland security and the ways in which their offices’ 

organizational structure has changed to facilitate their involvement. The survey also explored 

how prosecutors are using new/amended anti-terrorism laws, specific challenges in applying new 

and existing laws, and training needs related to homeland security. It is important to note that

since the laws have only been in effect for a couple of years and prosecutors’ knowledge of and 

experience with their state’s anti-terrorism statutes is limited, it may be premature to make any 

assumptions about the overall effectiveness of the state legislative response. 

For the purpose of this study, APRI defined an act of terrorism as any criminal act 

committed with the specific intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the 

policy of any government by intimidation or coercion; affect the conduct of any government; or 

substantially impair public services including transportation, communications, and utilities. 35 

INVOLVEMENT IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Involvement in homeland security issues is an essential component for local prosecutors 

if they are to play an influential role in the war on terrorism. Of the 70 local prosecutors’ offices 

that responded to the survey, 71 percent reported being involved with homeland security at the 

local, state, and/or federal level. Exhibit 4-1 outlines the six capacities (planning, prevention, 

 

35 FBI “Terrorism 2000/2001.” Available http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm. Retrieved 

April 14, 2004. 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
detection, response, investigation, and prosecution) and government levels in which prosecutors 

are involved in homeland security. Not surprisingly, local prosecutors are overwhelmingly 

involved in homeland security issues on the local level, primarily focusing on prevention. 

However, when it comes to a collaborative effort between all three levels, prosecutors are more 

involved with detection, planning, and investigation issues. Planning issues include, but are not 

limited to, assessing potential vulnerable targets and providing training to law enforcement 

officers. 

Exhibit 4-1 

64%

12%12%

80%

13%

7%

56%

8%

20%

68%

14%

9%

59%

18%

12%

61%

21%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Planning Prevention Detection Response Investigation Prosecution

Capacity Involved in Homeland Security

Local

Local & State

Local, State, & Federal

In direct response to the new and/or amended anti-terrorism statutes, many local 

prosecutors made changes within their offices. As displayed in Exhibit 4-2, participating on an 

anti-terrorism task force (59 percent) was the most frequent change made by prosecutors, 

followed by coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It is noteworthy that 26 percent of 

responding jurisdictions stated that they did not make any office changes in response to antiterrorism legislation. 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibit 4-236

Top Five Office Changes Made in Response to New or Amended Statutes 

Office Change Percent 

Participation in anti-terrorism task force 59% 

Coordination with U.S. Attorney’s Office 57% 

Coordination and information sharing within office 34% 

No change 26% 

Change in office policies/protocol 23% 

More emphasis on intelligence gathering 23% 

Another way that local prosecutors’ offices made organizational changes is by 

establishing specialized terrorism units. According to APRI’s survey, nearly 15 percent of the 

jurisdictions reported having a specialized terrorism/homeland security unit. With the exception

of the five case study sites, APRI was unable to determine whether these specialized units were 

created in direct response to the new anti-terrorism legislation or whether jurisdictions had these 

units prior to 9/11. Exhibit 4-3 displays the sum, median, minimum and maximum number of 

prosecutors and investigators assigned to a terrorism unit. Based on the survey, there was a 

median of one prosecutor and two investigators assigned to a specialized terrorism unit. The 

greatest number of prosecutors in one unit was three and the highest number of investigators in a 

unit was eight. 

Exhibit 4-3 

Number of Prosecutors and Investigators Assigned to Specialized Unit 

Sum Median Minimum Maximum

Prosecutors 13 1.00 1 3

Investigators 22 2.00 1 8

Twenty-one percent of the jurisdictions reported having a protocol for handling terrorism

cases. Of those jurisdictions, 71 percent directed their protocol towards investigation and 

prosecution, while 29 percent directed theirs toward handling evidence. Nearly 12 percent 

 

36 See Appendix B for a complete listing of office changes.

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
focused on other activities such as coordination and crisis management. Less than 6 percent of 

the protocols focused on witness protection. 

PROSECUTORS’ USE OF ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION

Although many states had terrorism legislation prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some

states made amended their legislation to explicitly link previous criminal offenses to terrorism. 

In response to these legislative changes, prosecutors have shifted some of their efforts to 

investigating and prosecuting precursor crimes37. The investigation and prosecution of precursor 

crimes such as money laundering, fraudulent identification documents, and identity theft may be 

where local prosecutors have the greatest impact on the war on terrorism (see Chapter 5). 

However, according to Exhibit 4-4, only 16 percent of responding offices stated that they had 

prosecuted precursor crimes related to terrorism. Of the jurisdictions that reported prosecuting 

terrorism-related precursor crimes, 60 percent have prosecuted more of these crimes since 9/11, 

while 40 percent have prosecuted the same amount. 

Exhibit 4-4 

Prosecuted Terrorism-Related Precursor Crimes

Yes

16%

No

84%

 

 

37 It should be noted that the survey asked prosecutors to report the number of investigations and prosecutions only

on those precursor crimes that were believed to be terrorism-related. 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Based on comments to open-ended questions on the survey, some of the increase in 

priority on precursor crimes by local prosecutors can be attributed to priority changes in U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices. As U.S. Attorney’s Offices have become more involved in international 

terrorism, cases that may have been handled by them in the past have been given to local 

prosecutors. In addition to paying more attention to precursor crimes, some prosecutors have 

also increased the intensity of their intelligence gathering. As a result, several prosecutors are 

meeting more frequently with law enforcement officials as well as with members of their antiterrorism task force. 

One specific purpose for amending state legislation was to increase penalties for some

terrorism-related offenses. Even with these enhanced penalties, Exhibit 4-5 shows that only five 

percent of responding jurisdictions indicated that they have used new and/or amended legislation 

to enhance sentencing in terrorism-related convictions. Fifteen percent of the responding offices 

indicated that the legislative changes have not changed the pre-existing sentencing structure and 

61 percent have yet to have the opportunity to use the statutes. 

Exhibit 4-5 

5%

20%

61%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes No No opportunity

to use

Laws have not

changed

Office Has Used New and/or Amended Legislation to

Enhance Sentencing

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Legislators also responded to the 9/11 attacks by criminalizing certain behaviors that had 

not been deemed criminal prior to 9/11. So far, even though prosecutors applaud the efforts of 

legislators, 77 percent of local prosecutors’ offices have not encountered a situation in which 

they could take full advantage of the new and/or amended statutes (Exhibit 4-6). In fact, only 15 

percent of responding jurisdictions asserted that new anti-terrorism statutes adequately address 

their needs such as improving intelligence gathering abilities. 

Exhibit 4-6 

New and/or Amended Statutes Adequately Address the Needs

of Prosecutors

Yes

15%

No

No opportunity to 8%

use

77%

When considering only those jurisdictions that had an opportunity to use their state’s new 

or amended statutes, 67 percent claimed that the statutes adequately addressed prosecutor needs. 

These prosecutors cited improved intelligence gathering capabilities such as roving wiretaps and 

additional charging capability, which gives them more leverage when it comes to filing charges. 

In the aftermath of 9/11, it is reasonable to expect local prosecutors who are involved in 

homeland security to assign a higher priority to crimes believed to be associated with terrorism. 

Since precursor crimes are offenses most likely to be handled at the local level, it is not 

surprising to see, as Exhibit 4-7 illustrates, that prosecutors assign a higher priority to identity 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
theft (36 percent), counterfeit driver’s license (23 percent), money laundering (16 percent), high 

tech/computer crimes (14 percent), and security offenses (10 percent). 

Exhibit 4-738

Top Five Crimes Assigned a Higher Priority for Prosecution 

Type of Crime Percent 

Identity theft 36% 

Counterfeit driver’s license/identification 23%

Racketeering/money laundering 16% 

High tech/computer crimes 14% 

Security offenses 10% 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Local prosecutors rely on more than just new legislation as a tool to combat terrorism. 

To be truly successful in fighting terrorism and to avoid duplicating efforts, prosecutors must 

coordinate their efforts with other agencies. Participating on an anti-terrorism task force is 

arguably one of the most important steps a local prosecutor’s office can take in its efforts to 

coordinate with other agencies. Anti-terrorism task forces, whether headed by the FBI or the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, present a more formal and consistent method for local, state, and federal 

agencies to share information and collaborate on specific tasks related to combating terrorism in 

America. APRI’s survey revealed that 64 percent of respondents serve on an anti-terrorism task 

force or committee dedicated to responding to or investigating terrorism. Of those jurisdictions 

that are involved in an anti-terrorism task force, 36 percent meet monthly, while 33 percent meet

quarterly, and 26 percent meet as issues dictate or as needs arise. 

Since historically, terrorism-related offenses have been handled at the federal level, it is 

fitting that the majority of the agencies involved on an anti-terrorism task force are within the 

 

38 See Appendix B for a complete listing. 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
federal government. As shown in Exhibit 4-8, seven of the top ten agencies on an anti-terrorism

task force are federal agencies. The FBI, the largest federal investigative agency, is identified as

the most frequently represented agency on an anti-terrorism task force (69 percent), followed by 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the local police/Sheriff’s Office (both at 66 percent), the ATF (57 

percent) and the state police/highway patrol at 50 percent. 

Exhibit 4-839

Top Ten Agencies on Anti-Terrorism Task Force 

Agency Percent 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 69% 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 66% 

Local Police/Sheriff’s Office 66% 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives 57% 

State Police/Highway Patrol 50% 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 48% 

Prosecutors from other jurisdictions 47% 

Department of Homeland Security 45% 

Drug Enforcement Administration 41% 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 38% 

Another important aspect of coordinating with other agencies is information sharing. A 

large percentage of respondents (70 percent) reported being involved in intelligence sharing with 

local, state, and federal agencies. Exhibit 4-9 shows that for those jurisdictions that are involved 

in information sharing, 46 percent report information on investigative targets to state or federal 

agencies and 44 percent report potential threats. Only 17 percent of the jurisdictions report 

security alerts, perhaps because terrorism is heavily monitored at the federal level and any 

information about security alerts received by local prosecutors in fact comes from the federal 

government. 

 

39 See Appendix B for a complete listing of task force representatives. 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibit 4-9 

Homeland Security Information 

 Provided to State or Federal Agencies 

Information Shared Percent 

Investigative targets 46% 

Potential threats 44% 

Case outcomes 42% 

Case development 27% 

Security alerts 17% 

Other types of information 4% 

CHALLENGES FACING LOCAL PROSECUTORS

One goal of APRI’s study was to gather information about the challenges facing local 

prosecutors as they begin to prosecute terrorism cases under new state laws. APRI’s survey 

contained 21 variables to identify challenges local prosecutors have either encountered or 

anticipate encountering as a result of investigating or prosecuting terrorist acts under their states’ 

new or amended anti-terrorism statutes. For analysis purposes, 20 of the 21 variables were 

collapsed into five new variables: multi-jurisdictional, case processing, investigative, legal, and 

other issues.40 

• Multi-jurisdictional issues were broadly defined in terms of information 

exchange/coordination between different levels of local, state, and federal law 

enforcement and inter-/intra-state issues. 

• Case processing issues consisted of volume of work involved, proving the crime, 

identifying the perpetrator, security clearance, and witness cooperation. 

• Investigative issues were comprised of evidence collection, intelligence gathering, 

obtaining multi-jurisdictional search warrants, information sharing with federal 

agencies, contaminated evidence, and finding witnesses. 

• Legal issues contained elements of the statute, discovery issues, legal challenges, 

judicial interpretation of the statute, and loop holes in legislation. 

• Other issues included lack of law enforcement training, media/publicity limiting the 

jury pool and other challenges. 

 

40 The variable Not Applicable was not included. 

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
As Exhibit 4-10 illustrates, investigative issues are the most frequently cited challenges

prosecutors have encountered or anticipate encountering (44 percent). Case processing issues 

are considered a challenge by 33 percent of the responding offices, specifically, the volume of 

work associated with terrorism cases and identifying the actual perpetrators. Legal issues 

included discovery issues and legal challenges, respectively. Interestingly, most of the surveyed 

jurisdictions that reported having these challenges also reported having multi-jurisdictional 

issues.41 

Exhibit 4-10 

37%

33%

44%

26%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

MultijurisdictionalCase processing Investigative Legal Other

Challenges Encountered or Anticipate Encountering for Jurisdictions

with New or Amended Statutes

Many of the legislative changes were designed to make it easier for investigators to 

gather intelligence. Only eight percent of responding offices reported that the new and/or 

amended statutes adequately addressed the needs of investigators (Exhibit 4-11). Among those 

offices that had used the new/amended statutes, the number of prosecutors who thought the 

statutes adequately addressed the needs of their investigators increased from 10 percent to nearly 

44 percent. 

 

41 See Appendix B for more details. 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibit 4-11 

As shown in Exhibit 4-12, more than thre e jurisdictions that reported using the

new and/or amended statutes experienced no change when it came to their ability to perform

most investigative activities such as intelligence gathering, conducting wiretaps, accessing 

mobile phone or pager records, using public space for videotaping, or issuing search warrants on 

bank records. 

Exhibit 4-12 

Impact New and/or Amended Statute n a Jurisdiction’s Ability to Perform 

Investigative Activity Easier Harder No 

Change N 

New and/or Amended Statutes Adequately Address the Needs of

Investigators

No opportunity

82%

Yes

8%

No 

10%

e-quarters of th

s Have Had O

Certain Tasks 

Intelligence Gathering 24% - 76% 37

Conduct Wire Taps 11% - 89% 35

Conduct Pen Registers 5% - 95% 37

Access Mobile Phone/Pager Records 18% - 83% 40

Access Computer/e-mail/Instant Messenger Records 16% - 84% 38

Access Financial Records 8% - 93% 39

Issue Search Warrants on Bank Records 8% - 92% 39

Track Suspects (e.g., GPS Tracking etc.) 6% - 94% 36

Creation of DNA Databases 11% 3% 87% 37

Use of Public Space Video Taping 11% - 89% 36

Prove Rules of Evidence - 3% 97% 36

Identity Verification Procedures and Records of Department 

of Motor Vehicles 8% - 92% 38

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Other - - 100% 11

Legislative changes in response to the war on terror have impacted how law enforcement 

agencies conduct their investigations. APRI asked local prosecutors if the changes within law 

enforcement have (such as increased participation in anti-terrorism task forces or fewer 

investigative resources for certain types of offenses) placed more demands on their investigators 

or prosecutors. More than half (56 percent) of the jurisdictions did not see changes in law 

enforcement as placing more demands on their prosecutors or investigators. Among the 

remaining jurisdictions, the most frequently identified demand has been an increased caseload 

and/or strained resources. Other demands include allocating more effort and/or resources to 

investigations and screenings, following up on the increased number of violations, and an 

increase in pre-charge work. 

Seventy-two percent of the responding offices believe that prosecutors in their office 

have not received adequate training to handle terrorism cases. However, since so few 

jurisdictions have actually had the opportunity to investigate or prosecute a terrorist incident 

under their state’s new or amended statutes, this finding must be interpreted with care. Some

jurisdictions treat terrorism the same as other cases and therefore do not see a need for additional 

training. Others attribute their lack of training to insufficient funding or limited opportunities. 

METHODS FOR OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

Exhibit 4-13 highlights methods used by prosecutors to overcome the various types of 

challenges they have encountered or anticipate encountering. Based on the average percent, 

prosecutors were more likely to participate in a task force as a means of addressing most 

challenges. It was also the first choice when dealing with investigative, legal, and other issues 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
such as lack of law enforcement training. Information sharing between agencies was the second 

most used method. 

Exhibit 4-13 

Methods Used by Prosecutors to Overcome Challenges 

Encountered or Anticipate Encountering

Type of Challenge 

Method Multijurisdictional 

Case

processing

Investigation Legal Other

Avg.

Percent 

Training for law 

enforcement officers 65% 48% 52% 50% 46% 52.2%

Training for 

prosecutors 

46% 30% 29% 33% 31% 33.8%

Training for 

investigators 

39% 22% 26% 28% 15% 26.0%

Information sharing 

between agencies 

62% 48% 55% 50% 54% 53.8%

Formation of 

partnerships 

39% 26% 36% 33% 39% 34.6%

Participation on task

force 

54% 44% 55% 56% 62% 54.2%

Coordination with U.S. 

Attorney’s Office 54% 35% 48% 50% 54% 48.2%

Coordination with law 

enforcement 62% 39% 52% 44% 46% 48.6%

Another tool in the fight against terrorism is the use of or participation in joint 

investigations with state or federal agencies. APRI’s survey revealed that slightly more than 38 

percent of respondents have participated in joint investigations or prosecutions of terrorist 

crimes/incidents with state and/or federal agencies. 

In an attempt to quantify the level of information sharing and the governments’ ability at 

all levels to assess the effectiveness of their efforts, APRI examined the types of data/statistics 

collected on homeland security threats, investigations, and prosecutions and the extent to which 

this information is reported either uniformly or to a centralized management information system. 

Seventy-one percent of respondents do not report terrorism related statistics on a regular basis. 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
However, 13 percent of respondents regularly report on case dispositions while 10 percent report 

on charges filed. 

CONCLUSION

Local prosecutors have made concerted efforts to play a vital role in the war on terrorism. 

New and amended state anti-terrorism legislation has both increased and changed prosecutors’ 

responsibilities in regards to how they investigate and prosecute terrorism cases. These changes, 

particularly an increased focus on precursor crimes, have presented many challenges for local 

prosecutors as they have attempted to implement their new responsibilities. Although 

prosecutors welcome the new and amended legislation, many have yet to have the opportunity to 

take advantage of the statutes. 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 5 

CASE STUDIES OF FIVE LOCAL PROSECUTORS’ OFFICES’ RESPONSE TO 

TERRORISM

 

The multitude of statutes and amendments enacted at the state level in response to the 

attacks of 9/11 laid the foundation for state and local roles in ensuring homeland security. 

Although local prosecutors may prosecute domestic terrorist attacks, they understand that large 

scale, international terrorist attacks traditionally fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction 

despite the fact that these attacks occur in local communities. Nevertheless, across the country, 

local prosecutors have identified a number of means by which they can respond to terrorism

locally and assist in national homeland security efforts. 

As noted in the previous chapters, prosecutors’ experience with new or amended state 

legislation is limited, and many prosecutors are still trying to define their role in homeland 

security. Nonetheless, APRI identified five local prosecutors’ offices that were actively engaged 

in homeland security efforts and from whom a great deal could be learned: 

• Monmouth County, New Jersey Prosecutor’s Office; 

• Los Angeles County, California District Attorney’s Office; 

• Queens County, New York District Attorney’s Office; 

• Franklin County, Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; and 

• Bucks County, Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Office. 

OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY SITES

Monmouth County is located in central New Jersey and, with a population of 629,836, 42

is one of the largest counties in the state. Monmouth County is 16 miles from downtown 

Manhattan via waterway, and nearly 200,000 of the county’s residents commute into New York 

City on a daily basis. The close proximity of the county to New York City increases its 

 

42 U.S. Census Bureau website (population based on 2002 estimates) http://quickfacts.census.gov

37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
vulnerability to terrorist attacks and, as demonstrated after the 9/11 attacks, the likelihood that 

the local prosecutor will be called upon to respond to attacks that may occur in New York City. 

Another interesting fact about Monmouth County (and the rest of New Jersey) is that the 

prosecutor’s office serves as the chief law enforcement office in the county. 

Los Angeles County, California is the largest county in the United States with an 

estimated population of 9,871,506.43 Not only is Los Angeles County the largest county in the 

U.S., but it also houses the largest local prosecutorial agency in the country. The Los Angeles 

County District Attorney’s Office is responsible for a jurisdiction that covers more than 4,000 

square miles and prosecutes felony and misdemeanor crimes in 78 of the 88 cities44 within the 

county. Los Angeles County is home to one of the nation’s largest seaports, seven professional 

sports teams, numerous historic sites, 20 museums, eight universities and colleges, an 

international airport, and is a haven for celebrities and tourists. 

With more than eight million residents, New York City is by far the largest city in the

United States. Queens County is one of the five boroughs that comprise New York City and is 

less than 15 miles from downtown Manhattan. Queens County, with more than 2.25 million 

people, is the second largest of the boroughs. Queens County is a very ethnically diverse county; 

according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 46 percent of the population describe themselves as foreignborn persons and nearly 54 percent of the residents speak a language other than English at 

home.

45 In addition, several potentially high profile terrorist targets along with New York City’s 

two major airports (JFK and LaGuardia), are located in Queens County. 

 

43 Based on 2003 estimates. U.S. Census Bureau website http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html. 44 Ten cities, including the city of Los Angeles, have their own city prosecutors who prosecute misdemeanor

offenses within the city limits. 45 U.S. Census Bureau website http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36081.html. 

38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Franklin County is located in the heart of Ohio and is home to the state capital, 

Columbus. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Franklin County has an estimated population 

of nearly 1,088,944 million people, which makes it the 29th largest county in the United States. 

Columbus, with more than 725,000 residents, is the 14th largest city in the country. The county 

is home to headquarters of numerous financial institutions and insurance companies, as well as 

Ohio State University. 

Bucks County, located in southeastern Pennsylvania, has 613,110 residents that inhabit 

608 square miles. Geographically, Bucks County lies between New York City and Washington, 

D.C. and is less than one hour outside Philadelphia. Many county residents commute to 

Philadelphia daily. The northern part of the county is highlighted by the 5,283-acre Nockamixon 

State Park, which surrounds the 1,450-acre Lake Nockamixon. The county is also known for its 

many historic sites and museums, particularly along the Delaware River. 

A review of various homeland security efforts implemented by these local prosecutors 

reveals several commonalities as well as unique and innovative strategies. Among the patterns 

that emerged in local prosecutors’ role are: 

• Local investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of precursor crimes 

• Active involvement in federal, state, and local task forces 

• Development and use of information sharing networks 

• Creation of new organizational structures and policies 

• Coordination with emergency management services and other first responders 

In addition, with these new strategies and the new legislation come a variety of challenges that 

prosecutors are working to resolve. This chapter describes the experiences of the five 

39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
jurisdictions selected for case study in terms of how they have implemented the various 

strategies, the challenges they face, and how they are working to overcome the challenges. 

LOCAL INVESTIGATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND PROSECUTION

As noted earlier, the investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of international 

terrorism generally falls within the purview of the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, whereas 

crimes that provide material support for terrorism or help terrorists operate in the United States 

(crimes that APRI has defined as precursor crimes) often fall under local jurisdiction. APRI’s 

study found indeed that the most common role of the local prosecutor in the nation’s effort to 

fight terrorism seems to be the investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of precursor crimes. 

In particular, the strategies that have been adopted by the various prosecutors’ offices studied 

focus on disrupting potential terrorism plans through criminal prosecution of state offenses and 

by using state legislation to help build intelligence for federal investigative and prosecutorial

efforts. 

Of the five prosecutors’ offices studied by APRI, four had established a concentrated 

effort to define precursor crimes—some using existing statutes and others using new/amended 

state anti-terrorism legislation. Both the Queens County, New York District Attorney’s Office 

and the Los Angeles County, California District Attorney’s Office are using their legislative 

mandates to aggressively pursue precursor crimes. In Monmouth County, New Jersey, the 

County Prosecutor’s Office acts as a conduit of information from the local municipalities and 

law enforcement agencies to the state Office of Counter-Terrorism and the FBI’s Joint Terrorism

Task Force (JTTF). The office also coordinates and conducts investigations at the local level. 

The Franklin County, Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Office provides investigative and 

prosecutorial support to a coordinated local and federal effort to identify and prosecute alleged 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
terrorists. Like the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in Franklin County, Ohio, the District 

Attorney’s Office in Bucks County, Pennsylvania provides support to the state and federal 

efforts, but at the time of this study the office had not been tasked with any specific investigation 

tasks. 

One pattern that emerges quickly from the investigative and enforcement efforts suggests 

that there may be a continuum of intensity of the prosecutor’s involvement in enforcement, 

investigation, and prosecution (insert Exhibit 5-1). In other words, some offices have adopted a 

support role, others have taken a dual support and action role, whereas others have implemented 

an action role. Interestingly, this pattern seems to coincide with the prosecutors’ offices’ 

perceptions about the “target richness” of their respective jurisdictions. Those offices that have 

chosen a support role perceive their jurisdiction to have no or very few possible targets, those in 

a dual support/action role believe there are some medium to high profile targets, and those who 

have taken an active role view their jurisdiction as target rich, with many possible high profile 

targets. 

The following sections describe how each of the case study sites falls into the 

enforcement, investigation, and prosecution framework. 

Support Role. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Bucks County, Pennsylvania District 

Attorney’s Office has put in place mechanisms that allow them to support the enforcement, 

investigation, and prosecution of precursor crimes and terrorism-related offenses, particularly in 

terms of their involvement with enforcement and investigative task forces. All 16 investigators 

in the office have been cross-designated as U.S. Marshals to help support enforcement and 

investigation efforts. Prosecutors attend the State Attorney General’s monthly task force 

meeting and consult with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on terrorism prosecution but to date have 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibit 5-1 

Intensity of Prosecutor Involvement in the Enforcement, Investigation, 

and Prosecution of Pre-Cursor Crimes 

THREAT PERCEPTION

 Low Threat: Medium Threat: High T No Perceived Some Possible/ Many Hig Targets Smaller Targets Tar

INTENSITY LEVEL

Support Role: Support & Action Role: Action 

--Member of and/or participates in --Member w/clearance & participates -- Active 

task force meetings in task for meetings w/sec

--Offers assistance as needed --Coordinates information between --Coordi--Reviews intelligence information local and federal law enforcement --Active 

and/or passes along information --Provides support for investigations & intell

prosecution deve

 --Prosecutes cases as requested by --Prosec

 state or federal prosecutors --Prosec

 --Some policy/organizational changes relat

for case processing --Specia

prec

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
not been called upon to handle any precursor crimes. In addition, the District Attorney’s Office 

has assigned three of its investigators to help the FBI with its watch list. 

The District Attorney in Bucks County has also established a terrorism unit with two 

prosecutors. Because there has not been a significant volume of precursor or terrorism-related 

cases, both prosecutors also handle other types of cases and spend relatively little time on 

terrorism. One of the prosecutors was also put on-call, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide 

legal assistance to law enforcement and process search warrants for terrorism-related offenses. 

Dual Support & Action Role. The Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, through its 

gang unit, provides support to the U.S. Attorney in his efforts to respond to terrorism. The gang 

unit was selected because members of the unit are specially trained for intensive intelligence 

gathering and investigation, which the prosecutor believes can help bolster the efforts of federal 

law enforcement. In addition, the gang unit screens its own cases, and the prosecutors have been 

instructed to review cases for information that may indicate the offenses are precursor crimes 

related to terrorism. 

Two examples of how the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has played a 

dual support and action role are 1) their involvement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the 

investigation and arrest of a trucker who threatened to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New 

York, and 2) the prosecution of a local resident who threatened to bomb a local shopping mall. 

The case of the trucker was brought to the Prosecuting Attorney’s attention by local law 

enforcement, who during a routine traffic stop identified the trucker as a person of interest to the 

FBI. Upon review of the case, the prosecutor contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office and provided 

support in a federal prosecution. In the case of the resident who threatened to blow up a local 

45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
shopping mall, the prosecutor reviewed the case with the U.S. Attorney, and ultimately it was 

decided that the case should be prosecuted locally. 

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office also identified an emerging trend in burglaries that 

they believed could be related to terrorism, namely an increase in the number of burglaries and 

theft of night vision binoculars and guns with telescopes. This information was provided to the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the prosecutor’s office is working with local and federal law 

enforcement to continue to develop intelligence on this trend to determine if it is indeed related 

to terrorism. 

The County Prosecutor’s Office in Monmouth County, New Jersey has adopted a 

different approach to its dual support/action role. As the chief law enforcement officer in the 

county, the County Prosecutor’s Office determined that one of its major contributions to 

enforcement and investigation would be to serve as a conduit of information between various 

agencies. The county has established municipal counter terrorism coordinators who coordinate 

leads that come from residents and law enforcement in the various municipalities. This 

information is passed to the county’s terrorism coordinator, who is a member of the County 

Prosecutor’s staff. 

As information comes in from the municipal coordinators, the county coordinator reviews 

it, makes follow-up inquiries (as needed), and then sends the information to the state and federal 

task forces for review. Leads returned by the state or federal task forces may be investigated by 

the local police department or the County Prosecutor’s Office. In addition, information is 

entered into a statewide database that can be cross-referenced against similar information from

other sources. The database contains information on terrorism, gangs, and organized crime. 

Much of the information entered related to terrorism as a result of the County Prosecutor’s 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office investigations focus on precursor crimes such as fraudulent documents. This allows the 

County Prosecutor to identify any patterns, gather intelligence, and provide information to the 

state and federal task forces. 

The County Prosecutor’s office has also been involved in hundreds of investigations of 

anthrax scares and other terrorism-related hoaxes.

Action Role. The investigative and prosecutorial aspect of the Queens County, New 

York District Attorney’s Office response to terrorism is intensely focused on fraudulent 

identification documents and identity theft. In the first five months after the 9/11 attacks, the 

Governor of New York created the Fraudulent Identification Task Force (FIDTF) to target the 

illegal manufacture, sale, and distribution of forged or fraudulent identification documents such 

as passports, drivers’ licenses, non-driver photo identification cards, and other identification 

documents. The Queens County District Attorney’s Office participated in two FIDTF 

operations. The first focused on Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) operations and the second 

focused on the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). 

As a result of the FIDTF operations at the DMV, the District Attorney’s Office and its 

partners screened 450 cases, made 420 arrests, seized 2,000 documents, and confiscated 

equipment used to make fraudulent documents during the four-month investigation. In addition, 

the District Attorney’s Office worked with the DMV to change its policies regarding the 

replacement of out-of-state drivers’ licenses to require a more rigorous review of identification 

documents. The TLC operation yielded 500 arrests of persons suspected of falsifying their 

identification in order to obtain taxi/limousine licenses. 

Another initiative by the Queens County District Attorney’s Office involved the review 

of airport personnel security badges. The airport task force conducted criminal history 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
background checks on all 40,000 employees at JFK and La Guardia international airports. The 

checks revealed that 127 persons had used falsified or fraudulent identification documents to 

obtain their security badges. Criminal charges were filed in 97 of the cases. Using a newly 

amended statute that made the offering of a false instrument for identification a Class E felony, 

carrying a penalty of up to four years in prison, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office 

successfully prosecuted 35 of the cases as of the time of this study. In addition, immigration 

violations were filed in 22 of the cases. 

Since the concentrated effort began, precursor crimes such as identity theft and 

falsification of identification documents has become a significant part of the prosecutor’s office 

caseload – growing from around one percent to between 11 and 13 percent of the total cases 

filed. 

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has also taken an active role in local 

and federal investigation and prosecution of precursor crimes and terrorist-related activities. An 

investigator from the organized crime division and three prosecutors were originally assigned to 

work on precursor crimes exclusively.46 The investigator is assigned to the FBI JTTF and is 

involved in intelligence gathering and case development. This coordinated investigative effort 

maximizes the benefits of local and federal legislation. For example, for many cases, it is easier 

and quicker to obtain search warrants through the state rather than the federal courts. 

In addition, from the investigator’s work on the task force, which includes surveillance, 

interviewing suspects through consensual encounters, and arrests for involvement in precursor or 

lesser crimes, criminal cases are identified and screened locally and federally. The prosecutors 

in the organized crime division may evaluate cases and discuss prosecution with the U.S. 

 

46 At the time of the study, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors had just approved funding for the District 

Attorney’s Office to hire 10 additional investigators, who will work exclusively on terrorism and terrorism-related

cases. 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Attorney’s Office. Most of the precursor crimes, such as selling counterfeit merchandise, money 

laundering, credit card fraud, and fraudulent documents, are prosecuted by the District 

Attorney’s Office. Overall, approximately 75 percent of the terrorism-related cases have resulted 

in either state or federal prosecution. 

ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TASK FORCES

A key element of a comprehensive response to homeland security is coordination 

between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices. The AntiTerrorism Task Forces (ATTF) and the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) organized by federal 

agencies serve as the primary instrument for coordination in all of the case study sites.47 

However, like the intensity of enforcement, investigation, and prosecution efforts, the level of 

local prosecutor involvement varies from attending meetings to joint investigations and colocation of staff. 

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is an active member of the California 

Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC), created by the governor to collect, analyze, 

develop, and disseminate terrorism-related intelligence throughout the state and to the State 

Bureau of Investigation.48 One investigator from the District Attorney’s organized crime 

division is detailed to CATIC to assist local agencies in evaluating crimes ranging from various 

types of fraud to drug trafficking to possession of explosive chemicals. The District Attorney’s 

investigator helps local agencies determine if the crimes are related to terroristic activities. 

Another investigator from the organized crime division is assigned to work full-time with 

the JTTF. The investigator has top-secret clearance and participates in investigations. As part of 

 

47 The ATTF is headed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and focuses on investigation and prosecution, whereas the 

JTTF is headed by the FBI and focuses primarily on investigation. 48 CATIC merged with JTTF after APRI completed its site visit to Los Angeles County. 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
the investigative process, the investigator works with the JTTF to help obtain state search 

warrants when needed, helps review cases to make recommendations as to who should prosecute 

the case (i.e., the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the District Attorney’s Office), and works closely 

with the prosecutors on all cases to be prosecuted locally. 

As noted earlier, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office has organized and 

participated in many different local, state, and federal task forces aimed at preventing possible 

terrorists from obtaining fraudulent identification documents; changing policies and practices to 

guard against identity theft, fraud, and security breaches; and prosecuting precursor crimes. 

These various task forces include: 

• Fraudulent Identification Task Force: created by the governor to target the manufacture, 

sale, and distribution of fraudulent identity documents and consisting of representatives 

from local, state, and federal law enforcement, state Office of Public Security, 

Department of Motor Vehicles, Port Authority of New York, the New York Inspector 

General’s Office, ICES, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S.

Postal Inspection, and the Social Security Administration Inspector General’s Office. 

• Airport Security Identification Display Area Task Force: to conduct identity and criminal 

background checks on all airport personnel who have access to secure and restricted 

areas; task force members included many of the same from the FIDTF as well as the 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the TSA, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

• El Dorado Task Force: focused on locating criminal offenders scheduled for deportation. 

• JTTF: assignment of three prosecutors49 to screen and charge fraudulent identity 

document cases and intelligence gathering. 

• Anti-Terrorism Working Group: created and run by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the 

Eastern and Southern Districts of New York to coordinate the efforts of local law 

enforcement agencies and prosecutors in the New York City metropolitan area with 

regard to fraudulent identification and money laundering. 

The approach to task forces in Monmouth County differs significantly from the other 

prosecutors’ offices studied. As noted earlier, the County Prosecutors’ Offices in New Jersey are 

 

49 As a result of limited resources, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office has been forced to reduce the 

number of full-time prosecutors assigned to the JTTF from three to one, who is on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
the chief law enforcement offices in the county. The approach, as alluded to earlier, includes 53 

municipal counter-terrorism coordinators who serve on the frontline of information regarding 

terroristic threats in the county’s municipalities. The municipal coordinators provide information 

to the county coordinator, in the County Prosecutor’s Office, who in turn acts as the liaison with 

the state Office of Counter-Terrorism and the FBI. The role of the County Prosecutor’s 

coordinator is to facilitate a two-way information sharing stream (discussed in more detail later 

in this chapter). 

In addition, the County Prosecutor’s Office has been instrumental in developing the 

Monmouth County Emergency Response Team (MOCERT), which is working to combine 

SWAT teams in the county. The MOCERT will result in five multi-jurisdictional teams that will 

work in conjunction with the state Office of Homeland Security in the event of a terrorist attack. 

Another unique feature of the Monmouth County task force approach, which is discussed 

in detail later in this chapter, is the coordination of first responders to maximize the resources, 

manpower, and equipment needed should a terrorist attack occur. Following September 11, 

2001, the County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) elected to become part of the 

County Prosecutor’s Office. The head of the OEM, along with the County Prosecutor’s counterterrorism coordinator, holds regular meetings with first responders and other agencies involved 

in the response to terrorism such as the state Department of Health and the U.S. Navy, to discuss 

the emergency preparedness plans and training needs. 

Finally, the county prosecutor assigned to handle terrorism cases and the counterterrorism coordinator are active participants in the Newark JTTF. Immediately following 9/11, 

the County Prosecutor’s Office, along with four other counties in New Jersey, was asked to assist 

51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
in the FBI evidence response team. The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office was responsible 

for processing the abandoned vehicle of the Flight 93 hijacker at Newark International Airport. 

Prosecutors in the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office work closely with both 

the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), formerly the ATTF, and the JTTF. As part of its 

role in the ATAC, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office coordinates local law enforcement efforts, 

handles pending cases dealing with intelligence, and provides referrals to the task force for 

investigation. The ATAC was formed in early 2002 as a joint venture of the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, the State Attorney General’s Office, the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, 

the Columbus Police Department, and the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and currently has 

more than 30 members. 

Much of the ATAC’s focus is on protecting the county’s infrastructure and vulnerable 

targets; however, as a member, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is responsible for assisting the 

Council in obtaining search warrants, issuing subpoenas, and gathering intelligence. Minor 

and/or precursor crimes that cannot be prosecuted federally are handled by the local prosecutor. 

The focus of the JTTF, and the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office involvement, is 

on information sharing. 

The Bucks County District Attorney’s Office also participates in the U.S. Attorney’s 

ATAC. One prosecutor is assigned to the ATAC to consult with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on 

terrorism prosecution. As a member of the ATAC, the District Attorney’s Office is focused on 

obtaining information that can be shared with the general public. At the time of the study, no 

one from the District Attorney’s Office had obtained a security clearance, and as such, they have 

not been called upon to provide more in-depth investigative assistance. 

52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF INFORMATION SHARING NETWORKS

Perhaps the single greatest concern among policymakers and law enforcement agencies is 

access to timely and accurate information. Historically and generally speaking, information 

sharing at the local level between local justice officials has been sufficient, although some

jurisdictions are better than others. On the other hand, information sharing between federal 

enforcement agencies and local agencies has been poor, and despite the best intentions of all 

involved, a recent Homeland Security Advisory Council report finds that there is much work to 

be done to ensure that the proper information is being exchanged between federal and local 

enforcement agencies.50

Two of the offices studied by APRI (Franklin County and Bucks County) are part of an 

information system and have good relationships with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Much of the 

information shared comes from the local jurisdiction and is provided to the ATAC or JTTF. All 

of the jurisdictions studied receive terrorism alerts and regular communication through electronic 

mail servers and facsimile. 

The information sharing networks in Monmouth County, Los Angeles County, and 

Queens County are extensive. The prosecutor’s office in Monmouth County has based a 

significant portion of its terrorism efforts on information sharing. The County Prosecutor’s 

Office operates as a clearinghouse of information, filtering intelligence data through local, state, 

and federal levels. As shown in Exhibit 5-2, information from citizens or municipal police 

officers goes first to the municipal coordinators who pass it to the Monmouth County 

Prosecutor’s Office of Homeland Security (MCPOHS) coordinator. The MCPOHS coordinator 

reviews the information and passes it along to the New Jersey State Office of Counter Terrorism. 

 

50 Fiorill, Joe. “U.S. Panel Seeks Broad Information-Sharing Changes to Improve Anti-terrorism Efforts.” 

Available http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_12_13.html#6C00626D. Retrieved December 14, 2004. 

53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The information is also simultaneously forwarded to the FBI, which has the first right of refusal, 

and then to the New Jersey State Police. The MCPOHS will return any information that he 

receives to the municipal coordinators. 

EXHIBIT 5-2 

MONMOUTH COUNTY INFORMATION NETWORK

Any leads, requests for further investigations, or alerts from the FBI, NJ State Police, 

and/or the NJ Office of Counter-Terrorism are passed to the OHS and as permitted

to municipal coordinators, police officers and citizens. 

New Jersey 

State Police 

(2nd Right of 

Refusal) 

Federal Bureau 

of Investigation 

(1st Right of 

Refusal) 

Office of Homeland 

Security 

Monmouth County 

Prosecutors Office 

53 Municipal

Coordinators

Police 

Officers 

Citizens 

New Jersey State 

Office of Counter Terrorism 

The OHS follows up with the municipal 

coordinator, officers, and citizens on all leads 

that have been submitted to the OHS. 

Information provided to the New Jersey Office of Counter Terrorism is entered into a 

statewide database called MEMEX that can be cross-referenced against any similar data being 

submitted from other sources. MEMEX contains information on terrorist, gang, and organized 

crime activity throughout the state. This information can be cross-referenced with the County 

Prosecutor’s database, called MOSAIC. The MOSAIC system contains case-specific 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
information on all criminal offenses and allows for automatic cross-referencing of aliases, 

nicknames, names, crimes, dates, etc. 

In addition to the comprehensive information network and information management 

systems, the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office serves as a conduit of information provided 

by the FBI or state. The Coordinator reviews all alerts and disseminates information, as 

appropriate, to the municipal coordinators and local law enforcement. 

In Los Angeles County and Queens County, much of the information sharing is done 

through the various task forces in which the prosecutors’ offices participate. In both Los 

Angeles and Queens County, several prosecutors and investigators have secret and top-secret 

clearance and are able to receive critical information. 

CREATION OF NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND POLICIES

All of the jurisdictions have implemented a specialized terrorism unit or designated 

personnel specifically for terrorism. The most significant organizational changes made to help 

them respond to terrorism were in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the 

Queens County District Attorney’s Office, and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. The 

organizational changes made in these offices also involved changes in policy/practice. 

Because of the complex nature of terrorist groups and activities, the Los Angeles County 

District Attorney’s Office designated three attorneys and two investigators in the organized 

crime division to work on terrorism issues and precursor crimes. As discussed earlier, the 

investigators are involved in case development and serve as liaisons between the prosecutor’s 

office and other task forces. The investigator assigned to the JTTF is involved in case screening 

and processing in terms of obtaining search warrants, issuing subpoenas, etc. The prosecutors 

55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
assigned to terrorism conduct their own screening of cases and are responsible for any terrorismrelated offense that might be prosecuted locally. They are also responsible for prosecuting 

money laundering, counterfeit merchandise, fraud cases, and other precursor crimes. 

Like Los Angeles, the Queens County District Attorney has also designated staff to work 

exclusively on terrorism issues. Several investigators from the District Attorney’s Office have 

been detailed to various task forces and cross-deputized as U.S. Customs agents. In addition, 

there are specialized attorneys who prosecute precursor crimes. 

A key element of the Queens County District Attorney’s Office strategy related to policy 

and practice focuses on training. The District Attorney’s Office has focused on both internal and 

external training as well as obtaining training for its staff. Internally, the terrorism prosecutors 

and investigators have provided guidance to other line personnel on precursor crimes to ensure 

that the screening process used officewide incorporates knowledge about what to look for to 

indicate a terrorism connection. Externally, the prosecutor’s office has provided informal 

training to the judiciary and the defense bar on the disposition of precursor crimes and why the 

District Attorney’s Office is pursuing these crimes so vehemently. The Queens County District 

Attorney’s Office has also trained other prosecutors’ offices in the state on how to develop cases 

involving fraudulent identification documents. Finally, the Kennedy Airport Management 

Committee asked the District Attorney’s Office to train the airport’s upper management and 

executive on how to recognize forged identification documents in an effort to protect air cargo, 

the airport, and passengers. 

One of the most innovative organizational changes occurred in Monmouth County, New 

Jersey. The first change occurred in 2002, when the County Prosecutor established an Office of 

Homeland Security, Research, and Planning within the investigative division of the office. The 

56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
mission of the new office is “to develop and implement strategies which will help recognize, 

prepare for, protect against, prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the 

County of Monmouth or in other areas affecting Monmouth County.”51 Within the Office of

Homeland Security, the County Prosecutor created three units: 

1. Research and Planning Squad, responsible for filtering information via the Internet and

electronic fax system between 53 municipalities in the county and state and federal 

authorities. The Squad is also responsible for gathering intelligence information from the 

military; federal, state, and local law enforcement; other government agencies; and 

private entities in the county. 

2. Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which was originally a stand-alone county 

agency. In planning the response to terrorism, the County Prosecutor and the head of the 

OEM felt that emergency management would be better positioned in the prosecutor’s

office to “coordinate resources, manpower, equipment, and financial assistance from

county, state, and federal agencies in the event of a catastrophic event.”52

3. Monmouth County Emergency Response Team (MOCERT), which consists of personnel 

trained to respond to emergency situations. The MOCERT works to combine SWAT 

teams in the county into five multi-jurisdictional teams that will work directly with the 

County Prosecutor’s Office of Homeland Security. 

In total, the Office of Homeland Security employs one detective, two agents, and one 

director full-time. The office focuses solely on homeland security issues; staff are not assigned 

any other duties, with the exception of staff in the OEM. 

The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office has also instituted a four-hour mandatory 

training program for all employees of the office on terrorism as well as for all new employees. 

Within the OHS, staff have received training from the FBI on terrorist groups, terrorist tactics, 

and other characteristics of terrorism. The OHS staff then provided training to all personnel in 

the prosecutor’s office on identifying potential terrorist connections in cases such as drugs or 

identity theft. 

 

51 Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Division of Investigation General Order establishing the Office of Homeland 

Security, Research, and Planning. June 27, 2002. Number GO-09-2002. 52 http://www.prosecutor.com.monmouth.nj.us/units/oem.htm. Retrieved July 20, 2004

57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The OHS staff also provides training at the police academy and to others as requested by 

the New Jersey Office of Counter-Terrorism and the FBI. Finally, OHS provides training and 

holds seminars for hospitals, schools, and other community organizations on how to respond to 

terrorism and how to protect the community against terrorism. 

COORDINATION WITH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS

Prosecutors have a long history of collaborating with local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies and other criminal justice agencies. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed 

not only the nature of law enforcement partnerships with other first responders such as fire 

departments and public health departments, but also changed how a few prosecutors view their 

relationship with other first responders. 

The prosecutors’ offices in Monmouth County and Bucks County both have developed 

working relationships with emergency services and other first responders in their response to 

homeland security. As discussed above, the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office has taken 

the most dramatic step by placing the county’s OEM under the auspices of the prosecutor’s 

office. Together, the prosecutor and the OEM conduct training for first responders on hazardous 

materials and weapons of mass destruction. The OEM regularly drills first responders and 

critiques their efforts to improve response times in the event of a disaster. 

The OEM has also included a prosecutor and the OHS coordinator in the development of 

the Emergency Operations Plan, which describes roles and responsibilities of various entities in 

responding to an emergency. The development of the operations plan is a multi-agency effort 

and includes representatives from the county Department of Public Health, the military, schools, 

58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
hospitals, the Sheriff’s Department, and representatives of the 53 municipal governments and 

law enforcement. 

The Bucks County District Attorney’s Office also works with the county Emergency 

Management Department and the county Major Incident Response Team (MIRT). The 

Emergency Management Department provides training for local law enforcement and 

prosecutors and other first responders on how to respond to a terrorist event. The Department 

also works with the District Attorney’s Office to educate the public on how to respond to an 

attack. The MIRT covers five counties in the area and provides “train-the trainer” sessions on 

hazardous materials and coordinates the response to hazmat incidents. 

It is clear from the experiences in these five jurisdictions and the lengths to which the 

prosecutors’ office have gone to respond to homeland security that the local prosecutor’s role can 

be quite varied. It is important to note that all five of the offices studied initiated their homeland 

security responses using their existing resources. Yet in each office, significant changes 

occurred that placed them in a better position to respond to terrorism, whether by assigning staff 

to a federal task force or creating and maintaining a computerized management information 

system. Nevertheless, all of the prosecutors’ offices studied felt that funding, access to training, 

and access to information were challenges that need to be recognized and addressed – a theme 

that was consistent among all prosecutors who responded to the survey. 

59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 6 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Efforts to protect the homeland and to identify and punish terrorists are clearly multifaceted and involve the coordinated work of all levels of government. As the nation works to put 

together a comprehensive response, a number of questions become evident with regard to the 

role of the local prosecutor—questions that this study sought to answer. 

First and foremost, the states’ response to 9/11 through their enactment of anti-terrorism 

legislation undoubtedly has implications for local prosecutors who are charged with enforcing 

state laws. What are the new or changed responsibilities given to prosecutors under this new or 

amended legislation? Overall, prosecutors’ primary responsibilities have not been affected by 

the legislation, but in 45 states, prosecutors now have additional criminal offenses to prosecute or 

investigate. Many of these new offenses focus on threats, hoaxes, and false reports as well as 

actual incidents of terrorism. 

More significantly, 14 states passed new or amended legislation, establishing or 

facilitating new task forces or departments to address homeland security. For local prosecutors, 

involvement in these state or local task forces is an added responsibility. In fact, 59 percent of 

the offices surveyed reported serving on an anti-terrorism task force in response to the new 

legislation. The prosecutor’s level of involvement in these task forces varies, as evidenced by 

the experiences of the five case study offices. For some offices, participation in task forces falls 

on the prosecutor’s investigative staff; whereas for others, this responsibility falls to an assistant 

prosecutor or the chief prosecutor. 

In terms of other responsibilities affected by the new or amended legislation, prosecutors 

report an increased emphasis on precursor crimes such as identity theft, fraudulent documents, 

60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
and money laundering. The increased emphasis has come in the form of more intensive 

investigation to determine if there is a connection to terrorism and enforcement programs such as 

those undertaken by the Queens County and the Los Angeles County District Attorneys’ Offices. 

The second question that arises from the study is how prosecutors have implemented 

their new or changed responsibilities at the local level and the extent to which the responsibilities 

have affected local priorities. Most prosecutors (71%) report that they are involved with 

homeland security at the local, state, and/or federal level. At the state and local levels,

prosecutors have changed their process for screening, investigating, and prosecuting certain 

criminal offenses (i.e., precursor crimes) and have placed more emphasis on intelligence 

gathering. Additionally, prosecutors have implemented information sharing networks or become

part of federal information sharing networks. 

One of the more significant changes that could be made by local prosecutors to 

implement their new or changed responsibilities is the creation of a specialized unit or 

designation of specialized prosecutors to handle cases related to terrorism. However, few offices 

have done so – only 15 percent. This may be due in part to the fact that most prosecutors do not 

view their responsibilities as having been significantly affected. Moreover, many of the 

prosecutors’ offices already have a specialized unit (such as organized crime, economic crime, 

etc.), which already handled precursor crimes. 

The third question to be answered focuses on the challenges local prosecutors face with 

regards to integrating local, state, and federal prosecution of terrorism-related acts and how these 

challenges are overcome. APRI’s study found that very few prosecutors had experience in this 

area. In fact, only 16 percent of the offices surveyed had prosecuted a terrorism-related case. 

Among those offices that did have experience, the most significant challenge faced was in the 

61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
area of investigations. In terms of investigative challenges, prosecutors cited multi-jurisdictional 

investigations, evidence collection, intelligence gathering, and information sharing with federal 

agencies as the most significant. 

To overcome the investigative and multi-jurisdictional challenges, most prosecutors 

became involved in task forces and increased their efforts to share and obtain information. In the 

case study sites, the prosecutors report instituting regular meetings with the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices to discuss cases and make decisions about prosecution. More than half also indicated 

that they had used training for law enforcement to help overcome problems with investigations

as well as the multi-jurisdictional issues they faced. 

The final question to be addressed deals with additional challenges facing prosecutors in 

their efforts to respond to terrorism. Among the most frequently cited were case processing 

issues, such as obtaining resources to conduct more intense screening and investigative work, as 

well as the volume of work involved with terrorism-related cases. Additionally, loopholes in the 

legislation, discovery issues, legal challenges, and judicial interpretation of the statutes were 

listed as challenges by nearly a third of the prosecutors. As with the other challenges faced, 

prosecutors were most likely to use training, increased information sharing, and task forces to 

address their case processing issues. 

In general, the most significant finding of the study was that only a few prosecutors had 

developed a well-defined role for their office in responding to terrorism. This may be due in part 

to the fact that many prosecutors had not used the new or amended legislation as of one year ago 

when the survey was administered. Until prosecutors have had the opportunity to gain 

experience with the new/amended legislation, it would be premature to draw conclusions about 

the utility of the new or amended legislation. However, as more prosecutors use the legislation it 

62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
will be important to further study whether or not the various statutes are lacking elements 

deemed critical by prosecutors to help them respond to terrorism. 

Another recurring theme throughout the findings deals with information sharing. 

Although the majority of prosecutors view this as a critical element of a terrorism response, most 

also felt that information sharing was more of a “one-way” street and a significant challenge to 

be addressed. Clearly, the information generated at the local level is vital for federal antiterrorism efforts, but as prosecutors have more opportunity to use their statutes, particularly for 

precursor crimes, information at the federal level will be vital to local prosecutors in helping to 

establish links. Further research is needed to fully explore the challenges of information sharing 

and strategies for its improvement. 

Finally, the survey findings and the results of the case studies seem to indicate that 

defining the local prosecutor’s role in responding to terrorism will be evolutionary. The largest 

prosecutors’ offices in the country—those offices generally found in target-rich environments 

and most likely to have the resources to dedicate to homeland security—vary dramatically in the 

extent to which they are working to address terrorism. A few, as highlighted in this study, have 

initiated comprehensive and innovative anti-terrorism strategies with few resources and little 

access to specialized training. As these experiences are shared, and as more prosecutors have an 

opportunity to use their new/amended statutes, it is believed that more prosecutors will begin to 

define their roles. 

63 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A 

STATUTORY MATRICES 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B 

ADDITIONAL SURVEY DETAILS 

Office Changes Made in Response to New and/or Amended Anti-Terrorism Statutes 

Type of Office Change Percent 

Participation on anti-terrorism task forces 59% 

Coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office 57% 

Coordination and information sharing within the office 34% 

No change 26% 

Change in office policies/protocol 23% 

More emphasis on intelligence gathering 23% 

Change in how cases are assigned to prosecutors and investigators 13% 

Increased community outreach activities 13% 

Increased training requirements 13% 

Developed new screening methods/criteria 10% 

Created specialized terrorism/homeland security unit 10% 

Prioritization of cases 10% 

Increased funding stream 7% 

More emphasis on crime prevention and analysis 3% 

Other 3%

Crimes to Which the Office Has Assigned a Higher Priority

Type of Crime Percent 

Identity theft 36% 

Counterfeit driver’s license/identification 23% 

Racketeering/money laundering 16% 

High tech/computer crimes 14% 

Security offenses 10% 

Other 10%

Drug offenses 6% 

Obtaining information about a vulnerable target 6% 

Possessing hazardous materials 6% 

Providing material support for terrorism 6% 

Robbery/burglary/theft of services 1% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Agencies Represented on a Task Force 

Agency Percent

Federal Bureau of Investigation 69% 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 66% 

Local Police/Sheriff’s Office 66% 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives 57% 

State Police/Highway Patrol 50% 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 48% 

Prosecutors from other jurisdictions 47% 

Department of Homeland Security 45% 

Drug Enforcement Administration 41% 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 38% 

Fire Department and EMS 33% 

State Attorney General 33% 

U.S. Treasury Department 33% 

U.S. Coast Guard 31% 

Transportation Security Administration 26% 

National Guard 24% 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 22% 

Public Health Department (local and/or state agency) 22% 

Department of Public Transportation (local and/or state agency) 21% 

Department of Public Works (local and/or state agency) 16% 

Local hospitals 14% 

Financial Institutions (e.g., banks) 12% 

Other 12%

Multi-jurisdictional Issues and Challenges Encountered or Anticipate Encountering 

Type of Challenge Multi-jurisdictional 

Issues 

Case processing issues* 69% 

Investigation issues* 92% 

Legal issues* 54% 

Other issues** 35% 

* Statistically significant (p < 001). 

** Statistically significant (p < .05). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.