Crime Technology: Department of Defense Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Released: 1999-11-12T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Under long-standing law, the so-called Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. 1385) prohibits the use of the Departments of the Army or the Air Force to enforce the nation’s civilian laws except where specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress. While the language of section 1385 lists only the Army and the Air Force, DOD has made the provisions of section 1385 applicable to the Department of the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps through a DOD directive (DOD Directive 5525.5, Jan. 15, 1986).

Congress has enacted various pieces of legislation authorizing a military role in supporting civilian law enforcement agencies. For example, in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1982 (P.L. 97-86), Congress authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide certain assistance-type activities for civilian law enforcement activities. This legislation also provided, however, that such U.S. military assistance does not include or permit participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity, unless participation in such activity is otherwise authorized by law.

Beginning in the early 1980s, Congress authorized an expanded military role in supporting domestic drug enforcement efforts. As part of the national counterdrug effort, for example, the U.S. military provides federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies with a wide range of services, such as air and ground transportation, communications, intelligence, and technology support. DOD counterdrug intelligence support is provided by Joint Task Force Six, which is based at Fort Bliss (El Paso, TX). This component coordinates operational intelligence in direct support of drug law enforcement agencies.

Moreover, under congressional authorization that was initially provided in 1989 (32 U.S.C. 112), DOD may provide funds annually to state governors who submit plans specifying how the respective state’s National Guard is to be used to support drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. Such operations are conducted under the command and control of the state governor rather than the U.S. military. Also, federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel may receive counterdrug training at schools managed by the National Guard in California, Florida, and Mississippi.

In 1989, Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to transfer to federal and state agencies excess DOD personal property suitable for use in counterdrug activities, without cost to the recipient agency. In 1996, Congress authorized such transfers of excess DOD personal property suitable for use in law enforcement generally and not just specifically for counterdrug efforts. This Law Enforcement Support Program is managed by the Defense Logistics Agency.

Military law enforcement agencies are major consumers of forensic laboratory services. The Army operates the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (Fort Gillem, GA), which provides forensic support regarding questioned documents, trace evidence, firearms and tool marks, fingerprints, imaging and technical services, drug chemistry, and serology. The Navy operates two limited-service forensic laboratories, which are referred to as Naval Criminal Investigative Service Regional Forensic Laboratories (Norfolk, VA, and San Diego, CA). Both Navy laboratories provide forensic support regarding latent prints, drug chemistry, arson, and questioned documents. The Air Force is the executive agent of the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum, MD), which processes digital and analog evidence for DOD counterintelligence operations and programs as well as fraud and other criminal investigations. Generally, with the exception of participating with state or local law enforcement agencies in cases with a military interest, the military laboratories do not provide support to these agencies.

Grants or Other Direct Federal Funding

In response to our inquiries, officials at each of the DOD components we contacted told us that they did not provide grants for any purposes, including crime technology-related assistance, to state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Moreover, we found no indications of crime technology-related grant assistance provided by DOD during our review of various DOD authorization, appropriations, and budget documents.

According to the General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, DOD can provide grants for a variety of purposes to some non-law enforcement agencies. For example, some DOD grants may assist state and local agencies in working with the Army Corps of Engineers to control and eradicate nuisance vegetation in rivers and harbors.

DOD direct funding—$563.3 million total appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 1998—was provided for the National Guard Bureau’s counterdrug program, which covers the following six mission areas: (1) program management, (2) technical support, (3) general support, (4) counterdrug-related training, (5) reconnaissance/observation, and (6) demand reduction support. However, we determined that, with one exception, these mission areas did not involve activities that met our definition of crime technology assistance. The one exception involved courses at two of the National Guard’s three counterdrug training locations in operation during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. We considered these courses to be a “support service,” and they are discussed in the following section.

Support Services and Systems

Regarding support services and systems, DOD’s crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement totaled an estimated $30 million for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. As table 2 shows, this assistance was provided by various DOD components—the Defense Security Service, the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory, the Intelligence Systems Support Office, Joint Task Force Six, the military branch investigative agencies, National Guard Bureau counterdrug training schools, and the U.S. Army Military Police School. More details about the assistance provided by each of these components are presented in respective sections following table 2.

Defense Security Service

As table 2 shows, the Defense Security Service estimated that its assistance to state and local law enforcement totaled approximately $5,200 during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. This total represents responses to 59 requests—with estimated assistance costs ranging from $75 to $100 per request (or an average of $87.50 per request)—for information from the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index.

A single, automated central repository, the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index, contains information on (1) the personnel security determinations made by DOD adjudicative authorities and (2) investigations conducted by DOD investigative agencies. This database consists of an index of personal names and impersonal titles that appear as subjects, co-subjects, victims, or cross-referenced incidental subjects in investigative documents maintained by DOD criminal, counterintelligence, fraud, and personnel security investigative activities. For example, state and local law enforcement agencies may request and receive completed Defense Security Service investigations in support of criminal investigations or adverse personnel actions.

DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory

The DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum, MD) became operational in July 1998. The laboratory is responsible for processing, analyzing, and performing diagnoses of computer-based evidence involving counterintelligence operations and programs as well as fraud and other criminal cases. According to DOD officials, forensic analyses can be provided to state and local law enforcement when there is a military interest or, in certain other instances, when specific criteria are met. In the last 3 months of fiscal year 1998 (July through Sept.), according to DOD officials, the laboratory performed 84 forensic analyses, 2 of which were for law enforcement officials in the states of North Carolina and Tennessee, respectively. As table 2 shows, DOD estimated that its costs (which were based on prorated staff hours) in providing forensic assistance to the states were $14,000 (or $7,000 per analysis).

Intelligence Systems Support Office

For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD obligated $28.1 million for the Gulf States Initiative. Using law enforcement intelligence software, the Gulf States Initiative is an interconnected communications system among the states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Included in this system are (1) specialized software for the analysis of counterdrug intelligence information, (2) a secure and reliable communications network, and (3) standardized tools to analyze and report counterdrug intelligence information. Each state operates a drug intelligence center (located in the capital city) that is connected to the hubs in other states. This system allows states to process and analyze intelligence information.

Joint Task Force Six

At the request of a domestic law enforcement agency, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six coordinates operational, technological, intelligence, and training support for counterdrug efforts within the continental United States. For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, Joint Task Force Six officials estimated that the costs of crime technology assistance provided by this DOD component to state and local law enforcement totaled $48,800. As table 2 shows, this assistance consisted of two types—communications assessments ($16,300) and intelligence architecture assessments ($32,500). In providing such assistance, military personnel essentially acted as technical consultants in evaluating state or local agencies’ (1) existing communications systems, including their locations and the procedures for using them, and/or (2) intelligence organizations, functions, and systems.

Military Branch Investigative Agencies

The military branch investigative agencies generally do not unilaterally provide assistance to state and local law enforcement. However, if there is a military interest, a military investigative agency may jointly conduct an investigation with state or local authorities. (See table I.1 in app. I.) During such collaborative efforts, the Army, Air Force, and Navy may provide forensic support in areas involving, for example, fingerprints, drug chemistry, and questioned documents.

The cost data presented for the military branch investigative agencies in table 2 are the costs associated with (1) forensic analyses involving joint or collaborative cases and (2) other technology-related assistance, such as technical training. For example:

In 1997, the Air Force enhanced the quality of an audiotape used as evidence for a homicide investigation for Prince George’s County, MD. The Air Force estimated its costs to be $8,400 for this assistance.

In addition to the forensic analyses conducted during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the Navy also provided technical training to 386 state and local law enforcement personnel. Such training covered various aspects of forensic technology, such as conducting DNA analyses and using computer databases.

Although it does not have a forensic laboratory, the Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division provided state and local law enforcement agencies with other types of assistance, such as the use of dog teams to detect explosives. However, we determined that these activities did not meet our definition of crime technology assistance.

National Guard Bureau

At two of its three counterdrug training locations in operation during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the National Guard Bureau provided state and local law enforcement with courses that met our definition of crime technology assistance. According to National Guard Bureau officials, the two locations and the relevant courses (with a prorated estimated funding total of about $281,000 for the 3 fiscal years) are as follows:

Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training (St. Petersburg, FL): At this training location, the relevant course covered the use of technical equipment to intercept secure communications. This course accounted for about $60,000, or about 21 percent of the total $281,000 funding.

Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (Meridian, MS): At this location, National Guard Bureau officials identified the following three relevant courses: (1) Basic Technical Service/Video Surveillance Operations, (2) Counterdrug Thermal Imagery Systems, and (3) Investigative Video Operations. These courses accounted for about $221,000, or the remaining 79 percent of the $281,000 funding total.

U.S. Army Military Police School

The U.S. Army Military Police School (Fort Leonard Wood, MO) provided counterdrug training to state and local law enforcement agencies. Eight courses were conducted that focused on drug enforcement training for non-DOD students, including state and local law enforcement personnel. In response to our inquiry, DOD officials indicated that two of these courses—(1) Counterdrug Investigations and (2) Basic Analytical Investigative Techniques—fit our definition of crime technology assistance. For example, the Counterdrug Investigations course covered such topics as (1) criminal intelligence, (2) surveillance operations, and (3) technical surveillance equipment (audio/video). The Basic Analytical Investigative Techniques course trained law enforcement personnel how to maintain an automated criminal intelligence system under multijurisdictional narcotics scenarios. This course also covered such topics as (1) the analytical process, (2) sources of information, and (3) flowcharting.

Regarding these 2 courses, Military Police School officials told us that training was provided to 2,121 state and local law enforcement personnel during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, at an estimated cost of over $1.4 million.

In-Kind Transfer Programs

During fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD’s in-kind assistance to state and local law enforcement totaled about $95.9 million. As table 3 shows, this category of assistance was provided by two DOD components—the Defense Information Systems Agency (about $24 million in the procurement and transfer of new equipment) and the Defense Logistics Agency (about $72.0 million in the transfer of surplus equipment). More details about the in-kind assistance provided by each of these two components are presented in respective sections following table 3.

Defense Information Systems Agency

The in-kind assistance (about $24 million) provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency consisted of the procurement and transfer of equipment for the following information-sharing or communications systems:

Regional Police Information System ($3 million): Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas use this system, which (1) provides automated information capabilities for detecting and monitoring illegal drug activities within each state’s jurisdiction and (2) facilitates the sharing of both strategic and tactical intelligence among participating agencies.

The Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System (about $21 million): This is a secure law enforcement counterdrug information- sharing system that connects intelligence databases of four southwest border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas); the three Regional Information Sharing Systems in that area; and the El Paso Intelligence Center. This system provides for secure E-mail transmissions and includes a preestablished query system. The system allows all participants to query the databases of all other participants and has an administrative Web site server that offers key electronic services, such as providing agency contact information and system usage statistics.

Defense Logistics Agency

Through its Law Enforcement Support Program, the Defense Logistics Agency provided about $72.0 million of crime technology-related, in-kind assistance to state and local law enforcement during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. As table 3 shows, most of this assistance consisted of the following three types of equipment or assets:

Automated data processing units, equipment, components, software, and control systems ($29.5 million);

Radio and television equipment ($20.2 million); and

Night vision equipment ($16.9 million).

Collectively, these three categories accounted for $66.6 million or about 93 percent of the total crime technology-related, in-kind assistance (about $72.0 million) provided to state and local law enforcement by the Defense Logistics Agency during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Other Transfers Indirect Assistance May Result From DOD Research and Development Efforts

In its counterterrorism and counterdrug efforts, the federal government has invested considerable funds in recent years to develop technologies for detecting explosives and narcotics. For example, in 1996, we reported that DOD had spent over $240 million since 1991 to develop nonintrusive cargo inspection systems and counterdrug technologies for the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and other federal agencies. Although not directly intended for state and local law enforcement agencies, some of DOD’s research and development efforts have had spin-off benefits for these agencies. That is, proven technologies have resulted in crime-fighting products’ becoming commercially available for purchase by all levels of law enforcement. In citing two examples, DOD officials commented basically as follows:

A “percussion actuated neutralization disruptor”—funded by DOD’s Office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict—can be used to disarm or neutralize pipebombs. Since becoming commercially available, this device has widespread applicability in all states and municipalities.

A “temporal analysis system” has been developed under DOD’s Counterdrug Technology Development Program Office. This computer- based system, which analyzes time-series and other event-related data, allows law enforcement to predict a criminal’s activities and movements.

The DOD officials further commented that, while these items first became commercially available some time during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the research and development funds associated with the items were obligated in years before 1996.

We did not attempt to identify all relevant examples nor to quantify the costs associated with specific products because DOD’s research and development efforts primarily and directly support federal agency needs rather than those of state and local law enforcement. Also, (1) any spin-off benefits to state and local law enforcement may not occur until years after federal research and development funds are expended and (2) the acquisition of commercially available products generally is dependent on these agencies’ own budgets.

Scope and Methodology

To identify relevant crime technology assistance programs, we reviewed, among other sources, the General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Also, to identify funding amounts, we contacted cognizant DOD officials and reviewed budget and other applicable documents provided by DOD components. We did not independently verify the accuracy or reliability of the components’ funding data. However, to obtain an indication of the overall quality of these data, we contacted DOD officials to clarify the funding data when needed. Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We performed our work from May 1999 to September 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

On September 14, 1999, we provided DOD with a draft of this report for comment. On September 23, 1999, DOD’s Office of the Inspector General orally informed us that the draft report had been reviewed by officials in relevant DOD components, and that these officials agreed with the information presented and had no comments.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this report. We are sending copies of this report to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Representative Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, and Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777 or Danny R. Burton on (214) 777-5700. Key contributors to this assignment are acknowledged in appendix II.