Local Police Response to Terrorism: Challenges and Strategies

Overview of Terrorism and the Council of State Governments

The Council of State Governments is a body of representatives from all states, U.S. territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It is an organization that provides vital data and statistics in support of excellence in state governance. It seeks to equip the three apex institutions — the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive — with intellectual resources grounded in a national perspective, innovative technological tools, effective leadership development, and the maintenance of state autonomy. It also serves as a forum for resolving intra- and inter-state conflicts and developing mutually beneficial action plans.

Terrorism is an illegal act of force or violence directed at the public domain in order to place government under duress and thereby extract social or political concessions for a particular community or group. Terrorism has similarly been classified as domestic or international with regard to its origin, perspective, and area of operation (White, 2006).

There is, however, an inherent problem in defining it this way. Acts of violence motivated by political goals are carried out by both state actors and non-state groups alike. The legitimacy of violent, intimidating tactics is subject to debate revolving around who employs them, against whom, and for what purpose. Because available definitions of terrorism are largely the product of state agencies, the classification of the state itself as a terrorist actor is, by design, typically omitted.

Impact of 9/11 on Local and State Law Enforcement

In all cases of terrorist acts affecting the public at large, it is natural that casualties — both structural and human — are attended to by local response agencies and relief-providing bodies, both government-sponsored and non-governmental. This is not to say that the federal government has not stepped up its efforts at prevention and response. However, the aftermath of a terrorist attack of unimaginable magnitude has cast a long and unmistakable shadow over how policing is now conducted. It has since become essential to exploit all available resources to their maximum potential and to reorient the way law enforcement operates. The importance of coordination among the various arms of security and law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels demands serious reconsideration.

COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services), an office within the U.S. Department of Justice, has taken concrete steps to highlight the actions undertaken by its grantees and to furnish a list of resources needed to implement and activate its own line of action. The grants were utilized both for preventing recurrence of attacks and for improving response capabilities. They have worked along the following lines:

A more comprehensive approach to counterterrorism, however, would involve greater public participation as a source of human intelligence. It also calls for forging closer working relationships between law enforcement agencies and peripheral services (Chapman et al., 2002).

The horrific events of September 11 forced a perceptive shift in the priorities of the FBI — and almost all other law enforcement agencies followed suit — as well as the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. The focus of virtually every law enforcement agency shifted almost instantaneously toward prevention of terrorist acts and management of their aftermath. This singular attention to the new challenge opened a gap in the areas agencies had previously been focused on: financial crimes, drug trafficking, bank robbery, and organized crime. Prior to 9/11, the FBI, in coordination with state and local agencies, had been primarily occupied with these issues. It would have been reasonable to anticipate that, with a larger and better-equipped federal apparatus at its disposal, agencies such as the FBI and DHS would shift focus while the administration empowered state and local agencies to address more regional criminal activities. Quite the contrary occurred: federal financial assistance to these local and state law enforcement bodies — including even the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant and Community Oriented Policing Services — was nearly eliminated (Voegtlin and Boyter, 2005).

Compounding this financial squeeze, police personnel were also being called to serve in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as reservists or National Guard members. An already financially depleted agency, now also deprived of FBI support, found itself increasingly overwhelmed and facing a severe shortage of personnel (National Study, 2004). The deteriorating conditions prevailing in state and local agencies are readily apparent in light of these factors.

The Council of State Governments and Eastern Kentucky University undertook a major study in 2003 that lasted more than a year and a half. The changing security landscape and its impact on state and local agencies were discussed with leaders at both levels of government. The pressures bearing on local bodies were studied through a series of specific cases, and each of the 50 states was investigated to determine how the new security environment had affected the overall structure of law enforcement. The exercise involved active participation and expert input from local bodies. The analysis of findings, completed in 2004, identified issues that had emerged within state agencies as well as local bodies. Gaps in their collective work toward shared goals were attributed to disconnects in perspective and overall methods of operation, creating the need for a more cooperative approach between the two levels.

The group agreed on improved sharing of resources — both human intelligence and statistical tools — to analyze emerging situations. The new dimension of terrorism required better cohesion among all levels of law enforcement. It was also recognized that collaboration between non-governmental organizations and government bodies was a necessity of the time. The concluding report addressed new laws and procedures, duties to pre-empt terrorism, implementation of new federal directives, and other criminal concerns to be planned at the state and local level. States are seeking greater development in the functioning and execution of the DHS domain. It has become more feasible for state and local bodies to maintain a forward-looking perspective on the emerging security landscape and the tactical steps required (Clarke, 2006).

Survey Findings on State and Local Priorities

The survey findings reveal a clear divergence in priorities between state and local bodies. While the state machinery is more involved in providing the DHS with vital intelligence and implementing counter-terrorism measures through improved intelligence collection, local police are more focused on identifying vulnerable locations and building the infrastructure needed to preempt attacks. Local police are also engaged in public awareness campaigns to solicit effective community input and provide informed guidance in the event of an emergency. Emergency preparedness has been accorded equal importance by both levels of policing, while smaller local bodies have become more concerned with the traditional safety precautions the public needs to adopt.

States have taken it upon themselves to deliver vital technological tools and training to their local counterparts. Increased private-sector participation has allowed state agencies more latitude to engage in public-private interactions and training activities. At the same time, the requirement for state and local police to participate in FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) is straining their resources. Immigration-related work has increasingly become a state police responsibility, while the FBI has also stepped back from drug trafficking and traditional crimes, creating a severe resource crunch for state and local agencies. Another significant change is that local and state law enforcement agencies are now required to interact more frequently with the FBI and the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) than with any other federal body.

Conclusion

It is a universal truth that most regions and people will never be directly affected by acts of terrorism. However, given the unpredictability of such events, it is advisable to maintain a state of readiness. The COPS framework provides a foundation upon which police can formulate tactics to pre-empt terrorist attacks. Each community is unique in its needs and characteristics, and police would do well to position themselves in alignment with the communities they serve. The COPS document, while not exhaustive, is a valuable collection of cases that highlights the diverse strategies that may need to be adopted in different contexts.

References

Chapman, R., Baker, S., Bezdikian, V., Cammarata, P., Cohen, D., Leach, N., Schaprio, A., Scheider, M., Varano, R., & Boba, R. (2002). Local law enforcement responds to terrorism: Lessons in prevention and preparedness. The Police Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2005). Policing terrorism: An executive's guide.

Brewer, J. D., et al. (1996). The police, public order and the state (2nd ed.).

Flynn, E. (2001). [Chief of Police, Arlington County Police Dept.] Letter. Washington Post.

Harris, Ed. (2001). [Director of Emergency Communications, Austin Police Department.] Telephone interview.

National Study. (2004). The Council of State Governments and Eastern Kentucky University. The impact of terrorism on state law enforcement, 2004. Supported by the National Institute of Justice.

Raymond, B., Hickman, L. J., Miller, L., & Wong, J. S. (2005). Police personnel challenges after September 11: Anticipating expanded duties and a changing labor pool. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

Voegtlin, G., & Boyter, J. (2005). Legislative alert: State and local law enforcement assistance programs face cuts. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from

White, J. (2006). Autonomy, human flourishing and the curriculum. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(3), 381–390.

Wilson, J. Q., & Sklansky, D. A. (2005). Police and democracy. Supra note 9, at 476.