Category Archives: E

Encryption

Leave a reply

Encryption

Encryption

In line with Nadine Santos & Richard C. Li

about Encryption in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The concept of encryption dates back to the time of Greek and Roman generals, who used the technique in their fields of battle. Similar methods have since been employed in many situations of war. Cryptography is also used by civilians for protecting industrial and scientific secrets and financial information. The function of the encryption is to protect the confidentiality, the authenticity, and the integrity of the message. Encryption is used to scramble the information or message sent so that unauthorized persons cannot read the content. The technique also provides digital signatures that can be used to identify the author of a message. Furthermore, methods have been developed to verify that a message has not been altered during the transmission process. In situations in which information needs to be protected, the effectiveness of the transmission of messages becomes crucial.

Electronic Surveillance

Leave a reply

Electronic Surveillance

Electronic Surveillance

In line with Richard W. Lovely

about Electronic Surveillance in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

No area of criminal investigation generates as much controversy as the practice of electronic surveillance. Despite the Fourth Amendment's protections, law enforcement authorities have unsurprisingly and consistently preferred and sought unfettered authority to conduct electronic surveillance. To counter such pressure, the United States Congress has obliged law enforcement agents to use electronic surveillance only under strict rules, especially for wiretapping. The practice of wiretapping in law enforcement was not always so carefully controlled. In 1928, a year before President Hoover had a telephone on his desk, the United States Court of last resort of the Country allowed (in Olmstead v. United States of America ,1928) that warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no actual physical intrusion into the home.

Electronic Surveillance

In line with Robert Moore

about Electronic Surveillance in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Electronic surveillance refers to the practice of monitoring individuals through the use of electronic devices. Law enforcement agencies are generally the first entities that come to mind when the term is mentioned because of the obvious benefits such devices play in monitoring criminal activities. However, it is worth noting that this is not always an accurate assumption. Although such devices are beneficial to law enforcement investigations, the use of electronic surveillance today extends well into the private and commercial sectors. Many businesses have found electronic surveillance of employees to be a cost productive method of ensuring that the company's time and resources are not wasted on the personal business of employees. The use of electronic surveillance technology can be traced back as far as the late 1800s, when it was discovered that the newly constructed telephone lines could be tapped into, thereby allowing for the monitoring of individuals' phone communications.

Europol

Leave a reply

Europol

Europol

In line with Maria (Maki) Haberfeld & William H. McDonald

about Europol in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The European Union was originally established largely to promote the economic integration of its member states. Economic integration, however, brought with it new opportunities for offenders, above all the ease with which they can transcend national borders. Because crime was being increasingly organized at a European level, rather than on a national or local level, politicians agreed that an organization was needed that could coordinate the law enforcement resources of member states to effectively tackle crime on a pan-European level (a level that as of May 1, 2004, encompasses 25 countries). 1 In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty established Europol's predecessor, the European Drugs Unit. It formally began operations on January 3, 1994. The European Drugs Unit had a rather limited mandate; it was focused on supporting each member state's fight against drugs and the associated money laundering.

Emergency

Leave a reply

Emergency

Emergency Preparedness

In line with Grace A. Telesco

about Emergency in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

At the scene of an emergency such as a natural or accidental disaster, a terrorist attack, an act of mass violence, or an incident in which a considerable number of fatalities occur, law enforcement personnel are among the first to respond and are responsible for the management of the rescue, recovery, and investigation. Mass violence can be defined as a criminal incident whose consequences result in a massive number of casualties and traumatized survivors. A terrorist attack is a prime example of such mass violence. The federal government's response to a large-scale critical incident anywhere in the United States of America is most frequently managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA, which was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to merge a number of disaster-related responsibilities in the federal government, remained an independent agency until March 2003, when it was merged into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Escobedo v. Illinois

Leave a reply

Escobedo v. Illinois

Escobedo v. Illinois as a Leading U.S. Case

Escobedo v. Illinois is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Escobedo v. Illinois may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Escobedo v. Illinois tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Escobedo v. Illinois is also explained, together with the relevance of Escobedo v. Illinois impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Escobedo v. Illinois

378 U.S. 478 (1964)

Exclusionary Rules

Leave a reply

Exclusionary Rules

Exclusionary Rule

In line with Brian S. MacNamara

about Exclusionary Rules in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The exclusionary rule, created by the United States Court of last resort of the Country, states that any evidence seized by government agents (usually police) in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure is not admissible in an ensuing criminal trial. Although the exclusionary rule is not part of the United States Constitution, this issue of whether evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution could be used in court against a defendant was raised before the Court of last resort of the Country as early as 1886 ( Boyd v. United States of America ), but remained open to debate until 1914. Finally, in 1914, in order to enforce the mandate of the Fourth Amendment, the Court of last resort of the Country determined that prohibiting the introduction of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in a criminal trial, was the only way to deter law enforcement officials from future unconstitutional conduct.

Exclusionary Rules

In line with William C. Heffernan

about Exclusionary Rules in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

In American (United States) courts, exclusionary rules mandate, on motion by an aggrieved criminal defendant, suppression of evidence of the defendant's guilt when that evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's legal rights. The legal rights at stake are often constitutional; most commonly, they involve the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. However, the rights may be statutory as well, as when evidence is obtained in violation of federal statutes governing electronic surveillance by government officials. The origins of the exclusionary rules are to be found in constitutional decisions rendered by the United States Court of last resort of the Country in the first half of the 20th century. The most important of these is Weeks v. United States of America (1914), where the Court held that evidence obtained in violation of Weeks's Fourth Amendment rights should have been suppressed at his criminal trial.

Eyewitnesses

Leave a reply

Eyewitnesses

Eyewitnesses

In line with Steven Penrod

about Eyewitnesses in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The Cardozo Law School Innocence Project Web site regularly reports new cases in which individuals who have been convicted of crimes (there is more information about criminal law in the American Legal Encyclopedia and about crimes and criminals vocabulary) are exonerated through DNA testing (see ). The Web site reveals that about two thirds of these cases involve mistaken eyewitness identification. This is no surprise to anyone familiar with research on eyewitness reliability. Studies documenting the role of mistaken identifications in erroneous conviction date back 70 years and have revealed that mistaken identifications were involved in more than 60% of the hundreds of cases examined by researchers. This rate is especially noteworthy given that eyewitness cases probably constitute a small proportion of all cases. Although the recent DNA exculpation cases give new emphasis to research on the pitfalls of eyewitness evidence, research on the psychological aspects of eyewitness testimony actually has a long history.

Ethics

Leave a reply

Ethics

Ethics

In line with John Kleinig

about Ethics in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Ethical issues infuse all human interactions, especially those in which human interests are at stake. The powers vested in law enforcement personnel, coupled with the complex and exigent circumstances under which they might be employed, make ethical decision making of critical importance, not only to those immediately involved but also to the maintenance of public authority. At its most fundamental level, ethics is concerned with how humans should live-that is, how they ought to manage their lives and relate to each other and the world around them. Construed in this way, ethical concerns have a certain normative priority in decision making, functioning as a standard against which other forms of human activity and decision making are to be measured-law, politics, economics, sport, and so forth. Therefore, ethical decision making tends to be universalizable in ways that other forms of decision making are not.

Early Warning Systems

Leave a reply

Early Warning Systems

Early Warning Systems

In line with Christopher W. Ortiz & Karen L. Amendola

about Early Warning Systems in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

An early warning system (EWS) is a personnel management tool utilized by police command staff to identify individual officer or group performance problems at the earliest possible stage. EWSs collect data on a number of managerially defined police performance indicators (e.g., citizen complaints, use-of-force incidents, arrests, etc.) and compare them to predefined organizational tolerance levels or thresholds. Officers whose levels exceed the threshold for any one given indicator are “flagged” or otherwise noted by the system, and this notice is brought to the attention of supervisory staff, whose duty it is to intervene. EWSs allow police managers to proactively intervene through the use of counseling and retraining, thereby redirecting officers' work performance toward the orga-nization's goals. EWSs are a police accountability tool.

Edwards v. Arizona

Leave a reply

Edwards v. Arizona

Edwards v. Arizona as a Leading U.S. Case

Edwards v. Arizona is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Edwards v. Arizona may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Edwards v. Arizona tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Edwards v. Arizona is also explained, together with the relevance of Edwards v. Arizona impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Edwards v. Arizona

451 U.S. 477 (1981)