Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Audit Checklist for the

Criminal Intelligence Function

September 2004

LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT

FOREWORD

“The protection of individuals’ privacy and constitutional rights is an obligation of

government officials and is crucial to the long-term success of criminal intelligence sharing.

Protecting the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals, while at the same time

providing for homeland security and public safety, will require a commitment from everyone

in the system – from line officers to top management.”

– National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, p. 10

The criminal intelligence function is an effective tool for deterring, preventing, and protecting the public

from serious crime.

However, the information-gathering activities associated with the criminal intelligence

process could also pose significant threats to the constitutional rights of individuals.

Serious consequences arise when an agency fails to protect the individual rights of those who may be

the subject of the criminal intelligence process. In addition to the direct harm caused to the individuals

whose civil liberties may be infringed upon, these serious consequences include a loss of public trust and

confidence in the police, the inhibition of legitimate and lawful political activity, costly and time-consuming

civil litigation, disbanding of the criminal intelligence function, and other harms.

Law enforcement agencies can effectively use a combination of accountability mechanisms to prevent

these serious consequences from arising. As mentioned in the National Criminal Intelligence Plan, these

accountability mechanisms help eliminate the unnecessary discretion in police decision-making processes,

guide (or structure) the discretion that is needed, and audit (or check) the processes to ensure

conformance with overall goals.

iii

Clear policies and effective training, for example, can be used to prohibit improper practices (i.e.,

eliminating the unnecessary discretion), and to provide authorization and guidance to agency personnel for

those actions that are necessary to carry out their duties (i.e., structuring the necessary discretion). Periodic

audits and reviews serve as useful checks to ensure that the criminal intelligence function is being carried out

in accordance with established ethical standards, regulations, and laws.

The attached checklist titled “Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function” can assist law

enforcement executives with conducting a review of their agency’s criminal intelligence function. Using this

checklist, law enforcement agencies demonstrate their commitment to protecting the constitutional rights and

the privacy of individuals, while ensuring the operational effectiveness of their criminal intelligence function.

Development of this Checklist

This checklist was developed by the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), in support of the

National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan. Founded in 1956, LEIU is the oldest law enforcement

association dedicated to the sharing of criminal intelligence and the advancement of professional criminal

intelligence standards and practices. LEIU has led the way in establishing professional standards for the

collection, maintenance, and dissemination of intelligence among law enforcement agencies.

In the 1970s, LEIU first developed a set of guidelines, known as the LEIU File Guidelines, for

establishing and maintaining criminal intelligence files in law enforcement agencies. These guidelines were

developed to provide protection of citizens’ privacy and other constitutional rights, promote professionalism,

and provide guidance to law enforcement agencies when collecting information in the pursuit of preventing

and solving crimes. Over the years, the LEIU File Guidelines have been modified to reflect the most

current standards for lawful and ethical criminal intelligence practices. Civil liberties groups, citizens, and

government and police officials have agreed that the standards embodied by the LEIU File Guidelines are

proper for collecting, maintaining, and disseminating criminal intelligence information.

In recent years, LEIU has worked closely with the International Association of Law Enforcement

Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Global Justice

Information Sharing Initiative, and others to develop the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan

(NCISP). In fact, members of the LEIU Executive Board helped plan and conduct the IACP Criminal

Intelligence Sharing Summit, served on Global’s Intelligence Working Group, and contributed to the final

publications from both initiatives (IACP’s Criminal Intelligence Sharing report and Global’s NCISP).

The NCISP recommends that law enforcement agencies use the LEIU File Guidelines as a model for

criminal intelligence file maintenance. Additionally, the NCISP recommends periodic audits of criminal

intelligence operations and files to ensure that these guidelines and other regulations are put into practice.

LEIU has previously assisted local and state law enforcement agencies in conducting audits of their criminal

intelligence function, and has now developed the attached checklist to assist agencies in conducting a self-

assessment of their criminal intelligence function.

With 240 member agencies in four countries, LEIU remains a leader in promoting the professional trust,

training, and communication required to facilitate the lawful and ethical sharing and use of criminal

intelligence among law enforcement agencies.

iii

LEIU Executive Board

General Chairman Eastern Zone Chairman

Captain Richard “Dick” Wright Senior Analyst PamWeis

Simi Valley Police Department North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

Vice General Chairman Northwestern Zone Vice Chairman

Special Agent in Charge Russell “Russ” Porter Lieutenant Ron Leavell

Iowa Department of Public Safety Seattle Police Department

Secretary/Treasurer Central Zone Chairman

Captain Mike Chambers Lieutenant Chuck Boschert

Los Angeles Police Department St. Louis County Police Department

Legal Advisor Southwestern Zone Vice Chairman

Deputy District Attorney Keith Gardiner Burt Vacant

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Northwestern Zone Chairman Eastern Zone Vice Chairman

Detective Sergeant Raymond Green Master Sergeant Angelo Woodhouse

King County Sheriff’s Office Virginia State Police

Southwestern Zone Chairman Central Coordinating Agency

Sergeant Robert Fowler Chief Ed Manavian

Garden Grove Police Department California Department of Justice

Central Zone Chairman Past General Chairman

Special Agent Jim Arlt Captain William “Bill” Sullivan (Ret.)

Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.........................................................................................................1

Criminal Intelligence Audit Checklist

Operating Procedures .................................................................................3

Collection..................................................................................................5

Collation....................................................................................................6

Dissemination ............................................................................................9

References........................................................................................................10

Selected Readings ..............................................................................................11

Endnotes...........................................................................................................12

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this checklist is to provide law enforcement executives and senior- to mid-level law

enforcement managers with a tool for conducting an audit or evaluation of their agency’s criminal intelligence

function. Specifically, this audit tool can help an agency ensure that it is carrying out the criminal intelligence

function in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines. The principles found in the checklist

apply most directly to municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies. Several introductory

comments are appropriate.

This checklist should be applied only to criminal intelligence files – not to other types of law

enforcement records. Some law enforcement officials fail to make the distinction between criminal

intelligence files and other types of law enforcement records (e.g., investigative files). In the law

enforcement context, however, these differences are important and must be recognized.

Investigation generally refers to the systematic examination of facts to determine if a crime has occurred and,

if so, develop a case for prosecution. Generally, the term “investigative files” refers to information collected

in the course of an investigation where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed

specific criminal acts.

On the other hand, the criminal intelligence process is an ongoing activity, and is not necessarily triggered by

the investigation of any specific offense.

While investigation tends to be reactive in nature, criminal

intelligence is proactive and used to identify and understand criminals operating in a particular area. Once

individuals or groups are identified and their habits known, law enforcement authorities may begin to assess

current trends in crime and to forecast, and possibly prevent, future criminal activities. Intelligence provides

the knowledge on which to base decisions, and select appropriate targets (subjects, criminal groups or

businesses) for investigations. Although criminal intelligence may be used to assist in investigations,

surveillance operations, and prosecution of cases, it also provides law enforcement agencies with the ability

to effectively manage resources, budget, and meet their responsibility to forecast community threats to

prevent crime.

Criminal intelligence consists of pieces of raw information that when collected, evaluated, collated, and

analyzed form meaningful and useful judgments that are both accurate and timely. Taking this raw

information and turning it into intelligence can be described as a sequential process with multiple distinct

phases. Following appropriate planning, the first phase is collection, which is obtaining raw information from

various sources. Evaluation then occurs, which is determining the reliability of the source and the validity of

the information. The third phase is collation and involves indexing, cross-referencing and filing of

information. The fourth phase is analysis, which identifies trends, future developments and case building.

The fifth phase is dissemination, which involves the actual dispensing of the intelligence information. A unit

that does not complete each of these phases is not a criminal intelligence unit.

Ideally, this checklist is designed to be utilized by senior law enforcement managers who are not directly

involved in the day-to-day operations of the agency’s criminal intelligence function. This helps ensure that

the audit is objective, and accurately identifies the function’s strengths and weaknesses. However, the

checklist can also be used as a self-assessment tool by personnel who are directly involved with the

agency’s criminal intelligence function. This type of an effort will help determine if the unit is acting in

accordance with the standard practices and procedures established by LEIU.

Historically, criminal intelligence units have experienced problems in the area of unit operating procedures,

collection, collation, and dissemination; therefore, this checklist focuses on these four areas.

*See References, page 10 for a detailed description of standards and guidelines for the Criminal Intelligence

Function.

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Operating Procedures

Item Question

Does the criminal intelligence unit have a mission statement?

If no, go to question 10.

q Yes q No

Does the mission statement contain a concise, well-defined mandate

describing the criminal intelligence unit?

q Yes q No

Does the mission statement describe the use of the intelligence

process in support of the criminal intelligence unit?

q Yes q No

Does the statement focus toward criminal predicate?

q Yes q No

Does the statement indicate that the criminal intelligence unit will

provide the Chief Executive with criminal information and resulting

analysis to counter and control criminal activities?

q Yes q No

Does the statement identify the criminal intelligence unit’s expected

results?

q Yes q No

Is the criminal intelligence unit staying within its mission?

q Yes q No

Is the criminal intelligence unit assuming work beyond the authorized

crime areas?

q Yes q No

Is the statement reviewed on a periodic basis to insure that it is

meeting the needs of the agency/organization?

q Yes q No

Does the criminal intelligence unit have policy and procedures

guidelines?

If no, go to question 18.

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines describe the criminal intelligence unit’s operations?

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines provide the criminal intelligence unit’s mission

statement?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Do the guidelines detail the criminal intelligence unit’s methods of

operation?

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines outline the criminal intelligence unit’s file

guidelines?

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines establish the criminal intelligence unit’s security

procedures?

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines describe personnel responsibilities and assigned

duties?

q Yes q No

Have the guidelines been provided to personnel?

q Yes q No

Are periodic security updates conducted for intelligence personnel on

a regular basis?

q Yes q No

Is the criminal intelligence unit located in a physically secure

location?

q Yes q No

Are unauthorized persons prevented from accessing the criminal

intelligence unit’s location?

q Yes q No

Is access terminated when personnel are on leave or cease to work in

an intelligence capacity?

q Yes q No

Are there guidelines for transferring material to or from floppy disks?

q Yes q No

Does the criminal intelligence unit have access to the Chief

Executive?

q Yes q No

Does the unit provide the Chief Executive with recommendations?

q Yes q No

Does the unit provide the agency with valuable strategic and tactical

products?

q Yes q No

Do personnel receive appropriate training?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Are there clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the

functions of the intelligence unit?

q Yes q No

Is a regular security risk review of the intelligence unit and its

systems conducted?

q Yes q No

Are procedures in place governing the criminal intelligence unit’s

use of special funds?

q Yes q No

Is the criminal intelligence unit’s mission achievable with the number

of assigned staff?

q Yes q No

Collection

Item Question

Does a collection effort begin with the development of a written

plan?

q Yes q No

Does the collection plan include a set of information requirements

that specifies what data is needed by the agency or investigator (s)?

q Yes q No

Does the collection plan comply with applicable local, state, and

federal statutes and case law?

q Yes q No

Is the collection plan focused on identifying the nature and extent of

criminal activity?

q Yes q No

Does the collection plan utilize all known available sources?

q Yes q No

Are the plan’s objectives and requirements communicated to criminal

intelligence unit staff?

q Yes q No

Has the Criminal Intelligence Function encouraged the development

of a close working relationship between analysts and investigators?

q Yes q No

Have those assigned to the Criminal Intelligence Function received

training in the right to privacy?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Does the state in which your agency resides have laws that address

the collection of criminal intelligence data?

q Yes q No

Do the methods used by information collectors fall within legal

guidelines?

q Yes q No

Does your agency have informant guidelines in place?

If no, go to question 44.

q Yes q No

Do these guidelines address informant control and management?

q Yes q No

Do these guidelines address the maintenance of informant files?

q Yes q No

Collation

Item Question

44 Does the unit have criminal intelligence file guidelines?

q Yes q No

Is the criminal intelligence unit operating within the guidelines?

q Yes q No

Are files kept ONLY on individuals who are suspected of being

involved in actual or attempted criminal acts; or suspected of being

involved in criminal activities with known or suspected crime

figures?

q Yes q No

Are files kept ONLY on organizations, businesses, and groups that

are suspected of being involved in actual or attempted criminal acts;

or are suspected of being operated, controlled, financed, or infiltrated

by known or suspected crime figures?

q Yes q No

Do files include ONLY information that relates to a criminal

predicate?

q Yes q No

Do the guidelines clearly delineate criteria for determining if

information should be entered and retained in the files?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Is the information stored in criminal intelligence files evaluated

according to source reliability and content validity before it is

included in a criminal intelligence file?

q Yes q No

Is there a clearly articulated system for assessing source reliability

and content validity?

q Yes q No

Item Question

Is a distinction made between permanent, temporary, and working

files along with appropriate retention periods?

q Yes q No

Is the information stored in criminal intelligence files classified in

order to protect sources, investigators, and the individual’s right to

privacy?

q Yes q No

Are files clearly marked with appropriate classification?

q Yes q No

Is information maintained in the criminal intelligence file reviewed for

reclassification or purge on a periodic basis to ensure that it is

current, accurate, safeguards an individual’s right to privacy, and is

classified at an appropriate security level?

q Yes q No

Is information maintained in the criminal intelligence file reviewed on

a periodic basis for utility, timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy, and

completeness?

q Yes q No

Do the criminal intelligence unit’s purge policies comply with local,

and/or state law regarding records retention?

q Yes q No

Is there a specific staff member(s) who is responsible for purging

files?

q Yes q No

Are procedures in place to govern the storage, handling, and security

of hard copy source material?

q Yes q No

Does the criminal intelligence unit retain hard copies of source

documents?

If no, go to question 63.

q Yes q No

Are these documents stored in a safe and secure location?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Is access to these documents restricted?

q Yes q No

Are procedures in place to govern the storage, handling, and security

of source material in an electronic database?

q Yes q No

Item Question

64 Is access to the file database restricted?

q Yes q No

Is a specific employee(s) responsible for controlling automated

access?

q Yes q No

Are automated access audits conducted periodically?

q Yes q No

Is a record of audits maintained?

q Yes q No

Is automated access immediately deleted when personnel leave or

transfer?

q Yes q No

Are files adequately safeguarded through back up and recovery

routines, and off-site storage of critical files, programs, and systems?

q Yes q No

Is the system isolated from other networks or protected by a firewall

to restrict unauthorized access?

q Yes q No

Are files (either hard or electronic copy) indexed in an organized

fashion?

q Yes q No

Is a file locator system in place?

q Yes q No

Is a particular employee(s) responsible for overseeing the criminal

intelligence file system so that it is operating within the guidelines of

all applicable laws?

q Yes q No

Audit Checklist for the Criminal Intelligence Function

Item Question

Are purged documents destroyed in a secure and appropriate manner

according to all applicable laws?

q Yes q No

Is information regarding political, religious, or social views of an

individual or group prohibited from inclusion in a criminal intelligence

file unless it directly relates to criminal conduct or activity?

q Yes q No

Dissemination

Item Question

76 Are procedures in place for responding to requests for information? q Yes q No

Are records kept of requests for information and responses?

If no, go to question 79.

q Yes q No

78 Are these records audited periodically? q Yes q No

Are there procedures in place governing the methods of enveloping,

dispatching, and recording the dissemination of law enforcement

sensitive material?

q Yes q No

Is criminal intelligence information released only to those who

have demonstrated a right-to-know and a need-to-know?

q Yes q No

Is there an audit trail to determine who has accessed criminal

intelligence files?

q Yes q No

Has the criminal intelligence unit established a policy prohibiting

third-party dissemination?

q Yes q No

Has the agency identified legal resources that are familiar with

criminal intelligence issues and procedures and can adequately

represent the agency in legal matters?

q Yes q No

REFERENCES

Audit Factors for the Law Enforcement Intelligence Function. Prepared by David L. Carter (2004).

Criminal Intelligence File Guidelines. Prepared by the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (Revised in

March 2002).

Criminal Intelligence Standards and Guidelines. Prepared by the California Peace Officers’ Association

(July 2003).

Evaluation Checklists for Intelligence Units. Written by Paul R. Roger. Turn-Key Intelligence:

Unlocking your agency’s intelligence capabilities, produced by IALEIA, LEIU, & NW3C.

Gang File Audit Checklist. Prepared by the California Bureau of Investigation, Division of Law

Enforcement, California Department of Justice (May 2001).

Guidelines for the Criminal Intelligence Function. Prepared by Dick Wright, Simi Valley Police

Department (Revised in September 1998).

Intelligence 2000: Revising the Basic Elements; A Guide for Intelligence Professionals. Prepared by

L.E.I.U. and I.A.L.E.I.A. (2000). Managing Editor Marilyn B. Peterson, Editors Bob Morehouse

and Dick Wright.

National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan 2003 (October). Sponsored by the Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Award No. 2000-LD-BX-0003.

SELECTED READINGS

Regulations, Policies, File Guidelines, and Other Reference Materials

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28 – Judicial Administration, Chapter 1- Department of Justice, Part

23 – Criminal Intelligence System Operating Policies.

International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center. 1998

(February 28). Criminal Intelligence Model Policy. Alexandria, VA: International Association of

Chiefs of Police.

Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit. 2002 (March). LEIU File Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: LEIU.

National Criminal Justice Association. 2002 (September). Justice Information Privacy Guideline:

Developing, Drafting, and Assessing Privacy Policy for Justice Information Systems. Washington,

DC: NCJA.

Practitioner’s Literature

Andrews, Paul P. and Marilyn B. Peterson (Eds.). Criminal Intelligence Analysis. Loomis, CA:

Palmer Press.

California Peace Officers’ Association. 1998. Criminal Intelligence Program for the Smaller

Agency. Sacramento, CA: California Peace Officers’ Association.

Dintino, Justin J. and Frederick T. Martens. 1983. Police Intelligence in Crime Control.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Frost, Charles, and Jack Morris. 1983. Police Intelligence Reports. Orangevale, CA: Palmer

Press.

Godfrey, E. Drexel and Don R. Harris. 1971. Basic Elements of Intelligence. Washington, D.C.:

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2002 (August). Criminal Intelligence Sharing: A

National Plan for Intelligence-Led Policing at the Local, State and Federal Levels:

Recommendations from the IACP Intelligence Summit. Alexandria, VA: International

Association of Chiefs of Police.

Martens, Frederick T. 1987. “The Intelligence Function.” In Herbert Edelhertz (Ed.). 1987

(September). Major Issues in Organized Crime Control: Symposium Proceedings.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

McDowell, Don. 1998, 2000. Strategic Intelligence: A Handbook for Practitioners, Managers,

and Users. Cooma, NSW, Australia: Istana Enterprises, Pty., Ltd.

Peterson, Marilyn B. Applications in Criminal Analysis: A Sourcebook. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Peterson, Marilyn B. (Managing Ed.), Bob Morehouse and Richard Wright (Eds.). 2000. Intelligence

2000: Revising the Basic Elements. Sacramento, CA: Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, and

Lawrenceville, NJ: International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Inc.

Past Problems with Domestic Intelligence Operations

American Civil Liberties Union. 2002 (January). “The Dangers of Domestic Spying by Federal Law

Enforcement: A Case Study on FBI Surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King.” Washington, DC:

American Civil Liberties Union (Available January 18, 2002 at:

http://www.aclu.org/congress/kingreport.pdf).

American Friends Service Committee. 1979. The Police Threat to Political Liberty. Philadelphia,

PA: American Friends Service Committee.

Blackstock, Nelson. 1975. COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom. New

York, NY: Vintage.

Cowan, Paul, Nick Egleson, and Nat Hentoff. 1974. State Secrets: Police Surveillance in America.

New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.

Donner, Frank J. 1991. Protectors of Privilege. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Elliff, John T. 1971. Crime, Dissent, and the Attorney General. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

McKnight, Gerald D. 1987 (Winter). “A Harvest of Hate: The FBI’s War Against Black Youth –

Domestic Intelligence in Memphis, Tennessee.” South Atlantic Quarterly 86: 1-21.

Mitgang, Herbert. 1988. Dangerous Dossiers: Exposing the Secret War Against America’s

Greatest Authors. New York, NY: Donald I. Fine.

O’Reilly, Kenneth. 1989. Racial Matters: The FBI’s Secret File on Black America, 1960 – 1972.

New York, NY: The Free Press.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with

Respect to Intelligence Activities, 94

Congress, 2

Session. 1976 (April 23). (commonly known

as the Church Committee).

ENDNOTES

Geller, William A. and Norval Morris. 1992. “Relations Between Federal and Local Police.” In Michael Tonry

and Norval Morris (Eds.), Modern Policing: Crime and Justice – A Review of Research, Volume 15. Chicago, IL:

The University of Chicago Press, pp. 231-348. Campbell, Kurt M. and Michèle A. Flournoy (Principal Authors). 2001.

To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism. Washington, DC: The CSIS Press, at p. 77.

American Friends Service Committee. 1979. The Police Threat to Political Liberty. Philadelphia, PA:

American Friends Service Committee. Donner, Frank J. 1991. Protectors of Privilege. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

iii

The framework for regulating discretionary decisions (i.e., eliminating unnecessary discretion, and confining,

structuring, and checking necessary discretion) through administrative rule making and agency policies is derived

from Kenneth Culp Davis. See Kenneth Culp Davis (1971), Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois; and (Davis, 1975 Kenneth Culp Davis (1975), Police Discretion. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing

Company.

See the “Settlement Agreement and Release” entered into by and between Joseph N. Riggs III, Alice Hector,

Peter Cubra, James R. Toulouse, Tova Indritz, Randi McGinn, Nancy Hollander, Sigmund Bloom, Hank Farrah,

Joe Fine, Dorie Bunting, Allen Cooper, Richard Moore, The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, and

The New Mexico Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, and the City of Albuquerque, dated September 29, 1993,

resolving Cause No. Civ. No 88-1141 JP/RWM in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and

CV-91-07599, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico.

White, supra,; People v. Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1317-13 17.