One Federal Law Enforcement Organization - Assignment Example

The Department of Homeland Security Why was this organization created by the federal government? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was formed by the federal government in response to the September 11 attacks with the aim of protecting the USA from terrorism and other disasters within and outside the borders (DHS, 2002). The Act that formed the DHS in the 107th Congress, Public Law 107–296, defines the primary responsibilities of this federal agency as investigating and prosecuting terrorism (DHS, 2002).2. What are the specific areas of responsibility of this federal law enforcement that you chose?

The DHS has responsibilities as a law enforcement agency in counter-terrorism, immigration and border security, disaster preparedness, response and recovery and the newer cyber-security concerns. In counter-terrorism, the agency serves a variety of functions entailing nuclear security, aviation and chemical security concerns, fraud and counterfeit and information sharing. The roles of the DHS in border security and immigration include apprehension, convicting and deporting of illegal immigrants which are geared towards ensuring that the USA is secure (DHS, 2012). 3. How does this organization work with local law enforcement to enhance the mission or goals of those local organizations?

Due to overlap in crime fighting responsibilities, the DHS, state and local law enforcement agencies are interlocked in crime fighting. The DHS undertakes some activities with the aim of maximizing cooperation and assisting the local agencies in their objectives in crime fighting. For instance, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch of the DHS collaborates with local and state agencies to create a united and seamless front for disruption of transnational crime (DHS, 2011). The DHS also bears better capacity in logistics and intelligence from which local agencies gain through information sharing.4. Do you feel that this cooperation between the local, state, and federal law enforcement organizations has had a positive effect on both organizations, and if so, why?

The relationship between the DHS and local and state law enforcement agencies has not always had a positive effect. The overlap in crime fighting responsibilities that exists between the two- federal (DHS) versus local and state levels- has not been traditionally well managed. For instance, the roles of the DHS in special operations, forensics, criminal intelligence and disaster response may clash with local and state arms charged with special investigations, forensic services, criminal investigations and emergency planning and response (Richman, 2000).

In such cases, it is evident that counteractive clashes in interests may hinder crime fighting and, thus, jeopardize the missions of all levels of law enforcement involved.5. If you feel that the effect was negative, respond with your reasoning and explain what you would do to rectify this problem.The main cause of the problems noted above stems from the occurrence of crimes that are multi-jurisdictional. This situation results in a situation where the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies deem themselves responsible to investigate and prosecute the given crime.

Problems of hierarchy and authority come into play, resulting in the observed counteractive results. The solution to this can be sourced from the problem itself; multi-jurisdictional crimes ought to be handled cooperatively across the various law enforcement levels. The DHS ought to collaborate with the state and local agencies in terms of encouraging interchange. In such an environment, coordination and cooperation transparency and alongside information sharing would remove the hindrances as the levels share a common goal in crime fighting.

The state and local law enforcement agencies may benefit from better intelligence and sophisticated technical capabilities of the DHS, while the latter may benefit from knowledge and information borne by the local levels for instance in criminal profiles. Richman (2000) discusses the possibility of instituting negotiated boundaries among the various law enforcement agencies as an alternative solution. ReferencesDHS (2011). Border security and enforcement: Department of Homeland Securitys cooperation with state and local law enforcement stakeholders.

Retrieved 16 May, 2012 http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1304351712276.shtm DHS (2012). Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 16 May, 2012 http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtmDHS (2002). Public Law 107–296: DHS Act. 107th Congress. Retrieved 16 May, 2012 https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdfRichman, D. C. (2000). The changing boundaries between federal and local law enforcement. Criminal Justice, 2, 81-111.