Vol. 11 No. 2 (February 2001) pp. 94-96.

ROUNDING UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTEMPORARY LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE by Peter Gill. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2000. 290 pp. Cloth $74.95. ISBN: 1-84014-923-X.

Reviewed by Anthony P. LaRose, School of Justice Studies, Roger Williams University.

Peter Gill takes on an ambitious project. He endeavors to provide an "empirical map" of local, national and international policing and provide a comparative analysis of law enforcement intelligence networks in Britain, Canada and the United States, and to examine of the impact of technology on traditional police investigative practices. He concludes by suggesting that- at least in the United Kingdom - safeguards are needed to prevent abuse of investigative practices. He expresses that the government competes with criminal elements for the "monopoly on legitimate force" and wonders whether the adoption of more sophisticated intelligence techniques, particularly technological, can or will fundamentally change that process.

The author provides an excellent three-dimensional model for studying police networks, including the international level, but a lack of empirical evidence hampers the substantive "filling" of his position. This lack of available empirical data forces the author to limit his substantive analysis of policing in the United States to New York State, and in Canada to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). This creates serious concerns about the external validity of the research: does RCMP reflect all of Canada, or New York State the U. S.? His review of both the RCMP and New York State intelligence sharing systems is thorough.

In chapters 1 through 3 Gill explains the basis for the shift police agencies have been undertaking toward greater intelligence gathering, and expressing, surprisingly, that the increase in technology and intelligence- led policing has not fundamentally changed police investigations (world- wide). However, it has lead to some abuses especially in U. K., and this some safeguards against state overreaching in information gathering are needed. This begs the question. Should we expect similar abuses elsewhere?

"The best way to understanding contemporary developments in the organization of policing" claims the author, " is to view them as networks expanding at local, national and transnational levels and across the public- private divide" (p. 54). He provides an explanation of what he calls, "The geology of policing":

"[P]olicing (in whatever sector) is not just organized in layered strata across many areas and that the divisions that exist are not just boundaries.rather, they are spaces or voids into which a large number of 'crimes', 'targets', potential cases or whatever, disappear" (p. 57).

Page 95 begins here

The increase in intelligence-led policing coincides with the increased concern about organized crime. The author provides a review of definitions of organized crime, and a discussion of law enforcement's "power struggle" to control "markets", and its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

In chapters 4 and 5 Gill provides some depth on the how intelligence- led policing in the U. K. has grown considerably in the past decade in large part due to a public rejection of traditional methods such as interrogations and confessions. Looking at the conflict of styles between all levels of policing in Britain, he finds that approaches developed to be utilized specifically in Northern Ireland (legal, organizational, technological, personnel, tactical) are finding their way into the of general policing in the U. K.

The author also provides an overview of law enforcement efforts in the U. S. and Canada, but he offers only substantive review of New York State and the Royal Canadian Mountain police as representative of each nation. Also, he briefly addresses the often "informal nature" of intelligence gathering.

In the latter part of his work, Gill discusses how surveillance capacities have been improved dramatically with the development and utilization of information and communications technologies. Conversely, the way in which these technologies are employed vary considerably between agencies based on 'local' views about who is a suspicious person, and what is defined as a serious crime. Police agencies use technology to "screen -in" suspects.

He further offers a discussion of the types of evidence that can be collected (internal, open, covert) and the context (legal, political, economic) in which they can be gathered. The Bill of Rights limits police powers in the U. S., while the common law constrains information gathering in the U. K. and Canada. Interestingly, the author points out that increased restrictions on technical means of surveillance have lead to more undercover operation, at least in the U. S. Police agencies also suffer from an ability to utilize the additional information that technological advances have allowed them to collect.

The role of informants in the intelligence gathering fields, and the potential dangers of a largely "unregulated" police resource are also reviewed. However, the author focuses solely on the U. K. and its Codes of Practice that attempt to regulate the recruitment and use of informants. Interestingly, apparently as restrictions on other forms of intelligence gathering have increased, there has been a corresponding increase in the use of informants.

As intelligence gathering has increased so, not surprisingly, has the need for intelligence analysis (i.e., analysts). These information specialists find themselves in conflict with the "old guard" who resist organizational change. Therefore, Gill notes a need to train not only analysts to decipher data, but to train (perhaps convince is a better word) the non-intelligence police community to the benefits and limits of intelligence. He also notes some very basic privacy concerns related to increased means of intelligence gathering.

The text closes by asking, "Is intelligence-led policing making a difference?" The answer? Maybe. The

Page 96 begins here

times are definitely changing as police continue to incorporate more technology into their intelligence gathering processes. Gill suggests additional government oversight is more important than efficiency. This discussion is also limited to only the U. K.

The author recognizes the dearth of empirical research in the area of intelligence-led policing, subsequently, the validity of his own conclusions are hampered by that same admission. Still, someone must be the first to test new waters, and Gill he has jumped rather than waded into the sea of international police intelligence.