Law Enforcement Challenges to Gathering Intelligence in the Street: The Fourth Amendment

Introduction

Intelligence gathering in law enforcement has occurred since early times when local law enforcement was the military of the King, Emperor, or ruler of the land. Individuals, sometimes known as spies, would infiltrate other lands and gather intelligence to bring back to their superiors. In London, England, in 1748, Sir Henry Fielding employed known thieves to recover stolen goods, returning them to its rightful owner. These individuals, known as the Bow Street Runners, would gather intelligence from other known thieves on the whereabouts of stolen property. They would then steal the property back and return it to the owner for a fee. The Bow Street Runners are viewed as one of the first forms of detective work. Later, Sir Robert Peel created the first police force in London and built upon these forms of intelligence gathering to combat crime (Orthmann & Hess, 2013). Across the English Channel in France circa 1811, François Eugene Vidocq, a former criminal, was changing his ways and is credited with being the founder of the first plain-clothed detective division called the Brigade de la Surete, translating to be the Security Brigade. In the mid-1800s in the United States, a Scottish immigrant named Allan Pinkerton became the first known detective of the Chicago Police Department in 1849. He is credited with the invention of different methods of intelligence gathering via the use of shadowing and following suspects (Orthmann & Hess, 2013).

The collection of intelligence by officers is a primary way to combat crime. Without this intelligence, officers are unable to gain leads, which can lead to warrants and, hopefully, arrests. However, the method in which officers collect these leads and evidence must follow the protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Whitebread & Slobogin, 2015). With little guidance from the Courts and Constitution regarding the use of technological advances by the police, they sometimes teeter on the edge of this Amendment for many years when performing criminal investigations. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unlawful searches and seizures by government officials. Law enforcement must stay on the cutting-edge use of technology, yet remain within the parameters outlined by our Constitution, which protects our civil liberties. How officers conduct the gathering of intelligence is vital to the integrity of the case being built against a suspect, the integrity of the officer, and the integrity of the department for which they are employed.

The gathering of intelligence or information is essential to police when combating crime. An officer understands the need for robust, reliable intelligence and should know how to obtain the said intelligence legally. Citizens of the United States are protected under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

Over the years, law enforcement has tested this Amendment to its fullest. The methods and instruments used to commit crime change almost daily, thus the need for officers to find new ways to combat criminal activity. For the criminal, staying one step ahead of the police in their methods of operation occurs with minimal challenge. However, sometimes officers push the legal boundaries when gathering intelligence; thus, legal challenges arise. A review of these challenges by the Court sometimes happens slowly, delaying guidance for many years. Officers should be educated on the constant challenges of how to perform daily operations—knowing what is legally acceptable when gathering intelligence. This chapter will educate the reader about the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, to whom it applies, the search warrant process, and exceptions to the search warrant process as applicable to the gathering of intelligence. Furthermore, this chapter will provide an examination of three historic United States Supreme Court cases involving the gathering of intelligence by law enforcement, along with an examination of recent United States Supreme Court cases also involving the gathering of intelligence by law enforcement officers.