Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:15 am
Time: 1:15 am
Results for drug trafficking (u.s.)
4 results foundAuthor: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Combatting Illicit Drugs: DEA and ICE Interagency Agreement Has Helped to Ensure Better Coordination of Drug Investigations Summary: The 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment stated that the availability of illicit drugs is increasing. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in the Department of Justice (DOJ), works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to carry out drug enforcement efforts. DEA and ICE signed a 2009 Interagency Agreement (Agreement) that outlined the mechanisms to provide ICE with authority to investigate violations of controlled substances laws (i.e., cross-designation). The Agreement also required DEA and ICE to deconflict (e.g., coordinate to ensure officer safety and prevent duplicative work) counternarcotics investigations, among other things. GAO was asked to assess the Agreement's implementation. This report addresses the extent to which DEA and ICE have taken actions (1) to implement the Agreement's cross-designation, deconfliction, and information-sharing provisions and (2) to monitor implementation of the Agreement and make needed adjustments. GAO analyzed documents such as the 2009 Agreement, related interagency agreements, and directives to field offices. GAO also interviewed DEA and ICE Headquarters officials as well as management officials and first line supervisors in 8 of the 21 DEA and 8 of 26 ICE field offices, based on geographic dispersion. Though not generalizable to all DEA and ICE offices, the interviews provided insights. DEA and ICE have taken actions to fully implement the cross-designation and deconfliction provisions of the Agreement, and are finalizing efforts to complete the information-sharing provisions. The Agreement allows ICE to select an unlimited number of agents for cross-designation consideration by DEA. The agencies have implemented these cross-designation provisions through a revised process that (1) elevated the levels at which requests are exchanged between the agencies and (2) consolidated multiple requests into one list of ICE agents. This new process is more streamlined and has resulted in enhanced flexibility in maximizing investigative resources, according to ICE officials. Also, DEA and ICE implemented local deconfliction protocols and used a variety of mechanisms (e.g., local deconfliction centers) to deconflict investigations. Further, in May 2011 DEA and ICE convened the Headquarters Review Team (HRT), comprised of senior managers from both agencies, who are, among other things, to resolve deconfliction and coordination issues that cannot be resolved at lower levels because they require management decisions. DEA and ICE headquarters and field office management officials GAO interviewed generally reported that the implementation of the Agreement and local deconfliction protocols had generally improved deconfliction by (1) ensuring officer safety and (2) preventing one agency's law enforcement activity from compromising the other agency's ongoing investigation. ICE has also partially implemented the Agreement's information-sharing provisions by sharing required data with two DOJ organizations that target drug trafficking organizations, and taking steps to share its drug-related data with a DEA organization focused on disrupting drug trafficking by fall 2011. DEA and ICE have conducted ongoing monitoring of the Agreement's implementation through established processes (e.g., supervisory chains of command) and according to officials from these agencies, the HRT did not identify any systemic issues. Specifically, DEA and ICE headquarters officials routinely coordinated with each other and their respective field offices to monitor the Agreement's implementation. DEA and ICE headquarters officials also said that the May 2011 meeting of the HRT, which is to periodically review the Agreement's implementation, constituted a review of the Agreement and affirmed that there were no overarching or systemic issues of coordination or deconfliction requiring headquarters-level intervention. DEA and ICE provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-763: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11763.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11763.pdf Shelf Number: 122570 Keywords: ContrabandDrug EnforcementDrug Trafficking (U.S.)Narcotics |
Author: Lanzante, Joseph A. Title: The Relationship between Criminal and Terrorist Organizations and Human Smuggling Summary: This thesis sought to expand on the literature that has been written on the possibility and impact of a relationship forming between criminal and terrorist organizations in terms of human smuggling. These entities could form a strategic alliance and leverage existing narcotics, weapons, and human smuggling corridors that exist south of the U.S./Mexico border to smuggle terrorist operatives into the U.S. thereby threatening U.S. interests and national security. The analysis of the scholarly literature, interview data, and case studies point to a relationship between criminal and terrorist organizations and the fact that they have worked together to smuggle terrorists into the U.S. Additionally, corruption efforts by these organizations places a weak link in U.S. border security that can be exploited for nefarious purposes. Enhanced information sharing between law enforcement entities may be the single best way to detect the relationship between criminal and terrorist organizations and prevent them from smuggling a terrorist operative into the U.S. Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2009. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://www.thecre.com/ccsf/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lanzante.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.thecre.com/ccsf/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lanzante.pdf Shelf Number: 124131 Keywords: Border SecurityDrug Trafficking (U.S.)Human SmugglingOrganized CrimeTerrorism |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Gang Intelligence Center Title: Eastern Pennsylvania Drug and Gang Threat Assessment 2011 Summary: The influence of New York area (New York City and northern New Jersey) drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and gangs reaches nearly every sizable drug market in eastern Pennsylvania. a Dominican DTOs and gangs are the most active of these groups, and their influence within the region is increasing except in select drug markets where Mexican DTOs are dominant and growing. In Philadelphia and Reading, for instance, the influence of Dominican DTOs has diminished since 2008, when Mexican DTOs emerged as the principal wholesale drug distributors, supplying hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and heroin each year to eastern Pennsylvania drug markets. Drug-related violence, committed primarily by criminal groups against other criminals, is increasing in several eastern Pennsylvania communities even as overall violent crime rates are decreasing throughout the region. Emerging trends in the region include the following: • New York area gangs—previously significant but ad hoc suppliers of drugs to eastern Pennsylvania—are becoming increasingly organized, entrenched, and dominant in many eastern Pennsylvania drug markets. • Cocaine and heroin trafficking have represented the greatest drug-related law enforcement and healthcare challenges to communities in eastern Pennsylvania for many years. However, heroin trafficking has increased sharply in recent years, emerging as the single greatest drug threat to the region. • Heroin abuse among adolescents is increasing in eastern Pennsylvania, in part because some adolescent prescription opioid abusers are transitioning to heroin. • Dominican DTOs and gangs—the most prolific drug distributors in eastern Pennsylvania— are strengthening their operations in Hazleton, a strategic location where they are dominating and expanding drug distribution. • Mexican DTOs are the dominant wholesale cocaine distributors in Philadelphia and Reading drug markets. They are increasingly transporting wholesale shipments of cocaine from the Southwest Border to Philadelphia and Reading, contributing to strong and stable cocaine availability in those drug markets. • Rival gangs and organized thieves are more frequently engaging in home invasions, ransom kidnappings, and organized thefts from drug dealers in many eastern Pennsylvania drug markets. • Coatesville, Harrisburg, Lancaster, and Lebanon have experienced an increase in organized and deliberate drug-related violence perpetrated by street gangs and independent robbery crews that target other criminals, particularly drug dealers in possession of cash. Details: Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44229/44229p.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44229/44229p.pdf Shelf Number: 128143 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug MarketsDrug Trafficking (U.S.)Gangs and Drug ViolenceOrganized Crime |
Author: U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy Title: National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy: 2013 Summary: The United States, at the local, state, tribal, and Federal levels, has made a concerted effort to enhance, expand, and codify multiple measures designed to address the serious threats posed by illicit drug trafficking across the Southwest border and violence in Mexico. Despite many successes, improved cooperation, coordination, unity of effort, and information sharing, illicit drug trafficking continues to be a multi-faceted threat to our national security which requires additional focus and effort. Transnational criminal organizations based in Mexico with world-wide international connections continue to dominate the illegal drug supply chain and are continuing to expand their illegal activities throughout the United States. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of all cocaine that enters the United States continues to pass through the Mexico/Central America corridor from the cocaine source countries further south. Mexico remains the primary foreign source of marijuana and methamphetamine destined for U.S. markets and is also a source and transit country for heroin. The same organizations that traffic in drugs also control the south-bound flow of drug-related bulk currency and illegal weapons. The smuggling and illegal export of weapons from the United States into Mexico is a threat to the overall safety and security of both countries and continues to fuel violence along the Southwest border and in the interior of Mexico. Indeed, weapons smuggled into Mexico often end up in the hands of the Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) or other smuggling organizations where they can be employed against law enforcement officers and citizens in either country. On its northern border with the United States, Mexico experienced a dramatic surge in border crime and violence in recent years due to intense competition between Mexican TCOs that employ predatory tactics to realize their profits. The U.S. Government continues to respond to the challenges posed by transnational criminal organizations through a variety of coordinated activities, both at the operational and national policy levels. The U.S.–Mexico bilateral relationship continues to grow based on increasingly strong, multi-layered institutional ties. The commitment of both governments to improve citizen security in each country is underscored by the Merida Initiative, an unprecedented partnership between the United States and Mexico to fight organized crime and associated violence while furthering respect for human rights and the rule of law. Based on principles of shared responsibility, mutual trust, and respect for sovereign independence, the two countries’ efforts have built confidence that continues to transform and strengthen the bilateral relationship in 2013 and beyond. Details: Washington, DC: ONDPC, 2013. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2013 at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/southwest_border_strategy_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/southwest_border_strategy_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129615 Keywords: Border SecurityDrug Trafficking (U.S.)Drug-Related ViolenceHomicidesNarcotics |