Differences in Local and Fed Crim Investigators

[Kimble]

Question for those of you who have started in the local/state level of criminal investigations and then go federal, or feds who have interacted with with those on the local/state level to know specifics.

With your respective agency, what seperates your duties from that of a detective/investigator with a local or state LE agency?

For example, local detectives wouldn't usually be doing force protection work like agents with USSS or Diplomatic Security, and the same would probably be true of counterintelligence activities (which FBI and military criminal investigation agencies certainly get into). The similarities are often the investigation of criminal offenses, but what other duties seperate what you do from what those on the local or state level do?

[Nole795]

With your respective agency, what seperates your duties from that of a detective/investigator with a local or state LE agency?

Personally, I dont see too much difference. One item that comes to mind is that obviously for a local agency, they are limited to their territory. So if they are working a fraud case, dependant on the circumstance, they can only work the crimes relative to their city/county/state boundaries. I dont have that limitation. So in a major fraud case, I can take off to Alaska if need be as opposed to handing the case over to the authorities over there.

As for a collateral duty, I am trained in handling biological weapons. So I get the cool banana suit and enter the "hot zone." I figure most detective are probably not trained for that type of work.

The great thing about local/state law enforcement is that you can get that type of training under your belt. As a protection agent, I worked with many local PD's that were trained in Protection Duty and did have collateral duties such as HAZMAT, BOMB TECHS, and even Counter Intelligence.

[Kimble]

Nole,

I remember a previous PM discussion we had where you had mentioned that probable cause for locals was great for making arrests, but once you went fed your cases were dictated by the AUSA. For those of you who work as federal criminal investigators/1811s, do you find this to be the case as well?

[Group9]

In federal agencies with little work other than investigations, I don't think there is much difference at all. In my agency for example, a large percentage of the investigators are actually state and local investigators who are loaned to my agency and deputized as federal agents while here. While they are with us, there is very little difference between them and regular full time agents of my agency. They have the same duties, responsibility, power and authority as we do. And, they are the same people, doing the same work, as they were before they came over to work with us.

And, while it may be different for other federal agencies, in my agency, we generally will consult with an AUSA prior to making an arrest in a long term investigation, but if we see a felony violation in our area of responsibility, that we think needs to be enforced right away, we go ahead and make the arrest, and then call the AUSA and let them know about it. If you are working a long term investigation, with a lot of different goals, it makes sense to consult with an AUSA before you make an arrest. If you get a call from an informant that someone is going down the highway with a load of cocaine, it doesn't make much sense to call an AUSA and ask him if it is okay if you go and arrest the person.

I worked in one federal district where the USAO attempted to dictate that policy to agents, in an effort to make their conviction rate look better than it really was. (The BATF went to the mat with them when they caught them pushing dummied up gun prosecution stats to Congress and it got pretty ugly). We ended up taking most of our arrests to the state in that particular district, just because the USAO there was so bad.

But, when obtaining search warrants, arrest warrants, or other court orders, in the federal system, it is generally necessary to go through an AUSA per local federal court rules, even though I have worked in areas where there were federal magistrates who did not require this. We take so many things before the magistrates, and so many cases to court, that we actually get to know them, and the federal judges pretty well.

But, we actually had a little bit of a row with a local federal magistrate a few years ago, who tried to tell us that we could not arrest people without scheduling it with his office beforehand, when we told him that we wouldn't be doing things that way.

[Super Six 5]

I worked in one federal district where the USAO attempted to dictate that policy to agents, in an effort to make their conviction rate look better than it really was.

You didn't work in New England, did you? We've got a severe case of this right now. Can't tell you how many people make a living commiting crime against the government because the cases are either dismissed or just waived off completely because they're not "flashy" enough for the AUSA. Who says crime doesn't pay?

[RT302]

cases are either dismissed or just waived off completely because they're not "flashy" enough for the AUSA.

I've seen that happen before with a couple of AUSA offices:rolleyes: One didn't want to take an OUI because 500 lbs. of smuggled dope had just been picked up and was making headlines. They wanted me to turn it over to the county. Arrest was under CFR and I didn't have a county commission.... Plead out before the mag. FINALLY!

Ooops, sorry ROS, didn't mean to hi-jack your thread

[bel]

I see a difference in collateral duties too. In addition to being a case agent, there is a variety of opporutinites out there to work on evidence response, hostage negotiations, aviation, hazmat, swat, etc. I guess bigger departments would give these opportunities to detectives too. I work very closely with detectives in task force settings and they have a MUCH easier time getting warrants (search and arrest), as their affidavits seem to be 1 to 2 pages and are sometimes drafted BY THE PROSECUTOR, vs. me drafting a 8-20 page affidavit and having it approved by the USAO, making revisions, having it reapproved by the USAO, and then submitting to the Judge (who then may want changes), etc. So if we can go local with a warrant, it sometimes expedites and uncomplicates things.

Our investigations, for whatever reason, seem to take longer, especially related to fraud. Many of the locals I work with have pressure to get the case prosecuted or have other things which dictate a quicker investigation, which sometimes leads to a less thourough investigation (through no fault of their own). Locals also seem to work a variety of crimes (in smaller/medium departments), vs specializing in one area, where Federal agents seem to specialize in an area.

Technology and access to technical equipment and better equipment in general seems to be had at the Federal level. A lot of the guys I work with would love to have some of the things we spend money on and are able to effectively use in our investigations. Just some observations on my end!

[Nole795]

Bel makes an excellent point. For local/state law enforcement there is an emphasis from their supervisors to clear cases. At a federal level, I have seen agents work on the same case for 4 or 5 years. That would drive me crazy and I curse the day I ever get handed a corporate fraud case.