just walking around penn station today, i saw..

- over 5 army guys standing around holding gigantic assault rifles / machine guns
- heavily armed "homeland security" police
- nypd police

just got me wondering. there are so many different authorities out there, im wondering how they rank? like off the top of my head, i can think of:

- nsa agents
- secret service agents
- cia agents
- fbi agents
- homeland security
- army/marines
- DEA
- us marshals
- state police
- local police

..i'm sure there are a ton more. so lets say you had ONE officer from each of these categories, standing around at a banquet. suddenly, there's a crisis situation.

who instantly has like the most 'authority'? does it even work that way? how many of them could arrest a civilian if they needed to? if they needed to work together, would one of them 'officially' have the most authority and be able to coordinate them?

is there any kind of heiarchy to all of this? id really love to know who has the most sway, and in any kind of emergency situation, who ranks above who else.. etc.

• The CIA isn't a law enforcement bureau, they're our spies, and are not legally permitted to use their powers on US citizens.
• Under the Department of Defense
  • The NSA is a signal intelligence service, providing cryptographic intelligence and eavesdropping on international communications. As such, they don't really have "police" powers.
  • The US Military is not legally permitted to be used as a police force against US citizens.
• The Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department for organizing other agencies, including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and TSA. They also don't necessarily have "police" powers.
  • The Secret Service are the personal body guards of the President and other VIPs, including former presidents. They also investigate crimes involving currency counterfeiting. So, for the Secret Service to be involved, they would have to be protecting a dignitary or actively investigating a treasury-related crime.
  • The Coast Guard is basically the National Guard version of the Navy, they patrol the coastal waters. Theoretically, the US Military is only supposed to be used in times of actual, declared war (obvious this doesn't end up working out), leaving the National Guard as the standing force for reacting to invasion
  • As far as I can tell, the Transportation Security Administration is a useless sack of crap
• Under the Department of Justice
  • The FBI is a criminal investigation service for crimes involving Federal laws, typically crimes that cross state borders or crimes against the Federal government. Their services often have to be requested by state law enforcement.
  • The DEA investigate drug smuggling and trafficking. Think of them as the FBI of drug crimes.
  • Don't forget the BATF, which is similar, but for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms crimes of a federal nature. That basically leaves the FBI for murderers on the run, kidnappings, treason, espionage (if the spy is a US citizen), etc.
  • The US Marshals are basically Federal sheriffs. They are officers of the Federal courts, transporting prisoners, serving warrants, etc.
• Various State's Police forces usually operate as highway patrol and provisional police where local police forces may be lacking in some respect or suspect of some crime themselves.

So in general, if something where happening right now in front of everyone, it would typically be the jurisdiction of the local police.

[Edited by - capn_midnight on June 29, 2010 1:19:47 PM]

thanks for the rundown. so besides police power though, do any of these department/agencies have more authority over EACH OTHER? like for example, a local police guy might be the one to arrest a civilian in a situation.. but could anyone from these branches give him orders?

like is there a ranking order here where these guys have to defer to another one in orders?

also..

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
The FBI is a criminal investigation service for crimes involving Federal laws, typically crimes that cross state borders or crimes against the Federal government. Their services often have to be requested by state law enforcement.

but can't the FBI swing in (imagine a typical movie scenario) and order around police?

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department for organizing other agencies, including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and TSA. They also don't necessarily have "police" powers.

just curious why I see regular NYPD police, and other police with specific "Homeland Security" labels on them. are those just normal NYPD but wearing fancy vests? or are they actually working out of, and reporting to, a specific special branch?

Quote: The US Military is not legally permitted to be used as a police force against US citizens.

but if there was an attack on US soil, would the Military have the supreme command? or would a FBI/Secret Service presence really be in charge?

Quote: The US Marshals are basically Federal sheriffs. They are officers of the Federal courts, transporting prisoners, serving warrants, etc.

but in doing so, do the US Marshalls have higher authority than say.. local+state police and FBI?

Quote: Various State's Police forces usually operate as highway patrol and provisional police where local police forces may be lacking in some respect or suspect of some crime themselves.

i've always wondered then, if the State Police really are meant 99% for highway patrol... why is the state police admission SOOOO much more intense/rigorous than regular police? in fact, a marine i once worked with told me his 12-week "bootcamp" for state police made his Marines bootcamp look easy. whats the point?

and it gets so confusing when you think of a US Marshal's duty here:

"The Marshals Service is responsible for apprehending wanted fugitives"

sure but... don't the FBI do that as well? who determines who is going to seek out a fugitive murderer? like if a fugitive murderer was known to be hiding in a warehouse.. i just don't understand: who OFFICIALLY has the MAXIMUM authority? an FBI agent, or a Marshal?

these are the kind of scenarios im curious about :)

yeah, don't believe anything you see in the movies.

As for the military and an attack on the US, it would depend on the situation. If the attack were unexpected, it'd be up to the National Guard to fight any invading forces, they are the "first responders".

If there were a declared war, it would be the federal Military, with the National Guard rolled in.

If the attackers aren't associated with a foreign nation directly (i.e. international or domestic terrorists), and it's a surprise, then it's up to local police to respond to the situation.

If their aren't any local police available (because maybe this is in a rural area) then it's up to the state police.

If the state police are overwhelmed, then they can call in the FBI.

If the terrorist attack weren't a surprise and the FBI was already investigating it, then the FBI would be involved right away.

But in general, I think if you have a bunch of guys with guns standing around and WWIII opens up, I don't think they're going to be standing around arguing over dick-size to see who gets to order everyone else around. They'll probably naturally start working as an impromptu team and start shooting things.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
thanks for the rundown. so besides police power though, do any of these department/agencies have more authority over EACH OTHER? like for example, a local police guy might be the one to arrest a civilian in a situation.. but could anyone from these branches give him orders?

Nope.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
...can't the FBI swing in (imagine a typical movie scenario) and order around police?

The FBI needs to be invited in for cases that fall within local jurisdiction. Only if the crime takes on an inter-state nature can the FBI assert jurisdictional authority. So, nope.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
just curious why I see regular NYPD police, and other police with specific "Homeland Security" labels on them. are those just normal NYPD but wearing fancy vests? or are they actually working out of, and reporting to, a specific special branch?

Are you sure they're NYPD?

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
but if there was an attack on US soil, would the Military have the supreme command? or would a FBI/Secret Service presence really be in charge?

The presidency would be in charge, and whomever the president designated would have (sub-)supreme command.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
but in doing so, do the US Marshalls have higher authority than say.. local+state police and FBI?

Your fascination with hierarchy is amusing. Nope. If it's a federal prisoner, then US Marshals are responsible. If it's a local prisoner, local police are responsible. There's virtually never a conflict of this nature. Both sets of law enforcement personnel work for/with civil/legal bodies that are responsible for the cases in question - District Attorney for local police, Attorney General/Justice Department for Marshals. Those bodies sort out the jurisdictional questions, so the enforcement personnel just follow orders.

Don't believe what you see in the movies. [smile]

I can't answer your other question about state police.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
and it gets so confusing when you think of a US Marshal's duty here:

"The Marshals Service is responsible for apprehending wanted fugitives"

sure but... don't the FBI do that as well?

No. The FBI investigate. Marshals are only activated when a federal warrant has been issued. FBI can make arrests based on evidence they uncover in the course of the investigation.

thanks again. in reading though, i've found an example like this:

Quote: Due to specific legislation and directives, the United States military must fully comply with requests for assistance with providing protection for the President and all other people under protection, providing equipment, and even military personnel at no cost to the Secret Service.

so this is an interesting example of what i mean. it sounds like the Secret Service can basically assume TOTAL authority over situations if it can be directly related to the safety of government figures (president, etc).

like there, it says the SS can legally force the military into providing assistance/weapons/gear/etc. so i imagine they can issue any kind of command in the service of their job.

another example:

Quote: ATF, as a bureau, consists of several different groups that each have their own respective role, commanded by a director. Special Agents are empowered to conduct criminal investigations, defend the United States against international and domestic terrorism, and work with state and local police officers to reduce violent crime on a national level. ATF Special Agents have some of the broadest authority of any federal agency; 18 U.S.C. § 3051 empowers them to enforce any statute in the United States Code. Specifically, ATF special agents have lead investigative authority on any federal crime committed with a firearm or explosive, as well as investigative authority over regulatory referrals and Cigarette smuggling.

this is the most interesting. it sounds like ATF Special Agents basically have legal authority to do ANYTHING that other authorities do (arrest, etc).

and since SO many violent crimes involve firearms, it sounds like ATF have lead authority in virtually all cases, if they're brought in.

the question is - you almost never hear of the ATF around, so i really would love to know what sort of criteria BEYOND "it involves firearms" necessitates the ATF's role.

Quote: Original post by Grimunlock
another example:

Quote: ATF, as a bureau, consists of several different groups that each have their own respective role, commanded by a director. Special Agents are empowered to conduct criminal investigations, defend the United States against international and domestic terrorism, and work with state and local police officers to reduce violent crime on a national level. ATF Special Agents have some of the broadest authority of any federal agency; 18 U.S.C. § 3051 empowers them to enforce any statute in the United States Code. Specifically, ATF special agents have lead investigative authority on any federal crime committed with a firearm or explosive, as well as investigative authority over regulatory referrals and Cigarette smuggling.

this is the most interesting. it sounds like ATF Special Agents basically have legal authority to do ANYTHING that other authorities do (arrest, etc).

and since SO many violent crimes involve firearms, it sounds like ATF have lead authority in virtually all cases, if they're brought in.

the question is - you almost never hear of the ATF around, so i really would love to know what sort of criteria BEYOND "it involves firearms" necessitates the ATF's role.

That's for laws in the United States Code, which is the federal code of law. Your run-of-the-mill murder or convenience store robbery is not covered under federal law.