Drug traffickers have utilized light weight Military Technology by using ultra-light air crafts known as ULA’s to smuggle contraband. These aircrafts are not only inexpensive but they can also carry several hundred pounds of narcotics and can fly undetected by radar at night without lights. The ULA’s are not categorized as aircrafts by the Federal Aviation Administration and therefore the traffickers receive lesser penalties when apprehended (Udall and Heller Target Ultra-light Aircraft Drug Smugglers with Increased Penalties (2011, August). Congressional Documents and Publications). Law enforcement agencies have urged U.S. legislators to correct this loop hole in the law.
Adjacent to the battles fought in the field are the daunting tasks behind the desk of the DEA. Equally important is the processing of information collected during stings or surveillance sweeps. This is another example of the U.S. drug official’s use of Information Technology in a concerted effort to aid in the capture and prosecution of drug offenders. The Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) has assembled a Command and Control Rapid Prototype Continuum (C2RPC), which is a software application designed to provide rapid delivery of warfighter capability to support time sensitive decision making (2011 August 14 NewsRx Health &Science).
This software was designed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to combine independent systems to automate analysis of large amounts of data (NewsRx). This technology provides a relief of man hours in the office to process all information collected by agents in the fields. This advancement in technology is expedient and allows the U.S. drug enforcement officials to make effective decisions more efficiently in order to design sting operations or equip U.S. attorneys with detrimental evidence.
It is important to note that law enforcement agents must uphold the law as well as enforce it. Although technological discoveries such as GPS, wireless communication and video surveillance may appear to be great assets to U.S. law enforcement agencies, many U.S. citizens protest the use of these devices. There is a large consensus of American citizens who believe their privacy rights are being violated. Currently, this is a major topic of discussion in the drug law enforcement community. On Monday June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court presented its ruling on United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259.
In this case, Mr. Antoine Jones, a club owner in Washington, D.C., was suspected of drug trafficking. U.S. drug enforcement officials procured a warrant for a GPS device to be attached to his vehicle, which was in his wife’s name, for 10 days (AP 2011, June 27, Boston Herald). Law enforcement officials admit to allowing the device to remain attached to Mr. Jones’ vehicle for 4 weeks. Stephen Leckar of Shainis & Peltzman, an attorney for Antoine Jones, told the Supreme Court (Thomson Reuters 2011) “The advent of satellite-based tracking technology used in conjunction with video surveillance, has enabled the government to engage 24 hour tracking of the movements of any citizen for extended, indeed unlimited periods of time”.
Many citizens vehemently believe that technology such as GPS, coupled with other technologies used in this manner, violate their inalienable rights. In fact, new technologies coupled with video surveillance may make a citizen’s right to privacy obsolete. If Mr. Jones’ vehicle was considered contraband, a fruit of a crime or an instrument of a crime, then it could be targeted for surveillance according to the law, for a specific period of time which should be specified in the warrant. Since this was not the case, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and upheld that all evidence collected from surveillance related to the GPS device was not admissible. The obstacles facing law officials are apparent. Technological advancements have their advantages and disadvantages alike.
On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited this issue. The court upheld its view that the placement of a GPS device constitutes a search and requires a warrant. As reported by the Huffington Post: “ the justices employed radically different rationales to come to their answer, leaving unsettled the question of how much protection one may expect from the Fourth Amendment in the digital age”. More on this subject can be read here: Technology Tackles the War on Drugs Pt. 1.
Sources:
Office of Naval Research; ONR technology to aid in war on drugs. (2011, August). NewsRx Health & Science,148.
Padget, T. (2009, June 6). Drones Join the War Against Drugs Time
Rick Van Schoik. (2011, August). Hold that line. Urgent Communications: Online Exclusive,
Sacks,M.(2012) Warrentless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/warrantless-gps-tracking-_n_1224000.html
Udall and Heller Target Ultra-light Aircraft Drug Smugglers with Increased Penalties. (2011, August).
Zanetti, L. (2011, March 30) TIME Photo Gallery (2011, March 30).
Cortney Bonner - I studied Communications at Howard University. Currently, I am pursuing a degree in Finance. Enjoy writing articles, but I also write ...
Join the Conversation