Talk:Federal law enforcement in the United States

List Update

It has come to my attention that the list is out of date. There are agencies listed here that no longer exist. Additionally, I think there should be a consensus on what counts as a "law enforcement agency." The federal government has over 100 different organizations with some sort of law enforcement officer employed, so I feel that we should narrow the parameters of what counts. I believe the best criteria would to include only agencies that have uniformed LEO's, or conduct criminal investigations. Other options could have the list include all agencies that employ persons who have powers of arrest while duty. Even broader, we could also include agencies that employ persons authorized to conduct criminal investigations, but do not have arrest powers. If anyone has any opinions, please let me know so I can begin editing the article. PCKosakowski (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it's good that you are proposing changes on the talk page first and seeking consensus before you make any changes. So first, you would like to see "a consensus on what counts as a "law enforcement agency."

That should be a distinct and separate discussion. Do you have a definition you would like to propose? (perhaps a variant of what is described in the article?) Or are you looking for others to propose definitions for us to chose from and form a consensus on?

As for the list of entries, and just to clarify, you are proposing that the list;

1 - "include only agencies that have uniformed LEO's, or conduct criminal investigations." -or-

2 - "include all agencies that employ persons who have powers of arrest while [on] duty." -or-

3 - "include agencies that employ persons authorized to conduct criminal investigations, but do not have arrest powers."

Have I misread, or just plain missed, anything you have put forward here? Meanwhile, I'd like to do a little reading first. Then I will consider your proposed definitions and perhaps suggest some of my own. In the meantime, perhaps some other editors will contribute here as well. - wolf 11:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you got most of what I was trying to say. Option 1 would be the most restrictive definition for the list, only including agencies that primarily exist to enforce laws, conduct criminal investigations, and make arrests. Options 2 & 3 would widen the scope of what we could include in the list by adding agencies not included in option 1. I prefer option 1, but I would also like to see what the community thinks, or if anyone has any ideas of their own.

As an example, the National Science Foundation has a small number of personnel who are sworn as LEOs so that they can enforce the Antarctic Conservation Act while they are down in Antarctica. We would have to decide whether the NSF's Office of Polar Programs would be included. They have sworn LEOs, but their primary mission is not law enforcement.

The links below are from two (admittedly old) government surveys. Both have very differing definitions as to what counts as a LEA. The first survey lists every agency that employs persons with at least one of these powers: to conduct criminal investigations, to execute search warrants, to make arrests, and to carry a firearm. Therefore, not everyone counted in this survey can make arrests (I believe arrest powers to be an important part of law enforcement). The second survey has lists agencies who employ persons who can make arrests AND carry a firearm. Please note they do not include LEO's employed by the Department of Defense, the CIA's security police, or the Federal Air Marshal Service (for classification reasons).

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07121.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf

PCKosakowski (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I think we should try to limit list to agencies with personnel having arrest powers. This agrees with the (academic) Political Science discourse definition of "police" as those with the authority to commit state sanctioned violence. This is the only manageable category limit to "law enforcement" (emphasis on "enforcement") that I can see, and it would still allow us to include a few agencies with only investigative capacities if we note these as exceptions/additions to the general category. Ethaerist (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we come to any consensus on how we want to go forward with this article? PCKosakowski (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't seem so. But then, there hasn't been much in the way of participation. Perhaps post a notice at WT:LE and some more editors will contribute to the discussion. Just a thought... - wolf 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the only agencies that should be listed are those with arrest powers. US Citizenship and Immigration Services should be removed as they have no law enforcement powers of search, seizure or arrest of any kind. The USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate noted on the list has no law enforcement authority. Norwich89 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We can include a few (2-3) agencies as deviations without jeopardizing clarity. Again, just note that they don't have, strictly speaking police/arrest powers. For our purpose it seems like a narrower category with noted additions is better than a broader category with unclear boundaries. Is there a better way to organize the information? Ethaerist (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)