Annual report (Arizona. Department of Public Safety)

The Arizona Department of Public Safety became operational by the executive order of Governor Jack Williams on July 1, 1969. Governor Williams’ mandate consolidated the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Enforcement Division of the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law

Information exchange efficiency in criminal investigation in European Union

Cross-border information exchange became more relevant a few decades ago, when organised crime, moving “in the rhythm of time”4, identified globalisation and the facilitated movement of persons as an opportunity for new criminal markets. It was especially perceived in the EU and the Schengen zone with the establishment of the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services, the abolition of internal borders and the introduction of a single currency in the majority of the Member States. Notwithstanding, these negative side effects have not been led automatically by their antidote – the free movement of investigation and prosecution. Actions of law enforcement, prosecution and judicial authorities remained limited to state territory; this meant a high probability of impunity in the case of transnational crimes.Programa Oficial de Doctorado en DerechoPresidente: Víctor Moreno Catena; Secretario: Sabela Oubiña Barbolla; Vocal: Luis Valles Causad

Technical guidelines for United States--Mexico coordination on public health events of mutual interest

In 2002, within the framework of the United States-Mexico Binational Commission, representatives from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Mexico\u2019s Secretaria de Salud established a binational group on Epidemiologic Surveillance and Information Exchange to address issues of interest to both countries. With the objective of better defining how the two countries should collaborate on epidemiologic events of mutual interest, the present document has been elaborated by federal and state public health officials from both countries to provide a set of shared guidelines. The United States and Mexico have a rich tradition of collaboration on epidemiologic events involving the two countries, including infectious disease outbreaks, diseases associated with products from the other country, and the continuity of care for patients with tuberculosis and other key diseases, traveling between the two countries. A joint Border Infectious Disease Surveillance project has been in place since 1999, and an Early Warning Infectious Disease Program was initiated in 2004. In addition, the TB Cross-border Management and Referral Project facilitates healthcare provider access to information on TB patients traveling between the two countries to ensure continuity of therapy. The Laboratory Response Network, providing diagnostic support for select pathogens, includes public health laboratories from both Mexico and the United States as members. Facilitated by the close ties resulting from these and other collaborations, public health professionals from the two countries have regularly sought to keep their counterparts apprised of relevant epidemiologic events. However, clear guidelines have not yet been formally adopted for what information should be shared and how the sharing should take place. Public health officials from the two countries chose to formulate such a set of guidelines with the objectives of better institutionalizing the exchange of information on epidemiologic events of mutual interest, and promoting collaborative responses when appropriate. Recognizing that productive collaboration already occurs between many 'sister cities' along the United States-Mexico border and between neighboring states, it should be emphasized that the present Technical Guidelines for United States-Mexico Coordination on Public Health Events of Mutual Interest (Guidelines) should facilitate the continuation of existing binational cooperation, while at the same time fostering more systematic and comprehensive sharing of information at all levels of government. These Guidelines focus primarily on coordination between the public health agencies/units that have primary responsibility for epidemiologic surveillance. They do not seek to define coordination between agencies/units with major regulatory functions, for which arrangements have already been established.These Guidelines were developed by the Core Group on Epidemiologic Surveillance of the Health Working Group, U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission and subsequently refined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by the General Directorate of Epidemiology (DGE), Secretaria de Salud (SSA), Mexico.OADS2012242012CurrentPrevention and Control691

Terrorism Financing Indicators for Financial Institutions in the United States

At least since the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) first published its Forty Recommendations, financial institutions in FATF-compliant jurisdictions have been required to implement preventive measures that require FIs to identify customers, establish client profiles, monitor for unusual transactions, review those transactions to see if there was suspicion that they involved the proceeds of crime and, if so, report the transaction to the authorities in the form of a suspicious transaction report (STR). When these requirements were first established, neither financial institutions nor their supervisors/regulators had much experience as to what in a client\u27s profile and the client\u27s patterns of transactions might indicate money laundering. However, based on an expanding knowledge of how criminals tend to launder their money, over time financial institutions have developed increasingly effective detection and reporting systems. By studying known examples of laundering, the FATF, FATF-Style Regional Bodies, and national competent authorities (especially financial intelligence units) have identified patterns or indicators of possible money laundering, and made them available to financial institutions as money laundering typologies. In addition, there has been some feedback from financial intelligence units and other competent authorities to financial institutions with respect to their anti-money laundering programs. Using these sources, financial institutions have been able to develop systems to help them determine which transactions carry a materially greater risk that laundering is involved

Terrorism Financing Indicators for Financial Institutions in the United States

At least since the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) first published its Forty Recommendations, financial institutions in FATF-compliant jurisdictions have been required to implement preventive measures that require FIs to identify customers, establish client profiles, monitor for unusual transactions, review those transactions to see if there was suspicion that they involved the proceeds of crime and, if so, report the transaction to the authorities in the form of a suspicious transaction report (STR). When these requirements were first established, neither financial institutions nor their supervisors/regulators had much experience as to what in a client\u27s profile and the client\u27s patterns of transactions might indicate money laundering. However, based on an expanding knowledge of how criminals tend to launder their money, over time financial institutions have developed increasingly effective detection and reporting systems. By studying known examples of laundering, the FATF, FATF-Style Regional Bodies, and national competent authorities (especially financial intelligence units) have identified patterns or indicators of possible money laundering, and made them available to financial institutions as money laundering typologies. In addition, there has been some feedback from financial intelligence units and other competent authorities to financial institutions with respect to their anti-money laundering programs. Using these sources, financial institutions have been able to develop systems to help them determine which transactions carry a materially greater risk that laundering is involved

The Balance Between Privacy and Safety in Police UAV Use: The Power of Threat and Its Effect on People’s Receptivity

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, are an innovative technology that has received significant interest from the law enforcement community. The size and ability, technological capability, and cost effectiveness of UAVs make them an attractive tool for law enforcement agencies to utilize in the course of operations, including domestic surveillance. Despite the potential benefits to the society, public perception of police UAV use is mixed, and “Not Over My Backyard (NOMBY)” attitudes relevant to Fourth Amendment privacy concerns are consistently demonstrated across studies related to public perceptions on this emerging technology. The present study focuses on the relative impact of privacy threats and other situational factors on individuals’ perceptions of police and their use of UAV technology. Using Stephan and Renfro’s revised reintegrated threat theory (2002), the present research used a scenario- based experimental design to examine: (1) the impact perceived threat from police UAV use on people’s attitudes toward police and their use of UAVs? (2) the attitudinal differences of the degree of participants’ connection to the target of surveillance, and (3) the effect of the people’s pre-existing perceptions of police on participants’ attitudinal differences, and (4) the structural relationships, followed by the theory, between perceived threats, antecedents (i.e., relations between groups, individual difference variables, cultural dimensions, situational factors) to intergroup threat, and the people’s perceptions, as well as demographic or other socio-economic factors. The findings provide some significant socio-psychological implications concerning police-community intergroup relations. First, the quality of the interpersonal treatment or relations (i.e., individual differences) they had previously received from police officers was the strongest indicator in predicting their attitudes toward police UAV use. Second, the outcome of UAV activity also influenced their evaluations of police. Lastly, people’s attitudes were more extreme when the level of connection to the target of surveillance was farther away from them and it was interacted with policing strategies (i.e., reactive v proactive policing)

Show Me Criminal Procedure

Show Me Criminal Procedure is an open educational resources casebook available for free to students. This is the 2d ed. published in Spring 2019.https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/oer/1001/thumbnail.jp