Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 603
- Reactions
- 1,486
Hmm, I thought I was providing some anecdotal insight based on personal boots-on-the-ground experience. Guess I missed the mark. Federal agencies have a defined mission, and I see you get that, but no agency works in a vacuum. Trying to act like they're the only show in town can get really messy, potentially get cases tossed, and maybe even get people hurt. Hence, multi-agency investigations & take-downs.I thought the DEA handled illegal drugs and wasn't the Secret Service created for counterfeiting? I can see the IRS investigating, but kicking down doors needs to be done by ab agency designated for that purpose.
Federal agencies must work together when a situation presents overlapping areas of interest. In some cases, an "operational interest check" with other agencies reveals concurrent investigative interest in certain persons, business entities, or activities. If that's the case, they may partner up, or remain in close coordination, or at least tread very lightly to avoid f-ing up each other's investigation.
Agencies with differing missions have differing strengths and expertise. When working together is called for, the combined capabilities can only strengthen an investigation or operation. That's a plus, but - full disclosure now - sharing credit is a minus. Reputations, promotions and budgets are hard fought-for and jealously guarded, so the concept of cooperation doesn't perfectly translate into a joyful hand-in-hand dance under the moonlight amidst butterflies and flowers. But it still beats the Lone Ranger act.
Multi-agency efforts often develop because of various federal, state, and local prosecutive jurisdictions. Again, no agency is an island or complete unto itself. An agency might own the mission, but not the jurisdictional patch of ground. Even the people in that patch might belong to still another jurisdiction. For example, (a) GI's who "belong" to the military (b) committing federal drug offenses (c) within the boundaries of local or state jurisdiction. To make it even more hairy, such offenses may involve international borders, bringing in a couple more agencies with federal interest.
To bring it all to a point, no single agency is going to do the big wrap-up all by their lonesome when there are other agencies with joint or overlapping operational or prosecutive responsibility. Mind you, one agency might plan & direct the take-down and those would be the "big dogs", the experts that you feel ought to do that job. See, we agree. However, all agencies involved are participants to some extent and everyone there is going to be armed (can you imagine being assigned to babysit an unarmed "partner"? Worse yet, being the one who must be babysat?). Since every agency rep is armed, it would be good if all of them have "carry" ammunition in their firearms. Kaching, ammo purchases. In order to be maintain qualification to carry a firearm, they must regularly expend training ammunition. Kaching, more ammo purchases. And government agencies purchasing ammunition is what got this thread started.