A Survey of Strategies for Enforcement of Drug Laws in Mississippi
Executive Summary
Introduction
State law gives the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics enforcement of the state’s Uniform Controlled Substances Law as its sole responsibility. State law also assigns responsibility for enforcing the act to “all sworn peace officers of the state”--e. g., county sheriffs and municipal law enforcement. However, state law does not designate a “lead” agency for enforcement of drug laws. The Legislature is concerned that these multiple, diverse entities may not be working cooperatively to advance state and federal drug control and enforcement policies.
In considering the Legislature’s concerns, PEER sought to answer the following questions:
PEER’s Survey Method
The information presented in this report relies heavily on data collected through the use of a statewide survey. PEER conducted the survey to determine the opinions that law enforcement staff hold regarding working with each other to enforce drug laws throughout the state.
Using several survey instruments tailored to the entities participating, PEER surveyed individuals who serve central roles in Mississippi drug law enforcement. The survey population included the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, Mississippi Department of Transportation, sheriffs, police chiefs, Mississippi Highway Patrol, drug task forces, and the Office of Alcoholic Beverage Control. PEER did not survey all personnel of all entities involved in drug law enforcement, but selected individual survey participants based on their levels of involvement in drug law enforcement in the state, determined through initial interviews. PEER selected only the principal state and local investigative entities that conduct drug law enforcement in the state to participate in the survey.
The total survey population was 355, with a total response rate of 86% for surveys completed as of noon on January 4, 2010.
Conclusions
What strategies has the state of Mississippi used to guide its drug control efforts?
The strategies for Mississippi’s drug control efforts are determined on both a national and state level. The Office of National Drug Control Policy establishes the nation’s drug control program. The Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics Drug Threat Assessment identifies the most significant criminal drug activity and drug threats faced by law enforcement and the citizens of Mississippi.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s priorities include stopping the initiation of drug use, providing treatment for drug abuse and addiction, and disrupting the market for illegal drugs. The focus of this report is on the third national priority--disrupting the illegal drug market, which directs the efforts of state and local law enforcement in drug control.
With a focus on this third national priority, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics establishes the state’s priorities for drug control by producing an annual Drug Threat Assessment. The assessment is used to provide law enforcement agencies with information to aid in drug law enforcement resource planning.
According to the 2009 Mississippi Drug Threat Assessment, Mississippi’s location is within a drug transit area. Cocaine (primarily in the form of “crack”) and methamphetamine are two of the major drug threats in the state.
What are the key entities in drug law enforcement in Mississippi?
Mississippi law assigns the enforcement of state drug laws to multiple, diverse entities. MISS. CODE ANN. Section 41-29-109 (1972) states that the duties of all duly sworn peace officers of the state of Mississippi shall include the enforcement of laws regarding trafficking of illicit drugs.
In Mississippi, several entities are involved in the disruption of the illegal drug market:
District attorneys and U. S. attorneys are also heavily involved in the process by prosecuting drug cases. Other involved entities include the State Tax Commission’s Office of Alcoholic Beverage Control; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; and various regulatory boards that regulate and check the legitimate use of drugs in their respective disciplines (e. g., Board of Pharmacy, Board of Medical Licensure).
Although multiple entities enforce the state’s drug laws, these entities differ in their jurisdictional authority, goals, priorities, strategies, and roles for enforcing these laws. Differing jurisdictional authority and roles may lead to jurisdictional and relationship challenges, as evidenced by the responses to PEER’s survey.
MISS. CODE ANN. Section 41-29-111 (1972) confers authority on MBN to enforce the Uniform Controlled Substances Law. However, state law also reserves a significant role in drug law enforcement for local law enforcement. MISS. CODE ANN. Section 41-29-109 (1972) states:
It shall be the duty of all duly sworn peace officers of the State of Mississippi to enforce the provisions of this article with reference to illicit narcotic and drug traffic. The provisions of this article may likewise be enforced by agents of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
While the law designates both MBN and local law enforcement to be equally responsible for drug law enforcement, MBN does have the capacity to develop a statewide perspective on drug problems, primarily because its jurisdiction is not limited to any area of the state; MBN’s jurisdiction includes the entire state. Thus, while MBN is not given a leadership role in statute in drug law enforcement, MBN has the best opportunity, because of its statewide perspective, to have a major impact on the illicit traffic of drugs in the state.
Does Mississippi’s drug control strategy create jurisdictional and relationship challenges that could be overcome through the promotion of improved collaboration?
Overlapping jurisdictions and relationships create challenges for drug law enforcement in Mississippi. Although PEER’s survey of individuals involved in drug law enforcement showed that challenges exist in certain areas (e. g., the perceived role of MBN, collaboration, training, reporting, asset seizures and forfeitures, and equipment resources), survey respondents believe that these challenges could be overcome with strategies to promote collaboration through communication, trust, and information sharing.
PEER’s survey yielded the following opinions regarding the challenges of drug law enforcement in Mississippi.
Based on survey data, entities involved in drug law enforcement have a mixed perception of MBN’s role in drug law enforcement, which indicates confusion or a misunderstanding of MBN’s role in drug law enforcement. The collaborative efforts of MBN with other law enforcement entities could be hindered when those entities’ expectations of MBN are not aligned with MBN’s goals.
Survey respondents indicate that there are several barriers to collaboration in the state, including lack of intelligence sharing, lack of communication, lack of trust, lack of standardized training, and personality differences among staff and leadership. They believe that ways to promote collaboration in the state could include regular communication among entities, building trust and relationships among entities, training together, and allocation of monetary incentives.
Based on survey responses, only 31% of the individuals who completed the survey always report the required drug law enforcement data to MBN. The reporting of drug-related data is essential for effective drug control; however, Mississippi lacks standardized reporting procedures and forms for drug arrests.
Based on survey data collected, 51% of survey participants responded that they were not aware that state law requires them to report all arrests, incidences, and information involving or connected with controlled substances.
Of the 49% of participants that reported that they were aware of state law requiring them to report drug-related information, only 34% of those individuals always report the required information.
According to survey results, forfeited funds received by law enforcement entities are used for both law enforcement activities and non-law enforcement activities; however, state law and opinions from the Attorney General’s Office limit the uses of forfeited funds to law enforcement purposes only.
Recommendations
Collaboration
In order to increase collaboration among entities involved in drug law enforcement and to coordinate drug policy at the state and local levels, the Legislature should create a coordinating committee chaired by the Attorney General and composed of the following:
The coordinating committee should help to advance state drug law enforcement policy by annually reporting to the Legislature any recommendations for improvements to state drug laws.
Drug Law Enforcement Training
The recommended coordinating committee should conduct a training needs assessment to determine who needs drug law enforcement training and to what extent.
Specifically, the committee should first assess indicators of training need. The committee could start with those indicators that PEER found in the survey results: investigations limited in identifying the higher-level drug dealers, safety of officers being jeopardized, and cases being compromised.
Secondly, the committee should develop training standards, based on research, for officers at varying levels of involvement in drug law enforcement.
The committee should also consider establishing a “train the trainer” program to accommodate those smaller local law enforcement entities that cannot afford to send their personnel away to training.
Drug Law Enforcement Reporting
The Legislature should amend MISS. CODE ANN. Section 41-29-168 (3) (1972) to give the recommended coordinating committee the responsibility of creating a reporting form and procedures for reporting drug arrest information.
The coordinating committee should also develop a plan for reporting and using the data to improve drug law enforcement efforts.
Drug Law Enforcement Asset Seizures and Forfeitures
The recommended coordinating committee should develop standard seizure and forfeiture procedures, including reporting seizure and forfeiture amounts, to be used by all entities involved in drug law enforcement. The coordinating committee should develop standard seizure and forfeiture procedures to be used by all entities.
To ensure that a county uses forfeiture funds for law enforcement-related purposes only, the Department of Audit should include within its annual audits of each county a financial and compliance audit of any seized funds provided to the county.
Drug Law Enforcement Equipment
For future drug law enforcement equipment needs assessment, an audit-based needs assessment would be beneficial in establishing a true need for drug law enforcement equipment. Appendix F to the report, page 90, contains suggestions regarding any future drug law enforcement equipment needs assessment.
Overcoming Jurisdictional and Relationship Challenges
The Legislature should enact into law the Mississippi Analysis and Information Center (i. e., the fusion center) in order to establish this resource for the law enforcement community.
The recommended coordinating committee should create strategies to overcome the jurisdictional and relationship challenges noted in the report. Considerations for the committee to increase collaboration include: