High priority · Intelligence sharing, speech and association

2.440: Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center

Regional intelligence coordination and information sharing.

Last reviewed: unverifiedSource verified: noPolicy version: unverifiedLegal review: unverified

Editorial disclaimer

This website presents public-interest research and legal analysis. Identifying a potential constitutional challenge does not establish that an officer, agency, or vendor violated the law. Constitutional concerns are research questions, not findings of unlawful conduct. The legality of a practice depends on the governing law, precise policy language, and facts of implementation. Statutes and precedents can change. Review the underlying records.

This page keeps four things separate: what the policy says, the legal standard, a potential challenge, and the proof required.

What the policy says

Research summary, not a quotation.

The policy was identified by title and number. Exact operative language was not verified, so this page does not quote it.

No verified policy language is published for this document.

Constitutional provisions implicated in this review: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment.

Potential challenges

Intelligence sharing and protected activity

Application-dependentRecords needed

Editorial research status. Not a court finding.

Potential challenge

Intelligence files targeting constitutionally protected activity, or use of improperly acquired records, may support claims depending on actual practices, harm, and applicable doctrine. Information sharing alone does not establish a constitutional violation.

Legal standard

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), addresses associational privacy. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972), holds that subjective chill alone is insufficient for standing. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), addresses historical cell-site location information. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), addresses GPS installation and monitoring.

Proof required

Memoranda of understanding and data-sharing agreements
Fusion-center access logs
Data categories and retention schedules
Audit logs
First Amendment safeguards and training
Complaint investigations

Evidence status. This concern is not confirmed evidence of unlawful conduct.

Governing cases

Open a case for the relevance noted in the research file. A link appears only when one was supplied.

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

Compelled disclosure can burden freedom of association.

Read the opinion

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

Subjective chill from government surveillance alone does not establish standing.

Read the opinion

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)

Warrant generally required for acquisition of historical cell-site location information at issue.

Read the opinion

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

GPS device installation and monitoring constituted a search.

Read the opinion

Nevada statutes

No Nevada statute was cited for this policy in the research file.

Unanswered questions

Questions in the research file

First Amendment. Are lawful protest activity, political affiliation, association, journalism, or criticism of government collected as intelligence without a legitimate criminal-investigative basis?
Fourth Amendment. Does the center receive or query location, camera, license-plate, or other records obtained through unconstitutional searches?
Interagency accountability. Which agency collects each dataset, which agencies query it, and what restrictions apply to onward sharing?

Still unanswered

Exact operative language was not verified in this deliverable.
Full text and redactions still require review.

Source

Source PDF not attached

The source PDF is not attached. This page does not link to a file. Exact wording and page numbers were not rechecked against the original.

Last reviewed: unverified
Source verified: no
Policy version: unverified
Legal review: unverified
Effective date: Not verified