How Federal Agencies Hunt Dangerous Fugitives

Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

When a high-profile crime shocks the nation, the clock starts ticking. In the chaotic hours after an attack, a massive machine of federal, state, and local law enforcement springs to life.

This was the reality on September 10, 2025, when conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a sniper while speaking to a crowd of 3,000 at Utah Valley University.

The single shot, fired from a nearby rooftop, triggered a robust multi-agency response that would dominate national attention.

When a crisis of this magnitude occurs, a complex and highly coordinated response kicks in. Federal, state, and local agencies operate under specific legal authorities while employing an arsenal of tactical and technological tools.

This process involves legal frameworks that allow federal agents to intervene, delegates specialized roles of key agencies, and creates command structures that prevent chaos.

Legal Authority: Who Has Jurisdiction and Why

Most criminal investigations in the United States are handled by state and local police. Certain conditions act as a trigger, elevating a case to the federal level and unlocking the vast resources of agencies like the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service. This federal intervention is not arbitrary—it is governed by a precise legal framework designed to address crimes that cross state lines or violate specific federal statutes.

The Federal Trigger: Crossing State Lines and Anticipating a Crime

The cornerstone of federal involvement in many state-level fugitive cases is the Fugitive Felons Act (FFA), codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1073. This statute makes it a separate federal crime to move or travel in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement for a felony under state law.

The FFA was designed specifically to prevent fugitives from exploiting state borders to evade justice, effectively erasing the jurisdictional lines that a fleeing suspect might depend on. It grants agencies like the FBI clear statutory authority to pursue and arrest fugitives wanted for state crimes once they cross a state line.

Federal involvement can begin even before a border is crossed. The FBI is empowered to initiate a “general crimes investigation” whenever facts or circumstances provide a “reasonable indication” that a federal crime has been, is being, or will be committed. This standard is significantly lower than probable cause, allowing the Bureau to engage early in a developing crisis.

The FBI can act when a federal crime is not just outstanding, but merely anticipated. For instance, if a fugitive’s evasive movements or “course of conduct” strongly suggests an intent to cross a state line and thus violate the FFA, the FBI has the authority to intervene proactively.

In a high-profile case like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the nature of the crime and the high probability that the shooter would attempt to flee Utah immediately satisfied this “anticipation” standard, providing a solid legal basis for the FBI’s swift and prominent role in the investigation from its earliest hours.

The U.S. Marshals Service: A Broad and Unique Mandate

While the FBI’s authority is broad, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) possesses the most expansive arrest authority of any federal law enforcement agency. Established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, the USMS’s historical role is to serve as the enforcement arm of the federal courts, a mission that has evolved to make them the government’s primary agency for fugitive apprehension.

Their authority is not limited to federal fugitives. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 566(e)(1)(B), the Attorney General can direct the USMS to investigate and pursue fugitives wanted under state warrants as part of “special apprehension programs.” This provision is the legal foundation for the nationwide network of USMS-led fugitive task forces, which routinely hunt for both state and federal fugitives.

This blurring of jurisdictional lines is a strategic feature of the American justice system. It creates a flexible framework where the immediate threat to public safety posed by a violent fugitive supersedes traditional, rigid boundaries between local, state, and federal law enforcement.

Key Players: Federal Agency Roles

A large-scale manhunt is a multi-faceted operation that requires a diverse set of skills and resources. While the public often sees a generic “federal agent” in news reports, the response is actually carried out by several distinct agencies, each with a specialized role. The four primary Department of Justice agencies involved are the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

United States Marshals Service: The Hunter-Seekers

The USMS is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency, and its modern mission is sharply focused: it is the primary organization for apprehending fugitives. Unlike the FBI, the Marshals do not typically investigate the underlying crime; their purpose is to locate and arrest individuals for whom a warrant has already been issued.

They are the most effective federal agency in terms of sheer arrest numbers, apprehending an average of 297 fugitives per day in fiscal year 2024.

Their most effective tool is the nationwide network of fugitive task forces. The USMS leads 56 local and eight congressionally funded regional task forces that blend federal, state, and local law enforcement officers into single, cohesive units.

In a critical force-multiplying function, the USMS can grant “Special Deputation” to state and local officers assigned to these task forces. This temporary status gives them federal authority, allowing them to cross city and state lines in pursuit of a fugitive—a power their local commissions do not provide. In FY2024 alone, these task forces arrested more than 84,000 fugitives and cleared nearly 100,000 warrants.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: The Investigators and Analysts

If the Marshals are the hunters, the FBI is the lead investigator. As the principal federal law enforcement agency, the FBI’s role is to determine whether a federal offense was committed and, if so, who is responsible. In a manhunt, the FBI brings an unparalleled array of analytical and tactical resources to bear.

Key FBI assets deployed during a manhunt include:

Evidence Response Teams (ERT): These highly trained teams of special agents and forensic experts are responsible for processing complex crime scenes. During the Boston Marathon bombing investigation, FBI ERT spent nine days processing a 12-block area around the finish line.

Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU): Famous in popular culture, the BAU provides criminal investigative analysis. Its experts create profiles of unknown subjects, develop interview strategies for witnesses and suspects, and provide threat assessments to guide the investigation.

Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams and the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT): For the most dangerous phases of a manhunt—such as high-risk arrests, storming barricaded buildings, or resolving hostage situations—the FBI deploys its elite tactical units. The HRT, the nation’s top civilian counter-terrorism tactical team, was instrumental in the final, non-violent capture of the sleeping DC snipers.

Intelligence and Information Management: The FBI serves as the hub for managing the massive influx of information generated during a manhunt. It sets up toll-free tip lines and has the capacity to analyze vast amounts of digital and financial data to track a fugitive’s movements and support network.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: The Weapons Experts

The ATF is a specialized agency with primary federal jurisdiction over crimes involving the illegal use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives. In any manhunt stemming from a shooting or bombing, the ATF’s role is immediate and critical. Its agents are experts in firearms tracing, ballistic analysis, and investigating the origin of explosive devices.

In the DC sniper case, ATF agents worked alongside the FBI to identify the Bushmaster .223 rifle used in the attacks and to establish that one of the suspects possessed it illegally, which provided the basis for a federal weapons charge.

Like the FBI, the ATF maintains its own elite tactical units. Five Special Response Teams (SRTs) are stationed across the United States to conduct high-risk operations, including serving arrest warrants on dangerous fugitives. These teams are activated hundreds of times per year and deploy nationwide.

Drug Enforcement Administration: The Narcotics Nexus

The DEA is the lead federal agency for enforcing the nation’s controlled substances laws. While its primary mission is combating drug trafficking, the DEA becomes a key player in a manhunt when the fugitive or the underlying crime has a clear connection to the narcotics trade. Many violent fugitives pursued by USMS task forces are wanted on drug-related warrants.

The DEA maintains its own “Most Wanted Fugitives” list, which primarily features high-level international drug traffickers and cartel leaders wanted for violations of U.S. drug laws.

The DEA also possesses specialized tactical teams. Its Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support Teams (FAST) were created after 9/11 to conduct high-risk counter-narcotics operations in hostile environments like Afghanistan. While these teams are designed for overseas deployment, their existence demonstrates the DEA’s tactical capabilities.

Federal Agency Roles in Fugitive Investigations

Manhunt in Action: The Charlie Kirk Investigation

The manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer provides a compelling case study of how these legal authorities, agency roles, and investigative techniques converge in a real-world crisis. The investigation unfolded in distinct phases, from the initial chaotic response to a methodical, technology-driven search that ultimately concluded with a traditional piece of police work.

The Incident and Initial Response: The First Hour

At approximately 12:20 PM Mountain Time on September 10, 2025, a single shot from a high-powered rifle rang out across the Sorensen Center courtyard at Utah Valley University. The bullet struck Charlie Kirk in the neck as he was answering a question about mass shootings.

The immediate aftermath was one of panic and confusion. As attendees screamed and fled, Kirk’s personal security detail rushed him from the stage to a private vehicle for transport to a local hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

The first official responders were local: the UVU Police Department and the Orem Police Department. Their immediate priorities were threefold: render aid, secure the scene, and ensure there was no further threat. The campus was immediately evacuated and closed, and a “shelter-in-place” order was issued for anyone remaining on campus until they could be safely escorted away.

Escalation to a Federal Investigation

The case escalated from a local homicide to a national federal investigation with remarkable speed. The victim’s status as a high-profile political figure and close ally of the sitting president, combined with the calculated nature of the attack—a sniper assassination—immediately raised the possibility of a politically motivated crime or act of domestic terrorism.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox called it “a political assassination.” This assessment was more than enough to meet the “reasonable indication” standard for the FBI to assert its jurisdiction.

The FBI’s Salt Lake City Field Office quickly took the lead in the investigation, working in close partnership with the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) and local police.

The Manhunt Begins: Evidence and Intelligence

With federal resources now in play, the manhunt began in earnest. Investigators established multiple active crime scenes: the courtyard, the rooftop of the Losee Center from which the shot was fired, and the wooded area into which the suspect fled.

The search for evidence yielded critical clues. In the woods, they recovered a Mauser .30-caliber, bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. On the rooftop, forensic teams collected trace evidence, including shoe impressions, a forearm imprint, and a crucial palm print.

Simultaneously, a digital dragnet was cast. Investigators began pulling hours of surveillance video from campus cameras. This footage soon provided a clear picture of the suspect’s escape: a figure in dark clothing is seen running across the Losee Center roof, jumping down to the ground, and fleeing toward the woods.

Public Engagement and Real-Time Investigation

Recognizing they were hunting for an unknown subject, law enforcement turned to its most powerful force multiplier: the public. In a series of press conferences, the FBI and Utah DPS released still images and video clips of the “person of interest.”

The FBI established a digital tip line and announced a $100,000 reward for information leading to an arrest. The response was overwhelming, generating over 7,000 leads and tips—the largest public response since the Boston Marathon bombing.

This public-facing strategy unfolded in a volatile and challenging information environment. The investigation was hampered by a significant misstep when FBI Director Kash Patel announced on social media that a suspect was in custody, only for that person to be released hours later. This premature announcement created widespread confusion and led to harassment of innocent individuals who had been detained.

The incident underscored the immense pressure on law enforcement to provide information in the social media age, where any error can be amplified globally. Governor Cox explicitly warned the public about a “tremendous amount of disinformation” being spread online by foreign adversaries seeking to sow chaos and encourage violence.

The Breakthrough and Arrest

While the technological dragnet and public appeals were crucial for developing a profile of the suspect, the final breakthrough came from a more traditional source: human intelligence. The suspect was identified as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old who was not a student at UVU.

The key tip did not come from thousands of digital submissions but from Robinson’s own family. After seeing the surveillance images released by the FBI, Robinson’s father recognized his son and urged him to surrender. The family contacted a friend, who alerted the Washington County Sheriff’s Office that Robinson had confessed or implied his involvement. This information was relayed to the investigative task force, and Robinson was taken into custody late on September 11th.

The manhunt was a hybrid of 21st-century technology and timeless community policing. The cameras and digital tip lines cast a wide net, but it was the conscience of a family member that ultimately closed it.

The motive appeared to be political. A family member told investigators that Robinson had become “more political in recent years” and had expressed a strong dislike for Kirk, calling him “full of hate.” This was corroborated by evidence found on three unfired cartridges in the recovered rifle, which bore hand-engraved inscriptions, including “hey fascist! catch!” and “oh bella ciao,” an Italian anti-fascist anthem.

Command and Control: Orchestrating Multi-Agency Response

A manhunt involving dozens of agencies across multiple jurisdictions could easily descend into chaos without a clear command structure. Modern law enforcement relies on standardized management systems designed to integrate disparate organizations into a single, functional team. These systems are the direct legacy of lessons learned from communication breakdowns and jurisdictional friction of past tragedies, most notably the 9/11 attacks and the 2002 DC sniper case.

Unified Command: The Leadership Structure

When an incident crosses jurisdictional or agency boundaries, the traditional model of a single Incident Commander is replaced by a Unified Command (UC). This is a core concept of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the nationwide template for emergency response.

Under UC, the leaders of the primary responding agencies—for example, the FBI Special Agent in Charge, the State Police Colonel, and the local Police Chief—form a joint leadership team.

This structure does not create a single “boss.” Instead, it provides a forum for leaders to work together to establish a common set of objectives and strategies, share information in real-time, and allocate resources efficiently. This ensures a coordinated, cohesive response while allowing each agency to carry out its own legal and jurisdictional responsibilities.

The effectiveness of this model was demonstrated during the Boston Marathon bombing response, where a temporary Unified Command was established at the Westin Hotel just 40 minutes after the attack, bringing local, state, and federal decision-makers to the same table from the outset.

Joint Operations Center: The Nerve Center

The physical heart of a multi-agency operation is the Joint Operations Center (JOC). A JOC is a command post where representatives from all involved agencies are co-located to manage the response. It serves as the central nervous system for the entire manhunt, acting as the single entry point for all information flowing into the headquarters.

Within the JOC, specially-trained controllers use state-of-the-art systems to collect, process, and manage critical information. Their primary goal is to develop and maintain a “Common Operational Picture” (COP)—a shared, real-time understanding of the situation that is accessible to all decision-makers.

This centralized hub facilitates command and control, coordinates the dissemination of intelligence, and ensures seamless communication between local police, state agencies, federal partners like the FBI, and, if necessary, the Department of Defense.

During the sprawling DC sniper investigation, the FBI established a JOC to help the Montgomery County Police Department manage the case, providing the physical space and logistical support needed to coordinate the actions of more than a thousand investigators from dozens of agencies.

The Investigator’s Toolkit: Traditional Tactics to Modern Technology

Modern manhunts are a hybrid of old-fashioned detective work and cutting-edge technology. While shoe-leather investigation and human intelligence remain vital, investigators now have access to a powerful array of digital and surveillance tools that can track a fugitive’s movements, analyze their communications, and identify them from a single image. These technologies have become indispensable, but their use sits at the center of a national debate about privacy and civil liberties.

Digital Forensics: The Electronic Trail

Nearly every crime today leaves a digital footprint, and fugitives are no exception. Digital forensics experts play a critical role in uncovering this electronic trail.

Location Tracking: Law enforcement can obtain warrants or court orders to access a suspect’s historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from service providers, creating a map of their past movements. Real-time tracking of a phone’s GPS signal is also possible with the appropriate legal authorization. This practice is subject to significant Fourth Amendment scrutiny, with the Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States that accessing a person’s historical CSLI constitutes a search requiring a warrant.

Social Media and Communications Analysis: Investigators routinely issue subpoenas and search warrants to social media companies and email providers for a suspect’s account data. This can yield a trove of information, including private messages, friend lists, photos, and a complete history of IP addresses used to log in. In the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s killer, authorities reviewed messages on the Discord platform that were linked to the suspect, Tyler Robinson.

Pervasive Surveillance: The All-Seeing Eye

The modern American landscape is blanketed with cameras and sensors, creating a surveillance environment that is both a powerful tool for law enforcement and a source of concern for privacy advocates.

Video Evidence: The Boston Marathon bombing manhunt is perhaps the quintessential example of a case broken open by video. Investigators painstakingly analyzed hundreds of hours of footage from public CCTV, private business security cameras, and spectator cell phones to isolate the images of the Tsarnaev brothers. Similarly, campus surveillance cameras provided the crucial images of Charlie Kirk’s killer, allowing the public to see his appearance and escape route.

Aerial Surveillance: Drones and helicopters provide law enforcement with a critical “eye in the sky.” They can be used to search difficult terrain, track a fleeing vehicle, or provide command staff with real-time situational awareness of a tactical operation. The use of aerial surveillance, particularly with advanced sensor technology, raises complex Fourth Amendment questions about what constitutes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” from above.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs): A vast and growing network of cameras, many operated by private companies like Flock Safety, automatically capture images of license plates and log the time, date, and GPS location of every passing vehicle. This data is compiled into a massive, searchable database accessible to thousands of law enforcement agencies, allowing them to track a vehicle’s movements across the country.

Biometric Identification: The Unmistakable Clue

Biometrics—the use of unique physical characteristics for identification—remains one of the most powerful tools in law enforcement.

Fingerprints and DNA: These are the bedrock of forensic science. The 23-day reign of terror by the DC snipers was brought to an end after a crucial tip led investigators to a prior crime scene in Alabama, where a fingerprint left on a magazine was matched to Lee Boyd Malvo in the FBI’s national database.

Facial Recognition: Law enforcement can now use software to compare images of an unknown suspect—captured from surveillance video—against massive government databases, such as driver’s license photos, to generate potential matches. International police cooperation is enhanced through systems like INTERPOL’s Biometric Hub, which allows member countries to check facial images and fingerprints against global databases.

Emerging Biometrics: The types of biometric evidence collected are expanding. In the hunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer, investigators recovered not only shoe impressions but also a palm print and forearm imprints from the rooftop sniper’s nest, showcasing the increasing granularity of forensic collection.

The widespread use of these technologies illustrates a fundamental reality of modern law enforcement. The very tools that civil liberties advocates warn could create a “total surveillance society” have become indispensable for rapidly identifying and capturing violent fugitives. The debate is no longer about whether these technologies will be used, but about how their use is governed, overseen, and balanced against the constitutional right to privacy.

Lessons from the Past: Boston Marathon and DC Sniper Manhunts

Today’s manhunt procedures were not created in a vacuum—they were forged in the crucible of past crises. Two events in particular—the 2002 DC sniper attacks and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing—serve as critical case studies that exposed profound weaknesses and highlighted emerging strengths, directly shaping the way federal agencies respond to emergencies today.

The DC Sniper Attacks: A Trial by Fire for Inter-Agency Cooperation

For 23 days in October 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, killing 10 people and critically injuring 3 in a series of random sniper attacks. The investigation became one of the largest in U.S. history, involving dozens of local, state, and federal agencies. It also became a textbook example of the challenges of a multi-jurisdictional response before the widespread adoption of standardized command protocols.

The investigation was initially hampered by significant communication problems. Different agencies used incompatible radio systems, making real-time coordination on the ground difficult. The sheer volume of information from a massive tip line overwhelmed data management systems, and crucial information was not always shared effectively between agencies.

The after-action report from the Police Executive Research Forum noted that while leaders eventually developed ad-hoc protocols, the initial response lacked a clear, unified structure.

The case was ultimately broken not by a high-tech solution, but by a traditional investigative lead. A cryptic call from the snipers themselves referenced a previous crime in Montgomery, Alabama. Investigators followed that lead, and a fingerprint recovered from that scene was matched to Lee Boyd Malvo in the FBI’s national database, giving investigators their first suspect.

The DC sniper case served as a powerful argument for the reforms that would follow, highlighting the critical need for interoperable communications and formalized command structures like Unified Command and JOCs.

The Boston Marathon Bombing: The Crowdsourced Manhunt

Eleven years later, the response to the Boston Marathon bombing showed how much had changed. When two pressure cooker bombs detonated near the finish line on April 15, 2013, the multi-agency response was immediate and far more integrated. A Unified Command was established within an hour, bringing federal, state, and local leaders together to coordinate the investigation and public safety response.

The manhunt for the Tsarnaev brothers became the first great “crowdsourced” investigation of the digital age. The FBI was inundated with more than 33 terabytes of digital information, including thousands of photos and videos submitted by the public. Investigators painstakingly reviewed this mountain of data, eventually isolating images of the two suspects from the massive crowd.

After the FBI released these images to the public, the suspects went on the run, killing an MIT police officer and engaging in a massive firefight with police in Watertown, Massachusetts. The subsequent lockdown of the city and the door-to-door search, while controversial, culminated in the capture of the second suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, hiding in a boat.

The Boston response demonstrated the power of the new surveillance landscape and the effectiveness of a well-executed Unified Command. After-action reports praised the “unity of mission” among agencies and the pre-existing personal relationships between leaders that fostered trust and cooperation.

However, it also highlighted the double-edged sword of public involvement, which provided crucial evidence but also led to online vigilantism and the dangerous misidentification of innocent individuals by amateur sleuths.

The Public’s Role: Alerts, Tips, and “Shelter-in-Place” Orders

In a large-scale manhunt, the public is not merely a passive observer. Law enforcement actively enlists millions of citizens as extra eyes and ears through sophisticated mass notification systems and, in extreme cases, directs their movement through orders like “shelter-in-place.”

Mass Notification Systems

Federal and state authorities have several tools to rapidly disseminate information to the public across a wide geographic area.

Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA): Authorized officials can send geographically targeted messages directly to all WEA-capable mobile phones in a specific area. These alerts, which look like text messages but have a unique sound and vibration, are not affected by network congestion and are used for imminent threats, AMBER Alerts, and presidential messages. A WEA message was used during the Boston manhunt to communicate the shelter-in-place request to residents’ smartphones.

Emergency Alert System (EAS): This is the legacy system that allows authorities to interrupt broadcasts on radio and television to deliver emergency information.

Specialized Alerts: The success of the AMBER Alert system for abducted children, which galvanizes the community to assist in the search, has served as a model for other types of alerts. One such system is the Blue Alert, which is activated when a law enforcement officer has been killed or seriously injured and the suspect, who is deemed a serious risk to the public, is at large. Like AMBER Alerts, Blue Alerts are broadcast via EAS, WEA, and highway signs to enlist public help in locating the suspect.

“Shelter-in-Place” Orders: A Legal and Tactical Tool

In the most extreme circumstances, such as an active shooter or a dangerous fugitive at large, authorities may issue a “shelter-in-place” order. This directive instructs people in a defined area to remain indoors, lock their doors, and stay away from windows. The order serves a dual purpose: it protects citizens from a potential threat and clears the streets to give law enforcement tactical freedom of movement.

The most famous modern example was the order issued for Watertown and several surrounding Boston suburbs during the final day of the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The legal authority for such orders stems from the state’s inherent “police powers” to protect public health and safety, a principle that has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden and the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

While these powers are broad, they are not unlimited. To be constitutional, such orders must be reasonably related to the public safety threat and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. The decision to lock down a significant portion of a major metropolitan area, as was done in Boston, represents one of the most significant temporary restrictions of civil liberties in modern American history.

The debate over the proportionality of that response—using thousands of officers and armored vehicles to search for a single, wounded teenager—is often framed as a debate about the “militarization of policing.” The underlying legal action that made those scenes possible was the shelter-in-place order, which effectively ceded all public space to law enforcement.

This highlights a fundamental tension: at what point does the threat posed by a fugitive justify the suspension of an entire community’s freedom of movement?

Balancing Act: Manhunts, Surveillance, and Civil Liberties

Every manhunt operates within a landscape of constitutional law, forcing a constant balance between the government’s legitimate interest in public safety and the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion. This tension is most pronounced in the application of the Fourth Amendment to the powerful surveillance technologies that have become central to modern investigations.

The Fourth Amendment: The Constitutional Bedrock

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. This means that law enforcement generally cannot conduct a search or seize property without a warrant issued by a judge and supported by probable cause.

The key question for any surveillance technique is whether it constitutes a “search” in the constitutional sense. The Supreme Court’s test, established in the 1967 case Katz v. United States, is whether the government’s action violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

This is a flexible standard that courts must apply to ever-evolving technologies. While a manhunt often involves “exigent circumstances” or “hot pursuit,” which are established exceptions to the warrant requirement, the use of pervasive, high-tech surveillance tools continues to generate profound legal challenges.

Technology, Privacy, and the Courts

Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU argue that the proliferation of surveillance technology—from social media monitoring and facial recognition to drone surveillance and automated license plate readers—poses an unprecedented threat to privacy. They contend that these tools can chill free speech, enable discriminatory targeting of minority communities, and create a society where anonymity in public is impossible.

The Supreme Court has begun to grapple with these issues, showing a reluctance to apply pre-digital legal rules to the vast stores of data contained on modern electronic devices.

In Riley v. California (2014), the Court unanimously ruled that police generally need a warrant to search the contents of a cell phone seized from a person during an arrest. The Court recognized that a modern smartphone contains the “privacies of life” and that searching it is a far greater intrusion than searching a person’s pockets.

In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Court held that the government needs a warrant to obtain a suspect’s historical cell-site location information from a wireless carrier. It rejected the argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in this data simply because they “share” it with a third party (their cell provider), acknowledging that tracking a person’s movements for weeks on end creates a detailed and deeply private portrait of their life.

These landmark cases illustrate a critical dynamic: the law is consistently playing catch-up to technology. Law enforcement agencies adopt and deploy new surveillance methods, and it is often years before the courts establish the constitutional boundaries for their use. This means that during any major manhunt, investigators are likely operating in a legal gray area, using powerful tools whose full constitutional implications have not yet been determined by the nation’s highest courts.

The Boston Manhunt: A Civil Liberties Case Study

The response to the Boston Marathon bombing became a flashpoint for this debate. While praising the bravery of first responders, the ACLU immediately raised concerns about the potential for ethnic and religious profiling in the search for suspects. They challenged the Justice Department’s initial decision to question the captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, arguing that the “public safety exception” must be applied narrowly and not as an open-ended tool for interrogation.

The central role of video surveillance in identifying the bombers led to calls for a massive expansion of government-operated camera networks. The ACLU countered that such a move would accelerate the creation of a “total surveillance society” and pointed to studies showing that cameras have little proven effect on reducing violent crime.

Records later obtained by the ACLU revealed that the Boston Police Department had used social media surveillance software for years to monitor political activity, including Black Lives Matter protests, reinforcing concerns that these powerful tools could be used to spy on lawful dissent.

The tension between public safety and civil liberties remains one of the most contentious aspects of modern manhunts. As surveillance technologies become more sophisticated and pervasive, the challenge for law enforcement is not just catching dangerous fugitives, but doing so in a way that preserves the constitutional rights that define American democracy.

This balance is not merely theoretical—it plays out in real time during every major investigation. The tools that can help capture a killer in hours can also create a surveillance infrastructure that fundamentally alters the relationship between citizens and their government.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.