Should cops use confidential informants to break the law to obtain probable cause?

[gnomon]

That's it. Pretty straightforward question.

As of now, I can think of no reason such a practice should be used.

Is it used.

Probably.

Ta-da!

I'm bored.

 

[kadzbiz]

I've never been in a position to put this into practice myself, and I haven't been involved in it, but, I can see a case where if you knew a gang was conducting nefarious activities but just couldn't pin it on them and used such an informant to infiltrate the group and play a role to assist in gaining proof, why not? I have been involved in many many cases where the offender was obvious, but no proof could be obtained. Is it fair that the perpertrator keeps getting away with it? I could certainly commit crimes now if I wanted knowing that I could get away with it, but why should I be able to get away with it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Cops have sworn to uphold, protect, and enforce the law. Having a badge should NEVER give them a reason to be above the law.

 

[tomspug]

No. Because such an action could just as easily be used AGAINST the innocent as FOR the innocent, which is the result you'll get every time anyone takes the law into their own hands, in my opinion.

If laws are impeding justice, then change the laws, but don't break them.

 

[Wandered Off]

Nope. We hobble the government by requiring probable cause in the first place because we correctly value individual rights over government power. The entire Constitution is intended to restrict the government, not people. We're already ceding too much power to the government IMO.

 

[Panda]

I think the problem is people have a very us and them view. The government are always them, the police are always them. Do you forget that they are all normal people? When a policeman comes off duty he becomes a normal person. Why would the police want to restrict their own freedoms?

The vast majority of police are people that want to do the right thing, to help everyone be safe and to keep dangerous people off the street. Far to often do people de-humanise them

 

[gnomon]

The case that inspired my question involves what appears to be a CI burglarizing a home with either police knowledge or police instigation to obtain evidence to conduct a drug raid. Now, a police officer is dead, a man charged with capital murder, although drugs were claimed to be found in a grow operation there are no drugs available for evidence in the case and basically the whole thing stinks.


But every time a CI buys some drugs he is breaking the law to obtain evidence. That's the primary use of confidential informants in the states.

However, I think kadzbiz raises a good point but I'm having a hard time envisioning a specific situation. I know undercover agents, such as the men who went undercover to investigate motorcycle gangs involved in the drug trade, violent crimes and perhaps the sex trade as well, could very well find themselves in position to technically violate law while they are acting undercover. But I distinguish this from the use of confidential informants who are quite often nothing more than an individual caught committing one non-violent crime and used to catch "bigger fish".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When a policeman comes off duty he becomes a normal person. Why would the police want to restrict their own freedoms?

Because over here in the states, it's been a heated debate of if an off duty cop still has police authority or not. If I'm not allowed to perform duties at any normal job without being clocked in and in uniform (if needed), then cops should be no different. Last I checked, it is against labor laws to do any work for your employer off the clock. Again, police should not be above the law.

 

[gnomon]

I think the problem is people have a very us and them view. The government are always them, the police are always them. Do you forget that they are all normal people? When a policeman comes off duty he becomes a normal person. Why would the police want to restrict their own freedoms?

The vast majority of police are people that want to do the right thing, to help everyone be safe and to keep dangerous people off the street. Far to often do people de-humanise them

That's why we start calling the police civilians and police actions that require others to keep the blue wall of silence should be punished severely.

The majority of police officers are good cops and they shouldn't have to suffer to protect criminals in a badge. Also, when those individuals behind a badge break the law any distinction of their job as a police officer should be ignored. Of course, this problem applies to all government officials from your local community boards up to the highest offices. What sets police misconduct apart are the guns and direct involvement with the community.

edit: But I could rant on about police/legislative abuse and civil rights but I'm more interested in trying to find instances where the police using an individual who is not trained law enforcement to engage in an illegal activity to gain evidence. Are there any circumstances where, although illegal, even society would ignore such activity for any greater good?

 

[tomspug]

The case that inspired my question involves what appears to be a CI burglarizing a home with either police knowledge or police instigation to obtain evidence to conduct a drug raid. Now, a police officer is dead, a man charged with capital murder, although drugs were claimed to be found in a grow operation there are no drugs available for evidence in the case and basically the whole thing stinks.

It doesn't help that the drug war is futile and inept.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Sometimes, on Law and Order: SVU, they cannot get the probable cause even though they knew the guy did it. And that sucks. But real cops aren't as cool as Olivia and Elliot.

 

[Storm]

Should cops use confidential informants to break the law to obtain probable cause?
That's it. Pretty straightforward question.

Straightforward, perhaps, but I'm afraid I don't understand it. What are they doing?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think the problem is people have a very us and them view. The government are always them, the police are always them. Do you forget that they are all normal people? When a policeman comes off duty he becomes a normal person. Why would the police want to restrict their own freedoms?

The vast majority of police are people that want to do the right thing, to help everyone be safe and to keep dangerous people off the street. Far to often do people de-humanise them

Except when a police officer integrates such a philosophy as part of their sense of self, which you seem to acknowledge many people do. I think often times police just get a kick out of controlling others because they may feel out of control as individuals. Or perhaps their personal identity is wrapped up in taking down individuals who possess particular personality traits. Honestly, who would want to take the law into their own hands [and become a cop] unless they felt a certain sense of self-righteousness about their [personal] view of the world?

 

[gnomon]

Straightforward, perhaps, but I'm afraid I don't understand it. What are they doing?

The most common practice is to take a CI and have them make a drug purchase. Usually the CI is an individual who was arrest on a prior charge of drug possession or sale and agrees to work with the police in order to obtain a lighter sentence.

I guess the question wasn't so simple because I actually wasn't thinking of such a common practice.

I was thinking more of invasive measures such as breaking and entering, theft, etc. It seems to me that using a CI with such tactics would invalidate any investigation and open up the police to criminal liability. The case of Ryan Frederick brought this specific question to mind. While the trial is just starting there is some information leading to the conclusion that the police may have prompted a burglary in order to obtain evidence. What's more striking is that the evidence that prompted the warrant and raid is now nowhere to be seen. It may just be that the CI acted on his own and then informed the police of what he found. It is the early stages of the trial.

For a completely biased list of sources go here,
Ryan Frederick - A Wiki Called Reason - a Wikia wiki

There's so many things wrong with this case besides the confidential informant anyway.

Upon reflection I realize the question is actually much broader. The above case that inspired this paints a limited understanding of confidential informants. There is no doubt that criminal informants are useful and the only means by which law enforcement can often continue an investigation.

I should re-write the title to specifically target what are known as snitches. These refer specifically to drug cases in high crime, urban environments and would fall more in line with the specific case addressed above.

I think I've bitten off more than I can chew at the moment. Here's some interesting reading,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/July2007/Natapoff070719.pdf

 

[Storm]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm notsure how I feel about it. Might post more later.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes - it's fine.

1. Confidential informant delivers info. to officer.

2. Officer corroborates what he has learned.

3. Officer submits paperwork to neutral magistrate asking for warrant.

4. Neutral magistrate determines whether probable cause exists and, if so, issues the warrant.

5. Officer executes the warrant.

Somebody tell me what's wrong with that process.

 

[kadzbiz]

Some interesting comments. I don't wish to sound like I'm defending myself, but I never became a cop to control others. I just wanted to solve crime and protect the innocent. I don't think cops are, or should be, above the law. I always abide my our code of ethics and have a high moral and ethical integrity. I agree that there are some that don't. For all of you who disagree with the OP, let me ask you this question; would you give your life knowing that doing so would stop any more crime being committed? It's a sacrifice of innocence for the greater good, an end justifying a means if you like.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Yes - it's fine.

1. Confidential informant delivers info. to officer.

2. Officer corroborates what he has learned.

3. Officer submits paperwork to neutral magistrate asking for warrant.

4. Neutral magistrate determines whether probable cause exists and, if so, issues the warrant.

5. Officer executes the warrant.

Somebody tell me what's wrong with that process.

What's wrong with this is it is using lies and deception to influence people to tell/give you what you want to know. How wrong is that if we consider that the person in question may be innocent?

 

[gnomon]

Yes - it's fine.

1. Confidential informant delivers info. to officer.

2. Officer corroborates what he has learned.

3. Officer submits paperwork to neutral magistrate asking for warrant.

4. Neutral magistrate determines whether probable cause exists and, if so, issues the warrant.

5. Officer executes the warrant.

Somebody tell me what's wrong with that process.

It's fine when it works.

I think I made a mess of the OP anyway. Lazy me.

There have been a number of cases where Steps 1 and 2 are not followed. CI makes a claim to the officers trying to ensure a lighter sentence. Officers do not corroborate the information and then obtain a warrant. Tragedy ensues.

I cannot guess at the frequency. And as I said in clarification to Storm, the number of times CI's are used to do small but technically illegal act of buying drugs to obtain evidence and cause is not really what I was thinking about.

I should have waited for the outcome of the Ryan Frederick case in Chesapeake, Virginia to see what comes out during trial and if the police indeed have prior knowledge or openly advocated a burglary by a confidential informant. It's mainly such invasive acts such as that and not something like drug buys that I had in mind. I definitely did not have in mind people who turn state's evidence that are members of criminal organizations.

Next time, I won't be so lazy when I write an OP.

 

[Father Heathen]

Only if they were pretty confident and certain that someone's life or well being was in immediate danger, something like murder or rape. But not for something like drug raids.