criminal investigation question
WEEK # 12 LESSON - UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS AND INFORMANTS
Despite the range of surveillance techniques available to investigators that were discussed in last week’s lesson, there are situations where the evidence needed to provide probable cause sufficient to make an arrest is simply not available by external observation. In these cases , police must gain close, personal access to the suspect or organization by infiltrating their activities.
Undercover Investigations
To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially to disguise one's own identity or use an assumed identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence. Traditionally, it is a technique employed by law enforcement agencies or private investigators, and a person who works in such a role is commonly referred to as an undercover agent.
Undercover work may involve one or more of: informants, who are usually suspects who have "flipped" and are exchanging information for consideration in terms of charges or at sentencing; paid agents, who are insiders receiving cash for information; or, undercover officers, who are police officers trying to infiltrate the activities of criminals or organizations to obtain information about their operations.
The goal of such operations is to gain the confidence of the criminal organization toward the end of learning more about its personnel and operations. Sting operations of this type sometimes produce many convictions, but may be costly, involving many officers over a considerable period of time.
Undercover work is dangerous—the danger appears to increase in proportion to the severity of sentences targets of such operations stand to serve—and open to manipulation. On the corrupting influence of undercover work, intimidation, entrapment, and duplicity are fairly common features of such work. It is not uncommon for officers to cross the line from creating opportunities for and observing criminal acts to inducing and tricking people to engage in those acts---Entrapment---or even, on occasion, planting evidence. Aggressive undercover work that crosses this line is often prompted by incentives within a police department to "get the numbers up."
Also, undercover officers handling illicit proceeds of crime in the form of cash may succumb to temptation. They may also accept bribes in return for their tolerance of illicit transactions. Furthermore, they may develop sympathies for and be co-opted by targets, leading them to protect rather than vigorously investigate them.
Another concern is that undercover officers tend to be less experienced investigators and their supervision in the field may be insufficient. These agents may be exposed to great danger without adequate briefing or preparation. Undercover work can adversely affect third parties when officers facilitate and even encourage the commission of crimes as part of a sting operation. Undercover operations may compromise the privacy of investigation targets or third parties. One example involves the cultivation of a romantic relationship between an officer and spouse/lover of a target for the purpose of generating information relating to an investigation.
There are two principal problems that can affect agents working in undercover roles. The first is the maintenance of identity and the second is the reintegration back into normal duty. Living a double life in a new environment presents many problems. Undercover work is one of the most stressful jobs a police officer can undertake. The largest cause of stress identified is the separation of an officer from friends, family and his normal environment. This simple isolation can lead to depression and anxiety. There is no data on the divorce rates of undercover officers, but strain on relationships does occur. This can be a result of a need for secrecy and an inability to share work problems, and the unpredictable work schedule, personality and lifestyle changes and the length of separation can all result in problems for relationships.
Stress can also result from an apparent lack of direction of the investigation or not knowing when it will end. The amount of elaborate planning, risk, and expenditure can pressure an agent to succeed, which can cause considerable stress. The stress that an undercover investigator faces is considerably different from his counterparts on regular duties, whose main source of stress is the administration and the bureaucracy. As the undercover officers are removed from the bureaucracy, it may result in another problem. The lack of the usual controls of a uniform, badge, constant supervision, a fixed place of work, or (often) a set assignment could, combined with their continual contact with criminal actors and activity, increase the likelihood for corruption.
This stress may be instrumental in the development of drug or alcohol abuse in some officers. They are more prone to the development of an addiction as they suffer greater stress than other police, they are isolated, and drugs are often very accessible. Police, in general, have very high alcoholism rates compared to most occupational groups, and stress is cited as a likely factor. The environment of undercover work often involves a very liberal exposure to the consumption of alcohol, and sometimes narcotics, which in conjunction with the stress and isolation could result in addiction.
There can be some guilt associated with going undercover due to betraying those who have come to trust the officer. This can cause anxiety or even, in very rare cases, sympathy with those being targeted. This is especially true with the infiltration of political groups or organized crime , as often the investigator will share similar characteristics with those they are infiltrating like class, age, ethnicity or religion. This could even result in the conversion of some officers to criminal activity..
The lifestyle led by undercover officers is very different compared to other areas in law enforcement, and it can be quite difficult to reintegrate back into normal duties. Undercover agents work their own hours, they are removed from direct supervisory monitoring, and they can ignore the dress and etiquette rules. So resettling back into the normal police role requires the shedding of old habits, language and dress. After working such free lifestyles, agents may have discipline problems or exhibit neurotic responses. They may feel uncomfortable, and take a cynical, suspicious or even paranoid world view and feel continually on guard. Other risks include capture, death and tortureif their identity is discovered.
Informants
An informant (also called an informer) is a person who provides privileged information about a person or organization to a police agency. The term is usually used within the law enforcement world, where they are officially known as confidential human source (CHS), or criminal informants (CI).
Informants are also extremely common in every-day police work, including homicide and narcotics investigations. Any citizen who provides crime related information to law enforcement by definition is an informant.
Informants are often regarded as traitors by their former criminal associates. Whatever the nature of a group, it is likely to feel strong hostility toward any known informers, regard them as threats and inflict punishments ranging from social ostracism through physical abuse and/or death. Informers are therefore generally protected, either by being segregated while in prison or, if they are not incarcerated, relocated under a new identity.
Motivations of Informants
Informants, and especially criminal informants, can be motivated by many reasons. Many informants are not themselves aware of all of their reasons for providing information, but nonetheless do so. Many informants provide information while under stress, duress, emotion and other life factors that can affect the accuracy or veracity of information provided. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and others should be aware of possible motivations so that they can properly approach, assess and verify informants' information.
Generally, informants' motivations can be broken down into self-interest, self-preservation and conscience. A list of possible motivations includes:
Self-Interest:
Financial reward
Pre-trial release from custody
Withdrawal or dismissal of criminal charges
Reduction of sentence
Choice of location to serve sentence
Elimination of rivals or unwanted criminal associates.
Elimination of competitors engaged in criminal activities.
Diversion of suspicion from their own criminal activities.
Revenge
Self-Preservation:
Fear of harm from others.
Threat of arrest or charges.
Threat of incarceration.
Desire for witness protection program.
Conscience:
Desire to go straight
Guilty conscience
Genuine desire to assist law enforcement and society.
Television and movies have given many in the public an unrealistic view of the number of individuals who serve as informants, as well as the amount of knowledge they have about a given crime. Detectives do not always have “go-to” informants who can quickly supply the name of a suspect or tell officers where a kidnap victim is being held. What a person classified as an informant may do is provide investigators with a wide variety of information including the general area a suspect may hang out, the people known to the informant who also know certain criminals, or the informant can sell or purchase stolen goods on behalf of law enforcement in a controlled operation that allows police to establish the basis for an arrest or search warrant. Having written agency policy for the management of informants is a must. An agency has to document the pay of such individuals, it must monitor any actions undertaken by the informant on behalf of the department, it must verify the information received from an informant, and many more actions to ensure the integrity of a case built using informant information.
Agencies generally classify a person who has given information once, and had that information verified, as a Confidential Informant or CI. A person who has provided verified information multiple times is referred to as a Reliable Confidential Informant or RCI. Documentation of all interactions and management of the informant is critical in the use of either. Some of these methods of documentation mirror the procedures necessary when officers work undercover so that the case integrity is maintained.
Confidential informant (CI) An individual who provides verifiable information to law enforcement.
Reliable confidential informant (RCI) Sometimes distinguished from a confidential informant by virtue of having been utilized a set number of times and found to have provided accurate information.
For example, informers might provide false information in order to receive payments or to punish competitors or enemies. Other informers may become overzealous "supercops" and create criminals, using prohibited methods. Because of their protected status, the information they provide and techniques they use to gather information are rarely challenged. Informants are often unchallenged because they rarely appear in court. These court appearances are rare because the identity of informants is kept secret, revealed only to the judge in a criminal case.
Types of Informants
There are four basic types of informants that are used in criminal investigations:
Basic Lead Informant
Participant Informant
Covert Informant
Accomplice Informant
These types are explained in detail in Chapter 6 of the textbook on pages 116-120. This is very important information that you should be familiar with.