Why are informants necessary to effectively combat organized crime - Essay Example

Criminal organizations are the illegitimate counterpart of genuine commercial enterprises, their organizational hierarchy is very similar to genuine corporations. The difference lies in two aspects: in the sort of activity they engage in, gambling, extortion, threat, loansharking, pornography and prostitution to name but a few; and in the secrecy and extreme cohesiveness that mark the members of these organizations. Criminal organizations, or organized crimes needs to be deterred in the interests of society and the biggest resource for police authorities in their battle against this scourge is intelligence.

To gain this information, designated authorities have recourse to tried and tested methods. These methods include physical and technological surveillance, infiltration of the organization by undercover agents, and last, but not the least, the use of informants.Informants used against organized crime are usually members of these criminal organizations, who decide to talk to the authorities for a variety of personal and financial reasons. Critics have often criticized the use of informants: it is believed that most informants are unreliable because they work for selfish motives, either to gain revenge on their parent organization, or in search of incentives like money and exemption from charges and punishment.

Since the whole process of using informants is confidential, critics fear the abuse of the system, whereby criminals go scot free despite heinous activities because of their cooperation with the authorities in netting criminal organizations. According to critics, informants tend to blur the lines between what is lawful and what is not. But despite these objections, there are reasons why authorities continue to use intelligence from informants, and we will now discuss why despite having other options like technical and physical surveillance and undercover operations, police and other authorities continue to use informants.

Technological and physical surveillance is often unable to capture the entirety of the organization, as the members use coded communication. Moroever to initially establish surveillance especially in a suspects private space, the authorities must be able to obtain proof of criminal activity in the form of advance reliable intelligence. This is where the informants come in handy, because a reliable informer is able to provide a translation for the inner codes of a criminal organization, as well as supply tangible proof against a organized crime suspect to be brought under surveillance.

Informants and surveilllance thus go hand in hand.As to undercover operations, they are only undertaken when deemed absolutely necessary. It is difficult to infiltrate a criminal organization as an undercover agent because it is based on ethnicity, strict codes of conduct (violations of which may easily result in death), and internal references. New entrants to criminal organizations are screened diligently and undercover officers put themselves under an incredible amount of life risk. Undercover work is also a long-term and expensive process, as it takes time to gain the criminal organizations trust, and it also takes long to obtain useful information.

Informants, on the other hand, are a much more readily available source of information once their reliability is established, and such information comes at much lower cost and risk.Informants are also vital in cases when a new criminal organization is identified, because they provide information that can be analyzed to identify the members and activities of the organization as well as know more about its attitudes and aspirations. There is a lot of public apathy to cases where organized crimes are involved, and it is often hard to find witnesses from the public in such cases.

Arrested criminals associated with such crimes are thus very valuable when they turn informants in exchange for lesser charges or other incentives. Although it is widely known that informants, being criminals themselves, are never to be completely trusted, in the fight against organized crime they form an invaluable resource. Being intimately aware of their comrades illegal activities, they are able to provide exclusive information. Of course, they need to be validated under a proper informant management structure.

But once properly managed, they are a viable option in the hands of authorities in order to stop organized illegal activities. Surveillance of suspected offenders in the community by police has a longtradition in police work. Physical surveillance is complicated by the private spaces inwhich criminals can conceal themselves. Police need some proof of criminal activity,“probable cause” in the United States, in order to enter homes and businesses. Portablecommunications technology has made it easier to plan crimes by telephone or e-mail.

Most governments require some level of proof, like probable cause, before police caneavesdrop on these conversations. Therefore, both physical and electronic surveillanceneed some reliable information in advance the about planned criminal activity in order tobe successful. This advance information comes from informants and sometimes fromvictims.organized crime has been immune from prosecution because of public apathy and because of its own strong political connections. the illegal activity of people and organizations whose acknowledged purpose is profit through illegitimate business enterprise.

Organized crime involves marketing techniques (threat, extortion, smuggling) and products (drugs, sex, gambling, loan-sharking, pornography) that have been outlawed. The system resembles an legitimate business enterprise, and may even have a corporate executive structure, a staff of assistants, and accountants, but its far from legitimate because the business was set up by force, intimidation or threat. The members of a criminal organization are really gangsters, professional criminals who are trying to live the life and mystique glamorized by legendary figures -- Al Capone, Meyer Lansky, Lucky Luciano.

Their underworld system survives by pretending to be legitimate business or by infiltrating (through immunity and protection rackets) legitimate business. The following table summarizes:GamblingBookmakingNarcoticsLoansharkingLabor racketeeringExtortionAlcoholKidnappingWhy are informants necessary to effectively combat organized crime?PurposeTo identify criminal organizations posing a threat to the economic and social structures of the community.To identify the members of the criminal organization who should be targeted for investigation.

To identify activities of the criminal organization which are viable targets for successful investigationProblemsAll confidential informants are criminals themselves.Confidential informants lie to curry favor.Confidential informants always have self interest, i.e. revenge, desire to avoid answering for their crimes, or greed as a motivation.Confidential informants commit crimes while providing information to law enforcement.ManagingInformation received by confidential informants must be checked and evaluated for reliability and usefulness.

Investigator’s handling of confidential informants must be supervised and overseen by investigative managers and prosecutors.Informants must be told that they will be prosecuted if they commit a crime and that warning must be implemented where appropriateStructuresValidation processHigh Level Confidential Informant Review Committee (CIRC) for Certain Sensitive Human Sources. Media, Attorneys, Physicians High level leaders of criminal groupsTYPES OF TECHNICAL SURVEILLANCESurreptitious Electronic SurveillanceWire Tapping (Wire Interception)Bugging or hidden microphones (Oral Interception)Consensual InterceptionData Interception (E-Mail, FAX Transmissions, etc.)Video Surveillance Surreptitious surveillanceThe levels of required approval depend on the degree of intrusion into privacy all require approval by a judge.

Wire and Oral intercepts require strictest scrutinyVideo and data intercepts require less strict scrutinyConsensual surveillanceRequires only the consent of one of the parties to the communication being intercepted.WHAT TECHNICAL SURVEILLANCE PROVIDESInsight into the intimate operations of a criminal organization.Insight into the role of each participant in the hierarchy of the criminal organizationEvidence of the participation of the members of the criminal organization in criminal activity from their own statements.

WHY UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS?Insertion of trustworthy officer where participants have a lack of credibility.Enables law enforcement to gain a bird’s eye view of the operations of a criminal organization.Having a trained officer deal with members of a criminal organization ensures that law enforcement will obtain recorded and accurate evidence to present at trial.faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lect14.htm INFORMANTS are notoriously difficult to control with organized crime, but are absolutely essential with newly emerging gangs for which there is no historical database.

One of the jobs of the analyst is often to corroborate an informants information (by checking on whether it is substantiated by other intelligence) and to determine informant reliability. The following terminology is standard for rating informants:Reliable -- no doubt of persons authenticity; past info reliable in all instances Usually Reliable -- some doubt, but past info has been reliable in most instances Fairly Reliable -- some doubt, but past info has been reliable on average Not usually Reliable -- there is doubt, and past info has only been reliable on occasion Unreliable -- there is great doubt; past experience has proven it to be unreliable but that doesnt mean that this piece of info now is not reliable These incidents of murder, human smuggling, and drug trafficking are typical of how welearn about organized crime: illegal immigrants are arrested, bodies are discovered, or adrug courier is arrested by police.

We usually discover the crime at the “street” level,long after the planning, conspiracy, and organization have occurred that made the crimepossible. The cases described above each suggest a connection to organized crime, butpolice immediately face two problems.1. Is the body, person, or suspect really connected to organized crime, or is it simplyan individual law violation occurring apart from a larger criminal enterprise?2. How does a particular incident fit into the larger picture of organized crime in thearea---how does it compare in seriousness and risk to other types of organizedcrime activity in that jurisdiction?

Establishing a connection to organized crime, and ranking the relative seriousness of theproblem for longer-term investigation and targeting purposes, are difficult problems thatrarely are addressed in systematic fashion.A method to answer the second question of comparative risk is proposed here, butthe first question also requires attention. Making the connection from a single incident toa larger criminal conspiracy has never been easy. How are police expected to make theseconnections when crimes like these occur with regularity with offenders often crossingjurisdictional boundaries?

Informants, surveillance, andundercover investigations are three police methods involving offenders that can helpdetermine whether a link to organized crime exists.Using known offenders for information and as informants to investigate criminalconspiracies is a common police strategy in most countries. Informants are the mostcost-effective investigative tool in organized crime cases. The typical informant is acriminal who chooses to cooperate with the police in exchange for a reduced charge,sentence, or immunity from prosecution.

But this is not always the case. Sometimeshonest people simply wish to report wrongdoing (Salerno, 1991). Both criminal and noncriminalinformants desire anonymity in order to protect their safety. U.S. courts havegenerally held that the government is entitled to keep secret an informants identity whohas provided information about a possible law violation (Lawmaster v. U.S., 1993). Thisis called the "informers privilege." The privilege is not absolute, however, and can beovercome if the defense can show it is crucial to the defendants case (U.S. v.

Foster,1993). The legal status and protection of informants varies widely around the world.The information obtained from an informant is used to investigate more seriouscriminality. For example, an arrested drug courier can be used to determine who are thewholesale drug suppliers in a given area. An illegal waste disposer can provideinformation about other participants in an illicit enterprise. There is usually little expenseinvolved with informants, unless the informant is paid for the information or is placedunder government protection.

In addition, informers can provide information that wouldrequire months of undercover investigation to obtain.In recent years there has been a well-documented stream of organized crimefigures that have become informants. Such high-level criminals as Nicky Barnes, JimmyFratianno, Sammy Gravano, Mickey Featherstone, Anthony Casso, Anthony Accetturo,Michael Franzese, and Steve Flemmi all became informants for the government andtestified against their former cohorts in crime (Lehr and O’Neill, 2000; Shawcross, 1995;Franzese, 1993; Pryor, 1983; Fried, 1994; Capeci, 1994; Demaris, 1982; English, 1991;Raab, 1994).

This trend of has occurred for three reasons:1. Long prison sentences for racketeering and drug conspiracy lawviolations in many jurisdictions force criminals to consider prison asthe "end of the line," rather than as merely a cost of doing business.2. Witness protection programs are available in a growing number ofcountries, which allow a potential informant a way to avoid the futurewrath of his or her co-conspirators after testifying against them.3. A diminished sense of "honor among thieves" or loyalty to anorganization or ethnic heritage exists now than in the past.

Manycriminals are simply in it for the money, and when caught, they lookfor the easiest way out, regardless of who might be "sacrificed" toaccomplish it.Different observers place varying levels of weight on these three reasons, but certainlysome combination of them has changed the stakes in creating criminal informants(Jacobs, 1994; McShane, 1994).The low cost of informants is offset to some degree by problems of reliability andcredibility. A number of the “mob trials” that occurred in the United States during the1980s and 1990s resulted in acquittals because juries did not believe the testimony ofgovernment informants.

A journalist reported after one of these acquittals, "The lastpiece of evidence requested by the jury for re-examination was a chart introduced by thedefense that showed the criminal backgrounds of seven prosecution witnesses. It listed69 crimes, including murder, drug possession and sales, and kidnapping" (Buder, 1987).These crimes clearly cast doubt on the veracity and motives of the informant.This issue of the reliability of informants (many are forced to admit they have liedin the past) and credibility (will juries believe the testimony of admitted criminals?) areproblems particularly when the witnesses have been paid by the government.

Forexample, Sammy Gravanos testimony in New York against former "boss" John Gottiapparently was believed by the jury resulting in a conviction, but his testimony againstPasquale Conte and other alleged crime figures in another trial, was not. Two hours afterit began deliberations, the jury sent out a note that said, "We believe that SammyGravanos testimony is essential to the governments case. We have already debated hiscredibility, and have reached an impasse" (Bowles, 1993).The handling of informants by police has been a subject of controversy inbalancing the assistance they provide in solving crimes that would otherwise be difficultto solve versus the concessions given to them (money, freedom, or reduced prisonsentences).

Trials provide a forum for defense attorneys to examine the motives andpayments informers receive, but some believe additional protections for defendants areneeded in cases where an informant’s testimony is central to the prosecution’s case anddirect evidence does not exist to disprove statements believed to be lies. Similarly, thegovernment must live up to promises made to informants (Billingsley, Nemitz, and Bean,2000; Lefer, 1999).Undercover investigations are not employed very often in organized crime casesdue to the length of time required to gain acceptance and access to information aboutcriminal organizations.

The constant danger to the undercover officer if his or heridentity was discovered also makes these investigations risky.Surveillance of suspected offenders in the community by police has a longtradition in police work. Physical surveillance is complicated by the private spaces inwhich criminals can conceal themselves. Police need some proof of criminal activity,“probable cause” in the United States, in order to enter homes and businesses. Portablecommunications technology has made it easier to plan crimes by telephone or e-mail.

Most governments require some level of proof, like probable cause, before police caneavesdrop on these conversations. Therefore, both physical and electronic surveillanceneed some reliable information in advance the about planned criminal activity in order tobe successful. This advance information comes from informants and sometimes fromvictims.Informants are most common in the world of organized crime because, by its very nature, organized crime involves many people who are aware of each others guilt in a variety of illegal activities.

Quite frequently, informants will provide information in order to obtain lenient treatment for themselves and provide information over an extended period of time in return for money or for police to overlook their own criminal activities. Quite often someone will become an informant following their arrest. The CIA has been criticized for letting major drug lords out of prison as informants. Informants are regarded as traitors by their former criminal associates, who punish informers with death.

Informers therefore have to be protected, either by being segregated in prison or — if they are not incarcerated - relocated and given a new identity."Without informants, law enforcement authorities would be unable to penetrate and destroy organized crime syndicates, drug trafficking cartels, bank frauds, telephone solicitation scams, public corruption, terrorist gangs, money launderers, espionage rings, and the likes."Critics counter that the practice has become a dangerous public policy, compromising the integrity of police work, endangering both informants and innocents, eroding confidence in the rule of law enforcement, and often producing bad information.

The Little Rock Police Department and the Pulaski County sheriffs office would not disclose the number of informants in their files.The North Little Rock Police Department said it currently has 51 informants working with its narcotics unit. The Maumelle Police Department reported having 18 confidential informants, 10 males and eight females, though four of those have been "disqualified."No statewide figures are kept. Keith Rutledge, the state drug director, said that if regional drug task forces are using informants, it is done -- and paid for -- "at the local level.

"The way informants are handled varies widely, and that, too, is shrouded in secrecy. All four of the police agencies mentioned above stress that they make no promises to arrestees that the penalties they face will be reduced in exchange for cooperation.All four reported, however, that if that person agrees to cooperate, information about his or her helpfulness may be conveyed to the prosecuting attorney. This takes the form of letters or recommendations that are also confidential. An informant has to trust the police.

"We tell you what youre charged with and give you a phone number to call," said Sgt. Robert Mourot, who heads the Street Narcotics Unit for the Little Rock police. "Once you bond out of jail, you can call us."If you ask, What are you going to do for me? we say, What are you going to do for yourself? You got yourself into this spot. Its up to you to get yourself out of it. "Mourot said that if a person opts to become an informant, there are no guarantees. "All we can do," he said, "is document what they did.

" Police in North Little Rock, Maumelle and at the sheriffs office said they followed similar policies. What happens at the prosecutors office is similarly opaque.Critics of the expanded use of confidential informants see the interface between police and prosecutors as a kind of legal black hole, in which discretion with regard to using law-breakers meets discretion with regard to charging them.John Johnson, chief deputy prosecuting attorney for Pulaski County, said, "Being a confidential informant is just an agreement between you and the police.

"He added, however, that on receiving a report from police about a confidential informant, "We make a charging decision. We dont always charge. The options we have are to charge a felony, to send it back for more investigation, to reduce it to a misdemeanor, or to mark it DNF, Do not file. "Johnson noted that prosecutors consider many factors, including letters from teachers and employers, as well as information from the police. He explained, "Theres just all sorts of communication that we have in trying to be just and be sure that the punishment fits the crime, but also the person who commits the crime.

"A growing number of legal scholars see the practice of releasing some criminals to catch others as having unforeseen corrosive effects. For many, the most disturbing aspect of the process is its secrecy.The presence of criminals acting, in effect, as secret agents for the police fosters distrust in certain communities and may lead to an increase in violence.Lt. David Hudson, who oversees the Little Rock Police Departments two narcotics squads, said, "People who give us information do so willingly.

They know the risks of cooperating with the police."But other city residents might not know the risks they incur by having informants in their midst. Since informants identities are secret, it is impossible to know how many, if any, of the murder victims in Little Rock last year were killed because they were found - -- or believed to be -- acting as police informants.Secrecy limits the publics ability to weigh the cost of using informants against their liabilities. Each of the four departments mentioned here was asked how many arrests last year could be attributed to its use of informants.

Only Maumelle answered, reporting "five."Without being specific, the LRPDs Hudson insisted that the use of informants has "decreased the level of violence" by helping police clean out houses harboring drugs and weapons. "Weve made neighborhoods a lot safer," he said.Johnson, on the other hand, acknowledged, "I can tell you that Ive prosecuted cases where someone was killed because they were suspected of being a snitch."The lack of checks and balances is exacerbated by the lack of public records illuminating police and prosecutors decisions regarding informants.

As standards blur, with some people going to prison for crimes and others going to work for police, some scholars fear that the line between whats seen as lawful and unlawful is blurring as well.Trust lies at the heart of the contract between police, the courts and the public. The problem with informants is that they are, essentially, betrayers of trust. And any agency that works with them gets tainted by association.Suspicions about informants reflect on the agencies that use them. Secretive policies, while understandable, heighten, rather than dispel, those concerns.

As awareness of the costs of informant use has risen, so too have demands for some kind of accountability. Release of data on the number of informants being used in an area, along with the types of crimes for which they face charges, would not compromise an informant program, but could allow at least minimal public oversight.The procedure for handling informants thats given to North Little Rock detectives starts out with a warning:"The use of informants in law enforcement is an evil necessity.

," it begins. "It is most important to remember that an informant works as an extension of law enforcement, and detectives are cautioned to ensure that anytime an informant is working for them that the constitutional rights of all individuals are protected."The preface reminds detectives of the need to avoid entrapment and to corroborate, as much as possible, statements made by an informant. It concludes: "Two important items to remember when utilizing informants are:"1. They should never be trusted."2. Their motive should always be considered."