TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Sensible Rules Needed To Protect Informants

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: January 19, 2009

Tallahassee-area law enforcement officers failed Rachel Hoffman horribly last spring while she was working as an informant during a controlled drug buy. They lost visual and audible contact with her, and the 23-year-old, who had recently graduated from Florida State University, was gunned down.

The Pinellas County woman's death - at the hands of drug dealers she was trying to help police put behind bars - illustrates the need for the state to establish minimum standards for the use of informants. Her parents, wanting to prevent similar tragedies, are pushing for reforms with the help of two Tampa Bay area lawmakers.

Importantly, "Rachel's Law," sponsored by Sen. Mike Fasano and Rep. Peter Nehr, does not seek to ban the use of informants, who are necessary in police work. They often have needed contacts and provide law enforcement critical evidence, especially when they had been engaged in wrongdoing themselves. They usually receive breaks on their sentences or lesser charges and sometimes even avoid prosecution altogether for successful efforts. As any veteran law enforcement officer can tell you this is often essential to making a case.

But investigating drug dealing and other crimes is dangerous - more so for untrained people such as Hoffman, who had been charged with felony marijuana possession and was described in a grand jury report as having a "well-established" marijuana distribution business. She clearly was vulnerable and left exposed in the $13,000 botched police operation to purchase 1,500 ecstasy pills, two ounces of cocaine and a gun from dealers she didn't know in the Panhandle.

The legislation would require that law enforcement take some commonsense steps that should not handcuff them. It would encourage potential informants - who may be overwhelmed at the prospect of prison - to think hard about what they're about to do.

Law enforcement agents would have to evaluate the age, maturity, emotional stability and "relevant" experience of the potential informant, as well as the criminal history of the offenders being targeted. This should enable officers to better determine whether an informant is up to the task or, as the grand jury report observed of Hoffman, in over his or her head. Clearly, the individual's mental state must be seriously evaluated, as well as the potential for violence during transactions.

And law enforcement would be required to detail to informants what was expected, which should help candidates decide whether they want to take the risk.

In addition, potential informants would be given the chance to consult a lawyer, and those in court-ordered or voluntary drug treatment programs would have to get permission from judges or state attorneys. Giving court officers a say would add another lawyer of protection for informants, instead of simply relying on police eager to make arrests.

The legislation has a few flaws, such as mandating that police evaluate the "maturity" of the target offender, something they may not be qualified to do. And if care is not taken, it could leave a paper trail that would make the informant identifiable.

But "Rachel's Law" provides a solid framework for discussions between legislators and law enforcement organizations, and brings much-needed attention to what can happen when the wrong people are asked to aid police.

The proposal may need a few tweaks, but as Loyola (Los Angeles) Law School professor Alexandra Natapoff told the Tallahassee Democrat: "This is not radical legislation. It's a real contribution to the criminal justice process."

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT