Watch testimony about her death at Congressional hearings > Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old grandmother in Atlanta, Georgia, was shot to death in 2006 by SWAT agents who fabricated an imaginary informant and lied to the court to get a warrant. Failing to require informant testimony to be supplemented with corroborating information, such as having a police officer observe an event from afar or making the informant wear a wire, amounts to handing over our police work to criminals. Currently, in most jurisdictions all it takes is an informant to point the finger at someone for a warrant to be obtained, an arrest to be made, and a criminal charge to be levied. This boilerplate language does not give the court enough information to make an informed decision about probable cause, especially when the police are requesting a warrant for an emergency forced-entry raid that will place officers and civilians in life-threatening situations.īlindly trusting known criminals to tell the truth is absurd and dangerous.
Law enforcement can obtain a search warrant by making the boilerplate assertion that "an informant of known reliability" provided information. Constitution that no warrants will be issued without probable cause is at the very heart of our criminal justice system. The guarantee of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. > Require corroboration of informant testimony This lack of oversight and safeguard mechanisms is a recipe for disaster. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.Police in most jurisdictions can obtain search warrants and make arrests based on nothing more than the word of a confidential informant whose identity and criminal history is not even revealed to the judge issuing the warrant. SINCE POLICE INFORMANTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO INVESTIGATION, EXPERTISE MUST BE DEVELOPED IN HANDLING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT. THE DETECTIVE-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT RELATIONSHIP IS TENUOUS AT BEST THE SECRET LIES IN THE ABILITY OF THE CONTACT OFFICER TO CONTROL THE INFORMANT IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT ONLY REALISTIC, BUT ALSO LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE. DETECTIVES MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHOSE MOTIVES MAY BE AS DIVERSE AND DEVIOUS AS THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THEY WISH TO UNCOVER. INFORMANTS HAVE VARIOUS MOTIVES FOR GIVING INFORMATION TO THE POLICE, AND DETECTIVES MUST DETERMINE THE MOTIVATION IN ORDER TO SOLICIT INFORMATION SUCCESSFULLY. DETECTIVES HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL CULTIVATED SOURCES AS WELL AS REGISTERED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS.
THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, THEREFORE, BECOMES THE IDEAL TOOL FOR PENETRATING THEIR CRIMINAL SUBCULTURE. WITHIN THIS CRIMINAL SUBCULTURE, DEALS ARE MADE, PLANS FOR THE FUTURE AS WELL AS PAST AND PRESENT CRIMES ARE OPENLY DISCUSSED, AND A GENERAL WEALTH OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE IS EXCHANGED. BOTH TYPES OF INVESTIGATION REQUIRE THE SECURING OF INFORMATION THAT COMES FROM WITHIN A CRIMINAL SUBCULTURE.
IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN EVIDENCE AGAINST PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THE POLICE OFTEN USE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS. EACH IS CONCERNED WITH IDENTIFYING AND ARRESTING THE PERPETRATOR OF A CRIMINAL ACT. IN THE FORMER, A CRIME IS REPORTED TO THE POLICE AND AN INVESTIGATION IS INITIATED IN THE LATTER, POLICE UNCOVER OR SEEK OUT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO TYPES OF POLICE INVESTIGATION, REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE.
0 kommentar(er)
