Radley Balko's weekly column at Fox News focuses on the use of drug informants by law enforcement around the country and the routine abuse of the justice system that results. He begins with the familiar story of Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta:
A subsequent investigation revealed that the entire chain of events up to and shortly after Johnston's death were beset with lies, planted evidence, and cover-up on the part of the narcotics cops. They fabricated an imaginary informant to get the search warrant for Ms. Johnston's home. They planted evidence on a convicted felon, arrested him, then let him off in exchange for his tip--which he made up from whole cloth--that they'd find drugs in Ms. Johnston's house.When they realized their mistake, they then tried to portray an innocent old woman as a drug dealer. They planted marijuana in Ms. Johnston's basement while she lay handcuffed and bleeding on the floor.
This has all been known for quite some time. But here's what happened after we found all that out. Balko reports on Congressional hearings on this scandal:
What came out at the hearings investigating Kathryn Johnston's death was even more disturbing.In one eye-popping exchange, two congressmen--one Democrat and one Republican--confronted Wayne Murphy, the assistant director of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence about the way the FBI uses drug informants. Rep. Dan Lundgren, R-Calif., and Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., told Murphy they were troubled by reports that the FBI had looked the other way while some of its drug informants participated in violent crimes, and that the agency then failed to notify local authorities, leaving many of those crimes unsolved.
Lundgren and Delahunt said they were also troubled by reports that in order to protect the identity of its informants, the FBI had withheld exculpatory evidence from criminal trials, resulting in innocent people going to prison.
This is worth repeating. The FBI has determined that in some cases, it's better to let innocent people be assaulted, murdered, or wrongly sent to prison than to halt a drug investigation involving one of its confidential informants.
Could Murphy assure the U.S. Congress, Delahunt and Lundgren asked, that the FBI has since instituted policies to ensure that kind of thing never happens again?
Murphy hemmed and hawed, but ultimately said that he could not make any such assurance. That in itself should have been huge news.
And yet another scandal:
Shortly after the Johnston hearings concluded, another informant scandal emerged.Jarrell Bray, a longtime informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration's Cleveland field office, admitted that with the cooperation of DEA agent Lee Lucas, he had repeatedly lied in court to secure the convictions of innocent people. Bray said he and Lucas fabricated evidence, falsely accused people who had done nothing wrong, then concocted bogus testimony to secure their convictions.
Bray's admission could result in dozens of overturned convictions.
There's nothing new about any of this. The problems with the use and abuse of drug informants have been known for years. Policymakers have just decided it's more important to keep up a brave front in the drug war than admit to the shortcomings. Bogus testimony from drug informants has led to wrongful arrest and/or incarceration of innocent people in Dallas, Texas; Hearne, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Church Point, La.; to list just a handful of the more egregious examples.
In fact, more than 12 years ago, the National Law Journal ran a three-part series on the issue of drug informants. The magazine reviewed more than a thousand search warrants in four cities. It found widespread abuse with respect to the use of informants, and issued an urgent warning that "there is little or no oversight of the informant system," and that as a result, "the nation's system of justice is in danger."
Not much has changed.
The article was spurred by the case of Donald Carlson, a San Diego businessman who was nearly killed in 1992 after an informant's faulty tip led police to raid his home. Like Kathryn Johnston, Carlson thought the police were criminal intruders, and fired at them in defense of his home as they broke down his door. He was shot several times in the back, and spent six weeks in intensive care.
As in Atlanta, a subsequent investigation revealed severe deficiencies in the use of informants for drug crimes. The informant in Carlson's case was later convicted on 25 counts of lying to federal law enforcement officials.
This system needs to be changed. If Congress won't change it then the Courts need to start overturning such convictions wholesale.
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Comments
Just another example of what a pointless and irrational policy our War on (Some) Drugs really is. The people executing it have apparently so wholly succumbed to tunnel-vision that they believe the ends justify means, and the innocents they convict are just fodder for their mission.
Both this and the current war in Iraq are good examples of what happens when you allow violent warmongers with a sense of mission to attain political power.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 18, 2007 1:40 PM
Its even worse than that; its simply become a fast and easy way for DA's to advance their careers, the FBI to pad their numbers, and sheriff's to move up the political ladder. Nothing makes election more certain than a "Tough on Drugs" record.
Posted by: Julian | August 18, 2007 2:04 PM
It is truly mind-boggling to me, the lengths that politicians and law enforcement will go to perpetuate this insane war on the American people. And that is exactly what the war on drugs has become. Eliminate a personal behavior at any cost. The hell with collateral damage, the hell with civil liberties, the hell with honesty and integrity. I am so damned tired of hearing stories about people who have had their lives destroyed or ended, in the name of Nancy's crusade. It's gotten to the point that the innocent lives destroyed by the war on drugs, rivals the lives destroyed by the personal choice to use those drugs.
The time has long since passed to end this war, legalize illicit drugs and use them as a source of revenue, rather than a money pit.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 18, 2007 3:08 PM
As a former narcotics prosecutor at the state level, I can vouch that this kind of crap goes on a lot, almost to the point that its standard operating procedure. Additionally, narcotics cops constantly skim off the top of their busts in cash or product. I spent two years watching that mess and finally simply left the state in disgust. A defense attorney friend of mine called me the other day to let me know that two of the cops I worked with were recently busted by the FBI.
Posted by: EnzoAntonius | August 18, 2007 6:03 PM
In 2001 I was a 2nd year Philosophy/Psychology double major at Penn State carrying a 3.8. Like a lot of students, I experimented with various drugs. I had the mistake of experimenting in a town launching an offensive in the War On Drugs.
I was in the car when a confidential informant made a buy from a local dealer. Killing two birds with one stone, the informant claimed I bought the drugs from the dealer, then sold them to the informant. Two months later, at my parents house during break, the police, at 5:45 am, kicked the door in immediately after knocking, threatened to shoot my dog,(a sheltie/collie mix. So vicious.)and arrested me at gunpoint on three felony charges as part of a larger drug sweep. While my picture didn't make the paper, I did have an appearance on three stations local newscasts, in handcuffs being taken for processing.
After a six month trip through the legal system, I took a plea bargin rather than face a jury trial in a conservative town in the midst of drug hysteria. Six years later, I'm a convicted felon working as a resturant manager who is finally picking up the last piece or two. My loans come out of default in December, and my probation ends in November.
I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm not innocent. I bought and used illegal drugs. I knew the risks.
But isn't it time we stop this from happening to anyone else?
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | August 18, 2007 6:29 PM
Foster, the only thing you're "not innocent" in is your failure to conform to the state's arbitrary and puritanical regulations on the substances you can ingest. The real criminals are the thugs who dragged through the mud for a victimless crime.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 18, 2007 9:51 PM
The only problem with the discussion here is that it is too narrow: Informants are causing a lot more havoc than with just drug cases. This is how a lot of departments get their "problems" off the streets for a few years.
One of the standard tricks in this part of the world is to take a couple of young guys for a ride with a hot chick. She stops and picks up a friend carrying a blowtorch and a long screwdriver. On the way to her place she drops him off for five minutes, then he rushes back to the car and tells her to take off. The bust is on the way to her apartment. The charge is Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Possession of Burglary Tools. Both are two-to-ten felonies. They all get booked, but only the two kids have charges come the morning.
I've seen that a dozen times in the past ten years, and I don't dabble much in criminal law.
Foster: I don't know if this is true there, but the way to beat this rap is to take it to trial rather than plead out. The prosecutor can't afford to put his informants on the stand so he drops the charges. In any case, you got rooked.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 18, 2007 10:05 PM
Kehrsam, I'm a little confused by the scheme you're describing. Could you elaborate a little? Not sure how to tell you what I'm not understanding - seems to be a little narrative connective tissue missing here and there, from my point of view. Who's the hot chick and where does she come from? And the friend? No one says, "Why do you have a blowtorch and a long screwdriver?" when he gets in? How do the patsies, or whatever they are, get picked and set up? Etc.
Posted by: MPW | August 18, 2007 11:22 PM
Of course he can! Just like the FBI assured congress that it wans't misusing USA PATRIOT! What, do you want the drug dealers to win? Especially when they're financing the terrorists?
Posted by: Chuck C | August 19, 2007 12:53 PM
MPW: The girl and the "burglar" are both working for the cops. She picks the marks up at a party (or off a streetcorner) with a promise to take them back to her room. On the way, she gets a call from her "friend" who needs a ride. If it's just one mark, he may not even see the blowtorch since he's in the front seat; in any case, if the mark is the type to fall into this type of trouble, he's not the kind to ask questions!
The "burglar" doesn't have to actually burglarize anything, he gets out of sight of the car and calls in on his cell phone a location for the car to be pulled over. So the marks get hit with conspiracy for a crime that didn't occur, and possession for legal items that they never touched because of their alleged intended use in that conspiracy. Pretty sweet for the DA, he offers the kids two years and they plead out since the presumptive sentence is five. And a troublemaker or two is off the street for a while.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 19, 2007 3:21 PM
if the mark is the type to fall into this type of trouble, he's not the kind to ask questions!
What "type" thinks tha a blowtorch is suspicious? A paranoid schizonphrenic? Jumped up Cthulhu on a pogostick....
Posted by: Graculus | August 19, 2007 4:26 PM