Drug Policy

Stop Abusing Snitchin'

The government's morally dubious use of drug informants


Late last month, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the death of the Kathryn Johnston, the 92-year-old Atlanta woman killed by police during a November 2006 drug raid on her home.

Johnston died when she mistook a team of narcotics officers for criminal intruders. When the police broke down her door, she met them with an old pistol. They opened fire, and killed her.

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.

More investigation revealed that this kind of behavior wasn't aberrant, but common among narcotics officers in the Atlanta Police Department. Police Chief Richard Pennington eventually dismissed or reassigned the entire narcotics division of the APD.

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.

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.

In fact, Johnston and Carlson aren't the only ones. Bad informants have led to mistaken drug raids all over the country. Many of these raids have resulted in the deaths of innocent people, including Harlem's Alberta Spruill, Denver's Ismael Mena, Houston's Pedro Navarro, and Albuquerque's Ralph Garrison.

Dave Doddridge is a 20-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department and a former narcotics officer. He's now a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former cops who have come out against the drug war. Doddridge says what happened in Atlanta isn't at all uncommon, and shouldn't be mistaken for a few rogue police officers acting out of line.

"There's tremendous pressure to 'climb the ladder' after you make a drug bust," he says, referring to the practice of getting one drug offender to give up information on his suppliers and superiors. "You want to get up that ladder before word hits the street, and the guys you're after know that you're on to them. That leads to the temptation to take shortcuts," he says. "What happened in Atlanta goes on all over the country."

These sorts of police tactics would be morally dubious if they were being used to fight terrorism, or to ensure national security. But they grow more absurd—and more intolerable—when you consider the ultimate end, here. None of this deception, corruption, and abuse is being employed to catch sleeper Al-Qaeda cells, or to catch murderers or serial killers or pedophiles. It's being used to stop people from getting high.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article originally appeared at FoxNews.com.

NEXT: This Is What Democracy Looks Like

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nice pic of Bubs.

  2. If you want to protect the children, you gotta break some eggs.

  3. Radley Balko is a patriot who does his country a great service. I just wish his stuff was more often published in mass-circulation media.

  4. Unfortunate, but they were all probably doing something wrong anyway.

  5. Keep it coming RB

  6. drug cop that is a piss poor attuted

  7. I think that the use of drug informants is necessary (I haven’t read Mr. Balko’s article yet– will do after I’m done with this “work thing”). But there’s nothing wrong with using drug informants. Afterall, who knows best where the drugs are? It’s what the cops do with the information that’s questionable. And here’s a question I have (that’s probably already been asked by Balko): Why do cops act on drug informant information without, oh, you know, and investigation? Sure, a drug informant says that drug activity is taking place at 1711 Martin Luther King St. What happens next is what bugs me.

    Shouldn’t there be an ensuing investigation with, you know, surveillance, maybe some wiretaps or microphones and the like? It seems that “Bubs” says “here thar be drugs”, and the next day fourteen hard boys are shooting dogs, throwing flash-bangs and killing innocent people who happen to own a firearm. Is cop surveillance something that only happens in hollywood movies now?

  8. Afterall, who knows best where the drugs are?

    Well, yes, except for the fact that it’s really nobody’s business where the drugs are.

  9. Is cop surveillance something that only happens in hollywood movies now?

    Anyone who watches cop movies realizes that stakeouts are BORING. Why wouldn’t they just skip the boring part and go right for the action, seeing as they never get in trouble anyway?

  10. except for the fact that it’s really nobody’s business where the drugs are.

    Huh? I’m 100% against the WOD. Maybe you’re saying it shouldn’t be anybody’s business if you wan to do drugs. But business is the only reason the drugs are there.

  11. Huh? I’m 100% against the WOD. Maybe you’re saying it shouldn’t be anybody’s business if you wan to do drugs. But business is the only reason the drugs are there.

    And bad law is the reason the business is violent.

  12. Great Article!

  13. Warren

    I don’t exactly understand you. If you can do drugs you should be able to buy drugs.

    This is one of the problems I have with Holland where they have “legalized” drugs but they continue to go after “drug traffickers”. The legal sources (the “coffee shops”) in effect have to obtain their supplies illegally. But once they are past the person who takes the risk, it’s fine.

    The same thing has happened everywhere else where they have legalized “drugs” (actually only pot, for the most part). England, Canada, you name it.

    How is there to be a supply if there are no Suppliers?

    It is none of your (generic “your”, not you personally) business what business I’m in unless you can prove I’m causing harm to someone.

  14. “on the death of the Kathryn Johnston”

    It’s the first sentence, for chrissakes.

  15. how about the same things going on in the baltiomre city police department,you dont here about it,but when omalley and norris were in charge some of the same things transpired,the iid investigators were told what to cover up,who to investigate,who to go after and who to save,its not jus a problem in other states..the problem here is investigators seems to have pet incidents instead of investigating real cover ups,murders,and lies

  16. Dude, are you just throwing in a plot from the Wire?

    Seriously though, as someone above me posted, articles like this need to get more mainstream attention. Perhaps after enough of them, the general populace will be softened up and realize that the WoD is a much bigger problem than people smoking pot.

  17. Oh, but you see, the people out there _know_ that it’s not just about people smoking pot.

    It’s about crack! Oh my GOD, crack! It’s instantly addictive! If it doesn’t make your heart explode the first time you try it! And black people use it! Oh my GOD!

    And it’s about heroin. Holy shit! Needles are gross, did you see Pulp Fiction, that overdose scene with Uma Thurman that was really really gross! And Trainspotting! Ewww!

    And prescription pain killers! Those are like heroin, but without the needles, which really isn’t fair, if you’re gonna be a dirty junkie, you should have to use the gross needles. Plus Rush Limbaugh oughta be in jail!

    And Meth! All our clean corn fed midwestern white children are staying up for 3 days taking apart all their parents’ appliances!

    I dunno, I’m not advising anyone to give up, but people like Mr Balko have been trying tirelessly to get the word out on the WoD for a very long time.

    When Peter McWilliams died and nobody cared (except a handful of “libertarian crackpots”) I lost hope that anything could ever get better, and since then, I think the WoD has only gotten worse.

  18. the drug war is premised on the idea that we are saving the innocent. the truth is drug users know that they are defying their society’s rules. that makes them sociopaths. therefore all the suffering of our country-crimes to finance drug buys,cost of prisons and extra police,distraction of resources needed to prevent terrorism , exports of dollars to third world countries , lack of resources to control our borders and reliance on criminals to target the innocent -is based on a great and evil lie.

  19. According to Drug War Logic, you can’t make an omelette without killing a goat. Because going after eggs is unglamorous and results in misdemeanors, and chickens are too much work to find.

    I’m still trying to figure out how a multibillion-dollar tumor of a drug war is more enticing than the disgusting tax revenue that would be generated by legalization to Washington legislators. Makes you wonder just how much money Pfizer, GlaxoWellcomeSmithKlineWhatever, etc. are pouring into the beltway.

  20. It is frustrating that this information is not more common in the mainstream media. Radley Balko does a tremendous service in his reporting of police/government misconduct/overreach and the misbegotten WoD. I am very grateful!

    But I weep for the future…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.