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. 18-6239, 11/18/19.THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO TYPES OF POLICE INVESTIGATION, REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE. Donald joined in the opinion.Ĭrawford was represented by Burdon & Merlitti in Akron, Ohio.
Confidential informant case law plus#
Heard went on to provide more information about Crawford, including what car he drove and when and where he would sell drugs.Ĭrawford was ultimately sentenced to 216 months in prison, plus six years of supervised release.Ĭircuit Judges Alice M.
Confidential informant case law license#
Among other steps, the officers had Heard identify Crawford from a driver’s license photo and provide Crawford’s phone number to establish his credibility as an informant. The confidential informant, Jerry Heard, had informed the local police department that Crawford was dealing cocaine.
“Adding in the fact that the key information disclosed by the informant proved to be credible, there were many reasons to deem the informant reliable, thereby justifying the warrants.” “Here, the informant’s reliability was confirmed both by law enforcement agencies and through the affiant officer’s own research,” Circuit Judge Chad A. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held. He challenged the search warrants for his home that led to his arrest, arguing that law enforcement failed to properly verify the credibility of the informant who tipped them off.Ĭrawford’s focus on trustworthiness and credibility of informants was right, but “he is wrong in his conclusion,” the U.S. Richard Crawford was found guilty of distribution and possession charges.
Search warrants that turned up evidence used to convict a man of drug trafficking charges were proper despite being based mostly on evidence provided by a confidential informant, the Sixth Circuit said. The decision whether to reveal the identity of a confidential informant is controlled by this section, and judicial discretion is involved only to the extent.
0 kommentar(er)
