informant drug usage

[Jarrod1980]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Is it true that an informant cannot conusme drugs during a transaction without messing up the whole thing? I've heard that this is pretty much a failsafe... is this true?

[FlyingRon]

While it certainly will give the option of the defense to challenge the reliability of the witness, it's not an automatic out.
If you insisted that all the witnesses in a drug case be clean, you'd have to exclude a great deal of them.

Further if the person is just an informant (someone tipping off the police) rather than someone who has to give testiomony, it's even less of an issue.

[Alex23]

Are you wondering whether getting your customers to consume the drugs you're selling in front of you will help keep you out of trouble? I doubt it.

[dave33]

The answer is no. If the informant is actually a police officer than it is unlikely that they will consume drugs. If the informant is someone whom they arrested while leaving the transaction location than pretty much anything goes. All they want from that person (most likely) is probable cause to enter the location. Drug usage would pretty much be expected by the detectives.Although if injesting drugs can be proven than the detectives would say they certainly did not condone that action. The bottom line would be is that the dealer would still have the marked money and informant would have the remainder of the drugs purchased. Also possibly a recording of the transaction. It is unlikely the judge would dismiss the charges based solely on the fact that the informant acted improper. The main aspects of the case would still be intact. The positive side is that the right criminal lawyer can work miracles. Sometimes by giving you there A game things you would never expect actually happen. Everything depends on your particular state laws in several areas. goodeluck.

[CdwJava]

Let's see ... if I don't do a line of coke, they might kill me ... hmm ... I'm going to do the line.

No, doing the drugs - be it C.I. or an undercover cop - is NOT a disqualifer at trial. Laws and agency policies tend to allow for consumption by officers/agents if necessary as part of their assignment. It is certainly something to be avoided, but it does, on occasion, happen.

- Carl

[cyjeff]

Damn.... another in a long line of "I heard a cop can't do THIS!" myths just shattered.

Wouldn't it be easier just to get a legit job?

[dave33]

With all due respect, I don't see where justice is served in a situation like that. Doing drugs to gather evidence to arrest someone for drugs seems silly. Also breaking the law to enforce it also seems wrong. I think a valid legal arguement could be made in that regard. Again, just my opinion. I am not sure of Florida's specific laws, but you couldn't convince me of justice being served. I also understand that the use of a C.I. has been sanctioned, but that's a whole different arguement. Dave

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by dave33

With all due respect, I don't see where justice is served in a situation like that. Doing drugs to gather evidence to arrest someone for drugs seems silly.

So is being shot by a paranoid drug dealer that thinks you are a cop.

[dave33]

That seems like a stretch, you could than say that to justify any action. Seems like the line would get blurry in a hurry. Hey, who's the bad guy here anyway?

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by dave33

That seems like a stretch, you could than say that to justify any action. Seems like the line would get blurry in a hurry. Hey, who's the bad guy here anyway?

You are missing the point.

The OP was trying to find a way to identify a cop. "If I make him snort some," he thinks, "and he refuses, then I KNOW he will be a cop and I can run away."

What we have been saying is that if it comes down to an officer's life, he/she may be forced to sample in order to protect themselves.

We are NOT saying that a cop should go on a three month binge fueled by nothing but Bolivian Marching Powder, Entemann's Chocolate Donuts and Mr. Pibb...

[dave33]

No, I got the point and think that we got a little sidetracked. I got the impression of a "regular" transaction. Nowhere in his question was it even implied that there was a gun to anyones head. I understand the exception rule, but generally if that is accepted practice I would consider it to be improper. This is the benefit of having a forum (multiple opinions).

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by dave33

No, I got the point and think that we got a little sidetracked. I got the impression of a "regular" transaction. Nowhere in his question was it even implied that there was a gun to anyones head. I understand the exception rule, but generally if that is accepted practice I would consider it to be improper. This is the benefit of having a forum (multiple opinions).

If what is accepted practice? If the officer can do something illegal because not doing so may endanger his/her safety?

[Banned_Princess]

Originally Posted by dave33

No, I got the point and think that we got a little sidetracked. I got the impression of a "regular" transaction. Nowhere in his question was it even implied that there was a gun to anyones head. I understand the exception rule, but generally if that is accepted practice I would consider it to be improper. This is the benefit of having a forum (multiple opinions).

Letting the low life drug addict continue to be a low life drug addict, and getting the "bigger fish" is actually more in the interest of justice then not.

The suppliers of the drugs are more important to get then the addict. Why? Because without the supplier, the drug addict has no drugs and might be able to recover.

Plus the suppliers are hooking kids everyday. More important then the kid who is already sick.

Finally, a dealer who is dealing with someone who is obviously not on drugs might be suspicious and the whole case is lost because the addict who was soposto be an addict, wasn't an addict. Now the dealer has gone to deal somewhere else, instead of in jail.

Greater good.

[dave33]

Yes, exactly if breaking the law is how an officer chooses to enforce it than where does it end? Does he commit murder because he's joining a criminal organization and to not do so would endanger his life? If breaking the law is how someone chooses to enforce it than they may very well do more harm than good. When he chooses to break the law he becomes a criminal. They can try to justify a thousand different ways, but I would rather my tax dollars went to something else.Not everyone charged with a drug offense is in the middle of a 3 month spree. Also there will always be dealers, and officers conducting themselves in that way has broader implications. When does it stop? Who says you can break the law up to this point and for this reason? I think if an officer has to commit a criminal act he should find a different method. Breaking the law is not o.k. regardless of the result. Sorry for getting off the topic just my opinionh and NOT an arguement. Dave

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by dave33

Yes, exactly if breaking the law is how an officer chooses to enforce it than where does it end? Does he commit murder because he's joining a criminal organization and to not do so would endanger his life? If breaking the law is how someone chooses to enforce it than they may very well do more harm than good. When he chooses to break the law he becomes a criminal. They can try to justify a thousand different ways, but I would rather my tax dollars went to something else.Not everyone charged with a drug offense is in the middle of a 3 month spree. Also there will always be dealers, and officers conducting themselves in that way has broader implications. When does it stop? Who says you can break the law up to this point and for this reason? I think if an officer has to commit a criminal act he should find a different method. Breaking the law is not o.k. regardless of the result. Sorry for getting off the topic just my opinionh and NOT an arguement. Dave

Nope... this would be an argument.

You are trying to define a situation by linking all acts as the same act.

Murder and snorting coke are NOT the same... and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

You are sitting with a drug dealer buying some coke. He tells you to try it. You say no. He says, "then you must be a cop... we should shoot you"

What is the different method you suggest? And if you don't think that the vast majority of drug dealers are armed, you are kidding yourself.