(How to) Find out who's a Snitch
Confidential informants are crucial to many law enforcement investigations and are especially essential in the field of narcotics investigations. Informants can provide specific information that is simply not available from other sources.
However, the informants are often criminals themselves; if not properly managed, they can render a law enforcement investigation useless, destroy an agency’s credibility, and even endanger officers’ lives.
Narcotics investigations often use confidential informants to lead investigators to their key targets; they are the insiders to the drug world and have the ability to go places and speak with people inaccessible to the police. Informants work within an illegal enterprise system and therefore are for the most part involved in illegal activities.
At times, drug investigators work with and befriend drug users, prostitutes, burglars, and con artists in order to reach the desired outcome—to get the worst of the worst off the streets. Narcotics investigators have to maintain a sort of temporary, fictitious friendship with informants knowing that their only goal is to obtain valuable information.
There are two opportunities to find out the identity of a confidential informant: before and during trial. If a defendant doesn’t ask for disclosure of the identity at one of these two times, then the issue is waived (meaning that the defendant can’t find out the identity later).
It can be an uphill battle to learn the identity of a confidential informant, but discovering it can also be crucial to a defendant’s ability to mount an adequate defense. In addition, if a court orders disclosure and a witness refuses to name the confidential informant, then the court may strike the testimony of that witness or dismiss the case, so it’s worth the effort to try and find out who the confidential informant is.
The government has an interest in not giving up the identity of a confidential informant to a defendant or anyone else. After all, a CI is someone who came to the police voluntarily and doesn’t wish to be identified, often because of a fear of retaliation.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must disclose information that forms the basis of its case. This process is called discovery. A defendant is entitled to the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call, as well as a list of physical evidence and documents. The prosecution must also disclose any deal it has offered to a witness in exchange for testifying. While normally prosecutors have to disclose all witnesses who are relevant to the case whether or not those witnesses will testify, they often don’t have to reveal the identity of confidential informants (CIs).
There are two types of informants: (1) private citizens who, by chance, happen to witness a crime, and (2) police informants who, in essence, work as agents for the police or other law enforcement agencies.
Information and testimony provided by informants is not only used to obtain search warrants but is also used in a variety of criminal proceedings such as pretrial hearings and actual trials.
I understand that prosecutors need to encourage snitches to snitch, but these sentences simply cannot be reconciled with fairness, and they create overwhelming incentives for snitches to fabricate evidence against superiors, which is exactly what happened in this case,
The federal government makes a living off tapes and snitches. It's absolutely standard operating procedure.
Control of Information
Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes and Lt. Colombo are fictional characters, equally fictional is the concept that police detectives solve crimes by applying deductive reasoning to the clues of the case. Certainly crime-scene evidence and eye-witnesses are of great importance in police work but when one examines the reality of criminal investigations it becomes apparent that without informants, "rats", and confessions the vast majority of crimes would go unsolved.
Police routinely offer cash rewards and set up "hotlines" to entice the acquaintances of criminals to come forward. Once police have a suspect in mind they will attempt to interrogate everyone around him, friends, co-workers, family members. With the use of threats, lies and deceit the police are usually successful in extracting information from these sources. Friends and co-workers will be told that they have been implicated in the crime by the suspect and will be charged along with him unless they tell their side of the story. Family members will be told that the suspect has confessed or that evidence proving his guilt exists and that the police want to act in his "best interests" and the testimony of family members would allow him to "get the help he needs". The suspect’s spouse or intimate partner will be told that during the course of their investigation the police have discovered evidence of the suspect’s infidelity in an attempt to break the unique protective feelings developed in an intimate relationship.
Control of information thus becomes the most vital element in the security of our movement. Information is more valuable than any material resource, it can make you rich or it can send you to the gallows. Even the slightest leak can provide investigators a new lead and they are tenacious especially when confronted with a difficult case. We must assure that no piece of information, no matter how seemingly irrelevant, is transformed from our secret into a law-enforcement resource. How can secrets be kept? How can information be controlled? Ben Franklin once said "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead!"… this is a realistic assessment. We all have our own secrets, a dark deed committed alone, a childhood indiscretion, or an act of foolishness in our past which we shall never reveal to the world. These personal secrets are given a level of protection by us that can never be equaled by the swearing and blood-oaths which protect communal secrets. The truth will come out eventually in nearly every case, the best we can do for our communal secrets is to prolong their revelation for as long as possible. Here are some points to consider in the control of information.
- Share no secret which does not have to be shared. In military terminology this is referred to as the "need to know" and is applied so that each individual is given only enough information to perform the mission required.
- When confronted by law enforcement offer absolutely no information. Remember these five words: "I have nothing to say". Know your rights. Make no statement either written or verbal. Demand to see a lawyer immediately. Do not submit to any voluntary search of your person, property, vehicle or residence. Do not waive any of your rights or voluntarily allow them to be violated. The decisions you make when dealing with law enforcement are deadly serious, make no mistakes.
- Do not discuss any aspect of your guerrilla activities on communication systems which are not secure. Such systems include, telephones, cellular phones, faxes and e-mail. Even secure systems, such as digitally encrypted cellular phones and e-mail, should be used with great caution. Who knows what encryption Big Brother really can or can’t break.
- Employ the best encryption possible for computer files (including this one) which deal with revolutionary struggle, firearms and explosives etc.
- Use "disinformation" in order to confuse and deceive law enforcement.
- Don't discuss your belief in violent action with anyone who is not directly involved in our struggle. Profess adherence to non-violence in public.
Read more: Urban Guerrilla
(How to) Find out Who's a Snitch
Torture Inc. America's Brutal Prison System - Prison Slavery
Police Brutality is as American as Apple pie
How to File a Complaint against a Police Officer
Victims of Free Speech
Who’s a Rat?
The confidentiality of informants is of primary concern in law enforcement operations. Informant identities must remain undisclosed to protect them and to preserve the service they provide. However, a Web site called Who’s a Rat?
(whosarat.com) reveals identities of informants and their law enforcement agents. Through the site’s database, visitors can contribute information about local police, federal agents, and police informants. According to an Austin Chronicle article, the site’s founder, Sean Bucci, said, “Every month, nearly 100,000 Americans are arrested on drug charges. . . . [I]nformants . . .often tell outright lies in an effort to get their own criminal charges or sentences reduced.” A contributor to the Web site, Brian Drake, commented, “If the state is going to have databases on us, it seems only fair that we can have a database of agents and informers as a tool for defense attorneys and defendants.”
Daz Dillinger, a member of Tha Dogg Pound and a former Death Row Records artist, recently made clear his thoughts about Suge Knight and claims he is a "police informant."
Dillinger took to Instagram to voice his opinion saying, "Look how this nigga Suge Knight is walking up and the police is shaking his hand. Does that look like a police informant to you?" The video, which has since been removed from his account, also had a caption reading, "POLICE INFORMAT AFTER A MURDER LOL."
Suge Knight was recently made a suspected party and later arrested for murder in a fatal hit-and-run that left Carter dead and another person injured. Knight was in an altercation with two men on the set of a film project that took place on the 1200 block of West Rosecrans Avenue prior to the incident.
1People v. Aguilar, (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502, 508 ("In Aguilar v. Texas, supra (1964) 378 U.S. 108, 114 [84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 729], the United States Supreme Court said: "Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, ..." . And in United States v. Ventresca, supra (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 108 [85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 689], the court repeated that same admonition, saying: "This is not to say that probable cause can be made out by affidavits which are purely conclusory, stating only the affiant's or an informer's belief that probable cause exists without detailing any of the 'underlying circumstances' upon which that belief is based. Recital of some of the underlying circumstances in the affidavit is essential if the magistrate is to perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police.
See U.S. Department of Justice, The Attorney General’s Guidelines regarding the Use of Confidential Informants, May 30, 2002, www.usdoj.gov/olp/dojguidelines.pdf#search=confidential%20informants,
May 3, 2007; see also Office of the Inspector General, “The Attorney General’s Guidelines regarding the Use of Confidential Informants,” chap. 3 in The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s Investigative Guidelines (Redacted), special report, September 2005, www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0509/chapter3.htm,
Please HELP keep this information online and up-to-date by donating $1.00 now. Thank you for your support.
FREE EBook Rats! Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin. By Claire Wolfe
Should We Trust Police Officers?
Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers can lie to the American people. Police officers are trained at lying, twisting words and being manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don’t try to “out smart” a police officer and don’t try being a “smooth talker” because you will lose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.