Problems with confidential informants

There has been a lot of reporting recently about law enforcement agencies having problems managing confidential informants. Regardless of how you refer to people who confidentially pass information to law enforcement.managing them is often problematic. There are numerous terms that are often used: Covert human intelligence sources (CHIS), the UK legal term, Human sources, used by FBI and widely in Canada and across Australia. and HUMINT often used within military circles. Having a clear definition of what constitutes an informant and what the parameters of their role is are critical elements in managing these individuals effectively. A lot of law enforcement officers believe that anyone can manage informants which is also one of the reasons that an agency gets into trouble around informant management. And unfortunately when something goes wrong the default setting for many is to blame an individual rather than looking at the system that created the circumstances where the bad things happened. The vast majority of things that go wrong with managing informants are down to how the agency manages the informant and the systems that are in place. Most of the time it is an officer being scapegoated. Undoubtedly there are officers who have been involved in wrongdoing but when one drills down into the case it is the informant management system within the agency that has condone the activity or not prevented the wrong doing.

Fortunately, there is a lot an agency can do to mange risks around informant management. At HSM Training and Consultancy we have the knowledge and skills to identify the problems you may have within your agency and advise with regard to steps that need to be taken to protect the agency, the public and the informant. In many cases we can help minimise the impact where something bad has already happened. We are professionals. We know informant management inside out. We literally wrote the book!

So regardless of the size of your agency get in touch and we can have a chat about how we can help you. We work with both big and small agencies. And we want what is right for you. Its not an one size fits all solution. And if you need expert testimony about what is good and bad practice with regard to managing informants we can provide that

Receiving Information in Confidence from Citizens

One problem we at HSM Training regularly encounter is that of how an agency can take information from a citizen in a secure and legally compliant way. Often within individual agencies a plethora of terms is used to try and cover the different circumstances in which a person provides information to a law enforcement agency. Terms such as: confidential informant, informer, informant, casual contact, confidential source, confidential contact, agent, CHIS, human source and even witness are often used interchangeably by members of an agency. Not only does this lead to much confusion it means the limited resources of the agency are often wasted with needless bureaucracy. More seriously, it can often mean that people who put themselves at risk by providing information are not properly protected by the agency.  

When it comes to passing information law enforcement needs to identify and use specific named categories into which they can place the individual who is supplying information. When placed in the identified category the agency can then manage that individual according to an agreed and document set of standards. Using identified clearly identified categories and working to agreed standards ensures that the risk to the person and the agency are managed effectively. They will also ensure that there is legal compliance.

There are three categories that command an adequate starting place all of which will fall within the broader understanding of the often, used term 'confidential informant'.

1. 'Registered Human Source.' This term refers to a person with whom an agency enters a relationship in order to obtain information over an identified period and under specified set of circumstances. This relationship is authorised by someone in a management position within the agency and all aspects of that relationship are documented. [In Canada, this term also includes a person who has “agent” status.]

2. 'Witness.' This term refers to a person with whom the agency enters into a relationship with the intention that the person will give evidence in court against another person. Such a person may or may not be serving a prison sentence at time of passing the information. The person knows they will be testifying.

3.  'Member of the public.' This term refers to all other persons that do not fall within either Category 1 or 2 above and refers to any person passing information to the law enforcement agency in the expectation that their identity remains confidential (i.e. the intention is the identity of this person will be protected except when there is a legal requirement to disclose it).
   

At HSM Training we work in many different jurisdictions with different legislative processes. However, we have yet to encounter a legislative regime where this method of classification will not work. This system may need minor tweaking but it will help you address this problem in a cost effective manner. If you need help with this problem please contact us at: info@hsmtraining.com  

Save yourself some time and trouble and get a system that protects everyone involved.

Sexual Misconduct with an informant

Interesting story about an officers inappropriate sexual relationship with an informant ("human source", "confidential informant", "covert human intelligence source")

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/01/26/sex-harassment-settlement-minnesota-bca-informant

As always in these cases it is good to ask a few pertinent questions about the management of confidential informants and hopefully the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is asking itself how this situation occurred.

1. What are the agency rules and regulations about contact with informants and how are contacts reported?
2. Was there only one officer managing this informant?
3. What supervision was there and what went wrong with it?
4. What training did the officers involved have for this highly specialised role?
5. What changes can the agency make to reduce the chances of this happening again?

It is easy to cast all the blame on one "bad apple" but if one wants to eradicate this type of behaviour one needs a full independent audit of what went wrong and not one carried out by people with a vested interest in sweeping the issue under the rug. 

Three things will help prevent this sort of event:

1. Comprehensive policy and procedures for officers involved in managing informants
2. Only trained officers involved to manage informants and those officers being properly trained.
3. Good IT to record and manage all the records.

If you want to know more get in touch we provide audits and training. And we are significantly cheaper than $110,000!