I was asked yesterday has to what makes confidential informant (Human Source) training provided by HSM Training different from other providers. I wasn’t quite sure where to start. Then it dawned on me that it doesn’t actually start with us, it starts with the customer and what they need. And what they need is not always what they want.
We have talked a lot about this before but the problems continue. It was recently suggested to me by a student that this doesn’t happen anymore. Unfortunately it does because police departments and sheriffs officers continue to believe any officer should be allowed to manage informants and to compound the problem they fail to put in adequate structures to manage the risks.
Here is an article about confidential informant management in Orange County, California. There have been problems here for a number of years and the fallout continues.
There is so much wrong here with regard to the evidence the officer provides I am not quite sure where to start. However, assuming the officer is being honest it indicates a system that was totally dysfunctional.
Here is a story form Arkansas about a sheriff who may have gotten too close to his informant. Managing confidential informants is a high risk business. Many officers have no idea how easily they can find themselves being corrupted. There is often an unhealthy combination of ignorance and hubris. Add this to lack of structures within an agency and poor supervision and it is a recipe for disaster.
I was doing some doing some research on the web when I came across this quote “Only members who have completed Department approved training may utilize confidential informants or maintain informant files”. It is taken from Vancouver Police Department’s Informant Management Policy For those of you unaware Vancouver is a big city in Canada - think mountains and sea, with approximately 2000 sworn and unsworn members.
We are always on the lookout for material that may be of use to officers. This is a very clear explanation of case law that affects the use confidential informants in New Mexico specifically and USA generally. It goes to two issues whether or not a person was “seized” and “reasonable suspicion” based on the word of an informant.
Erik Scramlin (lawyer) explains both issues well. Thanks to him for sharing his insight.
It is always worth examining the nuances involved around using information obtained from informants.
After spending over AUD100 million on a Royal Commission and years of adverse publicity, the State of Victoria has new legislation for managing human sources.
It is certainly going to change how things are done.
Unfortunately, this is not the end of the matter which began with police using a defence lawyer as an informant to report on her clients.
Safe to say it went badly wrong.
If you want to read the whole sad story visit: https://www.rcmpi.vic.gov.au/
Here is a story originating in San Francisco about cases being lost as a result of poor informant management
We have discussed similar cases over the years but these types of incident continue. This is not about individual officers. This is about agencies not having sufficient structures in place to minimise the risk of these things happening. Such systems take a bit of time and investment to set up and maintain but no where near the time and effort needed to clear the potential harm done by incidents such as this.
We could go on but where would be the point. If you want help ask us. If you don’t then accept the risk that something similar is occurring in your agency.
We are always studying recent court judgements with regard to protecting the identity of an informant. Here is the ruling from Massachusetts where the court ruled to protect the identity of an informant.
Officers managing informants need to read this type of judgement in order to protect informants properly.