When Police STINGS Go Wrong

Part III When Police STINGS Go Wrong

When Things Go Wrong

What has been learned other than we all make mistakes is that the police are allowed to engage in deceit, pretence, and trickery to determine whether an individual has an alleged predisposition to commit a crime, and can provide an opportunity for an individual to commit that crime, all without being guilty of entrapment. But things can go wrong for authorities resulting in a reverse effect upon targeted suspects. For example, in San Diego County, 138 tobacco retailers paid an annual licensing fee for police STINGS and the salary of a code enforcement officer who issued and renewed licenses. Those caught selling tobacco to minors faced penalties ranging from $100 to $500 and lost their license. It was argued that because only one of 18 merchants sold illegal products to minors, funds to enforce codes should be refunded to the retailers with interest and tobacco licenses should cost less.

Sometimes, the wrong person is arrested during a STING. For instance, police arrested 32 year old Christi Hernandez in McKinney, Texas after an undercover agent bought cocaine from a woman with a similar name. The McKinney woman said she continues trying to get on with her life but “I lost my job and my life” because of the false accusation. “We apologize to her,” said McKinney Police Chief Doug Kowalski. Nice! Check out my website for more information http://crimeprofessor.com

Another example of things going wrong: Operation Lightning Strike, an FBI STING aimed at trapping NASA personnel and their subcontractors included an agent who pretended to have developed a (phony) devise. Millions were spent on luxury hotel suites, gourmet meals, deep-sea fishing trips, and strip clubs. Agents had few suspects but Strike was a scenario similar to dozens of alleged failed STINGS uncovered by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

STINGS are often justified because of the detrimental effect certain violations have upon quality of life issues or because of the issues police policymakers raise or invent to further their goals.

Both scholars and the courts recognize that law on the books is not “what law is.” Policy and practice associated with STING tactics raises the bar toward unlawful intrusions. For instance, researchers found high rates of unconstitutional police searches in an estimated 30% of police searches (115 searches) conducted by officers in a department ranked in the top 20 percent nationwide. Those officers violated Fourth Amendment prohibitions on searches and seizures. The majority of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34 were invisible to the courts, having resulted in no arrest, charge, or citation. If general searches produce civil rights violations, then it is an easy stone’s throw to argue that since the centerpiece of STING and undercover initiatives is deception, STINGS and undercover initiatives produce similar, if not higher, civil rights violations. The thought paints a troubling picture of police and policymaker practices. It raises difficult questions about discretionary police practices including future decisions to control demonstrators attending the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Do policymakers randomly have the legal and moral right to freeze the US Constitution? It’s it true that American’s have the right, more than the right “unalienable (cannot be altered by law) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Social order or social control from the perspective of policymakers takes precedence over due process and gives rise to the question: who polices policymakers from justifying arbitrary police intuition into the daily lives of its citizens?        

        Implications of arbitrary police strategies tend to increase criminal victimization and citizen dissatisfaction, while the fear of crime and residents’ perceptions of disorder remain unaffected. That is, police strategies linked to STINGS, undercover assignments, and critical incident tactics such as those that will be employed at the political national conventions are counter to respectable behavior because they promote and reward liars, deception, concealment, and betrayal by implying that “the more successful police are in appearing really bad, the more successful they must be in appearing good.” For example, in Raleigh, North Carolina Casey M. McNeel was arrested for purchasing child pornography from an undercover officer in Wilmington. The details of McNeel’s arrested provided by the police implicated McNeel in both child pornography and implied that she was a child molester, too. While in custody, McNeel’s home was invaded and her family was ridiculed by an outraged public demanding reprisal. Because of a lack of police protection, McNeel’s youngest child was attacked by an “unknown” perpetrator and the McNeel’s pet dog was sliced open and left for dead. Subsequently, McNeel lost her job and was brutally attacked when transported to court. It was later learned that an undercover officer participating in the STING lied about McNeel’s purchase and involvement with children. This officer asked his colleagues to lie for him because it was a “good bust,” and getting “pervs off the street is a good thing.” The facts are that the officer had dated McNeel before her marriage to another man and he wanted revenge. McNeel’s parents were fearful to come forward because of the undercover officer’s threats. Her husband wasn’t sure if his wife of 14 years was, indeed, a “child molester” or not and was encouraged by the prosecutor and the police to have their children rape-tested at the hospital.  The police’s evidence and testimonies built a strong case against McNeel. “How do you fight city hall?”          

A reasonable (Constitutional) expectation of privacy exists even in a STING sex case (i.e. whether a particular place is isolated enough that a reasonable person would see no significant risk of being discovered). The Massachusetts State Police settled a charge on behalf of a gay man who alleged that troopers harassed him at a highway rest stop. The settlement included state police guidelines preventing officers from deliberately trudging into wooded areas near rest stops.  The fact is that since enforcement employs deception to detect and record criminal activities, when officers testify against offenders in the courtroom “where the stakes – their jobs, the case,” are much higher, will officers deceive a jury? Other critics argue that the price for more freedom is likely to be less order while the price for more order is likely to be less freedom. However, two thoughts remain:

1.   STINGS and undercover initiatives tend to be covert tactics and all of their working components tend to be less publicized as often as their failures.

2.   Reported crime has been on the decline and STINGS and undercover initiatives are practiced by many police agencies. Thus, tentative inferences can be endorsed.  

Part II How to Detect an Undercover Officer

Part III Police STINGS
How to Detect an Undercover Officer: successful criminals including drug traders know plenty about policing and may even be an experienced law enforcement officer. What follows is true more often than not true, yet there are always exceptions. Nonetheless, a criminal’s attention to detail is probably one reason she or he is successful. How an undercover officer behaves and dresses when posing as a ghetto thug or high class addict, how they drive their vehicles, the condition of those vehicles, and where and how they live are revealing ‘tells.’ For instance, the clothing of drug addict usually doesn’t fit right because most addicts are constantly losing or gaining weight. By contrast, most undercover officers can’t fake this particular appearance and are dead giveaways; they’ll only appear to be sloppy and carry themselves as though their donning a “street uniform.” As pictured here, when you’re really a righeous guy, even bling bling can’t change you. Scraggly beards that look recently grown also are giveaways. The cars they drive are too well-maintained. A dope addict’s car, for instance, usually has three different brands and different styles of tires, a bunch of fast food and candy wrappers all over the inside, burn marks and ripped seats, and screaming kids in the backseat. The windows of the vehicle are jammed with the fifty-year crud and the ash trays spill over with various brands of cigarettes – filtered and unfiltered.

Officers who attempt to portray someone they’re not often have difficulty changing their body language making them obvious ringers. They are too full of positive thoughts, too active, and too curious. An undercover officer wants to put the bad guy in jail and his or her eyes reveal the story of anticipated success. Often, they wear sunglasses. A junkie, on the other hand, will often blind themselves by not wearing sunglasses even when they should. The eyes of a chronic addict consequently will look sunken, like they haven’t slept in days – and they haven’t. Female offenders (more than male addicts) tend to easily melt or tear, and seem to report their childhood experiences more than talk about their expectations of the future. Photo of real undercover officer exposed – Lynn Watson. Other give-aways include: being too sure about the price of drugs, guns, or anything an undercover officer is seeking, constantly making phone calls during a deal; being too eager to buy; offering sex in exchange for doing business; consuming drugs at the request of the drug trader (as seen in Gollywood’s 21 Jump Street – see trailer here), being too familiar, and being too unfamiliar; being too agreeable, and being too disagreeable. Other red flags include money, itchy and prickly skin, weapons and weapon handling, and totally – too many questions. Most cops I know work-out and have hard bodies. Junkies and many offenders couldn’t care less. Their focus is to experience the effects of product (drugs) and to get-off from committing a criminally violent act – as often as the opportunity arises. Then, too, female undercover officers tend to wear thick (quality) padded bras, use quality makeup and hygiene products, and care for the appearance of their fingers and toes. The palms of their hands are smooth and their eyes are clear. Finally, the body produces an odor and a “presence” often centered on diet, lifestyle, and health. Most chronic offenders live an unhealthy lifestyle and present a suspect presence and attitude – defensive yet aggressive. Their diet is poor and they are unconcerned with proper hygiene and other physiological issues. Villains and thugs tend to ignore the obvious signs of poor health such as rotting teeth, skin rashes, bruises and abrasions (as result of numerous accidents and their own victimization). In a nutshell – The smell tells.
To Prevent Undercover Officer Corruption: the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) requires “written procedures for conducting vice, drug, and organized crime surveillance, undercover, decoy, and rapid operations.” However, trying to balance the law with politics may have draw backs for undercover cops. For instance, there is evidence that Masstroopers assigned to Mitt Romney prior to the governors election were hung up in a federal sweep in New Orleans. In the days before 9/11, FBI agents eavesdropped on the brothels’ telephones mainly because they had little to do. In New Orleans, the feds focused on the Canal Street Brothel owned by Jeanette Maier (pictured here). Prudently, the feds sent in undercover ‘clients’ to partake in the services of the brothel ‘to be sure.’ According to the feds, they had stumbled upon a crime syndicate of scantily clad women.
Powerful corporate leaders hired several of Jeanette Maier’s girls including her daughter, Monica Rene Montemayor. The girls were paid $3,000 each plus $1,000 to the house to entertain clients during a trip to the Mississippi gulf coast in a 41-foot Sea Ray named CRIME SCENE. The raid upon the vessel was successful and a large group of hookers were arrested. On April 2, 2002, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans unveiled a 16-count indictment, charging Jeanette a dozen other girls with conspiracy and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Beaming at a press conference, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sal Perricone proclaimed, “This case represents what I feel is one of the vilest forms of racketeering, and that’s the exploitation of women for the sake of a buck.” What he didn’t say was anything about the Jeanette’s clients. Their names were conspicuously absent from the indictment.
According to sources: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, case number 02-078, U.S. v. Jeanette Maier, et. al.; and CBS, 48 Hours Investigates, “The Canal Street Brothel,” June 4, 2003 – When reporters tried to get details about the client list—rumored to contain the names of some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in New Orleans—U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle sealed the court records.
When the client list emerged, some said that the federal prosecutors were probably scared to go after many of those clients. Defense lawyers, argued that the government was treating their female clients unfairly and threatened to go public with the names of the clients. According to one defense lawyers, one name was that of the son of the former governor of a northern state, and two males who were Massachusetts State Troopers. After the brothel-vessel case became the butt of late-night talk show jokes, the feds brought in Al Winters and Bill McSherry, a couple of seasoned federal prosecutors. The New Orleans prosecutors who had indicted the case, Sal Perricone and Gaynell Williams, dropped from sight.
Court records show that the government dropped the original 16-count indictment in exchange for a few guilty pleas. Two of those guilty pleas were the Masstroopers assigned to Mitt Romney who had subsequently been elected governor. We all have our crosses to carry, even Newt Gingrich whose past remains undercover sort’a speak, says the Washington Post.