BLUE ON BLUE: AVOIDING, HANDLING AND SURVIVING ARMED ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
By: Lou Savelli
Blue on Blue
Anytime a law enforcement officer is killed, it is a tragedy. That goes without saying! However, when one law enforcement officer is the person killing the other law enforcement officer, no matter how much went wrong with the confrontation, regardless of who made a mistake, it is beyond a tragedy and wounds will never heal on both sides, far and wide. As you can tell, I am being very careful of my wording about this situation that has gotten little discussion. It’s as if no one wants to talk about it and as I found out, no one wanted to tackle this issue, at least in public, so here I am… tackling it! I am not going to pass blame on anyone or anything but I will, forcefully, offer recommendations for avoiding, handing and surviving blue on blue encounters.
Are Blue on Blue Confrontations a problem for modern law enforcement? If one cop gets killed or injured, then it’s a tragedy that needs to be understood and it’s definitely a problem that needs to be analyzed. Solutions need to be devised. As I found out, through extensive research, there have been many law enforcement officers who have been killed in Blue on Blue Confrontations and, in my opinion, there are scores more that did not have their lives end in tragedy that we have never heard about. We don’t even have access to the facts of many of these cases to analyze and use these facts to devise solutions.
My Personal Experiences
As a cop for 25 years and 90 % of that in plainclothes, I have had my share of cop’s guns pointed at me. I have been shot at (by bad guys and cops too!) and pulled my gun on cops who were on duty and off. I was part of a panel discussion and analysis of mass shootings called Massive Reflexive Response (MRR), now called contagious shootings. What I learned from my experience and analysis of shootings was that each incident was unique and occasionally mistakes were made but I also learned that most can be avoided with the right policies, procedures and training.
In the US, in the last 30 years, there have been 29 incidents that can be classified as Blue on Blue Confrontations, though each was quite different, that have ended in an officer being killed by a fellow officer. Of those 29 officers killed, many of the officers were off duty, most were in plainclothes and two were acting in an undercover capacity. What they all had in common was they resulted in mistaken identity.
To emphasize the seriousness, I want everyone to understand that there are victims of these incidents. Yes! There are victims. In the case of Blue on Blue Confrontations that end in death there are many victims. These victims range from the officer killed and his/her family, friends and coworkers to the officer who killed a fellow officer and his/her family and coworkers. How hard must it be to cope with killing another human being, and how very hard it must be to cope with killing a fellow law enforcement officer? I thank God every day that it never happened to me.
After a death, or serious injury, of a fellow law enforcement officer as a result of a Blue on Blue Confrontation, there is much devastation. We all, in the law enforcement family, understand that an officer can get killed doing, what we like to call, “God’s Work” yet we find it difficult to handle. Yet how can we understand when one law enforcement officer takes another officer’s life, especially when both sides are trying to do “God’s Work”? What are the families left to think of us as law enforcement officers and this job we do that causes us to take the life of another officer? Do lawyers kill other lawyers in the courtroom? Maybe they do, figuratively, but not literally! Do doctors kill other doctors while they are practicing medicine? Of course not!
How bitter we must all be when such a death happens. Usually, we can blame the bad guy and focus our anger on him and others like him. We can hate his defense attorney and those who support him but how can we hate another officer for doing his job, especially when he/she truly believes he is saving his own life or the lives of the citizens nearby? How does the widow or widower explain to the children of a dead officer who died at the hands of another officer? What do you say? How do we all feel? How much confusion is there?
The aftermath is that of great difficulty and confusion with broken hearts and broken spirits. And in many cases, blame is passed upon someone who was considered previously a friend, a protector or family. Many questions arise, or at least they are thought. Was it a case of prejudice? Was hatred involved? Did someone break the rules? Who was overzealous? Who was at fault? Or who was more wrong?
Whether we like to discuss it, or not, we must! Yes, the 800 pound gorilla. We have to discuss it, especially when it comes to Blue on Blue Confrontations. Is race an issue? Why are so many minority officers victims of Blue on Blue deaths? Is it so many? It seems so. Or are political activists just trying to stir everyone up at the expense of our nation’s law enforcement officers. Is it just for their own benefit or is there good reason for it? I’m not sure, but I can tell you the truth about the social implications of Blue on Blue Confrontations. We have to deal with them and add it to our training. We need to do it TODAY so it doesn’t happen again. Do we all, no matter how trained we are, bring our own personal prejudices into the equation? Do we bring our own perception into it? Of course, we all do!
So, has race been an issue in Blue on Blue Confrontations ending in tragedy? As an analyzer of facts and the available research, I am not sure. As a cop, a human being and an observer of people, I am still not sure. But what I am sure is that people, even cops, bring their personal prejudices and perception of reality to their interactions. We all know it! Yet race does not seem to be a distinguishable factor in the available information.
According to my research, there have been 29 officers killed in confrontations with other officers. Fifteen were white, thirteen were Black and one was Hispanic. Therefore, according to the statistics available on the Officer Down Memorial Page and other research available, more white officers have been killed by white officers than minority officers have been killed by white officers. In fact, some minority officers were killed by minority officers. But were these officers trained properly to handle such situations?
But what are the social implications? Well, if we, as law enforcement officers think it and community members feel it then there are social implications. So, to best summarize it, I will quote law enforcement officers, community members and family members close to a Blue on Blue Tragedy that occurred in the past few years. It has again raised questions about social issues, such as race in the Blue on Blue tragic death of Omar Edwards, a well-liked off-duty NYPD officer attempting to apprehend a suspect trying to steal his personal car. In a YouTube video that can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fERCRVJN_tc, Detective Edwards friends, colleagues and law enforcement activists, voice their thoughts and opinions about Omar, his death and the questions that have been left unanswered.
Factors Contributing to These Tragedies
Yes, there are contributing factors that led to these tragedies! And yes, absent these contributing factors, many of the officers killed would be alive, or at least I believe so. Contributing factors range widely and they seem to exist, often, on both sides of the confrontation. Without naming specific incidents and especially not naming any officers, or agencies, involved, I will list those contributing factors from my own educated and experienced findings by the frequency and importance. The top of the list is the Lack of a Confrontation Policy, next is Lack of a Confrontation Procedures and third is Lack of Training on both. Most agencies, of the agencies from which over 300 officers I have interviewed, have left officers untrained and confused about Blue on Blue Confrontations and how to handle them, nevertheless avoid them. Yes, we all know the uniform officer is in charge. WE GET IT! But it is not always that simple. And what if the challenging officer isn’t wearing a uniform? See, we need more information…more policy, more procedure and more training!
As I started discussing Blue on Blue Confrontations and training law enforcement officers on effective procedures, as far back as the year 2000, I was consistently amazed how the majority of officers, from a wide-variety of law enforcement agencies, approximately 95%, did not know how to effectively act in a confrontation with another officer on both sides of the confrontation. Consistently, officers had not received formal training on what to do during such situations. Specialized officers, such as plainclothes officers, undercover officers, narcotics investigators and surveillance specialists are much more prone to become involved in a confrontation, received nothing more than “...the uniform officer is in charge!” Yet, one of the consistent safety concerns that arose in discussion, consistently, was their concerns of being shot by a fellow officer who couldn’t readily identify them during a confrontation. It immediately made me realize I had to add a segment for dealing with Blue on Blue Confrontations in training related to narcotics investigations, undercover operations, plainclothes operations, physical surveillance and others. Of course, I stressed how important was for the plainclothes officers must completely comply with uniformed officers and identify themselves before they take action.
Next on the list of contributing factors to Blue on Blue Confrontations ending in tragedy is the Failure of the ‘confronted’ officer to submit to the orders of the ‘confronting’ officer(s). For example, many officers (of the available research) did not submit to orders to “DROP THE GUN!”, or “DON’T MOVE!” or to verbally respond to orders or instructions given by ‘confronting’ officer(s), EVEN WHEN THE CONFRONTING OFFICERS WERE IN UNIFORM. But why didn’t the ‘confronted’ officers respond? It was not uncommon for confronted officers to fail to respond to verbal orders because of ‘Auditory Exclusion’ caused by stress. Auditory Exclusion, the shutting down of hearing or inability to hear due to stress-related focus on a violent or threatening situation, is also associated with, and can go hand in hand with, Tunnel Vision. Tunnel Vision is the narrow focus of vision or attention that prevents an officer involved in a stress-related situation to see outside of a narrow view. Such narrow view can be limited to a specific situation, person or thing. The main problem is that Auditory Exclusion and Tunnel Vision are difficult to identify in rapidly evolving situations like Blue on Blue Confrontations.
Another contributing factor may have been related to, or causing, Auditory Exclusion and Tunnel vision. They are a response to the stressors, or stimuli, connected to armed and/or violent situations and this is called Tachypsychia. Tachypsychia is a neurological condition that alters the perception of time, usually induced by physical exertion, drug use, or a traumatic event and can include Auditory Exclusion, Tunnel Vision, Selective Attention, immediate PTSD Symptoms and other debilitating symptoms. These same symptoms could be suffered by the ‘confronting’ officer(s) contributing to the Blue on Blue Confrontation, however because of the limited information available in Blue on Blue confrontations; research did not reveal such a factor. Undoubtedly, in my opinion, if a confronting officer suffers from Tunnel Vision he/she may not see a badge displayed and if a confronting officer is suffering from Auditory Exclusion, he/she may not hear statements such as “I’m a Police Officer!”
Mistaken Identity has been the frequent label used to categorize the Blue on Blue Confrontation leading to a tragedy but there are many factors that can contribute to mistaken identity. Such factors include Failure on the part of the ‘confronted’ officer to properly identify himself and the inability on the part of the ‘confronting’ officers to effectively assess the situation. Of course we can all Monday morning quarterback and say that certain things needed to be done. In reality, armed confrontations are highly stressful, rapidly evolving, confusing situations involving the threat of deadly physical force. They are too complex to say things like “He should have done this and she should have done that…!” They happened fast.
Failure of officers to properly identify themselves, on both sides of a confrontation, can happen for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons may be beyond their control. Such reasons, for example, can range from the inability to obtain and display a badge and/or ID because it is inaccessible to not carrying a badge or ID or an imminently threatening situation making it difficult to produce or access the badge and/or ID. Realistically, the factors, on both sides of the confrontation, can be vast.
Ineffective identification, such as wearing a badge on the belt can be another contributing factor. Wearing the badge on around the neck facing front, while the confronting officer is at the rear, may not be totally effective but a recent study by the Kansas City, MO, Police Department shows it is far more effective than a belt badge holder. Identification that is absent a ‘POLICE’ raid jacket, or some other obvious identifier, can also be ineffective in the wrong situation and off-duty cops don’t walk around with ‘POLICE’ raid jackets in their pockets just in case they are going to get involved. But they should, always, carry their badge and ID with them! One way that just might be the most effective way to identifying yourself to responding officers is by having your badge in your non-shooting hand that can be shown while you ‘cover’ the bad guy at gunpoint.
Failure to use proper dialogue can be another factor that can lead to a tragic end. One of my pet peeves, partially because of my ‘old school’’ NYPD training, is the utilization of ‘Mutual Cop Dialogue’. During a confrontation, especially when one officer’s identity is in question, badge or no badge, effective cop dialogue can help. The lack of dialogue between officers on both sides can have dangerous outcomes. When an officer says, “POLICE DON’T MOVE!” and the other doesn’t respond that makes for a very tense situation. Using mutual dialogue can help ease the tension. The other officer can respond, “I’m a Police Officer, I work in Fifth Precinct!” The confronting officer might say, “What tour do you work?” The response could be “I work third shift, four to twelves!” That phrase itself, “…third shift” is a cop phrase. It can make a confronting officer relax a bit. If he wants more information to be sure if he is dealing with a cop, he may ask, “What’s the boss in charge of your shift called?” If he’s a cop, he’ll say, “He’s the Platoon Commander.” The dialogue can go many ways to help the confronting officer realize that he is actually dealing with an officer.
Other factors that can contribute to Blue on Blue Confrontations, and/or the tragic end to such confrontations, can be various. Here are some examples with a brief explanation:
My recommendations to effectively avoid, handle and survive Blue on Blue Confrontations, involves the creation of efficient Policy and Procedures, enhanced with proper training. Law enforcement officers should also be directed to carry their law enforcement badge and identification at all times and produce them immediately upon deciding to become involved, on or off duty, when in plainclothes. Agencies should discourage officers from taking action off-duty. Being a good ‘expert’ witness should be preferable than being a good cop who risks his/her life. There should be strict guidelines for plainclothes officers and specific ways they identify themselves. And agencies need to train, and remind, on duty personnel of how to identify off duty and plainclothes officers and use cover in confrontation situations.
Maybe I raised more questions than I answered in this writing. Sometimes it works out that way when you set out to expose something, especially an important and controversial topic. Whatever I raised, I hope I raised everyone’s awareness and understanding of the need for further investigation and policy. Maybe I have been lucky in my many personal experiences with Blue on Blue Confrontations and maybe my experience as an undercover officer, plainclothes officer, detective and supervisor has provided me with more respect and understanding of such situations to help me remain safe and not injure another cop. Or maybe I was just lucky! I think, with no reservations, there is nothing that can take the place of real-life diverse experience, but in the case of avoiding, handling and surviving Blue on Blue Confrontations to circumvent tragedies, effective policy, procedures and training comes real close.
By: Lou Savelli
Properly Managing Criminal Informants while Protecting Yourself,
the Informant, the Community and Your Agency
Dealing with informants can be a risky business! Some informants, by their mere nature, can pose many problems to an inexperienced and untrained law enforcement officer and a host of other problems for the officer’s agency. While the utilization of informants are a necessary and useful tool to enhance law enforcement efforts, agencies need to provide narrowly focused training that targets informant management to provide officers with the knowledge, skills and street smarts to effectively handle criminals who are, quite often, experts at manipulating the system as well as people and even law enforcement officers.
Like in the title of this article, “You can dance with the devil but don’t let him lead”, I am, by no means, inferring that all informants are devils. I am also not naïve enough to say that all informants are not capable of wrongdoing while working in that capacity. To clarify, all informants pose a potential for problems and the best way to keep them from becoming problems is by implementing controls and maintaining these controls for as long as you are working with them. In fact, I use an acronym, C.O.N.T.R.O.L.S., to help my law enforcement colleagues remember effective practices for dealing with informants.
Besides using C.O.N.T.R.O.L.S, effective informant management should include a comprehensive training program. The program should include several focused training modules to provide law enforcement officers with the tools needed to cultivate, manage and deploy informants in a safe, controlled and legal manner. These training modules should mirror the disciplines necessary for effective informant management. Effective informant management must involve, or provide, (1) a clear understanding of informants, (2) cultivating informants, (3) registering informants, (4) establishing the credibility and integrity of informants, (5) vetting informants, (6) managing informant incentives and compensation, (7) training informants, (8) deployment, (9) the creation and adherence to comprehensive informant management policy and procedures, (10) administrative duties and paperwork, (11) identifying problem informants, (12) officer integrity and professionalism, (13) informant safety, (14) officer safety, and (15) terminating a relationship with an informant.
A clear understanding of informants
Any law enforcement officer dealing with informants in any capacity must have a clear understanding of informants, their capabilities, limitations, legal guidelines and potential for problems. Law enforcement officers must be able to identify the various personality types of informants and their motivations. Understanding leads to safeguards and protection of the individual law enforcement officer, fellow officers and the agency’s policies. Informants are complex individuals who often ride the line between the law and criminals and choose to balance their lives within these realms for their own benefit but must be handled properly by a law enforcement handler who intricately understands the informant’s limitations.
The most common type of informant is the criminal informant. The criminal informant is most often cultivated by a law enforcement officer needing the services of an informant to uncover criminal activity or infiltrate a criminal organization. This often starts with the arrest of a criminal and the careful cultivation by a law enforcement officer through interviewing, debriefing or simple conversation. This important secondary contact is, quite often, the most honest and important evaluation a law enforcement officer will make of the informant. During the cultivation phase, law enforcement officers can assess the informant’s attitude toward the criminal justice system, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions and his willingness to assist law enforcement in the endeavor to uncover and combat crime.
In order to properly manage informants, and to provide a layer of confidentiality, law enforcement officers should enter the informant into an official registration procedure. Here, the informant is confidentially, but fully, documented as entering into an agreement to work with law enforcement. This agreement is usually part of a cooperation agreement or memorandum of understanding between the law enforcement officer(s), the prosecutor, other agencies such as parole and probation, and the informant for a specified benefit. The benefit for the informant can range from court consideration of a reduced or vacated sentence, credit with parole or probation, cash payments or some other benefit within the realm of cooperation. By registering informants, a law enforcement officer is documenting his use and establishing the official nature of the informant-law enforcement relationship. With registration comes a myriad of follow-up documentation and procedures.
Establishing the credibility and integrity of informants
Before any informant should be utilized, his credibility and integrity must be established. Even in the beginning stages of dealing with an informant, potential dangers exist for the law enforcement officer warranting the careful confirmation of the credibility and integrity of the informant. The informant’s credibility can be established by the information provided. Corroboration of the informant’s information is a good start. The informant’s ability to be forthcoming with information enhances his credibility and his willingness to accept responsibility for his past actions and provide information into his accomplices can only add to this credibility. To show integrity, the informant can be tested as well as questioned with difficult issues. How the informant reacts to these issues can validate his integrity.
By vetting informants, the law enforcement officer will be conducting an extensive background check but taking extreme caution to avoid exposing the informant’s willingness to cooperate. A thorough vetting procedure should include, but is not limited to, criminal history, Probation/Parole Status, employment history, family history, online activity, financial background, interview previous arresting officers and handlers and validating all personal and other information provided by the informant. Vetting the informant should also include an evaluation of the informant’s ability to willingly provide information without much prodding by a law enforcement officer.
Managing informant incentives and compensation
Informants only work to benefit themselves, or someone close to them. It is important for law enforcement officers to carefully manage informant incentives and compensation pursuant to cooperation. Some criminal informants will try to obtain more benefits than are commensurate with their cooperation, often, because of the mere nature of who they are and what they do (crime). Informant incentives and compensation should be narrowly limited to the cooperation agreement set forth by the prosecutor, informant handler and/or law enforcement supervisor during the beginning of the cooperation. This may have been agreed upon with the approval of the informant’s attorney. Unless approval by the prosecutor, or special circumstances exist, the handling law enforcement officer should not exceed or diminish incentives or compensation to the informant. Of course, when the informant is working outside of, or beyond, a cooperation agreement with the court or the prosecutor, the law enforcement officer or supervisor has control over the management of incentives and compensation. In that case, fairness should be the guide.
To ensure informants act according to instructions and procedure, especially in the performance of duty where tactical operations will result or undercover officers are accompanying informants, careful training must be conducted. While informants do not attend academies or sit through many hours of classroom training, detailed instruction must be conducted by the handler and handler’s supervisor with the informant. The only way to ensure the informant is fully aware of the methods to accomplish his tasks and follow proper procedures, is for the law enforcement handler to train the informant frequently and question the informant on his knowledge of the procedures. Another part of this training involves monitoring the informant during undercover performance, through physical and electronic surveillance to verify adherence to instructions and proper performance. A training record of instructions provided to the informant can be maintained on the confidential informant file.
Deploying informants during undercover assignments should be taken seriously, whether the informant will be accompanying an undercover officer or acting alone. Informant deployment must be carefully and meticulously planned for the success, integrity and safety of specific operations and overall investigations. Deploying informants, obviously, is not the same as deploying undercover officers. Informants can easily become paranoid, often act unpredictably, deviate from the tactical operation plan and potentially can compromise the safety and integrity of an investigation. The law enforcement handler must carefully train the informant on deployment rules and take corrective action when procedures are not followed. Informant deployment, in the beginning, should be limited to simple actions requiring minimal risk and gradually increased to more difficult tasks with greater risk as long as the informant has continually displayed integrity and the ability to follow instructions.
Creation and adherence to comprehensive informant management policy and procedures
In today’s law enforcement environment, especially among critics of law enforcement efforts against drug trafficking, much criticism has been given to the lack, or incompleteness, of policy and procedure relating to informants. Some of these critics may be correct in their beliefs since some agencies lack proper or complete policy and procedures relating to informants. The most effective way to ensure proper management of informants is to create (if policy and procedures are not already in place) and follow comprehensive and concise policy and procedures that provide detailed instructions for dealing with informants. Such policy needs to address issues from interviewing potential informants to terminating problematic informants and everything in between as well as specific procedures to follow for each issue.
Administrative duties and paperwork
Managing informants is not all fun and games. It must involve careful and confidential documentation of the informant’s personal and historical information as well as documentation of the activities, interviews and initial reports validating the informant’s journey from defendant, or other, to cooperator. Registration forms, informant intelligence interviews and corroboration reports must be completed and filed with all the previous documentation in the informant file. Any contact, phone conversation, payment or training must be documented along with arrests, seizure of evidence or informant shortcomings. Most agencies require the usual informant documentation forms be completed and follow-up reports written with any pertinent activity or information that arises. Law enforcement handlers can easily open themselves up to scrutiny, or disciplinary action, when administrative duties or required paperwork is not filed in a timely manner, or worse, not filed at all.
Identifying problem informants
When you look at all informants as having the potential for becoming problematic, it will be easier to identify problem informants or actions or omissions inconsistent with an honest informant who is following procedures. There are, however, many indicators of an informant who can pose difficulties in handling or help identify informant integrity issues. To only name a few, informant actions that are indicative of posing problems or potential problems are: the informant is not forthcoming with information; the informant is caught lying about an activity or information; the informant attempts to dictate how his deployment will occur; the informant purposely omits information pertinent to his activities; the informant is uncharacteristically not paranoid about his identity being known to others; the informant is inexplicably late for meetings with his handler and the informant does not have an explanation for his inability to report to his handler. Any indicator should be carefully investigated and the informant, if warranted, should be placed on ‘administrative hold’ until the investigation is complete.
Officer Integrity and Professionalism
Most, if not all criminal informants emerge from a world filled with lies, lack of integrity and a lack of honor. One of the two most important traits any law enforcement officer dealing with informants must display, at all times, is integrity. The other is professionalism. They should, of course, go hand in hand or be interchangeable. Establishing in the beginning, and continuing until the end, that the law enforcement officer managing any informant has integrity and acts with professionalism will send a clear message to the informant. That message states the officer is honest, plays by the rules (and laws) and will not compromise his integrity for anyone. It also states that the officer is a consummate professional who follows department policy, expects the truth and documents every pertinent action, good or bad. Experience has told me on many occasions, informants prefer to work with a law enforcement officer who shows integrity and professionalism. The informant knows what he is expected to do and understands that the officer is going to protect the informant’s identity. He also knows the officer’s commitment to the safety, and confidentiality, of the informant will not waiver.
It is the responsibility of any law enforcement officer involved in the management of informants to maintain the safety of the informant at all times, even if it means to protect the informant from himself. It is important to remember that informants are not undercover law enforcement officers and they will not act like law enforcement officers in similar situations. Their paranoia or undisciplined nature leads to mistakes and failure to follow procedures. From my experience, informant safety is usually compromised by the informant himself. Of the most common mistakes leading to informant danger is deviation from the tactical operation plan. When an informant does something outside the prescribed plan, it can throw off the entire operation. It can range from an increased potential for danger to the informant or back-up teams to a situation leading to the injury or death of the informant. Informant deviation from the tactical operation plan can cause surveillance personnel to lose sight of the informant or cause communication between the informant and the back-up teams to be cut off or hindered. Informant safety is also a concern due to the nature of crime and criminals. Protecting the informant from a criminal target starts with proper planning and explicit instructions on how to follow the plan. Another part of informant safety is to protect the informant’s identity and exposure to anyone who is not critical to your tactical operations. However, anyone who is involved in the tactical execution of your operations must be able to identify your informant in case the ‘you know what’ hits the fan and they have to move in and save his butt!
Never lose sight that the actions of the informant can greatly increase the exposure to danger of the handler, the supervisor and back-up teams. When the informant is placed in a dangerous or life-threatening situation, or places himself in such a situation, it is the law enforcement officers in that back-up team who will come to the rescue, often, at great risk to their own lives. Officer safety must be the responsibility of everyone involved. The informant, the handler, the supervisor and the back-up teams must take every meeting, deployment or contact with the informant as a potential for danger. Planning, training, integrity, alertness and accountability on everyone’s part will ensure the safety of all concerned.
Terminating a relationship with an informant
There comes a time in every law enforcement officer’s career, for those who manage informants, to terminate the informant for a variety of reasons. Mostly, informants are terminated, or deactivated, for lack of productivity, lying or criminal activity. When this occurs, it is good practice, and maybe good policy, to do so in a dignified and professional manner. Informants who have not lived up to their end of the cooperation agreement, to whatever degree, should no longer be used as active informants. Terminate the informant face to face and inform him of your reasons for the termination. Be clear, concise, complete and committed. Don’t let the informant manipulate you into changing your mind. They are experts at manipulating people. Your conclusion, based on facts and the informant’s performance, or lack thereof, is your motivation and the will to cover your own butt, should be your guide. Any informant who does not produce results, lies to his handler, or commits crimes is probably guilty of all three. This person is an informant you need to get out of your life, quickly and officially. Document it immediately.
Informants, if properly managed, are an effective tool used to minimize the risk to fellow law enforcement officers, especially undercover officers, and can greatly enhance enforcement and investigative efforts. Truthfully, much of the problem-minimization with informants lies in the hands of the informant handler and his or her supervisor. Firm, effective and legal guidelines imposed upon the informant will save mounds of trouble and volumes of paperwork as well as saving lives. In short, when it comes to informants, C.O.N.T.R.O.L.S. are the law enforcement officer’s best friend.
And remember, you can dance with the devil, but don’t let him lead!
Our Gang Enforcement Thought Leaders serve as a valuable resource to you and your agency.
Authors of articles submitted are responsible for compliance with restrictions and regulations regarding the publication and clearance of materials dealing with sensitive and/or classified information. The Gang Enforcement Company is not responsible for vetting the article for accuracy and all articles published do not necessarily hold the views or position of The Gang Enforcement Company unless written by the company or employees of the company.
Looking for Writers!
Currently, we are seeking subject matter specialists in a wide range of threat topics. If you are interested in being considered to be one of the Contributing Writers for the Blog and/or Magazine, please contact us: Submit Here