Informants: Law Enforcement Officers Or Classified Citizens?

Confidential informants are people who provide useful information on criminal activities to law enforcement officials. They are often paid by the police for the information they give and may be facing charges of their own. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants, but some law enforcement agencies have been found to not always follow these rules. The activities required of confidential informants may conflict with conditions imposed by a court and pose risks to probation officers. In this article, we will explore the question of whether confidential informants can be classified as law enforcement officers.

Confidential informants are people who provide useful information on criminal activities to law enforcement

The activities required of confidential informants may conflict with conditions normally imposed by a court. Acting as a confidential informant is generally inconsistent with the rehabilitative and re-integrative goals of supervision. Such activities may also pose risks to the probation officers who supervise these individuals, especially when they have limited knowledge of the nature of the informant's activities.

In the U.S., the Department of Justice (DOJ) first drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants in 1976, and it has revised the guidelines since then. The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources (2006) applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of informants, and The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (2002) applies to all other DOJ law-enforcement agencies and federal prosecuting offices.

In a drug case or a weapons case, a confidential informant may be somebody who has purchased drugs from a defendant on a prior occasion. The informant then goes to the police and states that they have purchased drugs from the defendant, providing them with the exact location of the sale. If the police take the information shared with them and see a person that matches the description given, they have an independent reason to arrest that person.

Informants are often paid by the police for the information they give

Confidential informants are people who provide useful information on criminal activities and can be a major asset to law enforcement officials. They are sometimes referred to as CI by the police and are often paid for the information they give. For example, they may have been arrested for engaging in criminal behaviour and then turn to the police, offering to give them information and cooperate in exchange for payment or staying out of trouble.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) first drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants in 1976, and it has revised the guidelines since then. The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources (2006) applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of informants, and The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (2002) applies to all other DOJ law-enforcement agencies and federal prosecuting offices. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has called for improved compliance with those policies to better improve documentation and oversight of informants.

The activities required of confidential informants or human sources, however, may potentially conflict with conditions normally imposed by a court. Acting as a confidential informant or human source is generally inconsistent with the rehabilitative and re-integrative goals of supervision. Such activities may also pose risks to the probation officers who supervise these individuals, especially when they have limited knowledge or no knowledge of the nature of the informant’s activities.

In a drug case or a weapons case, a confidential informant may be somebody who has purchased drugs from a defendant on a prior occasion. The confidential informant then goes to the police and states that they have purchased drugs from the defendant, providing them with the exact location of the sale. If the police take the information shared with them and see a person that matches the description given and is doing the kinds of things that the confidential informant described, then the police have an independent reason to arrest that person.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing informants in 1976

Confidential informants, sometimes referred to as CIs by the police, are people who provide useful information on criminal activities and can be a major asset to law enforcement officials. They are often paid by the police for the information they give and may be facing charges of their own. For example, they may have been arrested for engaging in criminal behaviour and then turn to the police, offering to give them information and cooperate in exchange for payment or staying out of trouble.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) first drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants in 1976, and it has revised the guidelines since then. The Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources (2006) applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's use of informants, and The Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (2002) applies to all other DOJ law-enforcement agencies and federal prosecuting offices. The Attorney General's Guidelines set forth procedures on the management of informants, including vetting potential informants and overseeing informants' illegal activities that components authorise to support an investigation.

In cases that could involve federal prosecutions, the Attorney General's Guidelines set rules for federal agencies' use of informants. The rules fall into two categories: vetting and overseeing. Undercover work can be dangerous for everyone involved, so the government has set some ground rules for working with informants. However, when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) checked on major law enforcement agencies, they found that several agencies weren't always following the rules.

Some components within the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) do not fully address the procedures outlined in the Attorney General's Guidelines, which established procedures to help ensure that components exercise their authorities regarding the use of informants appropriately and with adequate oversight. Eight components within the DOJ and DHS—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS)—have policies in place that generally address the procedures outlined in the Guidelines for vetting a confidential informant. However, five of the eight components' policies are not fully consistent with the Guidelines' provisions for overseeing informants' illegal activities. Consequently, agencies may not have reasonable assurance that they are complying with procedures established in the Guidelines to address the risks associated with using informants.

The Attorney General's Guidelines set rules for federal agencies' use of informants

Confidential informants are people who provide useful information on criminal activities, and can be a major asset to law enforcement officials. They are often paid by the police for the information they give, and may be facing charges of their own.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) first drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants in 1976, and it has revised the guidelines since then. The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources (2006) applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of informants, and The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (2002) applies to all other DOJ law-enforcement agencies and federal prosecuting offices.

The Attorney General's Guidelines also cover the registration of a confidential informant, including suitability determination, registration, instructions, and special approval requirements. The guidelines are mandatory and supersede previous guidelines on the use of informants.

The courts have recognised that the government's use of informants is lawful and often essential to the effectiveness of properly authorised law enforcement investigations. However, the use of informants may involve an element of deception, intrusion into the privacy of individuals, or cooperation with persons whose reliability and motivation may be open to question. Therefore, special care is taken to carefully evaluate and closely supervise their use so the rights of individuals under investigation are not infringed.

The activities required of confidential informants may conflict with conditions imposed by a court

Confidential informants, sometimes referred to as CI by the police, are people who provide useful information on criminal activities and can be a major asset to law enforcement officials. They are often paid by the police for the information they give and may be facing charges of their own. For example, they may have been arrested for engaging in criminal behaviour and then turn to the police, offering to give them information and cooperate in exchange for payment or staying out of trouble.

In cases that could involve federal prosecutions, the Attorney General's Guidelines set rules for federal agencies' use of informants. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) first drafted guidelines requiring vetting and overseeing such informants in 1976, and it has revised the guidelines since then. The Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources (2006) applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's use of informants, and The Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (2002) applies to all other DOJ law-enforcement agencies and federal prosecuting offices.

There are rare occasions when the law enforcement benefits to the community justify permitting the defendant to engage in this high-risk activity. In these cases, strict monitoring by the court or probation office is necessary for the safety of the community, the defendant, and the supervising probation officer.

Frequently asked questions