Undercover Officers: To What Extent Do They Bend The Law?

Undercover police operations often involve deception and participation in criminal activity. While this may include breaking the law, such as buying drugs, these acts are not considered crimes unless committed by unauthorized officers. This practice of authorized criminality is controversial, raising questions about the limits of acceptable police conduct and potentially undermining public trust in law enforcement. The legal framework surrounding undercover officers' activities, such as the proposed Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill in the UK, is intended to define the circumstances under which agents can commit crimes and provide immunity from prosecution. However, critics argue that without clear limits on the types of crimes authorized, there is a risk of human rights violations, including state-sanctioned rape, murder, or torture.

Limits on criminal conduct

The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill seeks to define the circumstances in which undercover agents can commit crimes. However, critics argue that the Bill does not set clear limits on the types of criminal conduct that can be authorised, raising concerns about potential human rights violations.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has expressed concern that the Bill could allow for state-sanctioned serious crimes such as rape, murder, or torture. The Committee has recommended adding clear limits on the scale and type of criminality that can be authorised by undercover agents.

The Opposition has also proposed amendments to the Bill, including explicit bans on causing death or bodily harm, violating sexual integrity, and subjecting individuals to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These proposals were defeated by the Government in the Commons.

Ministers have denied that the Bill gives undercover agents a "licence to kill" and insist that existing laws, such as the Human Rights Act, provide sufficient upper limits on the actions of undercover operatives. The Human Rights Act includes the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the prohibition of subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment.

While there may be instances where undercover officers are authorised to engage in criminal activity, there are limits to the types of crimes they can commit. For example, undercover officers are not permitted to commit murder, even if it is part of an initiation ritual for the group they are infiltrating.

The practice of authorised criminality by undercover police officers is a controversial issue that raises questions about the limits of acceptable police conduct and the potential undermining of social support for law enforcement.

Oversight and approval

To address these concerns, amendments have been suggested to the Bill, including explicit bans on authorising undercover agents to kill, torture, or violate the sexual integrity of an individual. These amendments aim to provide clear safeguards, oversight, and limits to the actions of undercover officers. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has played a crucial role in reviewing the Bill and concluded that, in its current form, it lacks adequate safeguards to prevent the potential abuse of authorised criminal conduct.

Harriet Harman, the committee chair, emphasised the need for clear limits on the scale and type of criminality that can be authorised. She stated that the Bill, as it stands, leaves open the possibility of state-sanctioned serious crimes, which is unacceptable. The committee's areas of concern include the lack of limitations on the type of criminal conduct authorised and the absence of clarity on who can be instructed to commit a crime, with no exclusion for children.

To enhance oversight and approval of undercover operations, the committee has recommended that proposed actions should first receive approval from a judge. This additional layer of scrutiny would help ensure that the activities of undercover officers do not exceed legal and ethical boundaries. It is essential to strike a balance between the effectiveness of undercover operations and upholding the human rights of individuals, maintaining public trust, and preserving the moral standing of law enforcement agencies.

Human rights violations

Undercover officers are generally required to get prior approval from a senior officer before committing a crime. However, if an officer feels that they have to commit a given crime to maintain their cover, they can do so at their discretion, with the knowledge that they will likely have to justify their decision and may face criminal charges.

The extent and severity of the crimes undercover officers are allowed to commit vary depending on the case and the country. In the US, for example, FBI guidelines state that undercover agents cannot "engage in any activity that would constitute a violation of Federal, state, or local law if engaged in by a private person acting without authorization." However, exceptions are often made, and agents can be given prior approval to commit minor crimes that are deemed necessary for their investigation, such as selling or purchasing drugs.

The use of undercover officers has raised concerns about human rights violations and the potential infringement of privacy and personal freedoms. Critics argue that without clear limits on the types of crimes that can be authorized, undercover officers could be given a licence to kill, rape, torture, or commit other serious crimes with impunity. There is also concern that the use of undercover agents can be highly intrusive, invading privacy and involving surveillance of a wide range of community activities, including confidential and privileged relationships.

In response to these concerns, some countries and agencies have introduced regulations and guidelines to limit the activities of undercover officers. For example, the British government has introduced legislation severely restricting the ability of undercover officers to commit crimes and form relationships with those they are investigating. Similarly, the Los Angeles Police Department prohibits police officers from posing as members of the news media, as this could damage the trust between the media and the public and potentially put journalists in danger.

Overall, while undercover officers may sometimes be allowed to break the law, this practice raises complex ethical and legal questions, particularly regarding human rights and privacy.

Authorised criminality

Undercover police operations often involve officers engaging in seemingly illegal activities to gather evidence or maintain their fictitious identities. This practice, known as "authorised criminality," is a highly controversial aspect of law enforcement. While it can be a necessary tool for infiltrating criminal organisations and bringing them down from the inside, it also raises serious ethical and legal questions.

The extent to which undercover officers can break the law varies depending on the jurisdiction and the specific operation. In some cases, officers may be authorised to commit minor crimes, such as purchasing drugs or participating in illegal activities, to maintain their cover. However, there are typically strict limits on the types of crimes that can be committed, with murder, rape, and torture generally considered off-limits.

For example, in the case of the FBI agent Donnie Brasco, who went undercover in the Mafia, the operation was called off when the Mafia requested that Donnie commit a murder. On the other hand, Donnie was permitted to commit other crimes, such as assault, disposing of corpses, and truck hijackings, to maintain his cover.

The practice of authorised criminality has been criticised as being secretive, unaccountable, and potentially in violation of human rights. There is a risk that without clear limits and oversight, undercover officers could be given a "licence to kill," rape, or torture with impunity. This was the concern raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) in the UK regarding the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, which sought to protect undercover agents who break the law on operations from prosecution.

To balance the need for effective undercover operations and the protection of human rights, it has been suggested that clearer limits and oversight are necessary. This could include explicit exclusions for certain crimes, such as those mentioned above, and requiring judicial approval for proposed actions.

Maintaining fictitious identities

Maintaining a fictitious identity is a crucial aspect of undercover operations, allowing agents to gain the trust of targeted individuals or groups and gather crucial information. This practice, often referred to as "going undercover," involves assuming a false identity and disguising one's true identity to avoid detection.

Undercover officers face significant challenges in maintaining their fictitious identities, as it involves living a double life, separated from friends and family, and adhering to strict operational security protocols. They must be adept at selecting the appropriate disguise and assuming the mannerisms, behaviours, and language consistent with the fictional persona they are portraying.

The stress and isolation associated with undercover work can take a toll on the mental health and well-being of officers. They may experience depression, anxiety, and relationship strain due to the need for secrecy and the unpredictable nature of their work. Additionally, the lack of typical controls, such as a uniform or constant supervision, can increase the risk of corruption or compromise.

To protect the safety and effectiveness of undercover officers, their identities are often kept confidential, even during legal proceedings. For example, during a public inquiry into the conduct of undercover officers who infiltrated political groups, the retired judge granted anonymity to two-thirds of the officers who requested it. This decision was criticised by the victims of surveillance, who argued for transparency and the publication of officers' identities.

In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) leads covert operations and must obtain authorisation from the President for any such activities, as outlined in Executive Order 12333, titled "United States Intelligence Activities." The CIA's authority to conduct covert actions is further reinforced by the National Security Act of 1947 and various legislative provisions.

While undercover officers may engage in certain illegal activities as part of their investigations, there are limits to the extent of their law-breaking. For instance, they may purchase drugs to build relationships with dealers but are not authorised to commit murder or participate in violent acts, except in self-defence or the defence of others. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stipulates that agents must not instigate criminal activity or partake in violence, with similar restrictions in place for undercover officers in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, maintaining fictitious identities is a complex and demanding aspect of undercover operations, requiring exceptional skill, dedication, and the ability to navigate ethical and legal boundaries. The challenges faced by undercover officers highlight the importance of comprehensive training, support, and oversight to ensure the success and well-being of those operating in these clandestine roles.

Frequently asked questions