Covert policing necessarily involves the use of deception. Officers who engage in undercover operations may be required to engage in seemingly legal activities so as to maintain their fictitious identities. This is often referred to as authorized criminality. It is important to note that undercover policing is important when it comes to looking and finding information that would have otherwise not be found by the normal policing activities (Marx, 1992). There is the need for police officers and detectives to infiltrate organizations and groups that are under investigation so as to help solve criminal cases. The undercover officers may be required to introduce drugs into prisons, undertake assignments from drug cartels, commit perjury and even print counterfeit money. All these activities indicate that covert policing is different from democratic policing because it entails the practice of authorized criminality.
Authorized criminality is does not undergo a lot of regulation or guidance. It is also necessary because it is difficult to maintain fictitious undercover identities in organizations that are determined to flush outlaw enforcers in their midst. The need for authorized crime arises often from operations in investigations whereby the officers are required to promote the commission of crime so to maintain their identities. There are organizations that test for law enforcers who are infiltrating their ranks by evaluating their willingness to take part in crimes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Federal law states that" "Except when authorized pursuant to these Guidelines, no undercover employee shall 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" (Joh, 2010) One of the procedures provided is that an undercover official may engage in an otherwise illegal activity so as to acquire data that is essential for the accomplishment of the inquiry and cannot be accessible without involvement in the criminal actions. Another guideline is that one may engage in the stated activities in order to create or sustain their cover to personality and also to preclude death or intense bodily injury.
Therefore, detectives may be permitted to engage misdemeanors like smoking cannabis and shoplifting in order to preserve their undercover identities or status from being discovered or to prevent death or bodily harm from coming to them (Marx, 1998). They may also be permitted to engage in felonies like grand theft as well as armed robbery. These felonies may be engaged in only on the condition that the undercover officers do not participate in any kind of violence aoart from cases where crime is part of their self-defence. However, they must seek approvals from the officials whom they report to and the committees that are involved. After being granted approval, the officers may engage in criminal activities which shall be referred to as otherwise criminal activities. The Special Agent Accountant (SAC) ought to accommodate all the undercover initiatives and actions comprising those that include engagement in otherwise illicit activities. The SAC can approve of misdemeanors, but in the event of a felony, there is additional approval from the Assistant Director following an appraisal by the Undercover Review Committee. In the event that the otherwise illegal activity shall involve or culminate into violence, authorization is required from the designated Executive Assistant Director, the Deputy Director or the Director after the Undercover Review Committee has reviewed the operation.
In the event that an otherwise illegal deed was not discerned or foreseen, the undercover officer ought to make attempts to check with the SAC instantly for him or her to seek short term authority from the higher authorities and the review committee if probable. The SAC may also issue alternative authorization. If authorization is not possible and there is an imminent threat to the physical safety, life or property of the employee, he or she may participate in the activity as long as it does not result in violence (Joh, 2010). Also, the activity must be reported promptly to the relevant authority.
The whole point of law enforcement, especially covert policing is for the prevention of crimes. While working undercover, a detective may come into information about a crime that is set to happen at a later time. It is the responsibility of the officer to make a report to SAC about the crime so that a decision is made. Prevention of crime is often the goal. The main aim of law enforcement is to apprehend criminals and prevent crimes from being committed. However, a lot of factors come into play when considering the strategy of intervention that is supposed to be used. The decision is never solely made by the detective but rather a decision is reached upon by all the parties involved. Often the crime is allowed to go on as informed and at the time of its happening, other members of law enforcement show up and apprehend the criminals. Care is taken to ensure that the undercover detectives are not exposed and neither are they apprehended in the event. Whatever strategy is devised, the main crime or the mission of the investigation cannot be compromised.
If the prevention of the crime may lead to exposure of the undercover agent, grave considerations are made. The risks and gains in the situation are analyzed so as to determine the way forward. If the officer is to be engaged in the crime, this is duly noted as well and factored into the strategy. There is also a contingency plan that id devised just in case the original strategy does not work.
The reporting criterion needs to be established before sending undercover detectives onto a mission. The officers should be informed whom they shall report to as the SAC. They should be able to identify the chain of command from the SAC to the Director of the mission. The officials should be brought to speed on how often they should check in with the SAC so as to give a report of the mission. Whether it is weekly, monthly or in a fortnight, the officials should know how they shall be held accountable. An appropriate channel of communication should be set for the detectives so that they can be able to do their reporting efficiently. For instance, in the case of Underwood and Freeman, they shall be provided with iPads and other communication devices that shall enable them to stay in contact with the rest of the team.
An emergency protocol should also be established. Undercover operations are so unpredictable and as such there should be a procedure to be followed in the event of an emergency. There are operations that require the detectives to meet with a contact person who is on site or other undercover officials who are already working the investigation. Appropriate communication criteria should be established. In the event that the contact person does not show up, there needs to be protocol followed. Also, there should be protocol established in the event that there is need to break communication with the rest of the team. Even though the chances of such happening is rare, there is need to establish the procedure to be followed in the event that the officers have to go under the radar on their own. All these should be done for follow-up, accountability and base on the fact that the odds are often unpredictable when it comes to underground missions.
References
Marx, G.T. (1999). Under-the-Covers Undercover Investigations: Some Reflections on the State’s Use of Sex and Deception in Law Enforcement. Criminal Justice Ethics, 11(1): 13-24.
Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press
Joh, E.E. (2010). Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Undercover Police Participation in Crime. Stanford Law Review 62(1). Retrieved from: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/breaking-the-law-to-enforce-it-undercover-police-participation-in-crime/
