Another Lying Texas Snitch

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 02:28:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Remember Operation Trick or Treat, a drug sting that netted 33 arrests in Texas over Halloween?

Grits for Breakfast reports the cases have been dismissed. The probable cause for arrests was based on a single snitch, and, big surprise, it turns out he lied.

Harrison County District Attorney Joe Black has dropped charges against 33 people arrested this past October in Operation Trick or Treat.

"Information came forward to our office that the informant utilized in this undercover operation had possibly misled and lied to officers during the investigation," Black said. "Secondly, my office nor any local law enforcement agencies want to participate in the prosecution of any individual based upon evidence which may have been illegally or fraudulently obtained."

About 20 percent of the cases were compromised, Black said, but a shadow was cast over the entire operation.

Did they learn nothing from Tulia?

< Steps Forward | Audit Criticizes FEMA Waste >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Another Lying Texas Snitch | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No, they learned nothing (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:04:02 PM EST

protective of individual rights from Tulia. The most which they could be said to have learned would be "don't drag out getting rid of the dog cases, lest it cost even more."

But more seriously, Grits does point out a useful index for determining the smelliness of the bust - the more dealers and the longer the snitch has been working, the more likely the story's a put-up job. Also, Grits raises the interesting point - 23 or 33 dealers in a county of 60-some thousand people is, after all, a whole lot of dealers per capita - and the sheer demographics of the situation militate for some real skepticism with big busts like that.

they should be charging the cops too (none / 0) (#2)
by Sailor on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:36:13 PM EST

A press release from the DA's office said the man is charged with making a false report to a peace officer and the FBI has been asked "to determine what federal charges" could also be brought against him.

Consequently, upon confirmation by investigators of these actions by the informant

the cops knew and encouraged his behavior.

How about... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 04:37:20 PM EST

an attempted murder charge for the snitch...we all know how these drug raids can sometimes turn out....with a dead suspect.


they should be charging the cops? (none / 0) (#4)
by Patrick on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 05:48:15 PM EST

I haven't found anything that even remotely alleges that. In fact the article linked to by Grits says,

Black said the county and city narcotics agents involved in the case did not know they were being used.

Perhaps you could provide a link.


In other news (none / 0) (#5)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 07:36:28 PM EST

The tooth fairy is real and we all fell off the cabbage truck yesterday. And that's why no police interrogation has ever elicited a false confession!


: OK, I get it (none / 0) (#6)
by Patrick on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 08:14:21 PM EST

The CI was subjected to an interrogation and that was how they got the information....Tinfoil anyone...

Of course he said that (none / 0) (#7)
by Sailor on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 09:17:41 PM EST

Do you really believe one drug addled snitch could fool all those professionals? Or do you think they all just wanted to believe?

The CI was subjected to an interrogation and that was how they got the information

Gotta link? I ask because I googled quite a bit and all I could find was the DA saying "Information came forward to our office that the informant utilized in this undercover operation had possibly misled and lied to officers during the investigation"

BTW, and not for nothing, but you've admitted you'll lie to get a conviction, so your credibility is not just suspect, but common among cops.

(Actually, the last sentence is kind of a compliment, I respect you quite a bit and I think of it as 'if you admit you'll lie, then imagine what other LEO's will do.')
Yeah, I know, damned with faint praise.
We'll never see eye to eye on these issues, but I actually do respect you.


I have (none / 0) (#8)
by Patrick on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 09:33:52 PM EST

depends on what you mean. Yes, I'll lie to a suspect under certain legal conditions, but I won't lie to the court or in a report, or in my personal life when it's my credibility on the line.

You can take your faint praise, oil it up and do you know what with it...I take your statement as an attempt to paint with a broad brush, a certain legal and court tested police tactic that I've admitted to using, and try to portray me as someone who lacks integrity. The next time you want to make that sweeping statement, you need to qualify it, since I have taken the time to explain it to you, otherwise it's you who is playing fast and loose with with the truth.

But I find that is common of your arguments on this and other law enforcement related topics. Probably because you lack any real expertise or technical knowledge in the field. So perhaps I should just forgive you inability adaquately quote me as simple ignorance.

I'll ignore your insults ... (none / 0) (#9)
by Sailor on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 10:22:22 PM EST

... and ask once again why you believe "The CI was subjected to an interrogation and that was how they got the information"

The Da said different.

And my 'expertise' in LE is based on experience dealing with a$$hole cops. I don't think you are one. But I'm pretty sure you know some of them.

BTW, I think you violated TL's policy with your attack "oil it up and do you know what with it..."

I won't respond in kind. I actually do respect you and it was difficult not to respond in a similar manner.


Read the whole comment, the context is important (none / 0) (#10)
by Patrick on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 11:27:54 AM EST

and ask once again why you believe "The CI was subjected to an interrogation and that was how they got the information"

I don't believe that....It was sarcasm and was in reponse to Scar's comments about the tooth fairy and false confessions. I intended it to be completely separate from our conversation. Perhaps the confusion on that issue is related to the manner in which we are viewing the comments...I view them as nested, you may be viewing them different.

You however, said the cops should be charged and "the cops knew and encouraged his behavior." I asked for a link, and based on what rationale are you making that statement? Because I can find no grounds for you comment other than spite.

As for your expertise: a perfect example was the thread on the student on NC where you were quoting from the "warrant" but in fact were not. The things you say can mean something entirely different to someone who actually knows what a warrant is, how they are served and what the different parts of the warrant signify. Ignorance, the way I used it, was meant to signify a lack of knowledge or understanding on a particular subject matter. I think this lack of knowledge/understanding is one of the greatest hurdles with respect to understanding how incidents like this and the shootings happen.

As for my violating TL's policy, if it rises to that level I apologize to her. Your comment about me lying to get a conviction grossly mistates my comments. For someone who is clearly versed in English languange and as skilled at parsing words as you are, your intention in making that statement seems clear to me. You can either retract the statement or clarify what you meant by it, or you can stick by it, in which case we have nothing further to discuss.


I'll clarify what I meant (none / 0) (#12)
by Sailor on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:31:02 PM EST

You said you will (within the current law) lie to obtain a conviction.

And sorry, I didn't see your previous statement to Scar as sarcasm. There were no indicators of sarcasm and I thought you had actual reason to believe that.

a perfect example was the thread on the student on NC where you were quoting from the "warrant" but in fact were not.

Once again you are correct. I was quoting from a news article that said they were quoting from the warrant. I linked to the article. As I recall the cops refused to publicly release the warrant.

You always give the benefit of the doubt to cops. I've never seen a post where you didn't think the shooting/tasering weren't justified.

I disagree. That's no reason for you to insult me.

in which case we have nothing further to discuss.

Yeah, whatever.


80 proof wisdom (none / 0) (#13)
by roy on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:57:53 PM EST

I linked to the article.

No, you didn't.

As I recall the cops refused to publicly release the warrant.

No, they didn't.

I only butt in, because, respectfully, you seem to be going down a weird road lately. Wild assumptions, baseless accusations, just plain irrational arguments.

Relax. Get a little perspective back.

I just figured out that warming up whiskey makes life good. Try one.


: Yep, got me twice ... in a way (none / 0) (#16)
by Sailor on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:26:35 PM EST

From your link:
You're quoting from the search warrant return/property
Yes, and I did not include the link. my bad. Now, since you did
Also, as to why I suspect these situations: read this.

I just figured out that warming up whiskey makes life good.
Different things work for different folks. Except for a glass of wine at a social function I rarely imbibe. When I did, 12 years ago, I tended to get in arguments with cops;-)
I still get in arguments with cops, but now no one goes to jail.

I have not.... (none / 0) (#14)
by Patrick on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:02:47 PM EST

made any such statement

Lying to a suspect in the course of an investigation has very little to do with lying to get a conviction. One implies a willingness to perjure oneself, the other is a valid and legal tactic. That you fail to see the distinction is telling, or is at least another example of your lack of expertise when forming these opinions.

I thought the "Tinfoil hat" part of the comment was a pretty clear indicator.

Always? Well once again we have that very high burden, and you are of course mistaken.

There are always alternatives that that may justify a particular action. That you fail to even acknowledge that before declaring cops as liars and criminals is no more elightened or open minded than what you are wrongly accusing me of. My most common reply is that something may seem justified on the face of it, or that we should wait until the investigation is concluded before condemning LEO's as criminals. You obviously feel such restraint is unwarranted.


Patrick (none / 0) (#15)
by glanton on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:53:56 PM EST

Based on your repeated admission to and defense of cops lying to suspects, coupled with the implication that this is standard procedure and everybody knows it's standard procedure, do you think suspects should ever talk to police officers about anything?

Innocent or not, if you know going into questioning that chances are high you'll be lied to, it would be absurd to ever say anything to these people. Wouldn't it?

Also, I wonder: do you and your colleauges lie to suspects in the presence of their attorneys as well?


Glanton (none / 0) (#17)
by Patrick on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:08:20 PM EST

It depends. If you know you're caught...absolutely. Get the best deal you can and you do that by cooperating. If your not caught or don't know that you are...Well, I'd keep my mouth shut, unless it was eating me up inside. I never said it (lying to suspects) was SOP. I said it was legal and court tested. I believe I have said I've found it's rarely necessary.

it would be absurd to ever say anything to these people. Wouldn't it?

Again, not necessarily. I've seen people walk away from pretty serious cases because they cooperated.

Also, I wonder: do you and your colleauges lie to suspects in the presence of their attorneys as well?

I've never had a lawyer let me get a statement from a client, so the answer is no. But if I was in a postion to do it and it was necesssary, there's no prohibition AFAIK?

BTW, I like the use of "repeated admission" as if it's an admission to anything but lawful conduct.


So Patrick (none / 0) (#20)
by glanton on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:19:30 PM EST

If suspects talk they can get a better deal, I figured that. But then, what's to stop you from lying about what kind of deal you're willing to facilitate? Because after all, unless I;m totally misinformed about how it works (a rel possibility I warrant) cops cannot offer deals. They can only tell State Lawyers "he cooperated" etc.

Really, based on the rubric that seems to be out there and which you proudly stand for, I see no reason for anyone being questioned by the police to ever trust their questioners. Great setup, that. Just oozes integrity.

As for your disclaimer that everything you admit to is legal: so what? Lots of below-board things are legal. Doesn't make them any less below board.

I just don't think the cops should be cultivating a relationship as liars, any more than the American Government should be cultivating a relationship as a torturer. Sadly, both are legal.

Hell, cops shouldn't be lying period. They already have enough PR Problems these days because of the spate of abuse.


: Good point (none / 0) (#21)
by Patrick on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:31:02 PM EST

They can only tell State Lawyers "he cooperated" etc.
You're not mistaken, but DA's will usually listen to what the investigating officer has to say.

Hell, cops shouldn't be lying period. They already have enough PR Problems these days because of the spate of abuse.
Probably no argument there.

Officer's lies (none / 0) (#11)
by duckpin432 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:54:35 PM EST

It's perfectly legal for a law enforcement officer not to tell the truth to a suspect about the alleged crime and knowledge of his/her involvement in it.
Lying before a judicial officer, to a supervisor, or in an official document is a serious matter.
In the federal system, the mere suspicion of untruthfulness can, and does, result in the officer not being allowed to testify in court.
The Justice dept prosecuter won't have you.Can't testify in court, you're out of a job unless there's an opening in the evidence room and you may not be eligible for that. Basically, it's a career ender


Duckpin (none / 0) (#18)
by glanton on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:09:00 PM EST

Please see my above questions to Patrick. I would ask the same questions of you.

Heck, I would ask them of anybody who would smugly "explain" that cops can legally lie to suspects, that it's all business as usual, there's no problem with it, just keep getting and spending and nothing to see here.
Again:

1)Why would any suspect, innocent or guilty, ever talk to the police given this scenario?

2)Do cops routinely lie to suspects when their attorneys are present (thus lying to the attorneys as well)? If not, why not?


Liars (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:15:20 PM EST

If the cops lie then they are liars. OK professional liars. No arguments change that.

The rub is that if an individual lies to the cops it is a crime.


Squeaky beat me to it (none / 0) (#22)
by Sailor on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:34:33 PM EST

at least for feds. They can lie to you, (legally), but if you lie to them it's a federal crime.

And who says no one is above the law?

Plus, talk about parsing, why lie to a suspect if you aren't doing it to get a conviction?


: Sailor (none / 0) (#25)
by Patrick on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:07:16 AM EST

You're being deliberately obtuse.

A career ender? (none / 0) (#24)
by Sailor on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:59:38 PM EST

gee, which feds have lost their jobs due to lying? The ones who lied about Mayfield's prints? Padilla's dirty bomb? The Lodi terror camp? Or any of these Feds?

You and Patrick have already established that cops lie, now , to quote an old jo9ke, we're just haggling over price.
