Submit your comments on this article | |||||||||||||
-Land of the Free | |||||||||||||
U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans | |||||||||||||
2013-08-05 | |||||||||||||
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses. "I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers. "It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."
"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."
But two senior DEA officials defended the program, and said trying to "recreate" an investigative trail is not only legal but a technique that is used almost daily. A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, 'Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said. After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."
A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.
Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.
Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional." Lustberg and others said the government's use of the SOD program skirts established court procedures by which judges privately examine sensitive information, such as an informant's identity or classified evidence, to determine whether the information is relevant to the defense. "You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"
"It's a balancing act, and they've doing it this way for years," Spelke said. "Do I think it's a good way to do it? No, because now that I'm a defense lawyer, I see how difficult it is to challenge."
"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.
The SOD's role providing information to agents isn't itself a secret. It is briefly mentioned by the DEA in budget documents, albeit without any reference to how that information is used or represented when cases go to court. The DEA has long publicly touted the SOD's role in multi-jurisdictional and international investigations, connecting agents in separate cities who may be unwittingly investigating the same target and making sure undercover agents don't accidentally try to arrest each other. The unit also played a major role in a 2008 DEA sting in Thailand against Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout; he was sentenced in 2011 to 25 years in prison on charges of conspiring to sell weapons to the Colombian rebel group FARC. The SOD also recently coordinated Project Synergy, a crackdown against manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of synthetic designer drugs that spanned 35 states and resulted in 227 arrests. Since its inception, the SOD's mandate has expanded to include narco-terrorism, organized crime and gangs. A DEA spokesman declined to comment on the unit's annual budget. A recent LinkedIn posting on the personal page of a senior SOD official estimated it to be $125 million. Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE. The DICE database contains about 1 billion records, the senior DEA officials said. The majority of the records consist of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. Records are kept for about a year and then purged, the DEA officials said.
"We use it to connect the dots," the official said. Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst. "They do a pretty good job of screening, but it can be a struggle to know for sure whether the person on a wiretap is American," the senior law enforcement official said. Tips from domestic wiretaps typically occur when agents use information gleaned from a court-ordered wiretap in one case to start a second investigation. As a practical matter, law enforcement agents said they usually don't worry that SOD's involvement will be exposed in court. That's because most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial and therefore never request to see the evidence against them. If cases did go to trial, current and former agents said, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement.
"It was an amazing tool," said one recently retired federal agent. "Our big fear was that it wouldn't stay secret." DEA officials said that the SOD process has been reviewed internally. They declined to provide Reuters with a copy of their most recent review.
| |||||||||||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#13 Yes, it is a war on your choice to consume, Bright Pebbles. But so are product purity laws. I have in my possession a reprint of Things A Lady Would Like To Know Concerning Domestic Management, the second printing of which is dated 1875 by the publishing house Hutchinson of London. The very first section is titled "Adulterations", and contains standard tests by which the housewife can learn whether her ingredients have been adulterated, though the Parliamentary "Sale of Food and Drugs Act" had been passed some years before: bread by alum; cayenne pepper by brick dust, red wood dust, and red lead, among other possibilities, requiring a good microscope to detect; sausages with things too disgusting to mention, though we all have read about the crusade to clean up the meat packing industry in school, and needn't go further into it here; and so forth. There are things that are not good to ingest, though an individual might want to ever so badly, and sometimes it is a good thing for government to intervene. It is not, after all, that government is itself bad, but that too much government is as bad as too little. And separately, do remember that the opium trade is controlled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda/Afghanistan jihadis, and Hizb'allah and Al Qaeda/North Africa are entwined in the Hispano-American drug tradethat badanov has been chronicling in these pages. So every time you exercise your freedom to imbibe, you are funding the jihad against your country and mine. And every time you agitate for the cartels' freedom to sell you that which you desire to buy, you are surrendering more deeply to the expansion of the caliphate. Nowadays it is opium, etc. that is the opiate of the people. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-05 22:39 |
#12 The War on drugs, is an extension on the war on your liberty to choose what to consume. It's a Bigger Big gulp ban. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-08-05 19:55 |
#11 In all honesty, I used to be extremely anti-drug. But the war on (some) drugs has taken far too large atoll on fundamental liberty, expansion of government, and entrenchment of power with bureaucrats and police. Time to declare victory and end it, and dismantle the DEA back to a small core force that assists local law enforcement and a proper border security agency. |
Posted by: OldSpook 2013-08-05 19:53 |
#10 How about bringing back alcohol prohibition too? that worked a treat.. You know, Bright Pebbles, England's own Anthony Trollope commented on the drinking habits of Americans of all ages and stations... not to mention the common practice of paying Irish immigrant workers in alcoholic beverages rather than actual money. As a result of Prohibition, consumption of alcohol was down significantly across all segments of the population. And, given that there had been a trend of criminal gangs being concentrated in whatever was the latest population of immigrants throughout the nineteenth century, that this trend continued into the early twentieth is not really a revelation. In summary, Prohibition did not significantly change the behaviour of criminal gangs, but did significantly impact per capita alcohol consumption, and radically decreased -- post-Prohibition, at least -- the availability of distilled alcohols cut with methanol , etc, a standard problem in the drinking establishments of working men and the poor in both Britain and America until purity laws came into vogue on both sides of the Atlantic. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-05 19:36 |
#9 What's the German for "it's for the children"? How about bringing back alcohol prohibition too? that worked a treat.. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-08-05 19:07 |
#8 Might also impact all those selective enforcement options. |
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-08-05 18:58 |
#7 Then you're gonna have kids in junior high school shooting smack before they go to school. Wouldn't it be better to just secure the border? Oh, right. That would impede the flow of new Democrat votes and cheap labor into the country. |
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-08-05 18:57 |
#6 Ending drug prohibition would cut-off 95% of funds AND cut the amount you need to spend on police. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-08-05 17:24 |
#5 I have substantial qualms about prosecutors and investigators hiding evidence from judges and juries. That sort of thing gets to be contagious. Fair enough. Now we're discussing the nub of the thing, Dr. Steve, and I quite agree. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-05 14:13 |
#4 I have no qualms going after narco-terrorists. I have no qualms going after Americans who engage in the drug trade. I have substantial qualms about prosecutors and investigators hiding evidence from judges and juries. That sort of thing gets to be contagious. |
Posted by: Steve White 2013-08-05 14:04 |
#3 Given how Hizb'allah, al Qaeda in North Africa, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and various other incarnations are entwined with the drug trade -- both as cover and as one of many criminal fundraising efforts for jihad -- I'm not sure this is unjustified. Here at Rantburg Chris Covert's series on the drug war in Mexico is posted on page 1 (War on Terror) for exactly that reason. And, while I am not at all keen on this level of observation and intrusion into the doings of the innocent (anybody watching me is going to be bored to tears -- "Oh Gawd, not another nap! Does that woman actually ever do anything?!" Sorry guys -- not really, no.) Choke off the drug trade, and remove a significant funding source for the jihadis -- I'm all for that. Let them fight with the Russian and Romanian mafiyas for the theft of credit card numbers, and see how far that gets them, now that the Gulf oil money looks like it will soon start drying up. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-05 14:02 |
#2 Who is the enemy? |
Posted by: Iblis 2013-08-05 10:53 |
#1 The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, SOD ? Please gag me. And the "partners"....never vector taskings on US Persons right ? |
Posted by: Besoeker 2013-08-05 09:29 |