This sounds like the plot of a car chase in a blockbuster movie. Unfortunately it was all the result of an undercover narcotics operation that went badly wrong in Texas last week.

As reported by KHOU, undercover officers from Harris County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO), Houston Police Department (HPD) and members of the Drugs Task Force were following a truck being driven by a confidential informant. The truck was loaded with at least 300lb of marijuana and the law enforcement officers were following it in order to arrest the drug dealers who would receive the delivery. However, whilst en route several other vehicles suddenly appeared, showering the truck with bullets and killing the confidential informant. A gun battle that followed, with officers firing back at the hijackers killing one of them, while another one was hit twice by a patrol vehicle. In the confusion a plain clothes HCSO deputy was allegedly shot in the leg by a HPD officer who didn’t recognise him. A patrol vehicle responding to the scene added to the chaos by colliding with a school bus, injuring the two drivers and two other people.

It is not clear whether the hijackers were intending to steal the drugs shipment or just assassinate the confidential informant. What is clear, however, is that the law enforcement operation certainly did not go to plan, despite law enforcement succeeding in arresting four men accused of storming the truck.

The whole case raises issues over confidential informant anonymity and protection, risk management and deconfliction. When dealing with narcotics and unpredictable drug dealers, mistakes can happen. I just hope that law enforcement went through proper procedures to assess the risk associated with this particular operation before they embarked upon it.

Despite Washington’s appeal that he believed DCI agents had authorised him to buy drugs on his own, the DCI insisted that he has been thoroughly briefed regarding his role. Washington lost his appeal on Tuesday.

This story, as reported in trib.com, emphasises the importance of properly explaining ground rules and expectation to confidential informants. Failure to do so can, as exemplified here, just facilitate more criminal activity.

Reported on this blog just yesterday was the case of Vancouver Police Department (WA), where four officers have been disciplined after it was revealed that a confidential informant handler was having an inappropriate relationship with his informant. Such behaviour seriously damages the reputation of law enforcement agencies and it is essential that agencies take strong action to prevent such transgressions.

This case illustrates the need for law enforcement agencies to implement robust authorization and management procedures for the use of confidential informants. Proper risk management and management oversight would probably have prevented this embarrassing incident which, as VPD Cmdr. Dave King noted, put the department in potentially litigious situations and allowed the credibility of the agency to be impacted.

Just three months ago, ACLU published a similar report criticising the state of Mississippi’s  drug enforcement system, stating that the incentives for confidential informants need to be more carefully managed.

Such lack of confidence in the management of CIs should be a cause for great concern among law enforcement agencies. It is important that officers properly asses the risk and reliability of information provided by CIs before acting upon it. If law enforcement agencies want to ensure that this is achieved, it is vital that proper policies and procedures are in place and properly communicated to officers. Managers need to have oversight of all interaction with CIs.

In the United Kingdom, legislation and best practice has helped to ensure that CIs are managed in a safe and compliant way. Software, such as abmpegasus Source Management, helps to make sure that proper procedures are followed and that the use of CIs is fully assessed for risk and authorised accordingly.

ACLU’s report, “An Exploratory Study of the Use of Confidential Informants in New Jersey” can be found at http://www.aclu-nj.org/downloads/0611ACLUCIReport.pdf and “Numbers Game: The Vicious Cycle of Incarceration in Mississippi’s Criminal Justice System” can be found at http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/numbers-game-vicious-cycle-incarceration-mississippis-criminal-justice-system

Removing drug prohibition does not solve the problem – accountability issues will still remain. The answer is to improve management oversight across all covert operations and make it harder for police officers to stray away from acceptable behaviour.

Police Captains clearly see confidential informants as an essential part of policing. However, police bosses have to balance this with the need to operate in a safe, legally compliant and transparent way. The Examiner article reveals that the way in which confidential informants are managed is currently being reviewed at San Francisco Police Department. By improving management processes and officer training, SFPD will hope to reduce opportunities for police misconduct whilst still allowing the agency to benefit from the invaluable intelligence that confidential informants provide.

The protocol is intended to act as a less extreme local version of the US federal witness protection program which is run by the US Marshals Service. Funding for the protection will come from the police department’s $100,000 confidential funds which also gets used for rewarding confidential informants and undercover drug buys.

This is a good example of a law enforcement agency taking the initiative to try to get over the “no snitching” culture that is so damaging to cooperation with the police. If residents feel that police can act quickly and affectively to protect key witnesses, the fear of providing information will be diminished.

Working in cahoots with another man, the officer is reported to have raided evidence lockers on various occasions in a bid to boost his earnings before retirement.

This is yet another example of the need to improve processes and procedures surrounding undercover narcotics operations – operations might be sensitive and confidential but this doesn’t mean they can’t be subject to good management oversight.