Questions Abound

RACHEL HOFFMAN CASE DEMANDS OUTSIDE REVIEW

Far more questions than answers surround the slaying last week of
23-year-old Rachel Hoffman, a Florida State University graduate who
was working as a confidential informant on behalf of Tallahassee
police. Advertisement

Besides the terrible tragedy surrounding the violent death of a young
woman who police say was abducted while trying to buy drugs and a gun
from two men now facing charges, the sheer number of red flags this
case raises demands more than internal review by the Tallahassee
Police Department or even a grand jury of local citizens.

It cries for an independent outside investigation to minimize doubts
about objectivity -- not only to ascertain what did or didn't happen
without regard for who may have dropped the ball, but also to protect
and perhaps rebuild public confidence in law enforcement.

In addition, this case gives more weight to the argument that a
standing civilian review board should be established to examine
procedures of local law-enforcement agencies when a death occurs.
Both the NAACP and this editorial board have previously supported
this concept, which is in place in several cities around the nation.

In early 2006, the NAACP urged the creation of a citizen review panel
following the fatal shooting in November 2005 of a 17-year-old youth
from Thomasville, Ga., who TPD officers believed was reaching for a
weapon. A grand jury later determined the shooting was justified, and
a federal jury last month ruled that officers did not use excessive force.

In August 2006, the NAACP renewed its request for an independent
citizens panel after two more TPD confrontations with criminal
suspects ended with their deaths. The Tallahassee Democrat endorsed
the idea as a strategy to improve public understanding of police work
and the hazards that officers face.

The killing of Ms. Hoffman raises a different set of questions.
Unlike the previous cases involving suspects' deaths, this time there
is no reason to believe that any officer's safety was in immediate danger.

Rather, this killing poses troubling questions related to how
confidential informants are managed, when it is appropriate to place
them in potentially dangerous circumstances, and who should be
informed before someone becomes, in effect, an agent of law enforcement.

Police have said that Ms. Hoffman, who was facing numerous felony
drug charges and was in a drug diversion program, strayed beyond the
bounds of her assignment and lost contact with officers overseeing
the operation.

But authorities have yet to answer why a young woman -- whose
criminal past did not, according to public records, include weapons
or violence -- met with dangerous suspects to buy a gun.

Additionally troubling is the fact that while several of her friends
say they knew that the young woman was working undercover, State
Attorney Willie Meggs knew nothing. Mr. Meggs said he is routinely
informed in cases like this.

Also troubling is the fact that Ms. Hoffman's attorney was unaware
that his client was acting on behalf of police. Defense lawyers' are
paid to look out for their clients' interests; it's a fundamental
principle in our system. That Ms. Hoffman's attorneys did not have
that opportunity only adds another layer of doubt about how this case
was handled.

The system certainly needs to assess what went wrong. But for the
sake of public trust, an outside review is necessary. Beyond that,
it's time to start a citizen review board -- not to impede
law-enforcement agencies, but to enhance understanding and confidence
in how they do their job.