Informants' Testimony Used As Shortcut

As The Post continues to report on the story of Ismael Mena, my
thoughts go back to a question that I asked Denver District Attorney
Bill Ritter at a panel discussion concerning police powers.

It is my understanding that the confidential informant is rarely, if
ever, brought before the issuing judge so that the judge may assess
the veracity of the informant's statment. If a police officer does not
have to worry about producing any "evidence" as to the truthfulness of
an informant's statement, how then can we know (even after the fact)
if the statement is valid.

I asked Ritter whether there are any procedural safeguards in place
within either the police department or the district attorney's office
to prevent misuse of a confidential informant's "testimony" in the
warrant application process.

Ritter maintained that the integrity of the individual police officer
and the integrity of the police force generally was enough to ensure
our Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search or seizure.
Ritter also indicated that judges issue warrants often based solely on
the word of the officer seeking the warrant as to the validity of a
confidential informant's "testimony." In the case of Ismael Mena, news
reports suggest that the "testimony" of a confidential informant was
used exclusively as the justification for the warrant.

What seems evident is that the confidential informant is apt to be
used as a shortcut for a police officer who cannot find probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant any other way. With an investigation
under way concerning the use of a search warrant that ended with the
death of an innocent man, the public are entitled to answers to these
questions: Who is the informant whose "testimony" was used to obtain
the warrant? Why was a judge allowed to issue a no-knock warrant based
wholly on unsubstantiated "testimony''? What can be done to ensure
that this never happens again?

Darin Gabbert
Denver