SENSIBLE RULES NEEDED TO PROTECT INFORMANTS

Tallahassee-area law enforcement officers failed Rachel Hoffman
horribly last spring while she was working as an informant during a
controlled drug buy. They lost visual and audible contact with her,
and the 23-year-old, who had recently graduated from Florida State
University, was gunned down.

The Pinellas County woman's death - at the hands of drug dealers she
was trying to help police put behind bars - illustrates the need for
the state to establish minimum standards for the use of informants.
Her parents, wanting to prevent similar tragedies, are pushing for
reforms with the help of two Tampa Bay area lawmakers.

Importantly, "Rachel's Law," sponsored by Sen. Mike Fasano and Rep.
Peter Nehr, does not seek to ban the use of informants, who are
necessary in police work. They often have needed contacts and provide
law enforcement critical evidence, especially when they had been
engaged in wrongdoing themselves. They usually receive breaks on their
sentences or lesser charges and sometimes even avoid prosecution
altogether for successful efforts. As any veteran law enforcement
officer can tell you this is often essential to making a case.

But investigating drug dealing and other crimes is dangerous - more so
for untrained people such as Hoffman, who had been charged with felony
marijuana possession and was described in a grand jury report as
having a "well-established" marijuana distribution business. She
clearly was vulnerable and left exposed in the $13,000 botched police
operation to purchase 1,500 ecstasy pills, two ounces of cocaine and a
gun from dealers she didn't know in the Panhandle.

The legislation would require that law enforcement take some
commonsense steps that should not handcuff them. It would encourage
potential informants - who may be overwhelmed at the prospect of
prison - to think hard about what they're about to do.

Law enforcement agents would have to evaluate the age, maturity,
emotional stability and "relevant" experience of the potential
informant, as well as the criminal history of the offenders being
targeted. This should enable officers to better determine whether an
informant is up to the task or, as the grand jury report observed of
Hoffman, in over his or her head. Clearly, the individual's mental
state must be seriously evaluated, as well as the potential for
violence during transactions.

And law enforcement would be required to detail to informants what was
expected, which should help candidates decide whether they want to
take the risk.

In addition, potential informants would be given the chance to consult
a lawyer, and those in court-ordered or voluntary drug treatment
programs would have to get permission from judges or state attorneys.
Giving court officers a say would add another lawyer of protection for
informants, instead of simply relying on police eager to make arrests.

The legislation has a few flaws, such as mandating that police
evaluate the "maturity" of the target offender, something they may not
be qualified to do. And if care is not taken, it could leave a paper
trail that would make the informant identifiable.

But "Rachel's Law" provides a solid framework for discussions between
legislators and law enforcement organizations, and brings much-needed
attention to what can happen when the wrong people are asked to aid
police.

The proposal may need a few tweaks, but as Loyola (Los Angeles) Law
School professor Alexandra Natapoff told the Tallahassee Democrat: "This
is not radical legislation. It's a real contribution to the criminal
justice process."