STICK TO IT

See 'Rachel's Law' Through With Provisions

Irv Hoffman and Margie Weiss just want to make sure that they make
changes to make sure this never happens to someone else's son or daughter.

The changes in question are three pieces proposed components for
"Rachel's Law," which would set up comprehensive state guidelines for
use of confidential informants in undercover drug work orchestrated by
law enforcement.

Rachel Hoffman, the daughter of Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Weiss, was killed
during a botched drug operation in May 2008. The 23-year-old had been
working as a confidential informant for the Tallahassee Police
Department at the time of her death. Her slaying thrust the use of
confidential informants into question and triggered investigation of
the policies and actions that led that particular operation astray.

Her parents are lobbying for three ways of protecting confidential
informants who do the work Ms. Hoffman was involved in. Legislators
should soberly consider supporting these provisions or risk passing a
bill that is little more than a gesture.

The version moving through the Legislature this week requires only the
adoption of a written policy by law enforcement agencies and that law
enforcement consider the informant's age, maturity and risk of
physical harm.

This is, as advocates acknowledge, a decent start, but not enough.
Three stronger requirements, if not adopted by the state, should
certainly be incorporated by each and every law-enforcement agency
that uses informants.

One better protection would require law-enforcement agencies to inform
confidential informants of their right to legal counsel. Another
stronger measure would exempt those undergoing drug treatment from
helping law officers in this way. A third responsible provision would
bar law-enforcement agencies from using nonviolent offenders in
operations with suspects who have violent backgrounds.

Confidential informants are exposed to great risk and should be
encouraged to consult with an advocate who can provide balance to the
pressure they might feel from law-enforcement personnel to cooperate
with an undercover operation. It is also potentially counterproductive
to consider exposing an individual undergoing rehabilitation for a
drug problem to the very elements that cause them trouble. And to pair
nonviolent offenders with those who have a history of violence
suggests that the informant's safety is secondary to the operation.
That risk, as demonstrated in Ms. Hoffman's case, is simply too great.

Some law-enforcement heads have complained that legislation to set
these policies is excessive, but uniform implementation would
eliminate confusion if multiple agencies or jurisdictions are involved
in a particular case.

If these protections had been part of a statewide, streamlined
process, Ms. Hoffman might be alive today. To strip these provisions
from the bill is to mark the legacy and lessons of her death with
meaningless, ceremonial legislation.