Regulates the use of informants by the prosecuting attorney and law enforcement personnel

Justification

This bill is designed to provide guidelines, and to allow for more legislative, judicial and public scrutiny over the practice of using informants to solve crimes to ensure that it is truly benefiting society and creating safer neighborhoods for New Yorkers. It also attempts to provide for more continuity in the circumstances surrounding the creation and maintenance of informants. The bill does not intend to eliminate the practice, rather it seeks to set standards and achieve greater oversight of the entire process.

Informants provide information to government officials, police, prosecutors, etc exchange for some sort of government benefit. It is a very common and pervasive practice in today's law enforcement, that largely goes unchecked, unregulated and without scrutiny.

Most often, informant use is particularly referring to someone who provides information about another person's criminal behavior in exchange for a government conferred benefit, such as avoidance of prosecution or arrest, a reduction of charges, privileges while in prison etc. Informing can be an enormous labor and time saving device for both police and prosecutors that can be essential for prosecution of certain types of cases.

However, legislative, judicial and public entities rarely have the opportunity to review these negotiations. Informant agreements do not require judicial approval to make sure they are in society's best, interest, as plea agreements do. Instead, the practice relies almost completely on police and prosecutorial discretion. The use of informants also creates a system in which defendants are often convicted largely on the testimony of what is essentially a 'paid' informant. This testimony can be very difficult to contradict and extremely persuasive to a jury. There are no official statistics or numbers relating to how often informants are used, where, or what crimes are being traded for what information, or what kind of convictions result.

Moreover, there is absolutely no uniformity in informant practices. The situation and the arrangements vary greatly. Police routinely overlook past, present and continuing crimes such as drug abuse and dealing, or worse because they do not want to lose their informant.

The question then arises, does this result in a net gain or loss for the community? Potentially, the informant system is contributing to crime, in addition to fighting it. Moreover, it is fairly well known that informants are sometimes selective in who they 'rat out,' basing it on their own convenience rather than an individual's threat to society.

Despite the apparent advantages to the informant, they also incur serious risks. The informant is deprived of many of the protections and rights that our constitution was designed to include. When someone agrees to be an informant in order to avoid an arrest, they are essentially admitting guilt, often without the benefit of defense counsel, Miranda warning, or written agreement. These agreements can last years and offer no guarantee against eventual arrest. During this time, the informant is constantly in peril. Frequently, those who are discovered by their peers, to be informants face dire consequences.

The management of informants needs to be made more uniform and formal in order to protect everyone involved.

In conclusion, the practice of using informants can be detrimental to the community as a whole. The fact that informants can commit certain crimes with police permission gives the impression that criminality and morality are relative. It promotes disloyalty and heightens mistrust and anger between law enforcement and communities and within the communities themselves.

Prior legislative history

A.10096 of 2006 A.1124 of 2007-2008

Fiscal implications

None to the State.

Effective date

September first next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.