Pubdate: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 Source: Tampa Tribune (FL) Copyright: 2000, The Tribune Co. Contact: http://www.tampatrib.com/ Forum: http://tampabayonline.net/interact/welcome.htm Author: Sarah Huntley of the Tribune Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n058/a04.html and many other MAPNews items re Andrew Chambers EXPENSIVE INFORMANT CHALLENGES BAD RAP Andrew Chambers has moved across the country for 15 years, sticking to suspected drug dealers like a shadow while quietly gathering the evidence to put them away. But now, the king of setting up the target is in the bull's eye himself. Under attack by outraged critics of the informant system, the Drug Enforcement Administration's second highest-paid snitch has been taken off the payroll. He's been called a liar in media reports throughout the nation and is fearful that the barrage of coverage has put his life at risk. It has been a mighty fall - one that his lawyer argues does Chambers and the public a disservice. ``The typical informant is somebody who has done something wrong. That's not Andrew,'' Chambers' attorney David Ucherek said. Chambers hired Ucherek in February, in part to explore if he can sue newspapers that have published reports about him. In an interview with The Tampa Tribune this week, the attorney gave the most revealing look yet at the controversial informant's work. His only condition was that the newspaper not reveal where Chambers is living. ``Andrew didn't have to do these things,'' Ucherek said of his client's work as informant. ``He wasn't trying to reduce his sentence and get out of trouble. He probably would have done it for free.'' But others don't see it that way. Chambers, 42, of St. Louis, hasn't worked for free. In fact, he has been paid at least $2.2 million from the DEA. He may have received nearly that amount from other law enforcement agencies. Chambers has been arrested at least seven times on charges including soliciting a prostitute, impersonating a law enforcement officer, forging a loan document and larceny, court records show. In November 1989, he was accused of shoving an ex-girlfriend against a wall and ripping out her phone as she tried to call police. Most of the charges were dropped, but Chambers does have at least one conviction. He pleaded guilty in Denver in 1995 to a misdemeanor solicitation charge and paid a $450 fine. What's most troubling to the informant's critics, however, is that Chambers has sworn under oath in past drug trials that he has no criminal history. Two federal appeals courts found he committed perjury. But Ucherek said even the courts that have been critical of Chambers have upheld the convictions against his targets. ``He's put bad people away. If Andrew Chambers was the worst person in the world, he is not forcing these people to buy drugs on video and audiotape.'' Evidence he has collected ``speaks for itself,'' Ucherek said. Chambers doesn't testify often, largely because many of the 400-plus people he has informed against have pleaded guilty. When Chambers has taken the stand, his lawyer said, he has been asked imprecise or manipulative questions. ``I don't think he is a very good witness because he's never been prepared properly,'' Ucherek said. ``A defense attorney's job, our job, unfortunately in some situations is to convolute the truth.'' In recent weeks, concerns about Chambers' credibility have given prosecutors pause. On March 10, the U.S. attorney's office in Miami dropped two federal drug cases Chambers had helped build. Days later, Hillsborough County prosecutors dismissed four cases in which Chambers played a role, freeing eight defendants rather than risking calling Chambers as a witness. Ucherek decried the dismissals, saying Chambers wasn't dealing with one-time dealers ``who were on the line'' of guilt or innocence. ``Unfortunately, we have U.S. attorneys and state attorneys who are political figures,'' he said. ``If prosecutors are backing out because of Andrew Chambers, I think that is despicable.'' Chambers declined to comment for this story, but his lawyer said the informant discovered his vocation while attending community college. A police friend, knowing Chambers was having financial problems, mentioned he might collect reward money if he informed for the DEA. Because Chambers never graduated from college, he was told he would be unable to meet the DEA's requirements for becoming an agent. But he had found his career. Chambers' motivation is a hatred of drugs, his lawyer said. ``I think Andrew, as a black male, has seen what drugs have done to the black people in this country. It's an outrage.'' Although Chambers was basically ``a DEA agent without a badge or a gun,'' Ucherek said, the informant received almost no formal training. ``I think Andrew trained more DEA agents than they trained him. He is a natural at winning people's confidences.'' The first news accounts of Chambers hit his hometown newsstands in mid-January with a lengthy expose by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Since then, Chambers has made headlines in cities around the country. Amid the reports, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno asked the DEA to suspend Chambers, and the agency has ``deactivated'' him. But Ucherek said the media coverage has been filled with ``half-truths and mistruths.'' He called many of the reports ``irresponsible and dangerous.'' No longer working as an informant, Chambers is volunteering at a boys' home and has ``very little'' money left, his lawyer said. At least some of the money Chambers received from the DEA was spent on expenses associated with his cases - a rented Mercedes-Benz, for example, as well as fees for hotel rooms. Over 15 years, $2.2 million comes to about $150,000 a year. Ucherek estimated his client's expenses totaled $2,500 a week. Chambers still hopes to return to the streets as an informant but does not know if he can regain the anonymity essential to that task. ``Here is a guy who has devoted 15 years of his life to the DEA as an informant. Now his picture has been published in St. Louis, Houston, Los Angeles and Tampa. It has pretty much punched him in the gut.'' - --- MAP posted-by: Don Beck