Pubdate: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 Source: Tallahassee Democrat (FL) Copyright: 2009 Tallahassee Democrat Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/hdEs6Z0o Website: http://www.tallahassee.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/444 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. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake