Discussion 1

Law enforcement, particularly drug task force units, have relied on informants for years. The question is whether 4th amendment rights are violated when using informants because of their background and credibility. A search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has never been explicitly defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (Hadlow, 2017).

Because of this most of those warrants called into question are ruled on in state court. In State v. Simpson, the Tennessee Supreme Court set an unprecedented low threshold, making it likely that almost any informant tip, even a phantom tip, will establish an officer's cause to stop and possibly search an individual (Dunn, 1999). Informant tips need to be thoroughly scrutinized before acted upon to endure they will stand up in a court of law.

1 Corinthians 1:20 asks us " Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?' Using our knowledge of the world, investigators need to verify every piece of information that leads to a search warrant, especially if it is an informant.

References

Hadlow, A. (2017). It's probable: Missouri Constitution article I, Section 15 requires a higher standard to obtain a warrant for real-time or prospective CSLI. Missouri Law Review, 82(2), 483+.

Dunn, T. A. (1999). Constitutional law fourth amendment using an informant as the basis of search or seizure. Tennessee Law Review 66(2), 531-560.

Discussion 2

Disloyalty is the word that is associated with informants most often. This is because of a deep seeded societal conflict of what trust and disloyalty is that was developed at a younger age. This issue is seen most times when someone comes forward to speak against someone in areas where crime is heavy, derogatory words such as snitch and rats are used to described the people. However, informants are highly necessary for police work and some believe that certain areas of crime if there were not any informants there would be an absolute halt in the work (Rich, 2012).

Before speaking on the types of informants it must be made clear that officers need to know that they can trust the people that are offering information. Simple questions need to be asked within the officer's head such as why they are coming, how it affects them, connections, motives etc. All of these have to be gathered indirectly due to the questions leading to discomfort and possible lies. Officers also have to remember that they are the ones in charge and that informants cannot call the shots (Osterburg, & Ward, 2014). With correct boundaries and the ability to correctly identify good informants a well worked system can lead to benefits within the enforcement agency.

Informants are simply anyone whom discloses information to law enforcement, they come in three forms. The first are the most obvious is the one attempting to reduce their ow sentence by giving information about someone else, whereas this is the most "disloyal" of the three there is normally much truth to be found in their statements.

Second are the people on the streets with priors. This group comes in willingly and normally tries to gain something from the enforcement agency (sometimes it is for getting someone arrested so competition is eliminated). Lastly there is civilian informants, this group has two types the ones that report every small infraction (it is thoughtful but highly unnecessary) and the other that believes the police are not trust worthy thus they like to keep information within the community (Wallace, 2013). Each informant of course is going to have their own level of credibility this was to show the common factors some may posses and what should be looked for.

Establishing probable cause from an arrest warrant from a credible informant is the same as doing having probable cause for a victim. If the informant can give good information and can say and describe what it necessary then it should be enough to at least check on. "If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible" (Leviticus 5:1, NIV). However, I must mention I do not think using informants for everything is necessary this would be the case only for high profilers such as rape case, armed robbery, murder, terrorism and any other felony.

References

Osterburg, J. & Ward, R. (2014). Criminal Investigations: A method for reconstructing the past. Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing.

Wallace, W. J. (2013). Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook.

Rich M. (2012). Lessons of Disloyalty in the World of Criminal Informants. Washington: D.C.: Georgetown University of Law.