Questions and Answers | 7 | Undercover | Carmine J. Motto, Dale L. Jun

ABSTRACT

Younger agents-in-training always have questions about undercover work. Although most of the questions usually reflect their own personal concerns, there is a commonality that can be predicted, even from veteran undercover agents. It is with this in mind that this chapter is devoted to anticipating and answering many of the most frequently asked questions (at least to the degree possible from experience that has been shown to work or that has been encountered by other undercover agents). Undercover work isn’t like working at a regular job. The undercover agent is placed in a position where he assumes a role. The degree of success he achieves is dependent upon many factors. Chief among them is the agent’s self-confidence. If any of his doubts can be eliminated or his questions can be resolved in a training situation, he will carry a greater proportion of confidence into his role. Q

Should a police officer or agent be armed while working undercover?

As we keep iterating, undercover work is not an exact science. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits. The answer to the question of whether an agent should be armed while performing undercover work will vary depending on the circumstances. In many settings a weapon is a standard tool of the trade. In drug transactions, for example, it is not at all uncommon, in fact it is actually expected, for both the buyer and seller to be armed. In gray or black market transactions it may not be as common for the participants to be armed. If the circumstances do not indicate a possibility for violence, then a weapon may not be necessary. If dealing with “respectable businessmen” such as corrupt public officials, “black marketeers” selling counterfeit merchandise, then a gun might be more of a hindrance than an necessity. It must be remembered that a weapon should be used only as a defensive measure. In most situations a gun would only raise unnecessary questions or suspicions that would be difficult to explain and it could have 160unintended consequences such as the suspects feeling they must be armed, or it could even be used against the undercover operator.

However, whether to carry a sidearm is a personal decision. If an agent feels more confident and knows he can readily explain its presence if it is detected, or if the other side might expect the agent be armed because of his role, then a weapon would be appropriate. The anticipated need should be the overriding criteria. Some undercover agents have worked their entire careers without carrying a weapon. If the decision is made, either by the undercover agent or his supervisor, to carry a weapon, based on the likelihood for potential violence, the degree to which an agent can be covered by other agents, or other mitigating circumstances, the undercover agent doesn’t necessarily have to carry the usual standard issue sidearm. A small gun, which can be easily concealed, may be more advisable.

Should undercover agents use pagers and cellular telephones?

Pagers and cell phones have become so common that only in very unusual circumstances would their use raise any suspicions. These days, nearly everyone involved in business carries these symbols of “being in touch.” If an undercover agent is using these tools, the same precautions as the use of a regular undercover telephone should be observed. The pager and telephone should be neutralized so that an innocent page or telephone call will not provide the suspects with the potential of learning the undercover agents true identity. The telephone numbers should be listed to a “straw name” and all incoming calls should be in keeping with the agent’s role. As with all tools of the undercover business, there are advantages and disadvantages in carrying pagers, cell phones, or whatever the latest “gizmo” is. Their use should be limited and they should be used only under the appropriate circumstances.

Should an agent be covered at all times while working in an undercover capacity?

This can be answered in the same way as the previous question. That is, the circumstances of the situation will dictate the need. An agent working in a “buy” situation should be covered at all times, especially if an arrest is imminent. There are times, however, when undercover agents cannot possibly be covered or it would be impractical to do so. An agent working undercover in a business, labor, or manufacturing setting to detect company theft, corruption, etc., for example, is expected to be on his own and is left to his own devices. There are times, as described earlier in this book, when undercover agents must accompany suspects on short trips either to pick up the contraband or to meet other violators and it is just not possible to have accompanying cover. Arrangements and preplanning should be made in advance for the undercover agent to contact his supervisor or “contact person” as soon 161as it is practical so that he can advise of his location and the surveillance can be taken up on that end. If an agent is working on long-term, intelligenceseeking assignments, there are times when he will be out of contact for long periods of time. That is to be expected. Here again, arrangements are made in advance for the method to be used to contact his supervisors, a partner, or the designated contact person. To reduce this question to its lowest common denominator: the rule of thumb is that wherever practical, an agent working undercover should be kept under surveillance by his fellow agents to render assistance in the event he needs it. The case should be controlled in such a manner that there will be no problems in covering the agent.

An illustration including both situations of whether an agent should be armed or whether he should be covered at all times while working undercover follows.

I had just completed an assignment in Philadelphia and was preparing to depart the local Secret Service office to return to New York, when a telephone call came into the office. It was an informant, saying he had been propositioned to purchase counterfeit notes and was in a position to obtain a sample. As the informant was tending bar in a town that I would have to pass through on my way back to New York, and since I knew I would be assigned to do the undercover work in the case, I volunteered to stop by on my way home to see whether a case could be developed.

It was night when I arrived at the informant’s business establishment and the bar was doing a brisk, but not unusual. amount of business. I located the informant. who was the bartender on duty and introduced myself. He told me that a patron of the bar had shown him a sample of a counterfeit note and wanted to sell the notes in large quantities. As we were talking, the suspect entered the bar and the bartender introduced me to him as a friend from New York. The suspect and I engaged in small talk for the next hour or so. Eventually the conversation settled on the subject of various types of contraband and he showed me a sample of counterfeit money that his group was selling. He asked me if I would be interested in making a purchase. I told him I wasn’t in a position to make a large purchase at that time, but I could invest a few hundred dollars in some notes, take them with me to New York, and return later with a larger order. He asked me to stay for a while longer to meet some of his friends. The hour was getting to be fairly late and there was no way that I could make contact with the office. Yet, I agreed to wait.

At about closing time, the suspect and I went out to the parking lot where two men were waiting in a car. I was invited into the car 162and a conversation ensued about counterfeit money. The driver of the car became suspicious of me and started asking a lot of questions.

The situation nearly deteriorated to the point of argumentation. I was apparently not giving him the answers he wanted to hear and he was becoming annoyed with me. Both he and his friend were armed (and of course I wasn’t — I never carried a weapon in undercover work). The suspect I had just spent the past several hours with in the bar told his friends that if he thought I was “wrong” he wouldn’t have any hesitation about killing me and dumping my body into the nearby river. Both of his friends agreed with him and the situation became critical. The driver continued asking questions about who I knew, who I worked for, what my connections were, what my intentions were for the counterfeit money, how was I going to sell it, and similar “third-degree” questions. He demanded answers, but didn’t even always wait for my reply before firing-off another question. In reply to one of his questions, I told him I was in the garment business in New York. He replied that he had good connections in the business and asked me the name of my employer. At random, I picked the name of a dress manufacturer in New York, confident (and hopeful) that he wasn’t in a position to contact this person at that time. He went through some motions of making telephone calls and trying to check out my story. Then, for some reason, they suddenly decided to let me go and released me from the car at about 4 o’clock in the morning. Needless to say, I didn’t buy any counterfeit money from them!

Some time later, after a case was made against all of these individuals, it was learned from one of them that on that particular night they had been deadly serious about killing the man who they had in the car, as they suspected he might be an informant or an undercover agent.

Working this case “cold” and without cover was very foolish and unnecessarily risky on my part. It was one of the rare times when the office had no idea of where I was or what I was doing other than the fact I mentioned I was going to meet with an informant. It would have been far better had I been kept under surveillance, not only for safety’s sake, but because the government would have been provided with the several more witnesses needed to corroborate the testimony I gave in court after the defendants were arrested. It was very hard for a jury to believe that a man would be working undercover in such a situation with no other agents in sight. The question of whether it would have been better to be armed at that time is debatable. Perhaps if I had been armed and drew the weapon during the argument in 163the car, it might have caused a shootout as at least two of the other people were armed and most probably someone would have been killed.

Should an agent tell his family that he is working undercover?

Yes. The families of most undercover agents have accepted the fact that their husband (or wife) or relative works undercover, and that there is a certain amount of danger connected with their work. Most undercover agents advise their families early on that they are working undercover, that they will receive telephone calls at all hours of the day and night, that they will go out at very odd hours, and they will be seen in the company of some strange people. The agent’s spouse and family must accept this way of life or the domestic tranquility of home will be upset. Once the family is aware of the undercover agent’s role, it is not necessary to give them a daily update or report on the case. Very often, the life of the undercover agent depends upon the facts of the case remaining confidential until a certain stage in the case is reached. Revealing too much information, even to one’s family, might be dangerous and not only adversly affect the case, but put the agent in a perilous position.

One undercover agent, who spent a great part of his career working highrisk national security cases, told his family “If you see me on the street or in a public place, don’t approach me. Instead, position yourself so I will see you. If I know it’s safe to talk with you, I’ll make contact.” Other agents, such as the “biker” mentioned earlier, have made working undercover a family affair. In that example, he married his partner, and they continued to work undercover cases together. He has since moved into other areas of investigative endeavors, while his wife continues to work undercover. Other agents have responded by saying that their assignment is none of the family’s business. That is a very short-sighted and selfish attitude. They may feel they are shielding the family from the stress and anxiety that comes with worrying about a loved one being in a potentially dangerous situation, but it calls into question suspicion and doubt about the undercover agent’s sometimes strange activities and unusual comings and goings.

All agents and officers working in sensitive positions (such as undercover work) should make their families aware of their potentially vulnerable employment and as a consequence the all should follow certain safety precautions such as being aware of strange cars, people, and circumstances. In one case an investigator, although he wasn’t working undercover at the time, told his family he was working to arrest some very high-profile “biker” criminals. The group was noted for their capacity for violence and their total disregard for rules of society. He had instructed his family to be cautious and alert for 164strangers or anyone who appeared questionable. One morning the investigator’s young son left home to walk to his nearby junior high school. Along the way he noted a strange car with two scruffy men parked on the street about a block from his house. The boy stopped at a nearby telephone booth and called his father who was still at home. The father then called the sheriff’s department to check out the occupants of the suspicious car. The car contained several guns and the men were members of a local chapter of notorious social misfits that the father was investigating. It was determined that the men were planning to assassinate the investigator that morning as he left for work. This alert young boy saved his father’s life.

The undercover agent’s family should be advised, aware, and alert, but they should not be concerned to the point of unecessary paranoia. That is where the line of advising the family of the agent’s occupation must be guided by common sense. The family should be knowledgeable that the agent is working in a position that shouldn’t be freely discussed outside the family or beyond the point that he is working in a critical occupation.

What is it like to work undercover?

Have you ever jumped from an airplane at 10,000 feet? You have packed your own parachute and that it was examined by the jumpmaster, and everything should be all right. But during those seconds of free-fallling as the wind whips past your face at over 100 miles per hour and your body is spinning as you see the Earth rushing up to meet you, there is time to worry about all the things that can go wrong. But it is really too late to eventhink about it because there is no turning back! When the parachute pops open and you look up to see that big canopy slowing your speed of decent, you breathe a little easier, but you don’t relax. As your feet touch earth and you have executed a perfect landing, the exhilaration is beyond belief and you can’t wait to try it again.

That is the ride you get working undercover work. You have prepared for the assignment, made plans for every conceivable contingency (but be aware of Murphy’s Law — if anything can go wrong … ). You fret that the unforeseen and unplanned could occur at any moment threatening the success of the case or placing you in imminent danger. When the arrest of the suspects is made and the case enters the final phase, the feelings of wrapping up a successful case and knowing that this time you did everything right, makes you want to do it again and the ebullience rivals winning the Lottery.

165What should an agent do if he is riding in a car with a suspect and the suspect detects a surveillance.

Very often the suspect will mention to the agent that he thinks he’s being followed. He will then test to see if the car behind him really is following him by trying to shake his tail — stopping, double-parking, turning onto a oneway street, speeding, jumping a red light, or anything else that may come to mind at the time. Some people being followed have been known to wait until they come to a dip in the road where a car seemingly disappears from sight for a minute. During that brief period of time the driver makes a sudden Uturn in the street and proceeds in the direction from which he was coming. Any following cars have to either continue ahead or also make a quick turnaround. Either way the suspect either detects the following car or loses it.

If it is obvious to the agent, as well as the suspect, that they are being followed, he should agree with the suspect that there is a surveillance. He should then request the suspect to drop him off as quickly as possible because he feels he is not in a position to be questioned by the police. He can say it is because he is carrying contraband or because he is on parole or some such excuse. He can even say something to the effect that the District Attorney’s office is looking to serve him with papers for delinquent child support. Under no conditions should he insist that they are not being followed. This would only tend to make the suspect suspicious of the agent.

Is it a good idea to try to meet a suspect without the use of an informant?

Yes, if it can be done its a great idea. I find it is almost impossible to meet the suspect without an informant unless the undercover agent spends a great deal of time in the area where the suspects are known to operate. In most of our cases we don’t have the luxury of time and manpower to invest in a case that may bring nebulous results. In the event it can be done, a lot of time, effort, and stress are saved in trying to protect and safeguard the informant.

In a case worth mentioning, I was to meet a suspect in the lobby of a motel at a certain hour. The case was in the mid-west and someone else was handling the informant. When I arrived in the city, somehow the time element had become all fouled up. The suspect was to arrive at the motel looking for me at 2:00 P.M. Rushing quickly, I could just barely arrive by 1:00 P.M, not allowing much time for settling in or to be briefed. The informant was also to arrive at 2:00 P.M. The only information I had was a very basic description of the informant, 166whom I had never met, and the informant had told the suspect that my name was Felix Marlowe.

When I arrived at the motel and was checking in under the name of Felix Marlowe, I found that “Felix Marlowe” was being paged. I also learned that the suspect was in the bar waiting for the informant and me. I proceeded to the bar and asked the bartender for the man paging Felix Marlowe. He pointed out a man named Alex who was sitting at a corner table where he could observe all the people who entered the bar. I walked over and introduced myself to him. We had a short, very casual, and carefully worded, conversation. After about 10 minutes, the informant finally arrived. As I had never met him and only had a general description, I took a chance that the person was indeed the informant. I met him halfway across the room and was able to whisper to him, out of earshot of the suspect, and tell him who I was. The informant was quite upset at the way things were progressing, but he settled down after we all shared a few drinks. However, the prospect of making a case didn’t appear to be too promising.

This case was fouled up and was going wrong from the very beginning. However, I thought it would be interesting to carry it along to see how it came out. The suspect in this case had excellent connections in spite of the fact he was merely a cheap street thug. All of the dealers in this particular counterfeit note case made sure that enough money was advanced by any distributor so that in the event of a robbery “rip-off” or arrest the people who controlled the distribution would not lose anything.

The conversation at the bar dealt with the delivery of $50,000 in counterfeit currency. This wasn’t a problem for Alex, but he wanted the “buy money” in advance. I told him I couldn’t possibly do that because the people who controlled the good money would hold me responsible in the event anything went wrong. I told him I would be inclined to gamble and trust him if the genuine money were mine, but that the stakes were too high and I couldn’t risk it with someone else’s money. I implied that these people would put me in a very tight squeeze if anything happened to their money and if I didn’t return with the counterfeit notes. We argued for about an hour and a half, but couldn’t come to any terms. I finally told him to forget the whole deal; that I was going back to New York the next morning and maybe I’d come back another time when I had my own money and we could do business on better terms. We parted company and the several 167agents, who had been covering the activities, and I went to our rooms. I went to bed at about 1:00 AM.

About two hours later, I was awakened by loud a knocking at the door. I asked who it was. The reply was “Alex.” I asked him what he wanted and he said, “Let me in! I have something for you!” I wasn’t in any position to make a buy at that time. I didn’t have the genuine money nor did I have a gun, and the other agents were asleep in their rooms and unavailable to make the arrest. there was also the possibility that he was going to try to rob me of the genuine money he thought I had. I told him I’d meet him in the lobby after I got dressed.

He became very agitated and wanted to know if I was crazy or something. He insisted that he had something for me and this was no time to play games. No matter what I told him, he wouldn’t go away. I stalled by saying I was getting dressed. He became even more irritated wanting to know why I had to get dressed before opening the door. In the meantime, I was on the house telephone calling the other agents who had rooms nearby. I told them to get into the hallway right away as I was about to let Alex into my room and I didn’t know if it was a delivery or a robbery.

I waited a few more minutes then opened the door. Alex was one “mad hombre.” He drew back his coat (I thought for sure he was going for a gun) and took a large package of counterfeit hundred dollar bills from his back pockets. While he was still swearing and calling me all kinds of names, I saw the agents approaching down the hall and told Alex, “Wait a second and I’ll get the money.” I stepped outside and motioned the agents to enter my room. They did and Alex was arrested.

This particular venture had everything go wrong from the very beginning. However it was just one of those cases that are destined to work out no matter how badly things were handled. Frankly, I never expected Alex to return, let alone come to my room to make a delivery and I could see no way he could get the merchandise without payment in advance. I later learned that a little greed goes a long way. He went way overboard to convince the people to give him the money on consignment. He called in old favors and opened old sores about the times he had been a “stand-up guy” keeping his silence on several previous arrests and how his family was not taken care of while he was serving time. He had also told the suppliers that the buyer was related to him and that he knew his relative had all the money necessary to make the purchase. He had gone way out on a limb — with a saw in his hand. He could never explain why it was necessary for him to lie about the buyer 168being a relative. I guess he was just greedy enough to want to clinch the sale regardless of not having the money in advance.

Is it a good idea to meet the informant other than at the federal office or police station.

Most of the time, the informant will tell you where he would like to meet you. On the surface it might be safe to say that an informant should always be met a long way from the official headquarters. However, there are times when there is no danger in the informant meeting the agent in the office. There are many factors that have to be taken into consideration. Do the informant and his friends come from the same city as where the agent’s office is located? Would the informant normally have legitimate business in that particular building? Sometimes, the informant has an arrest hanging over him and he would naturally be called to the courthouse on various occasions. It would suffice to say that the informant could best answer this question and he should be asked on the first contact if he has any objection to coming to the agent’s office.

In one particular instance, an informant knew he was being followed by some of his associates. Nevertheless, in spite of that fact, he went straight to the federal building in New York City and went to another agency where he had judicial action pending as a result of another arrest. When he left the building, he made a point of seeing his friends on the street and letting them know that this agency wanted him to cooperate with them. He told his friends that agents from that agency were harassing him and he didn’t want them coming to his house, so he always came to the federal building whenever they wanted to see him. The associates accepted this explanation and on all the other trips he made to the Federal building he never worried about being followed. This may or may not have been a good idea, but it worked, and the informant went on to make cases for several agencies thereafter.

In another case, the informant was a very high-ranking member of an organized crime group and it would have been sheer folly to have him come to the federal building. Elaborate plans were made to see this man miles and miles away from New York City and its surrounding areas. As time went on, he became more and more careless, even sloppy, about where he would meet the federal agents. He had a business and finally made the back of his store the meeting place for all the agencies he was cooperating with. No amount of caution could convince him that it was dangerous to have meetings on his premises. He was certain that he could talk himself out of any 169situation and he feared no one. He had an attitude of immortality and his high ranking in his organization and his even larger ego had him convinced that he could continue his double life with impunity.

One day three men went into his place of business and took care of their business — they emptied their handguns into his head and left as quickly as they arrived. Perhaps this was meant to be, but it is a prime example of an informant being his own worst enemy. This man didn’t inform because he was a good citizen or a repenter; he was faced with a 15-year sentence for a crime in which he was responsible. His cooperation had reduced the sentence to probation. That was also dangerous and a red flag to his underworld cohorts, but he insisted on “calling his own shots.” And eventually it was uncalled shots that ended his life of informing once and for all.

How dose should an agent get to an informant personally? Doesn’t a certain amount of bonding occur?

This is a very difficult question. It depends upon many factors and the informant — why he is informing and what does he expect in return. Sometimes when two people work closely together, they form a mutual professional respect and personal regard for each other. An agent wouldn’t want to invite an informant over to his house for dinner, but he may want to share some conversation over a cup of coffee and a sandwich. Sometimes the relationship continues long after the informant has no further material to share with the agent and an agent may take a personal interest in the general welfare of the informant. Of course the agent must have a professional concern for the informant in that he is not placed in jeopardy by the negligence or errors of the agent. Sometimes, an agent can’t wait to say good-by to an informant after a case is completed, but there is nothing wrong, with establishing a longterm relationship with an informant. There are certain caveats to be concerned with when dealing with an informant and among them is a caution to be aware of certain barriers that must always be in place. There is a thin line over which you must never step. That line is almost indefinable, but a professional agent will be aware of it and never step over. Many agents and police officers have experienced the professional and personal pain of becoming too familiar with an informant, especially one of the opposite sex.

To what extent should an agent or agency share an informant with another agency?

If an informant has knowledge about many crimes other than the one under the jurisdiction of the agency to which he is reporting, it is important that he be seen often. Frequent meetings are maintained in an effort to get the information on other crimes, which could easily be more important than 170the one he is reporting to you. There is no naivete about cooperation. It is very strongly felt that all agencies should cooperate to the fullest and make information supplied by informants known to the agency having jurisdiction over that particular crime. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Some agencies only question the informant about what involves their own agency and wink at the other violations that would be of interest to another agency. It is not necessary to make the informant available to the other agency, but the information definitely should be forwarded. If the informant doesn’t want to work with the other agency, he should be interviewed in depth and the information turned over to the other agency. If, on the other hand, the informant has no objection to working with the other agency, he should be introduced to one of their agents and be allowed to work for them. If the informant will not work with anyone except the agent handling him, this can be explained to the other agency. Very often the original undercover agent can work for both agencies. This has been done many times in the past when intelligent professional supervisors got together and “cut through the red tape” that inevitably occurs when two law enforcement agencies try to work together.

We had received information about two men who were attempting to sell counterfeit money. The source of the information was of questionable reliability and during the course of the preliminary investigation we could not uncover any evidence that these men were engaged in any counterfeiting activities. Both men continually bragged about their criminal activity and were feared by many of their fellow “hoods.” Both men were about the same age, somewhere in their mid-30s. Rocco was the larger of the two; his partner was called Tonito. No one could remember when either of them had worked at a legitimate job, but they both always seemed to have plenty of “walking-around” money and seemed to meet their obligations.

One night there was a professional boxing match at Madison Square Garden. Rocco and Tonito managed to get tickets for the fight. As usual, they took bets and could be considered as part-time bookmakers. Sometime that evening they met a former fighter who was considered a washed-up, over-the-hill, hanger-on. His nickname was “One-Round Benny” because he never failed to get knocked out in the first round.

During the course of the conversation that evening, Benny mentioned to Rocco that he was anxious to get some counterfeit money. Rocco, spotting an easy mark, said he could get him all the counterfeit money he wanted. Benny said he would contact a few friends and 171get enough money to make a sizeable purchase. Rocco and Tonito made arrangements to meet Benny the following evening. Benny was quite happy because he was able to get more money from his friends than he had originally anticipated. The three met at a neighborhood bar and had a conversation and left.

Two days later, Benny’s body was found just off the highway approximately 60 miles from New York City. He had been shot at close range in the back of the head and was dumped only a few yards from the roadway. The State Police investigated the case and before long Rocco and Tonito became the principal suspects.

Because the case originated with a discussion about counterfeit money, the State Police investigators called to brief me about the investigation. I informed the investigators that we had recently obtained information that Rocco and Tonito were attempting to get orders for counterfeit money but we could not associate them with any particular note. I requested that I be advised when they were arrested and be allowed to interview them about their alleged counterfeiting activities.

A few days later I received a telephone call from the state police that both men were to be arrested and taken to the local state police headquarters. I arrived at the state police office shortly after the arresting officers who had Rocco and Tonito in custody. I was not present while the homicide investigators interviewed them but when the police were finished, the two men were placed in another interview room where I was allowed to interview them. I pulled up a chair and showed both men my credentials and introduced myself. I told them I was a Treasury Agent interested in counterfeit money, not robbery, murders, or larceny. My job was to suppress counterfeiting. Rocco took the lead and answered most of my questions. He said they had met Benny and he wanted counterfeit money. They told Benny they could get him some and quoted him a price. They made a deal and agreed to meet the next evening. Neither Rocco nor Tonito had a connection for counterfeit money. When Benny showed up with his money they went for a ride and during the ride, they “took him.”

I asked if they had any plans to get the counterfeit money and both said “No” That ended the conversation. I wrote a report on my short conversation and gave the state police a copy. Both men eventually pled ‘not guilty’ and a trial was held charging both with murder. I was very surprised when I was subpoenaed to testify because I had the impression both men had confessed. The District Attorney trying the case said my interview with the prisoners was the most important 172part of the whole prosecution. My actual testimony didn’t take long. However, the defense cross-examined me in great detail. No matter of how they approached it, it was always the same. Both men had admitted to me that they had set up a deal for counterfeit money with Benny and that when the deceased came up with the buy money they “took him.” Much time was spent on what was meant by they “took him.” I stated that I interpreted it to mean that they took Benny’s money and possibly his life. I later learned that the jury could not agree on a verdict, so a mistrial was declared. A second trial was held and the jury declared both men guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. They were sentenced to fifteen to 35 years each in the New York State Prison.

While this case did not take any counterfeit money from the streets, it did put away two murderers for a long time. It is a trade-off that should be taken every time. Cooperation between agencies has untold benefits. This case actually occurred just prior to the advent of the Miranda Warning in the early 1960s. But it is indicative of the continued cooperation between agencies and police departments that is very much in evidence today and which is probably even more popular then when this case was being investigated.

Is it a good idea to write down everything an informant tells you?

There are times when a law enforcement officer has to take out his notepad and write down the entire interview he has with a witness or possible suspect. However, when talking to an informant, it is a very bad form to whip out a notebook and start writing. That may be intimidating to the informant. Most informants will then be fearful they will be held to everything they say. A better idea is for the undercover agent to have an informal conversation with the informant, possibly in a restaurant or some other neutral location, and just get to know each other. After the conversation has concluded, the officer should return to the office and prepare a memorandum reconstructing the conversation, at least the pertinent details. If there are addresses and telephone numbers that he needs, the agent can obtain them from the informant at a later date, or he can make casual notes without drawing too much attention to that fact. The agent must de-emphasize anything that might draw the informant’s attention away from the conversation. Regardless of what an informant tells an officer in their meetings (especially the initial meeting), the officer should act like a priest in a confessional. He shouldn’t show any emotion such as surprise or elation. He must maintain a professional image as though he has heard it all before and nothing is a shock to him anymore. 173An actual conversation between a rather new agent and an informant went something like this:

Informant

“I know where there’s a lot of counterfeit money.”

Agent

“Yeah? Like how much?’

Informant

“At least a million dollars”

Agent

“Wow! No kidding? A million dollars? Man, I never saw that much money in my whole life. Let’s go and get it. It’ll be the biggest case we ever make!”

Informant

“Wait a minute. A lot of heavy people are involved in this.

Agent

Like who?”

Informant

“Pete ‘Irish-eyes’ White, Horsey ‘Gotta Tip’ Phillips, and Joe ‘Cat’ Cataldo.”

Agent

“Who are they?’

Informant

“Guys who are all Mafia-connected and heavily involved.”

Agent

“Wow! Lemme at em., If you can get me those guys and that money, I’ll be on my way! Jeez, I’d give anything to make a case like that!”

Informant

“Well, I can do it, but its gonna cost you …”

We can spend an entire chapter laughing about the mistakes that this agent was making in handling the informant. In the first place, he was too emotional. When he heard the estimate of “a million dollars” he got overexcited and showed his enthusiasm to the informant. When he mentioned that this was probably “the biggest case we’ll ever make,” he was practically telling the informant to ask for the biggest reward they ever paid. He asked the informant for the names of the people involved, then admitted he never heard of them. He couldn’t contain his delight and excitement when the informant mentioned that they were all “Mafia connected. “As the conversation went on, the informant also got carried away with his own importance because of the actions of the agent and it was not long before he was trying to run the whole case. It became necessary to bring in a more experienced agent to work with the informant. It was explained to him that the first agent was relatively new and this case required a more experienced person. It took hours to correct the errors of the first agent. The first agent would have been better served if he had just obtained the facts and reported them to his supervisor before becoming so animatedly excited. Even then he should have tempered his excitement with a little more calm and a lot more restraint. It is interesting to note that this particular informant was merely a big talking braggart and the case he was so wrapped up in proved to be very insignificant. He was paid far more than the information or case were worth and never provided useful information again.

174How do you select the right person for a particular undercover case?

There are no magic formulas or wands to wave. The only rule of thumb is to try to place the person that is best compatible for the job by virtue of his talents, ability, interests, and confidence level for a particular assignment. There is no such thing as “an undercover agent,” only undercover assignments. Some assignments last for a few hours or days; others last for considerable periods of time. It is not unusual for agents in the Secret Service to work undercover cases in the daytime, associating with criminals, informants, pimps and prostitutes and then be assigned to protecting the President of the United States that night. Headquarters in Washington D.C. selects many Secret Service undercover agents by reviewing reports from the offices where the agents have worked, their education, and personnel profile forms specifying any unique qualifications. The criteria is to select a person who would feel comfortable in or be able to adapt to a variety of environments. There are some officers and agents who have a hard time doing undercover work, but are still very important to the success of the case. They may be very skilled at other aspects of the operation such as surveillance or administration details like logistics or planning, and participating in the arrest and interview phase. They may be assigned as a secondary undercover agent in the role of the undercover agent’s driver, “bodyguard,” or apprentice.

In some agencies undercover personnel are selected from a list of people who have requested the assignment and the opportunity to work undercover. Many counties have special squads of undercover agents drawn from local police departments. These people get an opportunity to work in areas in which they are unknown. In some small towns police officers get very little opportunity to work undercover unless their department joins a larger organization. This plan has worked successfully in many jurisdictions. These days, some agencies have officers and agents who are only in their early 20s and are young-looking enough to work undercover on college campuses and high schools.

In the corporate and industrial world, undercover agents are selected to gather specific information relative to theft, waste, sabotage, or use of illegal substances among many other reasons an employer feels he needs an undercover operative. The undercover agent is selected in the same manner as any other employee. In addition to his ability to conduct undercover investigations he must also be able to complete any labor task assigned to him. For instance, working in a warehouse or manufacturing plant, he may be required to operate a forklift, a crane or a milling machine. Whatever the undercover assignment, the agent must have marketable and proficient skills in the area of his assignment.

175As a supervisor you know the particular talents, personalities, and aptitudes of the team working for you. Some individuals are best at working with a particular ethnic group. They seem to instinctively understand the cultural nuances like mannerisms, bravado, language, or speech patterns and even the subtle body language better than most. Some agents just couldn’t fit into some subcultures such as very right-wing neo-nazi groups or “outlaw” motorcycle gangs. There are agents who, for certain reasons, can only work the smaller cases. Conversely, there are agents who, because of looks, dress, attitude, etc., can work only the big or major cases. With any group of individuals, each person’s particular niche soon becomes apparent to an observant supervisor. There are times when an agent is selected only because he has never been involved in a particular area and would be unknown to the people he would be working with. Sometimes manpower availability will dictate using whatever agent is at hand. In many instances, it is suggested to let the informant select the person he’d like to work with. Generally his suggestion is excellent. He will usually choose someone he is compatible with and feels comfortable working with. He also knows how well a certain person will fit in with the group he is attempting to penetrate. Letting an informant determine who he will be working with in the undercover assignment has another, more esoteric, side benefit. If for any reason the case doesn’t succeed, the agent or supervisor won’t have to listen to the informant telling them that the case failed because the wrong agent was chosen for the job.

If you trust an informant, how much should you tell him about the case?

You have to be very careful about telling an informant about any case. Whether you trust him or not, you should not give him information unless it is important that he needs this information to successfully work the case. He should be informed only on a need to know basis and only when the time is appropriate. To give him any additional information serves no purpose other than to make him knowledgeable and put him in a position to bargain, perhaps with the other side. There was a (non-police) case in which an undercover agent trusted the informant like his best friend. In fact they had known each other for years before the informant came forward with certain sensitive information. He gave the information to the undercover agent who wrote a report detailing the information. Then the undercover agent made a costly, nearly fatal mistake. He let his friend read the report and check it for accuracy. The friend made a copy and left it where it was found by a less scrupulous person who sold a copy to the target of the investigation. Any information given to an informant can, and will, find a way to come back and “bite” the undercover agent. To sum it all up in a manner that is easy to 176understand and remember — an informant should give information to the police, the police are not supposed to give information to the informant!

What do you think of a hearing aid or a similar indicator of physical impairment as a prop?

Normally, a hearing aid shouldn’t make anyone too suspicious, unless he is very knowledgeable and knows that a hearing aid could be converted into a transmitter and used as a technical police device. The use of such “props” has been exploited many times in the movies and television to the point that any cautious suspect would be concerned when he saw such a device. The undercover agent would have to be fully prepared to field questions from the suspect about the device such as the extent of the physical impairment, how long has it existed, can the agent function without it, etc. He may also want to examine it and ask technical questions.

Beyond the technical aspects and the questions, assume an agent uses such a prop, he is successful and that particular group learns they have been victimized. It is not difficult to imagine how much success the next undercover agent will have if he decides to employ a similar device. Anything in this category of props is considered as a “one shotter.” If used successfully on a case, it should be a long time before it is used again.

At the conclusion of a successful undercover operation, who receives the credit for the case?

Like it or not, statistics are a necessary tool in police work as well as in any other business. They are the barometer by which the success of the organization is measured. All police agencies are involved with a battle of the budget and must justify the use of their financial resources. In this sense, statistics are very important. In an undercover case, many people go into the success of the case. The informant, the case agent, the covering agents, the arresting agents, and finally the undercover agent are all a part of the team that put the case together. Regardless of how the credits are distributed, the undercover agent will always be singled out as the person who gets the lion’s share of credit. Undercover work captures the imagination of everyone, including the defendants, the judge and jury, the district attorney, the public, and the press. The undercover agent takes the greatest risks and naturally will receive the most credit. There is usually enough backslapping, congratulations, and recognition to go around for everyone and credit should be given to the entire group. To make a successful case, the entire team must function smoothly and know exactly what to do under any set of circumstances and always be in a position to protect the undercover agent at any time during the case. Statistical credit, therefore, should be allotted in such a manner as to reflect the efforts of all participants.

177Suppose you are working an undercover counterfeit case and the suspect shows you a genuine article not the contraband as a sample. Should you let him know that you are aware the sample is genuine?

Not right away. Nothing would be gained by letting him know that you are an expert in detecting whether items are genuine or counterfeit. It might make him suspicious that you know more than you should. He might then suspect that you are an agent. There’s no harm in remarking that the sample looks very good and you hope that the rest that are delivered is of the same high quality. He has a reason for showing you the genuine article. It may be that he cannot get samples and has no intention of delivering the contraband to you. The material that he intends to deliver may be of such poor quality he is afraid that you might not buy them if you saw one of the samples. Showing you genuine samples might put him in a position of asking a much higher price because the merchandise is so good. There was an occasion of note where it became necessary to let the seller know that the samples were genuine.

I met with the suspect in an upstate motel. He was a legitimate businessman who was 90% legitimate and 10% thief. He was acting as a commission man, a broker, between a group of known thieves and myself. At first he was interested in selling stolen stock certificates as he had a Wall Street background and was very knowledgeable about stocks, bonds, T-bills, etc.

Somewhere along the line, the people he represented told him they could get counterfeit money in any amounts. The switch to discussing counterfeit money was done abruptly, without any indications he was going to talk about it and I immediately became suspicious. This particular suspect and I didn’t get along well from the beginning. His asking prices were always too high. He never produced anything of value and I began to suspect that while he was anxious to make a sale, the people behind him were trying to arrange a robbery. However, I told him I was interested in the counterfeit notes and he said that he would have some samples and prices for me the following day. He went into a long speech of how his people had invested a fortune in this scheme and were anxious to make a large sale.

A day or two later, we met again in another motel and he showed me two brand new Federal Reserve notes. He pointed out that each bill bore the same serial number, and therefore were counterfeit. I examined the bills and immediately knew that they were genuine notes. They did bear identical serial numbers, however, I noted that the last digit of each serial number had been removed. These bills 178were brand new and originally had consecutive numbers on them. One bill was numbered B80756701C and the other was B80756702C. By erasing the last digit in the number on each bill both bills would read B8075670 C. The extra space between the last number and letter would hardly be noticeable to anyone unfamiliar with money.

I was sure that this man was sincerely convinced that the notes were counterfeit. I agreed that they looked very good and tried to arrive at a price. He wanted something like 35 cents on the dollar in “lots” of $100,000. He wanted the buy money in advance and wanted to complete the sale immediately. We were arguing about the price when I received a telephone call from the covering agents. They advised me that there was a Cadillac full of “hoods” waiting near the entrance of the hotel and that they undoubtedly wanted to rob me if they were convinced that I had any large amount of money. Armed with this information, I went back to negotiating with the suspect in the room. He kept saying that these people had invested a fortune in making these notes and they had done it just for me and that I was obligated to do business with them — their way and as quickly as possible. I pretended to examine the samples and luckily I had two consecutively numbered notes in my own money. While he was talking, I made it appear that it suddenly struck me that there was a swindle brewing. I turned to him and asked, “How much did your people invest in this set up?” He said “a small fortune.” I then opened the desk, took out a pencil with an eraser and proceeded to erase the last number on the bills I had in my possession. When I finished, I theatrically threw the bills in his face and said, “What your people invested was exactly 50 cents for an eraser and one minute of their time!” I then grabbed him by the throat and tried to get him to admit that he was part of the swindle. He assured me he wasn’t and began to worry that his people were up to something.

He said he’d have a hard time convincing the people that I didn’t want the counterfeit money. He felt reasonably sure that this was, in fact, a planned holdup, and being a businessman, he didn’t want to become involved. He finally left my room a shaken man and went back to the people in the Cadillac with a story that he didn’t trust me and that no deal could be arranged.

The “mob” “hit him up for a good piece of change,” supposedly for the trouble they went through. We maintained good relations with the suspect and eventually another agency caught him dealing in stolen stock certificates. He and his associates were arrested during the delivery of over a million dollars worth of stolen stocks.

179Information eventually sifted to us that the counterfeiting scheme was just that and there was no intention of delivering counterfeit money. They thought they could pull a robbery on a man in a motel room and because he was engaged in an illegal venture that he probably wouldn’t report it to the police.

Would it be proper to let an informant know that another person in the case is an informant and is supplying information on the same case?

Most definitely NOT! This topic was strongly addressed previously. An informant should be used for the purpose of obtaining information and should never be in a position where he is getting information from the agency he is working with. If you told him that another person is giving you information as well, he may suppose that you might reveal his cooperation to that other person at some point in time. He might also find an occasion and opportunity that would benefit him to identify that other person to the suspects. Most informants will respect the fact that you will not give them any information and that you are noncommittal about anyone else giving you information.

Is there ever a time when it becomes necessary to drop an informant?

I am sure that everyone has had the experience where they feel an informant is not worth working with or that sometime in the past he has double-crossed them and they reach a point where they will not work with him under any circumstances. This is a very rare occurrence and may happen only once or twice in an entire career. An informant shouldn’t be dropped for what he has done in the past, but only if the information he is giving is not true or he is merely trying to buy time to forestall a pending judicial action or imprisonment. There is no way of telling if an informant is being truthful with you. You have to listen and evaluate what he tells you and match that with what you already know or can confirm and then arrive at a decision as to whether you can trust him or not. Past performances will play an important part in your decision, but shouldn’t be the determining factor.

Our office knew Juan for about 5 years. He was an addict who came around to the office when he was really desperate for money. He invariably came to the office with stories about counterfeit note distribution in his neighborhood, however, he was never able to bring in a counterfeit note or any kind of a sample to show what was being sold in his area. Each time he came to the office he would manage to get a few dollars for expenses and generally nothing ever came of 180the information that he gave us. It soon became apparent to the agents working with him that he was becoming a nuisance and a “con man” who would invent stories just to get a little pocket money.

One day he called the office and asked to have an agent meet him as he had some valuable information. As Juan was not held in very high regard at this time it is doubtful that any veteran agent would have responded to his request to meet him several miles away. However, the telephone was answered by a relatively new agent who took time out to identify the informant and felt perhaps there was something to his urgent call. Because no one else was available to meet Juan, the agent decided he would meet with him. Juan not only had counterfeiting information, but he also had several samples and a list of names of the people involved and he was also in a position to introduce a Spanish-speaking agent to the group as a potential buyer. Juan had decided to leave the country and was going to try to make a new start in his home country and was letting all caution fall to the wind. His information was good and a counterfeiting conspiracy case was made and a very deceptive note was put out of circulation very early. It was fortunate that the agent trusted his own insticts and handled the matter without relying on past informant performance.

Is there any advantage to having a delivery made in a location away from where the suspect normally operates?

Changing cities provides an ideal situation for the undercover agent. Taking the suspect away from his home base reduces his power position and places him in a vulnerable situation. In his hometown he probably knows most of the local police by sight. In the event he sees something he doesn’t like, he will likely have contacts who will have no trouble checking it out. In the event of an arrest he can communicate with friends and relatives to arrange bail and release from jail. He can also readily obtain legal aid and advise from his associates and friends. All these advantages are turned to disadvantages when he is arrested in a strange city. It is amazing how often a person is refused help by his associates when he is arrested out of town. Very often, they will even resent the telephone call from the suspect as they fear the police are listening or will be able to trace back to the telephone number dialed long distance and may attempt to tie them into the particular crime. When violators languish in jail, especially in a strange city where there are no visitors and no word reaching them from friends or associates, they soon give some thought to cooperating with the authorities. Psychologically they begin to feel they “have been thrown to the wolves” and they have nothing to gain by keeping quiet. They begin to believe that perhaps some 181of their own friends gave them up and begin the rationalization for cooperation.

I was assigned to a city in the Southwest to work with an informant on a counterfeiting case. This particular informant was high in the hierarchy of the underworld in the particular area and an introduction from the man was all that was needed to make a successful case. This particular informant had a spacious home with servants, plenty of money, and all the trappings of a very successful businessman.

That year he gave a Christmas party at his home and invited a lot of people to attend the festivities. I was also invited and during the course of the evening, the informant gave me a casual introduction to the suspect. We managed to establish rapport and become friendly. Before the evening was over, the suspect let it be known that he could get large amounts of counterfeit money. I told him I was going back East and would like to take a couple of thousand dollars with me. He said he could arrange it as he had several thousand in his car. He went out and I met him in the basement of the home where the party was being held. We negotiated a sale with no trouble at all. He then gave me his home telephone number and told me to call him at any time.

After the party was over, I talked to the informant and let him know that a buy had been consummated. The informant made sure to never mention my name in the future, and was laying the groundwork to let it be known that someone else brought me to the party.

A few weeks later, I called the suspect and told him that my people were interested in $150,000 worth of notes and asked him if he could get them. He said it would be no trouble and I could go out there any time to pick them up. I told him my people wanted delivery in New York City and that they would pay the expenses to effect a delivery there. He said that he didn’t think he could arrange the delivery in New York. I gave him a telephone number where he could reach me and he said he would call me back.

When he called back he said that he thought he could make the delivery in New York City. He said his girlfriend and another couple wanted to take a trip to New York and he thought he could bring the notes with him and mix business with pleasure. I told him that was fine and promised to get him tickets for shows, nightclubs, etc.

A few days later, the suspect arrived in town, registered at a local hotel, and then called me. My “chauffeur” and I met them the foursome at the hotel. They were all were conversant about the counterfeit 182money they had brought and were anxious to swing a deal so they could go out and enjoy themselves.

One of our Chinese agents had arranged with some Chinese friends to borrow the upstairs room in their restaurant in Chinatown. It was very easy to tell the suspects that we were going out for a Chinese dinner and that the owner of the restaurant was the man putting up the money for the counterfeits. The party was delighted and they accepted a lift from my chauffeur to take them down to Chinatown. In the meantime, all was in readiness for them. The outer perimeter covered the street outside the restaurant and also the downstairs portion of the premises. The owner of the restaurant, and several agents posing as part of the syndicate were upstairs preparing for the banquet surprise.

Before coming downtown to meet me, the group of suspects went to a public garage and retrieved the counterfeit money from the back of their rental car. They then accompanied my man on the trip downtown. They arrived on schedule and upon entering the restaurant, were escorted upstairs to meet “the buyers.” Needless to say, an arrest was made at our leisure as the suspects were pretty well boxed in.

They were put in a federal detention facility for the night and the next day spent several futile hours trying to get in touch with friends and to arrange bail. For some reason, help wasn’t forthcoming and 24 hours after they were arrested, they wanted to make a deal. They made it very clear that the only reason they were cooperating was because they were in a strange town and their friends from back home had apparently abandoned them. Their cooperation was accepted and a deal was worked out. Again, several cases were made and eventually the plant was seized and the manufacturers were arrested.

The point here was that the cooperation was offered solely because they felt they had been abandoned. If the arrest had been made in their hometown, they wouldn’t have had any trouble arranging for a bondsman, lawyer, etc. It is interesting to note that aside from the person who checked them into the hotel, every other person they met was a law enforcement official. When the arrest was made and they saw the big picture, they realized how hopeless the situation was and fully cooperated.

The informant in this case also came out perfectly clean. When questioned about me, he said that he only met me for the first time at his home to which I had been brought by a mutual friend. The informant told the suspects that he resented being questioned because, apparently, they had what 183they thought was a lucrative deal going and he wasn’t told about it nor were they going to give him his cut. This was a case where just about everything turned out good for the “good guys.”

How about a case where everything doesn’t work out for the “good guys?

Working undercover is a risky business. As much depends on luck as on anything. Regardless of all the precautions that are taken to ensure an undercover agent’s safety, there are always unforeseen events and situations that can’t be predicted. We can choose an agent for undercover work in an area that he has never been before. He can be supplied with all the necessary cover, he can work with a reliable, tried and tested informant, and still the case fails, sometimes even before it begins. On some occasions, the reasons for failure are obvious. These failures occur because of a factor that can’t be controlled — the human element. There is always the possibility of the agent being recognized by someone whose presence could not have been anticipated in the original planning.

Maximillian (Max) Gordon was a racketeer of some repute in the New York area. He had been arrested and convicted many times and was considered a “three-time loser” which meant, like the “three strikes law,” one more conviction would send him to prison for the remainder of his life. He had a reputation for handling large amounts of many kinds of contraband. He knew he was a target of investigation by both local and federal authorities in the New York area so he was very careful to avoid the next arrest that could mean a life term.

I had recently completed working an undercover case with a very reliable informant. This informant had many contacts in the criminal community and he was anxious to make cases against all of them. He hoped to get enough money from the rewards to leave the area for good and start a new life. The case we had just finished working was a large counterfeiting case and his reward was about $2000. On this particular occasion, he asked me if I knew Max Gordon. I told him I knew his reputation, but that I had never met him and I was positive Max didn’t know me. The informant related to me that he had learned that Max was handling counterfeit money and he thought he could make arrangements for me to meet him. We agreed to proceed with a plan to work an undercover operation against Max.

The informant suggested that at precisely 8:00 P.M. on the following Tuesday, I should make it my business to be in a certain midtown bar. He stated that at about that time he would be with Max and several of Max’s friends. He knew that at that time Max 184and his friends would arrive at the bar for a meeting in a back room with a number of his associates. The plan was for me to sit at the end of the bar near the door to the back room. When Max, his friends, and the informant came in, the informant would recognize me as an old friend he hadn’t seen in years. He would then introduce me to Max and the others and invite me into the back room. He would indicate to Max that I was someone who could dispose of any kind of contraband. The informant was sure Max would then offer to sell me either drugs or counterfeit money. Everything was set and in readiness for that night and at about 7:30 P.M. I entered the bar and sat down in the back corner as planned and ordered a drink, exactly according to plan.

A short while later, an obviously drunk man came in. When I got a good look at him, my heart sank as I recognized him as a former sergeant in the Marine Corps who had served under me several years earlier. He came from Missouri and was very much a ‘red-neck” and I was at a loss to figure out what he was doing in New York City. I didn’t have long to think about that though. I had been hoping in vain that he wouldn’t see me, as he was a very loud character even when he was sober, but sure enough once he had surveyed each and every person at the bar he saw me. He immediately recognized me and waved his hand and shouted, “Hi, Captain.” At first I paid no attention to him, but his loud shouts were obviously directed at me so I nodded back in recognition. He then staggered over to meand when he got close he said, “Remember me Captain?” I mumbled that he looked familiar. He immediately laughed and shouted, “Isn’t it your business to recognize people. You’re supposed to be the best hot-damned federal agent in the country. You must be working undercover or something. Yeah, I bet that’s it. You are an undercover agent!” At this time, there was great scurrying in the bar as everyone left in a hurry. Suddenly the bar was empty except for the good sergeant and me. There was nothing left to do but drag the drunken, loud mouth, out of the bar and get away from there as fast as I could.

As we were leaving, I saw the informant arrive and enter the bar with Max and his friends, but I made no attempt to contact the informant.

The next day, he called me to say that it had been a good thing that I didn’t meet him as we had planned. He said that when they went into the bar the bartender told Max that the place was surrounded with federal agents and there was going to be trouble. The bartender said one of the agents had posed as a drunk and he was sure they were still in the area. The informant said that Max and his 185friends were quite alarmed and left the place immediately. I told the informant that I too had noticed a lot of law in the vicinity and decided not to keep the appointment. I had blown the only opportunity I’d have to make a case against Maximillian Gordon.

I made several mistakes that night. The first one was in not grabbing the sergeant as soon as he entered the bar and explaining to him why he shouldn’t be there. The second mistake was in taking a chance by coming early for the appointment and putting myself on display for an extra half hour. Perhaps it was best it ended that way. If I had arrived there on time and been introduced to Max and his friends, the sergeant could have come into the bar and there would have been trouble.

In the long run, nothing was really lost. Shortly thereafter, Max was arrested by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the sale of drugs to an undercover agent and subsequently died in prison.

How are the expenses controlled for “buy” money and other costs?

Funds used for undercover work are supplied by the agency. The supervisor determines an approximate budget and uses the money as needed. All expenses are justified, recorded and accounted for in a ledger that is open for inspection by higher authority. When working with someone else’s money a good rule to follow is: “Handle the money like it belongs to the Mafia.”

Should an undercover agent wear a hidden transmitter?

This matter may be dictated by circumstances, agency policy, and preferences of the individual agent (or supervisor). A transmitter has advantages: it can provide a recording of all conversations for court purposes and, most importantly, it keeps the covering agents apprised of the progress of the meeting with the suspect and alerts them to possible danger to the undercover agent and of any unforeseen changes in plan. The most serious disadvantage is the possibility of detection of the device. With the sophistication and caution employed by many veteran and security-conscious criminals, there is a risk the undercover agent may have to undergo some type of screening.

It was not uncommon just 15 or 20 years ago for an undercover agent to take the risk of wearing a body recorder or transmitter only to learn later that it had malfunctioned. There was a case in a large city in which a police detective lieutenant became the suspect in a counterfeiting case. His name surfaced when he passed two counterfeit $20 notes to purchase a tire for his personal car. An agent interviewed him and it was determined that he apparently obtained the bills either 186at the bank or in some other transaction. A report was made and it was filed away.

Six months later another man, named Luke, was arrested for passing counterfeit notes. After extensive questioning he stated that a lieutenant in the police department had given him the notes. We checked the records and located the report that had been filed several months earlier. It was the same police lieutenant. We equipped Luke with a body recorder after he agreed to meet with the lieutenant to discuss some more counterfeit money. Our agents and members of the police internal affairs unit covered the meeting.

Luke and the lieutenant met at a restaurant and Luke paid him for the notes he had previously received and they had a long conversation about the counterfeits. After they parted company, Luke returned the recorder and reported his conversation with the lieutenant. However, when we attempted to playback the conversation, the tape recorder didn’t work. When we opened it we found that the wire had misfed and we had nothing but a fistful of wire. The internal affairs supervisor sent the material to the manufacturer in an attempt to have the sound restored and the recording enhanced. The lieutenant learned that Luke had been wearing a recording device and at his trial pled guilty. He said that one day while cleaning out his locker he found the counterfeit bills which he had received in an old case. After being questioned about the two notes he had passed, he decided to sell the remaining notes. After the case was completed, I played the recording and I was happy that we didn’t have to use it in trial. The recording was full of static and I doubt if a jury would have convicted the lieutenant. Today there are inconspicuous recorders and transmitters that utilize computer chips that are more reliable and powerful and make police work a lot easier by eliminating the potential for malfunction.

How should an agent prepare for an undercover role?

Before any undercover case can commence, we must recognize that the person assigned to do the undercover work will have an enormous amount of things on his mind. In order to relieve the tensions, apprehensions, and stress, it always helps to have the supervisor sit down alone with the undercover agent and explain exactly what is expected of him. He should be advised that all undercover cases are not successful and many things can go wrong and through no fault of the agent the case can go completely wrong. If the agent doesn’t have any prior experience with undercover work, he should be advised of the pitfalls that are always lurking nearby. It’s always possible that someone may recognize the agent especially if the original introduction is 187made in a public place. The suspect could suddenly turn cold and everyone connected with the case will suddenly leave. Situations like this can’t be helped. Before long, the informant will contact the agency and explain why the case suddenly went sour. Usually when the informant advises the agency of the problems, steps can be taken to correct them. Sometimes the suspect simply feels as though he is being followed. The next time a looser surveillance can be maintained on him. If the suspect doesn’t feel comfortable with the agent, the agent can be replaced with another agent and the original plans and be completely revised.

When the agent understands the complexity of the case, it should then be arranged for the agent to have a long talk with the informant. The agent is well advised to question the informant about all the suspects in the case. He is to ascertain their modes of dress, their language, their life style, their education and anything else that will give the agent an inside perspective of what to expect from the suspects including the possibility and probability of them being armed. If possible the informant should tell the agent of any special interests, eccentricities, particular concerns and suspicions, habits, and associates of the suspect. If possible, he should learn the method of transportation and identify any vehicles the suspect is likely to use and the probable location where the deal might be completed. If the suspect was previously engaged in other sales by the suspect he should be able to give a good scenario of what can be expected to happen.

After this debriefing, both the agent and the informant should be left alone to work out cover stories and to get to know each other better. This relieves a lot of tension and worry regarding meeting and working with the informant without knowing anything about him.

Some years ago I was assigned to work in an undercover capacity on a group that was papering the city with counterfeit $10s and $20s. We had an informant who was all set to introduce me to the suspects. At about that same time I received a telephone call from my sister who told me that she and my parents had moved out of Manhattan and into a two-family house on Long Island. She gave me the new address and I promised to visit her shortly.

The informant was from out West somewhere and the next time he came to New York I sat down and had a long chat with him. He gave me the name of the suspect and his address. The address sounded familiar so I immediately checked my sister’s address and found it was right next door to where the suspect lived. I explained the situation to the supervisor who arranged to send another agent in my place. The next day I visited my parents and sister in their new house. I told my sister about her neighbors and asked her why she 188had decided to move. She stated that she wanted a quiet place for our parents and she liked the idea of living across the street from one of our cousins. She said that most of our relatives lived on Long Island and she chided me for losing contact with our relatives. I then went across the street to visit my cousin.

During our conversation she said that she had lived in the same house for over 20 years and knew everyone in the neighborhood. I asked her about my sister’s next door neighbors. She said the Verde family were all O.K. except one brother — everyone called him “Blinky” because he had a problem with his eye. My cousin said that Blinky didn’t work and had done been in prison. He also associated with a very bad group of people. Blinky was unmarried and was in his 40s and was always looking for a way to make a fast dollar. I asked my cousin if I could come every day to keep watch on the Verde house from her porch.

After the informant arrived we arranged to have him meet the new undercover agent on the case. He was from Los Angeles and he looked, dressed, and talked like the informant. They got along splendidly. I occupied my time watching the Verde house. I was able to see some of the meetings, get license numbers of cars that stopped at the house, and obtained descriptions of the people who visited. The case ended with the seizure of over a million dollars in counterfeit money. The defendants went to trial, they were convicted, and each received a 15-year sentence.