Undercover policing is the process by which an officer removes the trappings of his or her office, such as one’s badge, uniform, and presence, in order to engage in sanctioned actions of a quasi-legal or illegal nature to collect evidence on crimes, which may otherwise go undetected by traditional police methods. An undercover officer may be present before or during the commission of a crime and purposefully not intercede. Undercover work typically focuses on consensual crimes (e.g., a drug purchase, prostitution), crimes where the criminal is difficult to locate (e.g., pick pockets, purse grabbers), or complex crimes that are difficult to detect (e.g., well-organized criminal groups, political corruption). The officer engages the targeted criminal, often with the help of informants or information collected through traditional police methods. Using the undercover team, subtlety, guile, and misrepresentation of the self, the undercover officer observes that the individual commits crimes or records admission to crimes. Engaging of a target can vary, from the simple attempt to purchase a controlled substance from a dealer to the complex crafting of a false persona with the help of an informant to gain access to organized crime’s inner circles. Traditional goals of an arrest may be bypassed for secondary benefits, such as intelligence gathering on logistics, finances, connections, and more. This article focuses on the history of undercover policing, traditional undercover processes, and the risks of undercover work.
History
Modern undercover tactics were created by Eugene Francois Vidocq in the early 19th century. Historically, Western countries have resisted law enforcement’s involvement with any criminal element to the point where even detectives interviewing criminals were viewed with suspicion. Vidocq employed former criminals and paid them to collect information from strategic places like prisons. The Pinkerton National Detective Agency, founded in Chicago, IL, in 1850, expanded on Vidocq’s tactics, having undercover agents accompany the criminals into criminal situations to observe and later report. Currently, undercover work with police generally involves the criminal or confidential informants introducing the officer to the contact, gang, or the target of the operation, and then, the criminal or confidential informant is phased out of the operation.
The first federal police force in the United States to use undercover tactics was the Secret Service in 1865, which borrowed methods and hired personnel from private police like Pinkerton. The viewpoints on the government’s approval and use of undercover operations have varied from reprehensible to necessary evil. In 1936, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it would not enter into any illegal compacts or pursue illegal courses of action, no matter the outcome or ends served. By 1972, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had increased its use of undercover operations, as did the Internal Revenue Service in 1982; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 1968; and other federal investigative departments soon after.
Historically, the courts have ruled that undercover tactics are constitutional within the United States. Undercover tactics emerged due to the limitations of traditional confession extraction, to create a fair playing field and to achieve an increase in discovery and conviction of white- collar crime and corruption. Furthermore, changes in criminal liability have emphasized the state of mind of the accused criminals, rather than actual product. This has allowed legal items, such as sugar or electronics, to be misrepresented as narcotics or stolen goods, and the individuals involved can be charged because they believed they were entering into an illegal arrangement.
Currently, undercover work has been estimated to occur more often on the federal level than the state, detective than patrol, and private police than public police. Undercover work appears more likely to target consensual, recurring, and organized exchanges where a victim or witness was lacking, unaware of the illegal nature of the situation, or unwilling to come forward.
Standard Procedures
Undercover operations follow a standard operational pattern: selection, training, planning, deployment, decompression, and reintegration. Functional undercover operations often require the relaxing of department rules, such as hourly check-ins and not drinking alcohol on the job, as well as customs and practices (e.g., dress codes). Department flexibility for the undercover officer is necessary for the officer to adapt to the criminal milieu.
Selection most often occurs among newer officers who have not developed traditional police habits which may give them away, although a strong understanding of the law is necessary to avoid issues like entrapment. Field operator selection is recommended to be volunteer only, from among the ranks of those officers who see value in the methods and who are not attempting to escape an unwanted situation, and to take place post training. Post-training selection research has found that extroverted and emotionally stable are the best fit for this type of work. Undercover work is comparable to other special units in that not everyone is fit for the job. Selection should utilize all available information, but the ultimate decision lies with the officers after they have received psychological and physical assessments and been provided a full disclosure of the costs and consequences of undercover work. Assessments should be no older than 6 months due to the changes that may occur in that time period.
Training of undercover officers simulates real-life situations as closely as possible, with a stepwise increase in process to allow officers to absorb fundamental lessons before moving onto more complex deceptions. Current and former undercover officers bring real-world scenarios and current intelligence into their training. Training can reflect the type of operation and includes intelligence, prevention, or facilitation. Intelligence focuses on the collection of information before or after a crime has occurred (e.g., who was involved in illegal activity). Prevention focuses on stopping crime or harm from happening (e.g., replacing explosive substances with inert ones). Facilitation can be the encouragement of individuals to act or not preventing a crime from occurring but instead observing the actors involved (e.g., joining and encouraging a radicalized political group).
Planning and deployment are often cyclical, due to the need for operator adjustments and operational changes. Planning may involve the creation of a false persona and verifying documents, the use of criminal informants to help place the officer within an organization, or the fabrication of a criminal situation to see who walks into the trap. Psychological and physiological maintenance of the officer is paramount as the undercover process creates a relationship between the officer and the target, effectively humanizing the individual, while compounding stress. Going native (i.e., becoming a criminal) is a severe but infrequent occurrence due to the stress and the relationships of the undercover officer. Lesser effects, including expressing doubts about the operation, questioning the department, and experiencing psychological problems, are more common. Successful deployment will depend on many factors, particularly the definition of success as determined by the focus of the operation. Although many undercover operations do not end with arrests due to the purpose of the operation (e.g., intelligence gathering), opportunity and chance also play a large role in effective undercover work. Despite the best effort of the undercover officer, an arrest may not be possible.
Decompression and reintegration occurs after the operation is over, when the officer sheds his or her false persona, experiences a psychological and physiological rebound due to the strain of the operation, and returns to mainstream work. This process can be difficult and may take up to 2 years. There is a dramatic increase in officers leaving the force following undercover work. Discipline issues while undercover have been noted to increase the rate at which officers leave the force following their undercover work as well as increase the chance of being involved in criminal actions following their departure.
Financing for undercover programs often comes from the operations themselves. Seized goods and funds are one source, but the intent of the operation may result in additional funding. For example, one Fish and Wildlife Department operation sold multiple rare birds, collected payment, and arrested the would-be buyers.
Risks
Risks come in the form of proximity, strains, and investigative practices, which may be harmful to the officer. Physical proximity with criminals creates increased risk due to officers being stripped of the trappings of their profession (i.e., badge, body armor, and weapon). In undercover work, most deadly encounters occur with officer and assailant fewer than 6 ft from each other. Since emotional proximity can occur when officers humanize criminals whom they have come to know and may care for, undercover officers are assigned supervisors who work closely with them to maintain emotional distance, as officers may begin to question the department, the operation, and themselves. This can progress to the point where an officer turns from the law and goes native. All officers must consider the consequences, both professionally and morally, of what would happen if they were to commit a crime while undercover.
Progressive undercover programs have been known to include family education during selection due to the impact undercover work has on families, with the risk carried by the relationships. Officers must often miss family events due to operational demands, and even when present, they may not be able to fully discard the undercover persona (e.g., a beard, tattoos). Officers may need to attend family functions or take photos bearing the trappings of the criminal life.
Investigative artifacts, where the act of investigating creates crime, is a serious concern. This concept is demonstrated by the question driving the investigation: Originally, it was “Is he or she corrupt?” Then it changed to “Is he or she corruptible?” For example, John DeLorean was persuaded by an informant that he could save his company from bankruptcy by bankrolling a cocaine shipment. Another example uses a double catch, where a public official is offered a bribe by an undercover officer. Taking the bribe is obviously illegal, but failing to report the attempted bribe can also be illegal. No undercover operation, no crime. Artifacts may also take the form of an individual who does not possess the means or capabilities to commit a crime but who can when provided with inducement and equipment. For example, an individual noted for viewing extremist rhetoric was contacted by an extremist group to help plant a bomb. After meeting with local representatives and provided a device, the individual attempts to plant it and is promptly arrested, even though the extremist group representatives, bomb, and possible motivation for the act were all part of an undercover operation. Officers’ influence may affect not only an individual but also groups of people. In Germany, 15% of a radical political group’s leadership positions were occupied by police and intelligence departments, each undercover agent being unaware of the others. Due to possible influence by the agents on the actions of the group, the courts were unable to determine how the group may have acted without that influence.
Another risk of undercover work is the overzealous use or misuse of undercover tactics. Political examples range from the Watergate scandal to the spying on political groups in the United States in the 1960s. Misuse of tactics may lead to entrapment, where the officer proposes illegal actions or provokes a crime, and the criminal is provided protection by the courts due to misuse of the tactics. Even if a tactic is properly used initially, an undercover officer may be frustrated or pressured to find crime or intelligence, leading to either overzealous use or misuse on the part of the officer.
Ethical Concerns
While many complex issues and risk are left unnoted, the last point of discussion will be ethical concerns of undercover work. Ethically, the primary focus is on whether it is acceptable for the government to employ deceptive tactics and who should be the target of such tactics. Should the government deceive people, even if for good reasons? Who should undercover tactics be used on, with possible targets including drug dealers, politicians, and police officers suspected of corruption?
References:
- Farkas, G. M. (1986). Stress in undercover policing. In J. T. Reese & H. Goldstein (Eds.), Psychological services for law enforcement (pp. 433–440). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
- Hibler, N. S. (1995). The care and feeding of undercover agents. In M. I. Kurke & E. M. Scrivner (Eds.), Police psychology into the 21st century (pp. 299–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Marx, G. (1989). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.