3. Secondary Sources

Question 1

What are the two components for establishing reliability from SECONDARY sources to justify a police action?

Answer 1

1. Veracity
2. Basis of knowledge

RELIABILITY = VB (VERACITY & BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE)

Question 2

What are the four types of sources?

Answer 2

I-Identified citizen
I-Identifiable citizen
C-Confidential
A-Anonymous

I
I
C
A

Question 3

These individuals, including police officers, are willing to have their names associated with the information they provide.

Answer 3

Identified citizens

Question 4

Sometimes officers do not learn or reveal a sources name, but provide enough information to allow that person to be identified

Answer 4

Identifiable citizens

Question 5

Do 911 callers have veracity in Massachusetts?

Answer 5

Yes, but only if they are aware that their call is recorded and there is other identifying information, such as callback or presence at the scene or employment information

Question 6

Investigators do not reveal these sources because they want to protect them and to ensure they have available future operations (purpose)

Answer 6

Confidential Informants

Question 7

Disclosure of confidential informants

Answer 7

This is not an absolute privilege court may order disclosure in the interest of the public must be balanced

Usually required when the informant is an active participant at the time of arrest

Also court may find disclosure necessary if defending claims entrapment, or there are other significant inconsistencies in the case

The state may order the disclosure of federal enforce

The prosecutors option in these cases may be to dismiss then reveal the informant.

Question 8

Why are anonymous informants more difficult to rely on?

Answer 8

Because their identities and backgrounds are unknown to the police

Question 9

The FIRST component of the RELIABILITY TEST is VERACITY. What does veracity mean?

Answer 9

The informants is credible, he is worthy of belief. Demonstrated in four ways: (ITAC)

I-Identified/identifiable citizen (automatic, veracity)

T-Track record (Previously provided correct information that is verifiable)

A-Admission of Crime (Admits to participating in a crime and reasonable fear of prosecution)

C-Corroboration (Verified by police)

Question 10

The SECOND component in the RELABILITY TEST is BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE. What is basis of knowledge?

Answer 10

This means the information provided is most likely accurate. Remember EDC!

E-Explain the source!

D-Details - How do you know? Provide insight please.

C-Corroborate the tip. this is essential when relying on an anonymous enforce or a first-time confidential informant.

Question 11

What is the most common type of CORROBRATION?

Answer 11

Officers SEE a person or vehicle near the scene of a recent crime, matching a witness DESCRIPTION.

Discrepancies between the tip and corporation do not necessarily defeat reasonable suspicion see Comm v. Ancrum Fitchburg Cadillac case.

Question 12

Is a detailed tip concerning recent erratic operation reasonable suspicion of impaired driving?

Answer 12

Yes, however, deficient vehicle description may derail your case. Try to get distinctive features like your condition age decals bumper stickers on vehicle or a license plate number to ensure you the appropriate vehicle.

Question 13

In addition to a report of a gun, what else is needed to be sufficient?

Answer 13

Adequate description of the person with the gun, and these plus factors:

Suspect appears to be under 21

Past arrested with a gun

Firing a gun in a neighborhood or near buildings

Pointing a gun at someone

Selling a gun in a high crime area in Boston

Brandishing or provocatively carrying

Not using a holster

Attempting to conceal a gun

Possessing a gun during a crime

Possessing a gun while impaired

Loading a gun in public

Public safety risk

Question 14

Do I need to provide Miranda when ordering a citizen to produce his gun license?

Answer 14

No, because telling somebody they have the right to remain silent when the police are demanding the production of physical evidence makes no sense.

Demanded (or order) it, don’t ask for it .

DEMAND IT!!!!

Question 15

If an informant predicts a future event, does this establish reliability?

Answer 15

Yes

Question 16

Do multiple tips corroborate one another?

Answer 16

Yes, because facts reported by individuals not acting together are likely true.

Question 17

M-Meet
S-Search
E-Escort
R-Retreive

MSER

What are the valid controlled by minimum steps?

Answer 17

A valid control buy involves four steps they are:

Meet, a police officer meet the informant at a location other than where the suspected activity is occurring

Search, the officer searches the informant to ensure that he has no drugs on his person, and furnishes the informant with money to purchase the drugs

Escort, the officer escort the informant to where the illegal activity is occurring and ideally observes the informant enter the target dwelling (however, not required, if risk of disclosure of informant)

Retrieve, the substances are turned over over to the police handler

Question 18

How do innocent details figure into determining corroboration?

Answer 18

Innocent details contribute to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, because these innocent details could provide “inside players“

Question 19

Implanting criminal ideas in innocent minds, and bringing about offenses that otherwise would never have been perpetrated

Answer 19

Entrapment

However, it requires a police do much more than simply present in opportunity to commit a crime (example government did not entrap defendant by seizing a child pornography website and keeping it open to catch users)

Question 20

A defendant claims that his criminal activity was specifically APPROVED in advance by known law enforcement OFFICIAL:

Answer 20

This is known as AGENCY

Question 21

What is the difference between entrapment and agency?

Answer 21

Entrapment means that the defendant claims he was induced to commit a crime by a law-enforcement official or someone acting at that official’s direction.

Agency claims defendant was working for the police, and it was approved by them and is therefore not accountable.