|
|
 Latest
News
|
|
| |
Drug cases under review over use of secret informant
Sunday, August 22, 2004
|
LOS ANGELES (AP) — At least 15 narcotics convictions are under review by Riverside County prosecutors due to allegations that use of a confidential informant in sting operations was kept secret from judges and defense lawyers.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported that the informant allegedly broke taillights on cars driven by drug buyers to give law enforcement probable cause to pull them over.
Superior Court Judge Edward D. Webster said the review of the convictions could open the cases to appeal and lead to lawsuits against the district attorney's office and the Riverside Police Department.
“There's issues of credibility here,” Webster told Deputy District Attorney Timothy F. Freer during a July hearing.
The judge said he believed that cases in which the informant was involved should be disclosed.
Legal experts believe the allegations, if true, would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, which requires that all potentially exculpatory evidence be given to defense lawyers.
“The Riverside district attorney's office is aware of the court's concerns and will take whatever action is deemed appropriate,” spokeswoman Ingrid Wyatt told the legal journal.
Defense lawyer Victor Sherman tried for nearly two years to force prosecutors to reveal the existence and identity of the informant.
“The DA resisted every attempt we made to identify the informant even though it was clear from the beginning that he was a material witnesses,” Sherman said. “We believe the DA's office knew about this informant from the beginning and chose not only to protect the Police Department but protect its own office.”
Riverside police last year were forced to stop most of their undercover drug investigations temporarily after federal agents on a joint task force reported that an officer may have allowed an informant to steal money from a suspect.
The matter worsened when Detective Ronald Kipp, who was reprimanded over the theft incident, gave a deposition in a lawsuit in which he said judges and defense lawyers were not told about so-called “walled-off stings.” Those are undercover operations in which confidential informants have key roles in drug raids.
Webster last month ordered the district attorney to identify the informant for attorneys representing four men in a methamphetamine bust and to name the other cases in which the informant was involved, which was about 15 in all.
The informant eventually was identified in open court as
Sunday, August 22, 2004 
Drug cases under review over use of secret informant
LOS ANGELES (AP) — At least 15 narcotics convictions are under review by Riverside County prosecutors due to allegations that use of a confidential informant in sting operations was kept secret from judges and defense lawyers.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported that the informant allegedly broke taillights on cars driven by drug buyers to give law enforcement probable cause to pull them over.
Superior Court Judge Edward D. Webster said the review of the convictions could open the cases to appeal and lead to lawsuits against the district attorney's office and the Riverside Police Department.
“There's issues of credibility here,” Webster told Deputy District Attorney Timothy F. Freer during a July hearing.
The judge said he believed that cases in which the informant was involved should be disclosed.
Legal experts believe the allegations, if true, would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, which requires that all potentially exculpatory evidence be given to defense lawyers.
“The Riverside district attorney's office is aware of the court's concerns and will take whatever action is deemed appropriate,” spokeswoman Ingrid Wyatt told the legal journal.
Defense lawyer Victor Sherman tried for nearly two years to force prosecutors to reveal the existence and identity of the informant.
“The DA resisted every attempt we made to identify the informant even though it was clear from the beginning that he was a material witnesses,” Sherman said. “We believe the DA's office knew about this informant from the beginning and chose not only to protect the Police Department but protect its own office.”
Riverside police last year were forced to stop most of their undercover drug investigations temporarily after federal agents on a joint task force reported that an officer may have allowed an informant to steal money from a suspect.
The matter worsened when Detective Ronald Kipp, who was reprimanded over the theft incident, gave a deposition in a lawsuit in which he said judges and defense lawyers were not told about so-called “walled-off stings.” Those are undercover operations in which confidential informants have key roles in drug raids.
Webster last month ordered the district attorney to identify the informant for attorneys representing four men in a methamphetamine bust and to name the other cases in which the informant was involved, which was about 15 in all.
The informant eventually was identified in open court as
Sunday, August 22, 2004 
Drug cases under review over use of secret informant
LOS ANGELES (AP) — At least 15 narcotics convictions are under review by Riverside County prosecutors due to allegations that use of a confidential informant in sting operations was kept secret from judges and defense lawyers.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported that the informant allegedly broke taillights on cars driven by drug buyers to give law enforcement probable cause to pull them over.
Superior Court Judge Edward D. Webster said the review of the convictions could open the cases to appeal and lead to lawsuits against the district attorney's office and the Riverside Police Department.
“There's issues of credibility here,” Webster told Deputy District Attorney Timothy F. Freer during a July hearing.
The judge said he believed that cases in which the informant was involved should be disclosed.
Legal experts believe the allegations, if true, would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, which requires that all potentially exculpatory evidence be given to defense lawyers.
“The Riverside district attorney's office is aware of the court's concerns and will take whatever action is deemed appropriate,” spokeswoman Ingrid Wyatt told the legal journal.
Defense lawyer Victor Sherman tried for nearly two years to force prosecutors to reveal the existence and identity of the informant.
“The DA resisted every attempt we made to identify the informant even though it was clear from the beginning that he was a material witnesses,” Sherman said. “We believe the DA's office knew about this informant from the beginning and chose not only to protect the Police Department but protect its own office.”
Riverside police last year were forced to stop most of their undercover drug investigations temporarily after federal agents on a joint task force reported that an officer may have allowed an informant to steal money from a suspect.
The matter worsened when Detective Ronald Kipp, who was reprimanded over the theft incident, gave a deposition in a lawsuit in which he said judges and defense lawyers were not told about so-called “walled-off stings.” Those are undercover operations in which confidential informants have key roles in drug raids.
Webster last month ordered the district attorney to identify the informant for attorneys representing four men in a methamphetamine bust and to name the other cases in which the informant was involved, which was about 15 in all.
The informant eventually was identified in open court as Marco Rolon.
Rolon has arrests dating to 1992 and began working as an informant for police in 2000.
Private defense investigators said they have evidence that Rolon created probable cause for police to arrest drug suspects without having to disclose his role in the operation.
Rolon, for example, would load drugs into suspects' vehicles as part of a drug sting and then allegedly would disconnect the taillight wires or break a light bulb. Officers would then use the broken taillight as a pretext to stop and search the vehicle, the investigators said.
The defense alleges that police were aware of Rolon's role in creating probable cause for the stops.
AP-WS-08-20-04 0303EDT .
Rolon has arrests dating to 1992 and began working as an informant for police in 2000.
Private defense investigators said they have evidence that Rolon created probable cause for police to arrest drug suspects without having to disclose his role in the operation.
Rolon, for example, would load drugs into suspects' vehicles as part of a drug sting and then allegedly would disconnect the taillight wires or break a light bulb. Officers would then use the broken taillight as a pretext to stop and search the vehicle, the investigators said.
The defense alleges that police were aware of Rolon's role in creating probable cause for the stops.
AP-WS-08-20-04 0303EDT .
Rolon has arrests dating to 1992 and began working as an informant for police in 2000.
Private defense investigators said they have evidence that Rolon created probable cause for police to arrest drug suspects without having to disclose his role in the operation.
Rolon, for example, would load drugs into suspects' vehicles as part of a drug sting and then allegedly would disconnect the taillight wires or break a light bulb. Officers would then use the broken taillight as a pretext to stop and search the vehicle, the investigators said.
The defense alleges that police were aware of Rolon's role in creating probable cause for the stops.
AP-WS-08-20-04 0303EDT |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
