Report criticizes DEA, informants
Inspector general says the anti-drug agency allowed illegal activities and violated recruitment rules.
WASHINGTON — The Drug Enforcement Administration’s use of confidential informants was heavily criticized in an inspector general’s report that found a lack of oversight over recruitment and failure to properly regulate illegal activities by its sources.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s report, released Tuesday, found that confidential sources were permitted to engage in some illegal activities, such as selling drugs, without a clear understanding from the DEA of what they were allowed to do. That lack of communication, it warned, “could create unforeseen consequences.”
The Justice Department said in a statement that it had ordered a comprehensive review of the DEA’s confidential source policies in December.
“The review will address and revise policies related to high-level, privileged and media-related confidential sources and put in place more stringent requirements to better assess and mitigate risk when approving” illegal activity, said Patrick Rodenbush, a Justice Department spokesman.
“In addition, DEA has put a moratorium on seeking [federal] benefits for confidential sources and is reviewing their policies and procedures for handling current recipients.”
The negative report came as the DEA has been under fire from Congress and the Justice Department. Deputy Atty. Gen. Sally Yates, who was said to be unhappy with former DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart’s management practices, helped oust her in April. Chuck Rosenberg, a top FBI official, was put in charge in an effort to bring about reform.
Horowitz’s report said certain high-risk or privileged sources were being recruited contrary to Justice Department guidelines that restrict the use of lawyers, reporters or high-level drug traffickers.
A limited review of DEA confidential sources — limited because the DEA blocked access to many files, the inspector general noted — turned up no reporters acting as informants, but did identify two lawyers, despite the possibility that they might reveal confidential or privileged client information. It is possible that reporters were being used as confidential sources but were not uncovered in the investigation, it said.
The inspector general found that the DEA frequently violated its policy against long-term use of confidential sources without regular reviews. For the six years ending in 2009, the DEA used more than 240 long-term confidential sources, often with reviews that lasted less than a minute.
“This created a significant risk that improper relationships between government handlers and sources could be allowed to continue over many years, potentially resulting in the divulging of sensitive information or other adverse consequences for the government,” said a summary of the report.
“In some cases, the DEA continued to use, for up to six years without any DOJ intervention, individuals who were involved in unauthorized illegal activities and who were under investigation by federal entities,” the summary said.
The report also found that the DEA was paying federal benefits to confidential sources without proper reviews to determine their eligibility and without checking to see whether they were also receiving disability payments.
The report blasted what it said was a lack of cooperation by the DEA.
It said the continuing audit “has been seriously delayed by instances of uncooperativeness from the DEA, including attempts to prohibit the [inspector general’s] observation of confidential source file reviews and delays, for months at a time, in providing the [inspector general] with requested confidential source information and documentation.”