Unreliable, unchecked
The tip was as good as they come.
A confidential informant told police that a probation officer was selling heroin and meth out of a tiny courthouse in southern Colorado. The woman said she had bought drugs from the officer three times. Trinidad detectives arrested Danika Gonzales, a seven-year employee of the probation department, and charged her with four felony drug counts.
Gonzales, then 38, lost her job. The informant pocketed $3,085 from her work with detectives. The tip, it turned out, was too good to be true. Information from that informant and another created the basis of 40 drug cases that later proved to be little more than lies. Gonzales, who was once the informant’s probation officer, saw her charges dropped, as did other defendants. But the informant was not charged for lying to police, and the detectives faced no sanctions for failing to verify her information.
A Denver Post review of policies governing the use of confidential informants in Denver and other cities found there is little consistency in regulation — and a handful of agencies have none.
“As time goes on, I keep expecting to feel better about what happened to me,” she said recently in an e-mail, “but I don’t seem to let go.”
In Colorado, there is no law regulating whom investigators recruit to work as informants, how informants are rewarded, how the information informants provide is handled or how officers and informants are held accountable when things go wrong. Police departments are left to their own discretion, and while many have comprehensive policies, some have none at all.
A Denver Post review of Denver Police Department data on confidential informants found that only about 40 percent of those used in fiscal 2014 had proved themselves reliable in previous cases.
The rest were first-time informants, whose fitness for assignments is typically established by their criminal activity or drug use and their access to other criminals. Denver police say 90 percent of their informants have some kind of criminal record.
The Post examined all 2014 search warrants in Denver in which use of confidential informants was disclosed.
In an October case, detectives wrote that a first-time informant “is familiar with the sale and packaging of heroin as the informant has been around, used and purchased heroin in the past.”
In another case, Denver police arrested a man in August after a first-time informant said he was selling $6,800 worth of cocaine every week. But police didn’t find the drug in his southwest Denver home or car. Charges were later dropped.
A man was arrested in April 2014 after an informant, whom detectives considered reliable, told police he was selling large amounts of meth from his west Denver home. But when police searched the home, they found bath salts, not the drug, according to a search warrant. In the “interest of justice,” prosecutors later dismissed the case.
Denver police Capt. Steven Carter said those cases are not examples of unreliable informants, but rather a demonstration of the many levels of an investigation. Police often find nothing when executing a warrant, even in cases in which the information was reliable and the suspect may have been committing a crime, he said.
Informants who give bad information may be removed from service, but they’re unlikely to face stiffer penalties unless they commit a crime while working for police. Discipline for officers who mishandle cases involving informants is rare.
“Because the use of informants is so unregulated, the public almost never learns about it until something goes terribly wrong,” said Alexandra Natapoff, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Police and prosecutors say the problems that come with reliance on informants are outweighed by the benefits.
Informants provide the backbone for hundreds of drug investigations each year. With the ability to move in and out of the criminal world, informants — who often are criminals working for cash or deals from authorities — provide investigators with information they couldn’t obtain otherwise, police say.
“The bottom line is they have access that we do not,” Carter said. “They know people that have access that we will likely never have. Without that, there are a lot of things that will go undetected until it’s too late.”
Reliability questioned
The use of confidential informants became a central issue in one of the most heinous crimes in Denver history, after an informant helped police arrest three men in the stabbing deaths of five people.
Demarea Harris was working as an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when he and three friends walked into Fero’s Bar and Grill in October 2012. Harris says he saw the other men start stabbing the victims in an alleged robbery that spiraled out of control.
He has never been arrested or charged, and his role in the crimes remains a mystery to the attorneys representing Dexter Lewis, who faces the death penalty for the attack. Brothers Joseph and Lynell Hill were spared the death penalty in exchange for their testimony in Lewis’ upcoming trial.
Detectives testified that Harris told them inaccurate details and inconsistent accounts of what happened, yet defense attorneys have not been allowed to question him because ATF has blocked their requests for information about Harris.
In its investigation, The Post contacted eight Colorado lawenforcement agencies and requested lists of active informants for 2014, payments made to each one and details about informants removed from service. Those agencies were police departments for Aurora, Denver, Colorado Springs, Commerce City and Pueblo; sheriff’s departments for Adams and Arapahoe counties; and the North Metro Task Force, which investigates drug and other vice activity in Adams County.
Only Denver provided detailed records about active informants. Commerce City said it had two informants deactivated in 2014. Others either did not use informants that year or did not provide records.
The Post also examined all search warrants filed publicly by Denver police in Denver District Court in 2014 — about 1,000 — and found 123 cases in which confidential informants were used. Of those, half resulted in formal charges.
In more than half of the 123 cases, officers cited past work and verified information that informants had provided investigators to establish their reliability for the judge.
Rewards for participants
The underlying motivation for most criminal informants is the deal — what they receive in exchange for their cooperation. Most often, informants are rewarded with either cash or the opportunity to work off pending criminal charges.
From 2009 to 2014, Denver police paid informants a total of $213,987, according to records obtained by The Post. Last year, 62 percent of the informants who were registered with the department received rewards other than cash, typically breaks on charges.
“In effect, we’ve created a marketplace for cooperation that is unregulated and creates massive incentives for fabrications,” said Natapoff, who researches informant policies across the country.
Establishing and monitoring the reliability of an informant and the information they’re providing is a constant balancing act, said Cmdr. Mark Fleecs, who oversees the Denver Police Department’s Investigative Support Division. But a strict vetting process and a semi-annual review doesn’t stop informants from acting like criminals.
Twenty informants were decertified by Denver police over the past five years, according to department records. For anything from criminal behavior to showing up drunk, those people were placed on a do-not-use list by police.
There were no known cases in Denver of prosecutors charging informants for lying to police, but informants can face charges if they commit new crimes while working for police, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office.
One Denver informant was decertified after he continued selling large amounts of meth in Wyoming while working for police.
Another sought revenge against his neighbors by lying to detectives in an attempt to have them arrested.
During a drug deal monitored by Denver police, an informant Jerald Johnson, 34, was one of seven people arrested by Pueblo police in August 2013 for allegedly selling drugs. He has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges of distributing a controlled substance and one count of possession of a weapon by a previous offender.
“It pretty much seems like they are allowing him (the informant) to be above the law. They are allowing these narcotic officers to be above the law.” “This is the fight of my life, and all because they’re putting their faith in somebody who is not credible at all.”
stayed in the dealer’s car and smoked the crack cocaine instead of giving it to officers.
Of a man on probation when police tried to use him as an informant in a Denver burglary case, a detective wrote: “Let’s get him decertified before he gets in trouble and says he is working for us.”
Info from informants
The majority of departments reviewed by The Post have policies or best practices for corroborating information from informants.
In Denver, detectives should take “investigative steps,” such as surveillance and controlled buys to independently corroborate information provided by informants, Fleecs said.
In March 2014, a confidential informant told detectives a man he knew as “Dirt” was selling crack cocaine out of a motel on East Colfax Avenue, according to a search warrant.
Detectives used the motel’s registry to help the informant identify the suspect as Larry Moore, and then used the informant in two controlled buys. Moore, who had previous drug charges, sold the informant suspected crack cocaine twice in four days.
Those steps were taken before detectives applied for a warrant to search Moore and his hotel room. Moore was arrested and later pleaded guilty to one felony count of possession of a controlled substance.
But, in a different case, Denver officers did not set up a controlled buy or conduct surveillance before making an arrest in a January 2014 investigation.
Two Denver detectives were meeting a previously reliable informant in southwest Denver. According to a search warrant, the informant pointed to a passing Volkswagen Passat and told detectives the driver had sold his cousin heroin.
That was enough for officers to follow the car. They pulled the driver over because an object was hanging from the rearview mirror and impounded his car because he did not have a valid license.
An officer did a routine inventory of the car before it was towed and did not find drugs. The next day, a drug dog circled the vehicle and indicated there was an odor of narcotics.
Eight days after meeting with the informant, detectives received a warrant to search the car. No drugs were found.
That is not the way Denver police typically develop a case involving an informant, Carter said, but officers had probable cause to stop the driver and later search the vehicle.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police has a model policy for how departments should handle informants. The Post compared it with those of seven of the state’s largest lawenforcement agencies — Adams County, Denver, Commerce City, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Lakewood and Pueblo.
Each required background checks for informants and commander approval. But policies varied regarding whom police use and how they’re used during investigations.
Trinidad detectives didn’t break any rules when they allowed an informant to target Gonzales because the police department did not have any written policies. The department would not comment on whether new policies have been created.
“Being arrested and wrongfully accused in front of my tight little community has left me feeling separated from people,” Gonzales said. “On top of that, losing my job, my financial stability and my reputation has robbed me of my self-esteem and confidence.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver on behalf of Gonzales and another woman wrongfully targeted, claiming the constitutional rights of the women were violated and that the department should have had informant policies.
Crystal Bachicha, the informant who provided information about Gonzales and others, wasn’t charged for lying to police. But prosecutors charged her with perjury for testifying in one of the drug cases that she never worked for police. Bachicha pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Trinidad police confirmed that both detectives on the case, Phil Martin and Arsenio Vigil, remain employed on active duty.
“Due to ongoing litigation, no other information or comments will be provided at this time,” the department said in a statement.
The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the detectives’ mishandling of the case resulted from the department’s “conscious choice to have no policy regarding the use, supervision of, and reliance on confidential informants.”
Denver police protocols and practices for informants have resulted in a “pretty good track record” in handling the necessary but risky practice, Fleecs said.
Those policies often require the involvement of the Denver district attorney’s office. Prosecutors must be consulted if an informant is receiving a break on criminal charges.
Ultimately, prosecutors determine whether the information or evidence provided by the informant is credible enough to seek a warrant or to file charges, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey said.
“It’s nothing new. Everybody knows what they should be doing,” Morrissey said. “Now, there always seems to be a certain percentage of people that don’t get the message.”
Protocols were violated
Colorado Department of Corrections protocols were violated in Pueblo when detectives and parole officers failed to get proper clearance for a parolee to start working as an informant, according to attorneys for two of seven people named by the parolee.
The corrections department, which oversees the parole division, requires a written request from police if they want to use a parolee as an informant. Because working as an informant usually requires parolees to violate the terms of their release, most departments will not use them. Still, none of the departments’ policies reviewed by The Post include the requirement.
Under Denver’s policy, the use of a parolee as an informant must be approved by a commander, who can choose whether to contact the department of corrections.
“As with any of our administrative regulations, the Department of Corrections does not have authority to enforce their compliance on any party other than our employees, offenders and parolees,” said department spokeswoman Adrienne Jacobson.
In May 2013, Pueblo parole officer Ryan Hagans found more than 40 grams of suspected crack cocaine in the car of a parolee, enough to send him back to prison for decades.
Hagans did not report the parole violation and instead handed the parolee over to Pueblo detectives.
The detectives signed him up as an informant, and within months he had named seven people — including three members of his own family — involved in an alleged drug ring.
But detectives never asked the parole department for permission. Parole officers never followed up with police.
“Everybody played dumb,” said attorney Josh Tolini, who is representing Jerald Johnson, one of the people arrested. “Parole said we just thought they were giving police information, and police said we didn’t know we had to go through all of this.”
During a Dec. 1 hearing, in an effort to dismiss the case against Johnson, Tolini questioned Hagans. “You choose not to follow any of the guidelines that you are supposed to follow by law?” Tolini asked, according to a transcript.
“I spoke to my supervisor. He granted me permission to do it that way,” Hagans said.
“He granted you permission not to follow the regulation?” “Yes, sir.” The judge denied the motion to dismiss the case.
Citing ongoing litigation, the corrections department declined to comment on the case. Hagans, reached by The Post, said he is still working as a parole officer and declined comment.
Johnson’s case is set to go to trial in May.
“This is the fight of my life, and all because they’re putting their faith in somebody who is not credible at all,” said Johnson, 34, who has previously served time on drug charges.
Using a similar argument, Johnson’s friend and co-defendant James Jiminez, 33, is fighting the five felony drug charges filed against him.
“It pretty much seems like they are allowing (the informant) to be above the law,” Jiminez said. “They are allowing these narcotic officers to be above the law.” Both men pleaded not guilty. Pueblo police declined to comment on the case. The informant, Ralph Duran, could not be reached for comment.
Discipline varies for officers accused of mishandling informants. Both Trinidad detectives and the Pueblo detective are still on active duty.
In Denver, five officers were investigated for misusing informants during the past five years.
Despite their commanding officers telling them an informant was untrustworthy, two detectives allegedly used an informant to purchase heroin in an investigation. The two were given written reprimands, according to documents obtained by The Post.
Discipline notes were made in two other detectives’ files after they failed to register someone providing information as an informant. One of the detectives was fined for two days of work.
Obtaining information about the mishandling of informants, or investigations involving them, is difficult. Typically, such information is available in cases that go to trial.
During the past five years, the Denver Police Department received subpoenas for informant information in 16 cases.
“Because law enforcement rarely disciplines its own officials for informant mishandling,” Natapoff said, “there are few incentives for either informants or law enforcement to obey the rules.”
“They know people that have access that we will likely never have. Without that, there are a lot of things that will go undetected until it’s too late.” Denver police protocols for informants have resulted in a “pretty good track record” in handling the necessary but risky practice.