Undercover Operations, by Their Very

Undercover operations, by their very nature, involve a degree of deception. They exemplify ethical consequentialism, as the ends are believed to justify the means. Honesty is sacrificed for the greater good of achieving law enforcement objectives such as preserving public safety. This is why undercover work is known to be "the most problematic area of law enforcement," ("Police Undercover Work, 2004). The ethics of undercover operations may be also built on several assumptions about the potential suspects, such as that the persons being infiltrated are breaking the law and deception is required to prevent a crisis. This is the primary assumption under which the joint Tampa and Miami terrorism task forces (JTTF) operate in this case. The assumptions that the officers make are fundamentally flawed. If an organization facilitates the means by which to achieve social justice, this alone is not probable cause to infiltrate on the basis that the organization presumably poses threats to public safety. For argument's sake, though, it is safe to assume that the Ruckus organization will at least impede law enforcement efforts at the DRNC.

It is illogical to assume that the members of group will expect the newcomers to conform to all their behaviors as a show of solidarity; this assumption is unfounded. Moreover, it is illogical that the group would expect their newcomers not only to smoke pot but also to shoplift and perhaps perform an armed robbery. If the JTTF choses to work under these assumptions, it does so at its own risk.

As the assistant district attorney, it is my responsibility to provide legal council to the JTTF regarding the choice to use illegal drugs or perform misdemeanors and/or felonies in order to preserve the integrity of the operation. It is my express belief, substantiated by case law and ethical analysis, that it is never a good idea to allow our undercover officers to break the law. This is true for ethical reasons but also for practical and legal procedural reasons. If our officers break the law, they could risk jeopardizing the entire operation.

Most of my colleagues believe that "by strict policy, they should make every attempt to avoid illegal consumption, even alcohol, during the operation" ("Police Undercover Work"). The organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP, 2009) highlights the potential problems that can arise, and which have arisen, when officers of the law are not careful enough regarding their willingness to enable, facilitate, or participate in criminal activity. One officer relates an anecdote saying that she had to "restrain her police instincts to break up a fight at a convenience store or call social services if she saw a dealer hit his child because being caught would compromise the larger goal."

Clearly we aim to be on the right side of justice, and we will do what we can within the provisions of the law. I do not condone any illegal behaviors for reasons I will outline here. First, our law enforcement officers are role models. How can we profess to uphold truth and justice, when we commit crimes ourselves? From the perspective of creating an organizational culture that reflects our core values, I believe that our officers should always refrain from illegal activities and live up to the standards that they would seek to impose on others. We need to also consider the importance of public relations in law enforcement. We risk our reputation and integrity when we allow our officers to use an "ends justifies the means" approach. Our intelligence reports and the skillful duty of officers like Underwood and Freeman should be sufficient to prevent problems at the DRNC.

Second, I am concerned about treading through ethical gray water. Attorney and professor of law at Stanford University Elizabeth Loh states, "Despite its widespread use in covert operations, authorized criminality is the subject of little regulation or guidance." Because of this, I worry about the slippery slope. If our officers think it's alright to smoke marijuana to get close to their targets, then they might also think it is alright to shoplift and possibly even commit felony acts, as is being suggested here. Under no circumstances will I condone officers committing felony acts on our watch; any who do so should be disavowed legal protection and prosecuted summarily.

Third, I believe that Detectives Underwood and Freeman can do their jobs successfully without smoking pot or committing any other violation of the law. Not everyone in Ruckus is going to be a pot smoker. To assume this shows that we might not have intelligence as good as we believe, and it's time to get back to the basics. A newcomer who does not want to smoke pot could make that decision for any number of personal reasons. The more confident Detectives Underwood and Freeman are in their guise, the more likely they will be accepted and believed. Smoking pot is a sign of weakness. The pot can enhance any residual paranoia our detectives might already be feeling, and would undoubtedly interfere with their judgment and ability to the job well. Come up with a creative reason why you don't smoke, Detectives Underwood and Freeman. Say that your dad was a drug addict, and you've been clean for years. Say you are a recovering addict and you've been clean for years. Say you're a Buddhist. Whatever you want to say, say it with conviction. You will not be had if you are more careful. What happened last time is that Detective Sullivan left his mobile phone in the bathroom, which was careless. Don't be careless, and you'll be fine.

Furthermore, I do believe that our undercover officers will compelled to intervene in order to prevent crimes that they have knowledge of ahead of time. If we do not intervene, what reason are we spending all this time and money on the operation? We must remember our core values, goals, and ideals. However, it is critical that Detectives Underwood and Freeman contact the JTTF immediately and receive orders before making any hasty decision that might jeopardize their cover.