|
 Sean Bucci hates narcs, and with good reason. He was turned in on
marijuana charges by a trusted "friend". So seven months ago he started
a web site to "Out" narcs and paid informants. He is especially incensed
by folks who turn in friends in order to curry favor with law enforcement
after getting in trouble themselves. Although redacted on the North Shore,
the site is hosted on a server in India.
This story raises so many legal,
ethical and psychological questions that
an entire
law
school
course
could be
based
around them. Is the site protected by Free Speech? Would posting untrue
information constitute libel? If something bad happens to one of the
outted narcs, can the site be held responsible? Does hosting it in
India make a difference? Who’s a Rat? Judge for yourself….
”We specifically ask people not to add any information that’s related
to violent crimes, because we don’t agree with violent crimes," Capone
said. ”But as far as drug problems, and people setting people up just
to get out of their own problems, that’s a no-no in our books."
The woman who posted information about the Tewksbury man said she believes
the website performs a service by warning others away from informants.
”This punk has bragged on several occasions about doing a controlled buy
to bust a known local dealer so he could get a lesser sentence for getting
caught with shrooms, ecstasy, steroids, and funny money," she posted
on the site about the man she believes had informed on her now ex-boyfriend
to the police. ”He has admitted to being a snitch to various people."
Law enforcement officials worry that the site will impede their ability
to use undercover agents and informants, who often provide information
critical to criminal cases, especially those involving drugs. And they
worry that criminals might use the site to find out the names of informants,
which could imperil the people whose information is posted there.
The Globe is not naming the website because it is impossible to verify
whether all the people listed there are informants, and because publicizing
access to their identities could jeopardize their safety.
Nice of them to be so conscientious, especially since they printed the
web site address in an article six months ago…
BOSTON, Aug. 17, 2004 — The Internet has some interesting uses, but
one new Web site proves we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Unveiled today,
Who’s A Rat http://www.whosarat.com) is the first site to allow users
around the country to post local, state and federal agents’ and informants’
names, pictures and related information.
The Dowbrigade has no such compunction. In our book informants, especially
those who turn in friends, family members or people who have helped them
in the past are the scum of the earth. Squeezing sleazebags who have
fallen into their clutches is a time-honored practice in law enforcement
circles, and although we would never advocate agression or retaliation,
open distribution of publically available information about these worms
seems only fair. Buster beware. So here’s a link to the website.
yesterday’s article from the
Boston Globe
Who’s A Rat web site
|
Without informants, law enforcement would be severely handicapped in its efforts against crimes of all types. The high-minded “we only expose drug informants” is self-deluding, because the drug trade leads to theft, assault, robbery, rape, murder, and child-killing.
You can think you’re taking the high road (“informants are scum”), but you’re not. Yes, they are scum; that’s why they can find criminals. But by promoting that site, you are promoting criminality and helping to endanger people’s lives.
There aren’t two sides of this story. That site abets crime and, now, so do you.
What happens if your friend shoots you, or if your father rapes you? Turn them in and you’re scum and fair game for whatever happens?
Where I come from, teenagers are routinely shot and then shot again because they won’t cooperate with law enforcement investigating the crime. This due to a culture that demonizes talking to the police, one that you apparently buy into. Sometimes it’s hard to blame the kids for being scared to talk. But it’s not hard for me to blame the ‘stop snitichin’ culture.
What’s next? A pedophile site that openly distributes publicly available information about real children’s’ addresses and habits?
You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Or, apparently, just sit back and be amused and indifferent.
Kudos to the whosarat.com guys. It’s about time that people charged of a non violent crime had a tool like this to use to investigate their accusers. This Informant situation is way out of control considering that most of the time the informants are a bigger threat to society than the people they are targeting, now consider all the inducements the government gives these scum-bags, plus in many states the Informant gets a percentage of the asset forfitures, so if you are having a say a party for your nephew in your 2 million dollar house and one of your nephew’s friends happens to be an informant all he has to do is drop a bag of coke in your desk and than call his handlers and report you than guess what you get arrested and the snitch gets a piece of your house, go ahead do your own research or read the latest news section or message board on whosarat.com or just google informants I am confident you will be shocked to see what is really going on here, now my opinion is only aimed at non violent crime such as drug crimes and whosarat.com claims the same, Of course their are some who will try to sway others to their side in this debate by mentioning violent or horrific crimes and the need for informants based on this, In my opinion those people are witnesses not snitches there is a difference, i and i believe whosarat.com are talking about people who get caught commiting a non-violent crime such as using or selling drugs and turns on others to get out of his own mess or for financial or some other gain, those people are scum. People have a 5th and 6th ammendment right to investigate their accusers and a first ammendment right to free speech to discus or share this info if you do not believe me check out this short version of the federal case law that says the same.
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEON CARMICHAEL, SR.
CRIM. ACTION NO. 2:03cr259-T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13742
July 22, 2004, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: United States v. Carmichael, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675 (M.D. Ala., July 20, 2004)
DISPOSITION: [*1] Request for protective order denied.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was charged with drug conspiracy and money laundering. Shortly after his arrest, defendant set up an internet website and newspaper advertisement related to the case. The Government renewed its motion for a protective order directing defendant to remove the website from the internet. The government’s motion was denied, and it appealed.
OVERVIEW: An exact reproduction of the website as it existed as of late April 2004, the third version, appeared as a full-page newspaper advertisement in a local weekly newspaper. The Government’s requested relief went beyond the internet, as it asked the court to restrain defendant from taking any action that would harass, intimidate, or threaten any witness or prejudice the proceedings in the case, including, without limitation, placing the photographs or personal information of any prospective witness or informant on a poster, advertisement, or website. The Government indicated that its concerns about the website would apply equally to newspaper advertisements containing the same content. Defendant’s website and newspaper advertisement were constitutionally protected speech because they fit within neither the “true threat” nor the “incitement” exceptions to the First Amendment’s protection. Also, the Government did not show that its proposed protective order was the least restrictive means of eliminating the possible effect on jury members.
OUTCOME: The motion was denied.
COUNSEL: For Leon Carmichael, Sr. aka Beaver Leon Carmichael, Defendant: Amardo Wesley Pitters, A. Wesley Pitters, P. C., Montgomery, AL. Lisa Monet Wayne, Denver, CO. Mary Elizabeth Anthony, Anthony & Pratt LLC, Birmingham, AL. Ronald Wayne Wise, Law Office of Ronald W. Wise, Montgomery, AL. Stephen Roger Glassroth, The Glassroth Law Firm, PC, Montgomery, AL.
For United States of America, Plaintiff: A. Clark Morris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL. Matthew S. Miner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL. Stephen P. Feaga, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL.
JUDGES: Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINIONBY: Myron H. Thompson
OPINION:
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Defendant Leon Carmichael, Sr. is charged with drug conspiracy and money laundering. Shortly after his arrest, Carmichael set up an internet website related to this case. The government argued that Carmichael’s website is threatening to witnesses and government agents [*2] and renewed its motion for a protective order directing Carmichael to remove the website from the internet. In an order issued two days ago, on July 20, 2004, the court denied the government’s renewed motion. United States v. Carmichael, F. Supp. 2d , 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (Thompson, J.).
The dispute in this case is not limited to the internet, however, and the court writes separately to address the government’s motion as it applies outside of cyberspace. An exact reproduction of the website as it existed as of late April 2004 (the third version) appeared as a full-page newspaper advertisement in the Montgomery Westside Weekly, a local weekly newspaper that targets primarily the African-American community; n1 also, there is no reason to doubt that the advertisement has appeared again repeatedly in that paper and in other similar papers. The government’s requested relief, therefore, went beyond the internet; the government asked the court to restrain Carmichael “from taking any action . . . that would harass, intimidate, or threaten any witness or prejudice the proceedings in this case, including, without limitation, placing the [*3] photographs or personal information of any prospective witness or informant on a poster, advertisement, or website.” n2 Similarly, at the May 21, 2004, hearing, the government indicated that its concerns about Carmichael’s website would apply equally to newspaper advertisements containing the same content.
n1 See Order, filed May 7, 2004.
n2 Government’s renewed motion, etc., filed April 27, 2004, p. 18 (emphasis added).
The court’s reasoning regarding Carmichael’s website applies with equal force to his newspaper advertisements. Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s renewed motion includes a request for an order that Carmichael cease publishing the content of his website as newspaper advertisements, the motion is due to be denied.
Carmichael’s website is constitutionally protected speech because it fits within neither the ‘true threat’ nor the ‘incitement’ exceptions to the First Amendment’s protection. Carmichael, F. Supp. 2d. at , 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. [*4] There is no reason to reach a different conclusion regarding Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements because the First Amendment analysis does not turn on the medium involved. The court explicitly declined to find the fact that a website was at issue constitutionally significant. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements are neither a ‘true threat’ nor an ‘incitement’ under the First Amendment.
The court also held that it could not order Carmichael to take down his website because the government did not meet its burden to show that a prior restraint on Carmichael’s speech rights was warranted. Carmichael, F. Supp. 2d., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. The government did not show that its proposed protective order was the least restrictive means of eliminating the website’s possible effect on jury members. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. The same is true of Carmichael’s advertisements. A juror or potential juror is more likely to come across Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements inadvertently than to come across his website inadvertently, so [*5] a jury instruction not to view the advertisements will be somewhat less effective than an instruction not to view the website. Nonetheless, voir-dire questions and clear jury instructions will adequately address any possible impact that Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements might have on the jury. Second, the government did not show that the website posed a serious and imminent threat to its witnesses and agents. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. The government has not shown that the newspaper advertisements pose such a serious and imminent threat.
Finally, the harm posed by the website did not warrant restricting Carmichael’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to investigate his case. Carmichael, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 2004 WL 1616446, at *. Not only is the same true in the case of Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements, but his Fifth and Sixth Amendment interest is actually entitled to more weight here. Carmichael’s website is hard to find on the internet even if one is looking for it, and it is very hard to imagine that someone could stumble upon his website by accident. Thus, to the extent that there exist people [*6] who have material information beneficial to Carmichael and who would be willing to share that information with him but do not know about this case or do not already know how to contact Carmichael, it is unlikely that the website will reach those people. On the other hand, Carmichael’s newspaper advertisements are more likely to attract the attention of a person who has–perhaps without being aware of it–material information useful to Carmichael’s defense. Accordingly, the newspaper advertisements are more likely to lead to information, and this tilts the balance yet further in Carmichael’s favor. n3
n3 Moreover, if the newspaper advertisements (which essentially reproduce the internet site) are allowable, surely the internet site is also.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the request for a protective order barring defendant Leon Carmichael, Sr., from publishing his website as a newspaper advertisement, which request was included in the renewed motion for a protective order filed by the government on April 27, 2004 (doc. [*7] no. 181), is denied as well.
DONE, this the 22nd day of July, 2004.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
“Of course their are some who will try to sway others to their side in this debate by mentioning violent or horrific crimes and the need for informants based on this, In my opinion those people are witnesses not snitches there is a difference”———-
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the rat site makes this distinction or how it protects witnesses to violent crimes from being intimidated and denounced as snitches. I guess how you feel about this subject depends on your place in the world. If you are happily ensconced in the suburbs or surrounded by affluence and the only crimes you have experience with are non-violent, of course you would be against informers and, as noted above, indifferent and amused at the fate of those less fortunate.
excerpt from the about us page:
THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROMOTE OR CONDONE VIOLENCE OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AGAINST INFORMANTS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. IF YOU POST ANYTHING ANYWHERE ON THIS SITE RELATING TO VIOLENCE OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AGAINST INFORMANTS OR OFFICERS YOUR POST WILL BE REMOVED AND YOU WILL BE BANNED FROM THIS WEBSITE, IF YOU ARE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND YOU HAVE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC AT SOME POINT TO AT LEAST 1 PERSON OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT POST IT. ALL POSTS MADE BY USERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INACCURATE OPINIONS UNLESS BACKED BY OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.PLEASE POST INFORMANTS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH NON-VIOLENT CRIMES ONLY.
Not relevant.
The disclaimer does not make a distinction between professional informers and legitimate witnesses or victims. It does not condone violence against either but also does not distinguish between them.
In any case, it’s disingenuous to argue that that disclaimer has any functional relevance to the argument about broadly promoting the release of information about witnesses.
The site is making an effort to ask people to limit the profiles to non violent crimes, they don’t have to but they do, because it is also legal to investigate, list or discuss informants or witnesses involved with violent crimes. I suppose you also disagree with the media when they do stories on violent crimes and include witness details.
I am finalizing my research for a text on informants. I would appreciate any input from those of you that have “informant” experience in and out of law enforcement. I am presenting a summary of viewpoints both pro and con regarding the use of informants. I am also taking a stand on the “prohibition” of juvenile informants, due to the killing of a juvenile informant in California.
There is no credible dialogue for the pro when using juvenile informants compared to the con…when a child is murdered. Anyway, I would appreciate your input if the “feeling” strikes you.
Thank you.
David Hough
soma http://www.bestrxpills.com
Cathy must be a whinny liberal.
what would happen if she was to witness a crime
happen to one of her family members?
And she helpped the Police?
I guess she and her address should be put up in print on a so called non voilent web-site.
Because she did the right thing?
No I don’t think so.
S Bucky