Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Political informants

Violent FBI informant infiltrates Denver’s racial justice movement

by

From Trevor Aaronson at the Intercept, this profile of an informant used by the FBI to infiltrate, record, provide weapons to, and incite violence by Black activists in Denver: The Snitch in the Silver Hearse. Michael Windecker — who had prior convictions for sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl and weapons charges — was paid over $20,000 during the summer of 2020 at the height of Denver protests against the killings of George Floyd and Elijah McClain. Among other astounding things, Windecker drove an activist to the personal home of Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (who was overseeing the prosecution of the police and paramedics who killed McClain) where Windecker affirmatively encouraged the activist to kill Weiser. The activist refused.

The FBI has a long sordid history of using informants to infiltrate and disrupt progressive political groups. See previous posts here. For more history, see Elizabeth Hinton, The Unsettling Message of Judas and the Black Messiah in The Atlantic, and Gary Marx’s classic book, Undercover.

FBI using informants to surveil Black Lives Matter activists

by

This piece in the Intercept reviews official documents showing, among other things, how the FBI used informants to surveil Black Lives Matter activists after Ferguson and beyond: FBI Tracked an Activist Involved With Black Lives Matter as They Traveled Across the U.S., Documents Show. Michael German, former FBI agent and now a national security expert at the Brennan Center, described it as “clearly just tracking First Amendment activity.”

The FBI’s history of using informants to surveil political activity, especially Black activists, stretches back decades. Historian Elizabeth Hinton wrote about it today in the Atlantic. Professor Gary Marx wrote a seminal book about it years ago titled Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. More recently we have seen similar FBI tactics deployed against Muslim communities.

Snitching among slaves

by

Professor Andrea Dennis has posted this exploration of the role of Black informants during slavery: A Snitch in Time: An Historical Sketch of Black Informing During Slavery. It’s her second piece on informants–the first one addressed juvenile snitching in the war on drugs. Here’s the abstract:

This article sketches the socio-legal creation, use, and regulation of informants in the Black community during slavery and the Black community’s response at that time. Despite potentially creating benefits such as crime control and sentence reduction, some Blacks today are convinced that cooperation with government investigations and prosecutions should be avoided. One factor contributing to this perspective is America’s reliance on Black informants to police and socially control Blacks during slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Wars on Drugs, Crime and Gangs. Notwithstanding this historical justification for non-cooperation, only a few informant law and policy scholars have examined closely the Black community’s relationship with informing. Furthermore, even among this small group of works, noticeably absent are historical explorations of Black America’s experience with informing during slavery. Drawn using a variety of primary and secondary historical and legal sources, this article develops a snapshot of the past revealing many similarities between the Black experience with informing both while enslaved and in contemporary times. Consideration of these resemblances during present debate on the topic may help to facilitate nuanced conversation as to whether and how the modern Black community and government should approach using informants in current times.

This is an important piece of history. As Dennis points out, there has been an underappreciated trajectory from slave informants to the FBI snitches planted in civil rights organizations, to the “Stop Snitching” movement in urban neighborhoods. For a helpful articulation of the relationship between that trajectory and hip hop’s glorification of “stop snitching,” see Professor Mark Lamont Hill’s piece “A Breakdown of the Stop Snitching Movement.”

MIT Professor Gary Marx reviews “Snitching”

by

Gary T. Marx is professor emeritus of sociology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of the seminal book Undercover: Police Surveillance in America (1989) and he has written extensively on the new forms of surveillance, social control across borders, and comparative law. His book review of “Snitching,” forthcoming in Theoretical Criminology, is here. Here’s the beginning of the review:

It is rare to encounter a book that nurtures the passion for justice while also remaining respectful of standards of scholarship. Law professor Alexandra Natapoff has done that in a splendidly informative and lively book. The topic of criminal informants (which need not be the same as informants reporting on criminals) has never been has so comprehensively, disturbingly and clearly analyzed — not only should criminal justice practitioners and students be required to read it, they should be tested on it.

Among the most significant and least studied aspects of American criminal justice is how the government obtains evidence. Apart from what can be learned from direct observation, searches, forensics or accidents, authorities in a democracy are forever sentenced to making deals, rewards, threats, manipulation, covert surveillance, undercover operations and tips. Negotiation, compromise and voluntary compliance play a much larger role than in more authoritarian societies lacking our expansive notion of procedural rights. Coercion, deception and actions off the books are just beneath the veneer and support the table of our high civic ideals — ironically partly because of them.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: punished for not snitching?

by

In this month’s edition of the Monthly Review, Staughton Lynd offers this meditation on the famous Rosenbergs: Is There Anything More to Say about the Rosenberg Case? Lynd, himself a well-known anti-Vietnam War activist, quaker, historian, and attorney, argues that the Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 not so much for being part of a Russian spy ring, but because they–unlike other members of the ring–refused to give information to the govenment. From the article:

We should ask, “Why were the Rosenbergs punished so much more severely than others whose activities were comparable to theirs?” I believe Haynes and Klehr provide the answer. Each individual who “confessed” was required to do one thing more. He or she was also asked to identify (“finger”) other individuals engaged in espionage. Thus, “Fuchs’ confession in Britain led the FBI to Harry Gold in the United States. Gold’s confession in turn…quickly led the FBI to Sgt. David Greenglass. Greenglass confessed to espionage and also implicated his wife, Ruth, and his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg.” But, at this point, the FBI inquiry hit a snag, or what Haynes and Klehr call “stonewalling” by the Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell. That is to say, these three persons refused to snitch. …

I offer the opinion that the Rosenbergs’ execution was really all about their refusal to snitch. On the basis of a fifteen-year acquaintance with death row prisoners in Ohio, I can state that the refusal to snitch is one of the highest values of long-term prisoners. It is the essence of the “convict code.” Refusal to snitch earns a prisoner recognition as a “solid convict.” In contrast, the government wanted an unbroken chain of informants who would inform against their colleagues. When confronted by individuals who refused to confess or “deal,” the government decided to send a message to all other potential informants by killing the Rosenbergs.