First Amendment: Freaked Out Feds Indict Pair for Posting Flyers Naming Snitch
A federal grand jury in Philadelphia Tuesday indicted two people, an accused drug dealer and his girlfriend, for passing out flyers naming a confidential informant in his federal drug case as a snitch. No law protects informants from having their identities made public, but federal prosecutors pushed -- and succeeded -- in this case for an indictment on witness intimidation and conspiracy charges.
The information on the flyers came from the Who's A Rat? web site, which lists information on more than 4,300 informants and 400 undercover officers. US Attorney Patrick Meehan called the web site "the new enemy" of law enforcement and its snitches.
"It's a by-product of the stop-snitching culture that we should all find deeply disturbing," Meehan said at a news conference, and "has the potential to compromise countless prosecutions across the country."
Meehan conceded the web site is protected by the First Amendment, but decided to indict the pair anyway for trying to intimidate witnesses.
The two are Joseph Davis, currently serving a 17-year sentence for PCP trafficking, thanks in part to the informant targeted in the flyers, and his girlfriend, 24-year-old Adero Miwo. Davis and the informant were both indicted in the PCP case, and the informant, known as "D.S." turned state's evidence and testified against Davis.
Davis and Miwo allegedly then distributed flyers naming D.S. as a snitch on windshields, utility poles, and mailboxes in the West Philadelphia neighborhood where he lived. Relying on information posted on Who's A Rat, the pair produced flyers accusing him of informing and showing his photo, along with the following comment: "This guy is a drunk, and heavy weed smoker, and a recognized car thief among his peers. He is the one who needs to be taken off the streets," according to court documents.
Davis, who is already behind bars, faces up to another 10 years in prison, while Miwo faces up to three years.
Law enforcement authorities across the US have complained loudly that the "stop snitching" movement that has spread around the country is preventing them from solving crimes. Who's a Rat isn't helping, they complain.
Such web sites show a "profound lack of respect" for the legal system, complained JP Weis, head of the Philadelphia FBI office. "The warped message" on city streets, he said, "is that it's somehow worse to provide information about a crime than it is to actually commit a crime." And that, Weis said, is "mind-boggling."
Neither Weis nor Meehan addressed why there is a "profound lack of respect" for the legal system or what role the drug war, much of it built around coercing people into becoming informants, has to do with the situation.
Who's a Rat spokesman Chris Brown told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the web site posts public information submitted by others and is protected by the First Amendment. Brown said he "can't believe that someone got indicted for hanging a flyer" and that such publicity only "makes the site that much more popular."
digg
redditFreedom of Speech and of the Press
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 11:55pmI am astonished to hear that publications, protected under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, can be chilled and infringed by the state under circumstances in this case.
What if the New York Times had done the publication? Would it be in the same position? If not, then there is a palpable infringement on the freedom of speech and of the press we assume applies to everyone equally under the 14th Amendment.
Snitch testimony not reliable
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 2:02amThe word 'snitch" should be reserved for a witness who testifies for the prosecutors in the hope that he will be treated more leniently. The word has been diminished greatly by applying it to witnesses in general.
Dangers of Terminology
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 1:05pmWhile it may be true that the terms 'snitching' or 'ratting' should be reserved specifically for those who provide information to the authorities to save themselves, the terms have come to mean providing any information to or cooperation with the authorities whatsoever. This broad stigma takes the notion too far, further seperating the courts and communities, perpetuating a culture of fear and animosity. I feel that clarification is needed with regard to this issue; The 'snitching' taboo is much more far reaching than drug cases alone- it extends to providing the authorities with ANY information at all no matter what the circumstances. The end results of the 'stop snitching' taboo is the proliferation of 'street justice' or simply no justice at all.
Snitches Are Cowards
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/28/2007 - 8:29pmSnitches 9 times out of ten are doing it to help themselves but the Government recruits them to help convict in a big drug cases. It is called paying the witness, it happens all the time with NO repercussions to the SNITCH or the Prosecutors. That is call our justice system in America today. It should be legal to post flyers and billboards with their face plastard all over it, if they snitch then that is the consequences they should have to deal with!
Public Service still costs cash
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 10:35amWe should fear a "stop snitching" culture more than we fear law enforcement's "gotcha, you're going to prison now!" culture? Cops are very proud of the Supreme Court's announcement they have the right to lie, so why should we believe anything that proud liars say? It is law enforcement and the war on (insert political money-maker here) that are promoting our profound disrespect for the System, SAIC Weis -- it is you disrespecting US, SAIC Weis, shame on you and your shield-packing thugs!!
EJ Hurst II, Attorney at Law
550M Ritchie Highway, PMB 124
Severna Park, Maryland 21146
(859) 361-8000
jayhurst@jayhurst.net
http://www.victorvillefoia.org
Stop Snitching
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 11:02amThe Stop Snitching Movement isnt about making snitching worse than the crime. Its primarily about offenders doing their own time for the crimes that they commit. If you are caught commiting a crime, you should accept your punishment without having the option to lessen your sentence for telling on somebody else. Law enforcements using the "rat" tactic, in my opinion, only allows them to be lazy about catching criminals on their own. If someone causes harm to me or my family, i dont want them to have the option of getting a lesser prison sentence just because they "snitched" on someone else. Bottom line, if you are going to commit crimes, own up and take your own punishment. "Ratting" actually puts peoples lives in danger, but something tells me that the Law doesn't care much.
Stop Snitching Causes More Harm Than Good
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 4:59pmThough it is understandable that some folks feel that the 'snitching' or 'ratting' is an undesirable practice, the notion of making public the names of those who engage in the practice, for whatever reason, is unfair and detrimental with potentially horrible consequences. 'Snitching' has come to be seen as the lowest, most morally reprehensible act in which an individual can participate, and publicizing the names of those who provide information to the legal system is simply a vehicle for retribution and retaliation. The fear of that unfair and harsh retribution (that can often result in loss of life) hampers and impedes investigations into the worst crimes imaginable. Recently in Queens, NY, a stray bullet from a gang confrontation struck a four year old girl in the head, resuling in her death. This event transpired in broad daylight with approximately 30 witnesses in the immediate vacinity. When investigators arrived on the scene to determine who was responsible for this heinous act, none of the 30 witnesses would speak up, citing the 'Stop Snitching' philosophy as the main motivator. A mother will never be able to know or bring to justice the murderer of her child because of a societal taboo. This is morally reprehensible.
Though I certianly concede that the use of informants, and confidential informants (CI's) by detectives makes for lazy police work, those put in the position of acting as a CI are placed in the most dangerous of positions, knowing that death is a very real consequence if they are discovered. They infiltrate dangerous operations such as gangs and gun runners and provide curial information in the prosecution of idividuals engaed in organizations that provide a real threat to the public. They are often in the most dire of circumstances and see this undesirable path as their only option. If they are arrested with others in the organizations that they are infiltrating, they are afforded no protection by the detectives whose dirty work they are doing. Punishing these individuals by publicizing their names and pictures insures that thier fate will involve retribution in the worst ways imaginable.
Snitching
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 11:09amIs a complicated subject. When it comes to drug deals is scales very close to entrapment. The snicth owes the government, they send him out to entrap anyone who trusts him, you owe us...so he's back out on the street wired,enlisting other to do deals to save his neck. I know this to true because my son is now serving time because of a snitch. He was enticed by the lure of quick money and was a popular DJ in the area, all he need do was ask around and he was able to obtain what the snitch needed. that a long story short, but in the end my son is now serving 15yrs mandatory minimum sentence for a first offender, the snitch is out doing his thing and the co conspirators in my sons case, the guys who provided,cooked,supplied the drugs, worked with the government supplied what they needed to save the necks and only recieved 7 yrs and they are the career criminals. So wheres the justice in that?
I say rat out the snitches.
snitches
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 9:06ami say the same rat out the snitches they are no gooders that cant take the time for the crime ! these are indaviduals that are ruining others lifes for ther personal gain be it money or time off their sentince they are no good persons that need to be beat to a inch of their life and left for dead !!!
The Stop Snitching Post certainly rings true.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 08/27/2007 - 5:15pmHow many scared young teenagers fall victim to being used by the police in this fashion and are then left out on the street to fend for themselves vililfied by all concerned even the police who use them. These people are victims of the war on drugs as well and would not be placed in such a horrendeous situation if the war on drugs was brought to an end. There ought to be some sort of law against such practices by the police as they serve no one's interests except perhaps the career's of the cops who use them.
Anononymous
RE: Stop Snitching does more harm than good.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/28/2007 - 8:40pmIF they snitch than they must face whatever is put before them. That is the chances they take. Most help themselves and LIE look how many people are exonerated but spend half their lives in prison for something they did not do. If it happened to you than you would know. My child is spending 10 years in prison for SOME SNITCH that has lied his you know what off and is getting a sentence reduction and he had NOTHING to do with the case. The Government approached him to testify for a time cut because their case was weak against her, That is our so called Justice Department and they allow it and encourage it so don't feel sorry for the "SNITCH" and their safety, they should think about their actions before ruining someone else's lives first. They must face their lies in the face.
Stop SNithcing
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 5:56pmOne of the most destructive effects of the Drug War is the Ratting of family, friends and the aura of distrust that that engenders. The problem is , someone who informs on a heinous, intentional murder is very different than someone who rats a dealer. One is a good citizen, hthe other is a rat. Maybe those who don't want to rat on killers prefer to deal with the killers themselves.
Leagalize Marijuana
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 7:02pmIf the government legalized marijuana, they would turn millions of "criminals" into law abiding citizens overnight which I am sure would take a lot of steam out of the stop snitching movement. It is time for legislator to wake up!
Stop Snitching
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 8:44pmAren't these some of the same tactics the Nazi's used to find "undesirable elements in society" so that they could be exterminated? I don't like what our once proud nation has become.
Nobody expects the American Inquisition
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 8:02amIt's actually more like the Spanish Inquisition. One of the reasons it got totally out-of-hand was that the search for heretics, witches and warlocks was combined with very lucrative confiscation/seizure laws and very high penalties.
The nasty thing is that once you *create* an industry, that industry tends to begin to live a life of its own.
It is far too much in the interest of the seizure-financed police squads to arrest people and inflate the number of people involved in these "drug crimes". So they have power, incentive and some very plausible threats against those they arrest and indict. And then people caught with two joints starts naming friends and family because they're genuinely scared of spending the rest of their LIFE behind bars.
And amidst all this no one asks whether the action of smoking a joint should even be a punishable offense. And no one seems to remember the rules against "unusual and cruel punishment".
Rats
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 10:33pmThere is a war going on and it is called the drug war and it is a war on americans ,funded by americans. I want to know my enemies. As some wit said ..".know thine enemy well". Yes I know we must apply the same tactics,and go even further. Showing these narcs faces and anything else about them will help protect all of us... Friends ,neighbors, family. Then maybe Jimmy Hendrix song where he sings "you cant trust your neighbors, you can't trust your friends" {Can't remerber the title }, will no longer be the norm, hopefully! Bring the cowards out of the closit, we have been paying them long enough to rat on ourselvs. I want to know all I can know about my enemies and it probably will be a lot less expensive than not knowing... don't remain ignorant find out" whos a rat," its your right... Verena
Lesser of two evils
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 7:18amMy problem with the use of informants is the fact that the snitches are more likely than not guilty of heavier, more serious crimes than their victims---so this practice is leading to taking the "lesser of two evils" off of the streets...Not what i thought the whole point of our justice system is supposed to be.
Who's a Rat
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/27/2007 - 10:08amIf they really wanted this to be a public service, you wouldn't have to pay then to see the list of rats.