U.S Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
2
The Stop Snitching Phenomenon: Breaking the Code of Silence

This project, conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), 

was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2007-CK-WXK025 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those 

of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement by the author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, 

the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus 

of Executive Session attendees. However, not every view or statement 

presented in this executive summary can necessarily be attributed to 

each individual participant.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

December 2008. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current 

validity.

© Police Executive Research Forum

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Police Executive Research Forum 

Washington, DC 20036

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, DC 20530

February 2009

3
4

Contents

Foreword 6 Acknowledgments 8 Background 10

Introduction 12 Framing the Issue 14 The Root of the Problem: Why 

Has “Stop Snitching” Spread? 19 Lack of Trust in the Police Department 20

The Media 23 Summary 26 Promising Partnerships and Programs 27 

Community Outreach 27 Multiagency Partnerships 33 Protecting Witnesses 38
5

Preventive Efforts 42 Recommendations for Addressing Stop Snitching 44

Get the Entire Community Involved 44 Acknowledge and Deal with the Fear of 

Retaliation 45 Understand and Address the Underlying Lack of Trust in the Police and 

the Entire Criminal Justice System 47 Conclusion 49 Appendix: Participants – 

PERF Executive Session, Stop Snitching: Policing in a New Era 51
6

Foreword

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. 

Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(the COPS Office), is pleased to present this report addressing the “stop 

snitching” phenomenon that has been glorified in entertainment and 

sports industries and is a significant issue in some law enforcement 

jurisdictions. The threatening nature of the stop snitching message 

intimidates witnesses and erodes trust between communities and police 

by undermining police efforts to involve communities in preventing and 

combating crime. This threatens police agencies’ ability to prevent and 

solve crime because it impedes investigations, arrests, and convictions, 

and could severely erode the criminal justice system. This problem 

exceeds the boundaries of traditional witness intimidation and is 

overwhelming for many police departments.

On numerous occasions, the COPS Office has brought together federal 

agencies, representatives from the private sector, law enforcement 

leaders from around the country, and neighborhood leaders invested 

in their communities to explore solutions to violent crime and social 

disorder issues. Most recently, on March 6, 2008 in a COPS Officesupported PERF Executive Session titled “Stop Snitching: Policing in a 

New Era,” key stakeholders explored the issues of the stop snitching 

phenomenon, identified promising practices, and developed potential 

solutions to the problem. The discussions included innovative methods 

for counteracting the intimidating messages and the central role that 

community policing principles play in responding to this unspoken code 

of silence. 
7

Through this project, we learned that many communities, police 

leaders, and prosecutors have been working on the stop snitching 

problem, and that many of the initiatives they have undertaken 

have had an impact. The programs represent promising practices for 

reversing the influence of the stop snitching campaign. Resources for 

preventing witness intimidation and for establishing witness protection 

programs available to law enforcement have helped encourage 

witnesses to come forward and have helped agencies to protect their 

safety. Agencies highlighted in this report are developing strategies 

that can counter the stop snitching problem, foster trust between 

law enforcement and communities, increase clearance rates, and 

remove violent offenders from communities. The report addresses the 

factors that have led to the stop snitching movement, what makes the 

message stick, and what can be done to take back the communities 

affected by it. 

We hope that you will find the report informative and useful as you 

take on the challenge of restoring confidence in the police and the 

justice system in neighborhoods where such confidence may be lacking. 

Together, our goal will be to ensure that crime victims and witnesses 

once again will be willing and eager to work in partnership with their 

local law enforcement agencies to do what they can to bring offenders 

to justice. 

Carl R. Peed

Former Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Chuck Wexler

Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum
8

Acknowledgments

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) thanks the police executives, 

detectives and patrol officers, federal officials, district attorneys, 

community leaders, and others who worked with us to address the issue 

of witness intimidation and the stop snitching phenomenon. Thanks 

also goes to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the 

COPS Office) for its support of the “Stop Snitching: Policing in a New 

Era” project. We are grateful to COPS Office Former Director Carl Peed, 

Chief of Staff Timothy Quinn, and Cynthia Pappas, Senior Social Science 

Analyst and Program Manager, for their encouragement of this project. 

PERF also acknowledges the law enforcement professionals and other 

experts who worked with us to identify anti-stop snitching initiatives 

and those who gathered in Washington, D.C., for the Executive Session. 

A special thanks to the presenters: U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein, 

District of Maryland; Baltimore Police Department Commissioner 

Frederick Bealefeld; Baltimore Police Department Colonel John Skinner; 

Baltimore County Police Department Colonel Mike McCleese; Baltimore 

Police Lieutenant Colonel Rick Hite; Baltimore Police Lieutenant Colonel 

Glenn Williams; Baltimore community member David Scott; Clayton 

Guyton of the Baltimore Rose Street Community Center; Minneapolis 

City Council Member Don Samuels; V.J. Smith, President of Minneapolis 

MAD DADS; Natosha Gale, FBI Community Outreach Specialist; Reverend 

William “Rocky” Brown of the Philadelphia Millions More Movement; 

Philadelphia Police Department Deputy Commissioner Richard Ross; 

Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Keith Sadler; Philadelphia Police 

Advisory Council Member Greg Bucceroni; Philadelphia Police Advisory 

Council Member C.B. Kimmins; Dorothy Johnson of Philadelphia Mothers 

in Charge; Marc Alexander, United Negro College Fund Special Programs 

Corporation (UNCFSP) Producer; Gilbert Knowles, Director, Division of 

Community and Education, UNCFSP; and Michal Handerhan, Barry Nagle, 

and Nichelle Williams of UNCFSP.
9

This publication would not have been possible without the valuable 

contribution of those who were interviewed for the case studies. Our 

thanks also go out to those who responded to the pre-session survey; 

their comments provided direction for the frank and thoughtful 

discussion that occurred at the Executive Session.

In addition, I want to recognize with appreciation the efforts of 

PERF staffers who contributed to the project. Jessica Toliver carefully 

managed all aspects of the project and wrote this report under 

the direction of Homeland Security Director Gerard Murphy. Craig 

Fischer reviewed drafts of the report, and Greg Galperine performed 

information searches and provided invaluable organizational assistance. 

Elizabeth Sanberg, Kristin Kappelman, and Rebecca Neuberger offered 

technical assistance at the Executive Session.

Chuck Wexler

Executive Director, PERF
10

Background 

A disturbing situation has developed in certain communities across 

the nation: people are not cooperating with police investigations. 

This phenomenon is due in part to an active campaign urging people 

to “stop snitching” when they are witnesses to, or victims of, crime. 

Testimony of law enforcement agents in cities both big and small 

has revealed that the insidious nature of the stop snitching message 

intimidates juveniles and young adults, erodes trust between 

communities and police, and threatens police agencies’ ability to solve 

and prevent crime. It undermines police efforts to improve community 

relationships and to involve communities in preventing and combating 

crime with the result that violent crimes such as murder, rape, and 

assault are not being solved. The FBI reports that national clearance 

rates for violent crime, especially homicide, have been declining steadily 

during the last decade and reached 44.5 percent in 2007.1 In many cities, 

rates are dropping dramatically, and many police executives attribute 

the decline, at least in part, to a lack of witnesses who are willing to 

speak to the police. Even for homicide, the crime that traditionally has 

had the highest clearance rates, in 2004 (the most recent year in which 

we have access to specific city data) those rates were at 59.4 percent in 

Baltimore, 60.6 percent in Washington, D.C., 37.4 percent in Detroit, and 

27.9 percent in Boston.2 These data make clear that the stop snitching 

message impedes investigations, arrests, and convictions and has 

severely eroded the justice system in some jurisdictions. 

Stop snitching is not an entirely new phenomenon in the criminal justice 

system; an unspoken code of silence has existed in many communities 

for a number of years. The problem, however, gained notoriety in 

2004 with the release of the Stop Snitchin’ DVD that was produced 

in Baltimore and distributed widely on the Internet, featuring an 

appearance by a professional basketball player. The video’s purpose 

was to threaten retaliation against those cooperating with police 

and frighten potential witnesses. Though the term “stop snitching” 

1

www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007

offenses/clearances/index.html

2

Cronin, James, Gerard R. 

Murphy, Lisa L. Spahr, Jessica I. 

Toliver, and Richard E. Weger. 

Promoting Effective Homicide 

Investigations. Washington, 

D.C.: Police Executive Research 

Forum and the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing 

Services, 2007. 
11

is believed to have originated in Boston, it was the release of the 

Baltimore DVD that is thought to have spawned t-shirts, hats, and rap 

CDs with stop snitching messages that threaten violence against those 

who provide information to the police about crimes. 

To ascertain the pervasiveness of this phenomenon, and how it is 

affecting vitally important issues such as witness cooperation, clearance 

rates, and police departments’ overall ability to bring criminals to 

justice, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) embarked on a 

project supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(the COPS Office) to survey 300 law enforcement agencies and to gather 

together more than 100 criminal justice officials and community leaders 

to an Executive Session in Washington, D.C., on March 6, 2008. The goal 

of the “Stop Snitching: Policing in a New Era,” project was to discover 

what is driving the stop snitching movement and to use that knowledge 

to develop programs and partnerships to address the issue. The survey 

results and frank conversations at the Executive Session addressed the 

factors that have led to the stop snitching movement, what makes the 

message “stick,” and what can be done to take back the communities 

affected by it. This report, The Stop Snitching Phenomenon: Breaking 

the Code of Silence, addresses the problem and includes case studies 

documenting successful law enforcement and community approaches 

that have been implemented. 
12

Introduction

In preparation for the Executive Session, the Police Executive Research 

Forum (PERF) created a 12-question survey to measure the extent and 

effect of the stop snitching phenomenon on local law enforcement 

throughout the nation. Of the 88 respondents that PERF received, 

86 percent reported the existence of some form of code of silence 

in their communities, with 47 percent identifying the stop snitching 

phenomenon specifically. Twenty-one percent of the respondents who 

specifically identified stop snitching indicated that the phenomenon 

had been present for more than a year and had recently increased 

noticeably, which could be attributed to the recent sales of stop 

snitching CDs, t-shirts, and DVDs. 

The idea behind stop snitching is not new. For many years and in 

many different cultures, the practice of reporting misconduct by peers 

has been frowned upon. School-children are reprimanded for being 

“tattletales.” In the world of organized crime, those who cooperate 

with police are known as “rats.” Doctors, lawyers, politicians, and others 

are often reluctant to report misconduct by their colleagues. And as 

some community leaders at the PERF Executive Session noted, there is 

a well-known phenomenon known as the “blue wall of silence” within 

the law enforcement community itself. 

Using the survey responses as a guide, PERF developed an agenda for 

the day-long conference to explore the causes of the stop snitching 

phenomenon’s popularity, its effects, and what police can do to 

counteract it. PERF invited police chiefs and asked them to bring their 

criminal justice partners, such as prosecutors, as well as community 

leaders from their jurisdictions who could offer insight into why so many 

people in high-crime neighborhoods adopt the stop snitching attitude.

According to survey respondents and participants at the Executive 

Session, a mixture of factors has led to the current stop snitching 

movement that has taken hold in primarily low-income communities 
13

across the United States. In some of these communities there is a deep 

feeling of mistrust between the residents and police. Another factor is 

that the criminal justice system moves slowly; prosecution of a perpetrator 

can take months or years. This creates an impression that not enough 

is done by government agencies to keep criminals off the streets, and 

encourages some people to take justice into their own hands. Conversely, 

delays in the criminal justice process allow criminals to protect themselves 

by intimidating or perpetrating violence against potential witnesses. 

These factors provide a fertile atmosphere for the stop snitching message. 

Why snitch, say residents, if the cops can’t protect you and the criminals 

remain free to take their revenge against you? 
14

Framing the Issue

Having many different viewpoints represented at the Executive 

Session (law enforcement executives, detectives and prosecutors, as 

well as community activists, some of whom were former drug dealers) 

allowed for a greater understanding of the issues that contribute to 

the development of the stop snitching movement and what must be 

done to counteract its effects. Participants at the Executive Session 

clearly believe that the phenomenon is still spreading. Originally an East 

Coast problem, stop snitching is now found in communities nationwide 

and is prevalent in cities of all sizes. “It’s happening in San Francisco,” 

said Police Chief Heather Fong. “You have a crowd where a homicide 

happens, and there’s 50 people standing around, but there’s not a single 

witness who comes forward.” 

“We just had a murder on New Year’s morning of a 15-year-old at a 

house party where 40 people were in the room,” said Chief Ronald 

Teachman of New Bedford, Massachusetts. “It took us seven weeks 

to bring that charge—a case that should have been solved in seven 

minutes. It took 100 people interviewed, reinterviewed, neighborhoods 

canvassed, 40 people brought before the grand jury, and a half-dozen 

criminally charged for obstruction of justice, with more to follow, to 

bring that case.” 

Comments at the Executive Session also made it clear that stop snitching 

is not merely a matter of a political philosophy or attitude about the 

police in certain communities. It is also based in a very real fear that 

many people have about placing themselves in danger if they cooperate 

with police, or even are perceived to be cooperating. The survey 

responses broke it down more specifically: When asked to indicate the 

ways in which a code of silence has been promoted, the vast majority of 

respondents selected more than one method of promotion, and near the 

top of the list were the factors of implicit threats (80 percent), explicit 

threats of violence (63 percent), actual physical violence (53 percent), 

and property damage (45 percent). When asked about the number of 
15

actual instances of retribution they were aware of, 74 percent of the 

agencies reported that they had only a few isolated instances. This 

appears to be an indication that the mere threat of violence and the 

perception of retribution can be enough to keep communities silent—

an important topic that was addressed at the Executive Session. 

To be sure, however, stop snitching is based not only on empty threats; for 

example, “Hot Line Hurt by ‘Stop Snitching’ Campaign” reads a headline 

in Kansas City, Missouri. The story describes the efforts of LaMont 

Williams to find out who killed his nephew Marcus, a father of two 

who had no criminal record. “I’m sure someone knows who did it,” Mr. 

Williams said. Some residents, however, said they would not call a hot line 

to report anything they knew. “There’s a lot of wicked stuff going on out 

there, and I think people don’t speak up because they’re afraid of what 

might happen to them and their family,” one woman said.3 Meanwhile, 

in Baltimore, police spokesman Donny Moses says that the stop snitching 

mentality is still one of the biggest problems their officers encounter. It 

keeps witnesses from talking, which impedes investigations, which is why 

this year’s homicide closure rate is low, he says.4

Captain Alec Griffin of the Richmond (California) Police Department 

estimates that retaliation against crime witnesses is actually quite rare. 

In his opinion, “probably about 1 in 1,000 witnesses suffer retribution, 

but that one case affects us tremendously. That is the incident that 

people remember.” 

David Scott, a former drug dealer from Baltimore who now works with 

youth to help them “escape that avenue,” said that the stop snitching 

mentality is far more brutal than ever. “You have to understand how 

deeply inbred this mentality is,” he said. “When I was out there, Miss 

Jones would call the police on us. We expected it. And we knew she 

came home at 5 o’clock, so we’d shut down at 4 and take our shop 

around the corner. In fact, we helped Miss Jones carry her groceries 

home. But now in this generation, Miss Jones needs to expect them to 

kill her whole family if she continues to call the police. You have 16-

3

www.kctv5.com/news/18031790/

detail.html#-

4

www.baltimoreexaminer.com/

local/crime/120708murdercity.html
16

year-olds being groomed by 18-year-olds who don’t have respect for the 

unwritten rules of the street.”

In addition to the people who distrust the police and share the stop 

snitching philosophy, there are many others who might be inclined 

to cooperate with police but are afraid, officials said. “Our ability 

to protect people is limited,” said Captain Griffin, who serves as 

commander in a district that he said has extremely high crime rate. 

“We had a couple of incidents where there were citizens who did the 

right thing and came forward to testify about crimes, and suffered at 

the hands of criminals who were still out on the street. So sometimes I 

understand why that fear exists in the community.” 

Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland also 

acknowledged that the stop snitching phenomenon is due in part to 

the failures of the criminal justice system. “We’ve allowed too many 

dangerous criminals to continue to walk the streets,” he said. “People 

know that if they cooperate in prosecuting someone, that doesn’t 

mean that person’s going to be off the streets and locked up in jail. He’s 

going to be right back on the streets. So one of the things that we’ve 

been working to do in Baltimore is to make sure that when we identify 

violent people in the community, we take them off the streets and keep 

them off the streets.”

According to Executive Session participants, fear of reprisals has 

hampered police investigations and prosecutions. PERF’s survey 

responses detailed the serious impact that the stop snitching 

phenomenon has had on law enforcement operations: 45 percent of 

agency respondents indicated a decrease in clearance rates, 24 percent 

mentioned a decrease in overall trust in the agency,5 and 78 percent 

reported a decreased willingness of witnesses to testify. Agencies also 

specifically mentioned that the reduction of information received at 

crime scenes has made solving crimes considerably more difficult. 

5

As measured by the experiences 

and opinions of the agency 

respondents.
17

While youths and young adults are clearly the primary audience 

for the stop snitching campaign, PERF survey results indicate that 

the phenomenon has spread to the older adults, as well. Forty-two 

percent of agencies said that adults are reluctant to report crimes and 

cooperate, while 89 percent reported that youths and young adults 

are unwilling to step forward. Gang members of all ages also were 

mentioned as strongly contributing to the stop snitching campaign. 

Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld described how 

his department produced its own video called Keep Talking, which 

was intended to counter the claims made in the stop snitching video 

by noting that many of the drug dealers portrayed in it as brash and 

confident had in fact been arrested and sent to prison. The goal of 

the department’s campaign was to assure potential witnesses of their 

safety and stress the importance of cooperating with police in order to 

prosecute criminals and thus reduce witness retaliation. Commissioner 

Bealefeld noted, however, that stop snitching remains a severe problem. 

On the morning of the PERF conference, the Baltimore Sun ran a brief 

story about a murder victim who told police before he died, “If I knew 

who shot me, I would not tell you. That’s the way the street works.” 

“That’s what he told the police officer on the scene,” Bealefeld said.

“Those were literally his last words.”

Many local law enforcement agencies recognize that to counteract the 

fear of retaliation by criminal groups and the stop snitching message, 

it is vital to develop and nurture community relations. They have done 

so through partnerships with other organizations, such as the local 

prosecutor’s office (64 percent), community groups (59 percent), schools 

(54 percent), religious organizations (43 percent), victim advocacy 

groups (41 percent), federal law enforcement or prosecutors (33 

percent), public housing authorities (32 percent), and the news media 

(30 percent). Other agencies have successfully partnered with crime 

victims’ relatives, school resource officers, domestic abuse response 
18

teams, youth organizations, offender reentry groups, local antigang 

commissions, and neighborhood associations. 

In addition, 80 percent of the police agencies surveyed said they have 

adopted methods of allowing crime victims or witnesses to report 

crimes to the policy anonymously. Other police responses include 

protective measures for witnesses (47 percent), strategies for deterring 

intimidation (46 percent), new ways of asking for cooperation so others 

cannot identify the person who is cooperating (41 percent), awareness 

or education programs (39 percent), and relocating witnesses (34 

percent). The Crime Stoppers program and several text message tip 

programs were mentioned, as well as the granting of temporary visas to 

non-U.S. citizens in exchange for cooperation in certain communities. 

At the PERF Executive Session, the Trenton (New Jersey) Police 

Department reported success with its witness relocation program, and 

said that the program is supported in part with funds obtained through 

a cooperative agreement among local, county, state, and federal 

agencies. The Palm Beach County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office reported that 

the Crime Stoppers program, in which witnesses can anonymously report 

information about crimes and receive a reward, has been considerably 

effective. And several agency representatives said that anonymous 

telephone text-a-tip programs have noticeably helped them thwart stop 

snitching and gather information from crime witnesses. 

This publication captures the themes, ideas, and promising practices 

presented at the Executive Session and recommends next steps for 

law enforcement agencies interested in improving their community 

relationships. Many participants boiled it down to one main issue: If 

community members believe that police officers are honest, that the 

police department and its employees care about their welfare, and that 

detectives and prosecutors will work hard to incarcerate criminals and 

protect crime victims and witnesses, only then will more people come 

forward to testify. 
19

The Root of the Problem: Why Has 

“Stop Snitching” Spread?

Some of the most interesting comments at the PERF Executive Session 

came from community members who explained why stop snitching has 

become such a powerful force in certain neighborhoods. Many pointed 

out that any number of groups—including doctors, lawyers, government 

officials, members of Congress, and police—have a tendency not to 

report malfeasance by their colleagues, so stop snitching is not a unique 

phenomenon. Even young children are often told that “no one likes a 

tattletale.” 

This chapter organizes the open and often forthright dialog that took 

place at the Executive Session into the two major themes that became 

apparent and were believed to be the dominant issues contributing 

to the stop snitching phenomenon: lack of trust in the police and the 

influence of certain rap videos and other media on promoting stop 

snitching. It is these issues that must be addressed in order to strengthen 

community ties and erode the pervasive fear that drives the stop 

snitching mentality. 

Source: www.flickr.com/photos/ponyapprehension/420026426/
20

Lack of Trust in the Police Department

In the context of the stop snitching issue, a lack of trust in the police 

department is twofold. First, some community members fear that the 

police cannot protect them from retaliation; second, some believe a blue 

wall of silence exists in police departments, and that it is hypocritical to 

ask citizens to snitch on each other when officers will not do the same. 

Even if a community trusts its police, as Commander James Tolbert of 

the Detroit Police Department pointed out, no police department can 

handle the financial burden of protecting all witnesses. And even if 

there were sufficient funding to routinely relocate witnesses, that often 

is not an option because victims or witnesses have extended families 

they do not wish to leave behind—or because family members might 

themselves become targets of retaliation. Participants at the Executive 

Session said that the real solution is to get the whole community 

involved in sending the message that retaliation is not acceptable. 

Crime Prevention Coordinator Michelle Milam of the Richmond 

(California) Police Department agreed. Twenty-four-hour bodyguards 

are not an option, so police need to develop creative solutions to 

protect witnesses. Coordinating with the court system and the district 

attorney’s office to protect witnesses is one tactic. But ultimately, 

communities, working with the police, must change the culture, she 

indicated. “A lot of this happens because as a community we allow this 

to happen,” Milam said. “There used to be a time when someone was 

dealing drugs and the grandmother in her home would call it in. Today 

we don’t do that.” she said. “Some of the solutions have to come from 

the community and faith-based leaders, not the police department. We 

need to have so many people cooperating with the police that there is a 

tipping point. Then the message will not be ‘stop snitching,’ but rather, 

that these are our neighborhoods and we will come forward.” 

One community organizer at the PERF session noted that there is 

another reason why witnesses in certain communities hesitate to come 

forward with information: the police code, often referred to as the blue 
21

code of silence or the blue wall of silence, which discourages officers 

from reporting incidents of police brutality or corruption. This code 

is sometimes referred to as a code of honor but, in fact, it should be 

considered a code of dishonor because it causes mistrust between the 

community and the law enforcement agency. 

James Johnson, a community activist for 22 years in North Charleston, 

South Carolina, brought up another factor. African-Americans, he 

pointed out, have been hurt by longstanding disparities in the justice 

system, such as criminal sentences for crack cocaine offenses that are 

much more severe than the penalties for powder cocaine. “Our judicial 

system is unfair when it comes to sentencing Blacks, and the Black 

community looks at all that,” he said. “It’s not only young people who 

won’t snitch; we have older people who won’t snitch because they know 

the person is going to get a long sentence.” Because this is inherently 

unfair, they would rather allow a perpetrator to remain free than suffer 

discrimination, he said. 

Some participants at the Executive Session said that racial disparities are 

a contributing factor to the stop snitching phenomenon, while others 

expressed a belief that it is more a matter of poverty, not race. But 

there was general agreement that community policing principles can 

help counteract the stop snitching message, and that youth programs, 

scholarship funds, and general community outreach can help police 

build trust, whether the complicating factor is race, poverty, or both. 

Community policing, participants noted, can involve a delicate balance; 

for example, community residents often express a wish to see more 

officers patrolling their streets, but others say that police must avoid 

the impression of being “an occupying army.” In Washington, D.C., the 

Metropolitan Police Department responded to a recent rash of violence 

by establishing a checkpoint in the Trinidad neighborhood. The goal 

was to block outsiders from driving into the neighborhood in stolen 

cars to commit robberies, and then fleeing and abandoning the stolen 

cars. Some residents of the Trinidad neighborhood appreciated that the 
22

city was trying to protect them and create a secure environment for the 

community, while others claimed the roadblock amounted to a militarystyle invasion of privacy.6

Participants said that police departments, when implementing 

community policing initiatives, should also realize that community 

policing does not involve officers simply driving around a certain 

block in a neighborhood a specific number of times per day. Rather, 

community policing requires interacting with citizens, showing a 

presence, and developing relationships with community members. 

Reverend Ray Hammond of the Boston Ten Point Coalition, an 

ecumenical group of clergy and lay leaders working to mobilize the 

Christian community around issues affecting Black and Latino youths, 

said that fear, intimidation, and peer and cultural pressure, aggravated 

by rap videos and clothing carrying the stop snitching message, build 

on each other to produce an atmosphere in which it is difficult for 

witnesses to find the courage or the trust to cooperate with the police. 

He said that police and community leaders must convince residents that 

working with the police benefits the community. 

“Our grandparents deserve to sit on the porch without fear; our kids 

deserve to play without fear,” Reverend Hammond said. But to convince 

residents to have confidence in the system, police departments have to 

own up to their own problems as well and there should be an honest 

conversation between police and the community with the message that 

“we’re in this together.” 

Ben David, district attorney in New Hanover County, North Carolina, 

pointed out that respect is a two-way street. Cops should not aim for 

“power” because this derives from fear and is a short-term asset. Rather, 

they should respect the citizens and aim to be respected in return, 

because that conveys authority, which is long-term. “If you don’t treat 

every single case equally,” he said, “you undermine your own authority 6

www.upi.com/Top_

News/2008/06/20/Lawsuit_

challenges_D.C._roadblocks/UPI83011213994698/
23

and respect.” He emphasized that the criminal justice community must 

care just as much about a case involving two “bad guys” as a case 

involving a completely innocent victim. “Even a drug dealer is someone’s 

baby,” he said. 

The Media

Contributing to the problem are public figures who advocate a stop 

snitching mentality. A number of entertainers have been vocal in their 

support of stop snitching in videos (such as a professional basketball 

player’s appearance in the Baltimore Stop Snitchin’ DVD), interviews 

(such as rapper Cam’ron’s comments that he would not snitch even 

to help police identify a man who shot him and tried to carjack his 

Lamborghini), and music lyrics (albums by Lil’ Kim, 50 Cent, and others). 

The shooting of rapper Busta Rhyme’s bodyguard serves as another no 

snitching example: As many as 50 witnesses observed the event, yet 

nobody came forward. “Your employee is murdered in front of you, 

you’d think he might want to talk to the police,” said New York City 

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.7 Unfortunately, not only does this kind 

of incident inhibit police departments’ ability to solve crimes, such 

incidents also serve as a model for many impressionable youths. 

Furthermore, individuals can purchase clothing, bumper stickers, and 

other items that advertise their support of the stop snitching movement. 

The merchandise is available nationally on web sites such as eBay and 

Amazon, as well as in local stores. The t-shirts typically feature a stop 

sign emblazoned with the words “Stop Snitching.” Other shirts are 

more graphic and feature bullet holes, implying that snitches should (or 

will) be shot, thus referencing its associated catchphrase, “Snitches get 

stitches.” Another version of the shirt says “I’ll Never Tell.” 

7

“Anti-Snitch Campaign Riles 

Police and Prosecutors.” USA 

Today, March 29, 2006.

Source: www.flickr.com/photos/

trainor/2888815666/
24

Reverend William “Rocky” Brown, chairman of the local organizing 

committee of the Millions More Movement in Chester, Pennsylvania, 

advocates confronting storeowners who sell stop snitching 

paraphernalia. He brought 20 examples of shirts that have been sold 

in his community to the PERF Executive Session. To discourage the 

shops from carrying such merchandise and thereby promoting the stop 

snitching message, he and fellow community members published a list 

of merchants and encouraged community members to boycott those 

stores. The technique worked, and targeted stores no longer carry items 

with the stop snitching logo. “As clergy,” he said, “we need to take a 

leadership role.” He called for the use of counter slogans, such as: “Too 

many of our people are getting drugged up, too many of our children 

are getting shot up, too many of our boys are getting locked up, too 

many of our girls are getting knocked up, and too many of us have been 

too stuck up to do something about it. Therefore, we need to take a 

stand, stand up, speak up, and make a difference.”

Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Executive Session, March 2008.
25

Councilman Don Samuels, also of Minneapolis, brought examples 

of shirts that were removed from local shops because of community 

mobilization on the issue and efforts that involved the press. 

V.J. Smith, president of the Minneapolis Chapter of MAD DADS (Men 

Against Destruction) reported similar efforts. He is now flooding the 

stores and streets with t-shirts that send a more positive message. 

Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Executive Session, March 2008.

Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Executive Session, March 2008.
26

Summary

There was general agreement at the PERF Executive Session that 

there are no insurmountable factors that prevent communities from 

counteracting the stop snitching message. Mark Spencer, inspector 

general with the Prince George’s County (Maryland) Police Department, 

summed it up: “What [residents] want from the police is to understand 

that they can trust the police and that the police can be respected 

and the police will respect them.” This can be accomplished through 

outreach and awareness programs, by building community partnerships, 

and by publicizing successful prosecutions of those who spread the stop 

snitching message and are convicted of crimes.

The next section of this report details anti-stop snitching programs 

and initiatives that have proven successful in different areas around 

the county. These examples can be used as a starting point for cities 

looking to combat violence and strengthen community cooperation and 

participation in the justice system. 
27

Promising Partnerships 

and Programs

Cities across the nation have been experiencing the effects of the stop 

snitching phenomenon through decreased witness cooperation, lower 

clearance rates, and increased violence. Using their available funds and 

resources, law enforcement agencies have successfully addressed the 

issue in different ways. The following case studies offer a wide range 

of possible program choices for departments looking for innovative and 

effective methods of addressing the problem in their own jurisdictions. 

Community Outreach

Rochester, New York

Rochester had already been experiencing an unacceptable level of 

violence when the final tipping point occurred, according to Reverend 

Marlowe Washington of the Baber African Methodist Episcopal (AME) 

Church. On October 7, 2007, a highly valued and loved member of the 

church, James Slater, was killed as he walked home from a community 

meeting. He apparently was shot for the iPod he carried. This 

incident incited the church members, who reacted not with outrage or 

disgruntlement, but instead with a purpose and motivation to make 

their neighborhoods safer, said Reverend Washington. 

Meanwhile, city officials had reached the same conclusion. A week 

earlier, an incident occurred in broad daylight that left the police 

department extremely frustrated. Lotasha Shaw was stabbed multiple 

times in the middle of a busy intersection with as many as 50 potential 

witnesses in the area, yet no one came forward with details. 

Mayor Robert Duffy, the city’s former police chief, approached the 

current chief, David Moore, and asked, “What do you need from me?” 

Chief Moore said he needed overtime funding to put more officers on 

the street. The mayor obtained the funds from the city council and the 

initiative was named “Zero Tolerance.” It is an aggressive program that 
28

is still in effect. “This new approach is not just about more officers,” 

Mayor Duffy said in a “State of the City” speech in April 2008. “It’s 

about the way we police. It’s about giving our officers the support they 

need to aggressively prevent crime: to be out of the car dispersing 

loiterers, keeping the peace, gathering intelligence, and searching for 

illegal guns.”

Reverend Washington took note of the Zero Tolerance initiative and 

approached Chief Moore. “Let’s create something that complements 

this police program,” he said. What Reverend Washington helped 

to create was the “You Bet I Told” campaign. Reverend Washington 

invited state, local, and federal law enforcement representatives to a 

roundtable discussion to determine how to counteract the fear and 

intimidation that community members were experiencing and to 

encourage cooperation with police investigations. With the help of 

Chief Moore, Reverend Washington was able to convince 50 executives 

and community leaders to attend the meeting. It was at that meeting 

that an attendee uttered the words, “You bet I told,” in the course 

of discussion. It struck Reverend Washington that this simple phrase 

incorporated the essence of their collective community goal. 

Soon billboards went up across the city with the “You Bet I Told” slogan. 

The purpose, according to Reverend Washington, was to end the fear 

of acting alone, of being singled out as a snitch. The ultimate goals of 

the billboard campaign were to convey a sense of community, to spark 

the conscience of those who witness crimes, and to convince victims and 

witnesses that the community would support their decision to cooperate 

with law enforcement. “You’re not alone,” says Reverend Washington. 

“We’ll all be telling, so you will get lost in the shuffle. You will not be 

singled out [for retaliation].” 

The campaign was originally funded through church contributions. 

Later, many other organizations and individuals were inspired 

to donate. Business leaders, the state Department of Criminal 

Justice Services, and the county government, to name a few, have 
29

contributed approximately $30,000 to the campaign, according to 

Reverend Washington. A local college also donated space for a 

retreat, where a nine-member “You Bet I Told” board organized by 

Reverend Washington will decide next steps for expanding the witness 

cooperation program. 

Reverend Washington said the intention was for the board to reflect 

the community, so there are not too many “influential persons” on it. 

Among the members are a former drug dealer, two young members of 

the community, two college professors, and a few church administrators 

and members. They have employed two interns to assist with planning 

the retreat.

The program has already expanded to include the related goal of 

promoting the 311 nonemergency number for local law enforcement. 

Through collaboration with the mayor, citizens can now call 311 and 

negotiate where and how they will speak with a member of the 

department about a crime they have witnessed. They may choose a 

location away from their homes, or request that an officer come to their 

home in an unmarked car and in civilian clothes so that neighbors will 

not suspect that the citizen is cooperating with police and become a 

target for retribution. The “You Bet I Told” board has also worked with 

the chairman of the local Crime Stoppers program to promote using its 

number for reporting criminal activity. Next steps, to be finalized during 

the retreat, will address a way to expand the program for youths who 

say, “This violence is all I know.” The goal is to provide other options, a 

way out, according to Reverend Washington. 

Though there are not any statistical measures of success, the willingness 

of people to make financial contributions to the “You Bet I Told” 

campaign as well as community interest in the program strongly suggest 

that it has already had an impact. The Baber AME Church was directly 

involved with one family who found the courage to come forward after 

noticing the “You Bet I Told” billboards. In August 2008, members of 

the family witnessed a terrible crime and for months were torn between 
30

mixed feelings of fear and a sense that they should report the crime. 

After 5 weeks of private “coaching” sessions with church members, they 

agreed to make a deposition with the U.S. Marshal’s Office, which led 

to a positive identification and prosecution of the suspects. The church, 

through the “You Bet I Told” campaign, was able to create this process 

and provide protection to the family members, moving them out of 

their home until the federal government was able to fund a permanent 

relocation. 

As the program continues to develop and grow, the board members 

hope to have more success stories to share. 

Oakland, California

Counteracting the stop snitching phenomenon through community 

partnerships and outreach was one of the most common approaches 

put forth at the PERF Executive Session. Deputy Chief David Kozicki of 

the Oakland Police Department outlined a successful program based on 

these principles. Oakland police are holding forums with community 

groups and using street-outreach people who have credibility in the 

community to talk to young people and encourage them to buy into 

some level of social responsibility. Police and the outreach workers 

(many of whom are ex-offenders or former gang members) also 

demonstrate their concern for youths by helping them find jobs and 

educational opportunities. 

The program is run by the city’s Department of Human Services; 

however, the Oakland Police Department is heavily involved and 

participated in the selection of the program coordinator, the three 

agencies providing program services, and the outreach workers. 

Furthermore, the police department determines the schedule (days and 

hours) for the outreach workers and assigns them to areas identified by 

police district commanders. 

The program coordinator, Kevin Grant, is an ex-offender who has turned 

his life around and has “an incredible history of being able to use his 
31

experiences, both negative and positive, to influence youth and people 

reentering society from penal institutions,” according to Deputy Chief 

Kozicki. Mr. Grant has recruited other speakers for the program, and 

together they engage in street corner interventions where the goal is to 

provide alternatives to just hanging out and getting into trouble. They 

have also managed to recruit a number of employers who participate 

in the program by providing job opportunities. This has proved to be a 

huge draw for people approached on the street. 

The program is marketed to youths and ex-offenders through word 

of mouth, pamphlets, and information provided to neighborhood 

crime-prevention councils, faith-based communities, and other civic 

and community-based organizations. The program is funded through 

the voter-approved 2004 Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act 

(Measure Y), which assesses a property and parking tax surcharge to 

increase the number of police officers and to fund successful programs 

for intervening in the lives of youths and people reentering society from 

jails and prisons. 

Baltimore, Maryland

The first Stop Snitchin’ DVD, released in 2004, highlighted the culture 

of witness intimidation in Baltimore. In December 2007, the sequel 

Stop Snitchin’ 2 hit the streets, showing a young boy waving a gun and 

smoking what appeared to be an illicit drug. 

Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, reported at 

the PERF Executive Session that Baltimore officials have counteracted 

the stop snitching message through a series of actions. First, Baltimore 

police produced its own video, Keep Talking, and spent hours on the 

street handing it out to citizens in East, West, and Northwest Baltimore, 

along with their own “Keep Talking” t-shirts. The DVD features 

scenes from the original Stop Snitchin’ DVD and background hip-hop 

music. It opens with police Agent Donny Moses saying, “The men and 

women of the Baltimore Police Department would like to thank the 

producers of the Stop Snitchin’ video. In case you didn’t know, you’ve 
32

made Baltimore a safer city.”8 By that, he means that several of the 

people featured in the Stop Snitchin’ video were arrested for probation 

violations, and the host “Skinny Suge” was arrested for threatening 

violence against a storeowner who refused to sell the Stop Snitchin’ 2

video. This demonstrated that police were actively interested in putting 

away people who brag about intimidating crime witnesses. This, police 

believe, was a positive step toward helping residents feel comfortable 

about approaching the police, anonymously or not. 

U.S. Attorney Rosenstein also said that one positive outcome of the 

Stop Snitchin’ DVDs was that they encouraged coordination among 

local, state, and federal law enforcement, and inspired them to join 

forces to combat the issue. In Baltimore, he said, the state courts are 

overwhelmed with offenders. “Tens of thousands of people are going 

through the state system,” he said, “Volume is a definite roadblock that 

must be overcome.” Federal and local prosecutors now work together 

to identify the most violent offenders and prosecute them in federal 

court where penalties are far stricter. He also emphasized that the most 

effective incentive for witnesses to come forward is the knowledge that 

criminals will be arrested and detained. People will cooperate only if 

they can be assured that the criminal will not have an opportunity to 

retaliate. In the federal system, he said, prosecutors also can assure 

witnesses that their identity will be revealed only at the last minute 

or at trial. The state system has open-file discovery and is not able to 

maintain the same degree of confidentiality. 

St. Louis, Missouri

Lieutenant Mike Sack of the St. Louis Police Department pointed out 

that stop snitching is a cross-cultural problem. His jurisdiction includes 

a large population of Vietnamese-Americans and a “Black String Gang” 

that was extorting Vietnamese business owners. Victims lacked trust in 

the police department’s ability to provide protection, so they did not 

want to cooperate with the police, making prosecution very difficult. To 

alleviate the problem, the department hired translators and promoted 

8

www.baltimoresun.com/

policevideo
33

an anonymous tip line in a specific, violence-prone neighborhood of the 

city. After a violent crime occurs, police immediately distribute flyers in 

the area to remind people of the tip line and encourage them to use it. 

The hope is that is even if no one witnessed the particular incident, the 

flyers would establish a connection between the police department and 

residents, which they might use to report other criminal activity in the 

neighborhood.

Members of the department also frequently attend community and 

ward meetings to interact with citizens and build trust. And the 

department has undertaken efforts to recruit new police officers who 

reflect the demographics of the community, which has helped the 

situation. “I believe if we can develop trust between the community 

and the police department, we can make some significant inroads,” 

said Lieutenant Sack. “A lot of the work is simply networking and 

relationship-building. Until we’ve built a rapport built on trust, we will 

not be able to address the underlying problem of stop snitching.” 

Multiagency Partnerships

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In December 2005, a group of officials from a wide range of 

organizations, including the FBI’s Philadelphia Field Office, Clear 

Channel Outdoor,9 the Citizens Crime Commission,10 and Mothers in 

Charge,11 were so concerned about the city’s violent crime problem 

and lack of cooperation from crime witnesses that they gathered to 

brainstorm possible solutions. They created a campaign called “Step 

Up, Speak Up” to encourage community cooperation with criminal 

investigations. Group members developed a resource guide in the 

form of a small pamphlet as a way to encourage citizens to report 

crimes. Acknowledging that witness intimidation—ranging from 

outright threats to more subtle forms such as stop snitching apparel—is 

a problem, the campaign offers a message to inspire and encourage 

people to step forward.

9

Clear Channel Outdoor 

specializes in outdoor 

advertising products and 

leases billboard space. www.

clearchanneloutdoor.com/

10The Citizens Crime 

Commission’s mission is “to 

improve the quality of life for 

citizens in Delaware Valley 

by improved safety and 

security initiatives.” www.

crimecommission.org/

11Mothers in Charge is a 

community advocacy group 

composed of mothers, aunts, 

sisters, and grandmothers who 

have lost relatives to violence.
34

Step up and make a difference

We need to speak up and be a witness

Only way to stop this violence

We’re gonna have to break our code of silence

Step up and make a change 

Speak up! Don’t let them get away

Crime and murders on the rise

We gotta stand and testify

Undertakers are getting rich

Cause people say don’t snitch

We gotta Step Up and make a change

Speak up! Don’t be afraid

Take the Big Step to save a life

Speak up! and do what’s right

How can we save our streets 

If nobody wants to stand for peace

How will this ever stop

If nobody won’t talk to the cops

Only way we can win this fight

Is we got to all unite
35

In addition to the inspirational message, the pamphlet contains detailed 

information about ways to report incidents of violent crime. Witnesses 

who decide to step up have a number of avenues from which to choose, 

starting with telephone numbers for the FBI Philadelphia Field Office, 

as well as for six district detective divisions of the Philadelphia Police 

Department. Those seeking anonymity can call the Live Operator Tip 

Line Service, run through the Citizens Crime Commission, at 215.546.

TIPS. Reward money is available as an incentive. The pamphlet also 

contains information about the Victim/Witness Services Unit of the 

District Attorney’s Office, which describes the goals of its program and 

offers contact information, as does the Victim Witness Assistance Unit 

of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Finally, a number of community programs 

and support groups advertise their existence and contact information 

in the pamphlet, including the School District of Philadelphia; Mothers 

in Charge; Town Watch Integrated Services (TWIS); Philadelphia AntiDrug, Anti-Violence Network (PAAN); and Men United for a Better 

Philadelphia. 

Although the campaign began as a partnership of the FBI Philadelphia 

Field Office’s Community Relations Unit, Mothers in Charge, and Clear 

Channel Outdoor, it has since grown to include 26 partners from 

federal and state government, the news media, private businesses, and 

religious organizations. The campaign has no official funding, but these 

organizations have successfully solicited donations of time and money 

that allow for programs that offer an opportunity for children and the 

police to build relationships, such as a mural arts program. The goal 

of the program, in particular, is to “use the power of art and the mural 

design process as tools for community engagement, blight remediation, 

beautification, demonstration of civic pride, and prevention and 

rehabilitation of crime.”12 Other components of the campaign include 

billboards, t-shirts, buttons, public service announcements, and essay 

and poster contests. 

12See web site for more program 

details: www.muralarts.org/

whoweare/mission.php
36

The news media have played a large role in the campaign. Fox News 

provided a free public service announcement, and the Philadelphia Daily 

News ran stories about unsolved murder cases on its front page every 

Monday. Though it is difficult to measure the success of the program, 

officials note that an aspect of the program that puts information about 

fugitives on digital billboards has resulted in the arrests of eight profiled 

fugitives as a result of community calls. 

Natosha Gale Warner, program coordinator at the FBI Field Office 

in Philadelphia, recently trained personnel at the FBI Field Office in 

Birmingham, Alabama, in the fundamentals of the “Step Up, Speak 

Up” program. FBI officials in Birmingham have created a similar 

program titled “It’s Your Call.” Ms. Warner gives presentations to 

community organizations, university students, public affairs specialists, 

and others, and coordinates efforts such as the “Step Up to the Plate, 

Strike Out Violence” program, which pairs law enforcement officers 

with community softball teams to encourage interaction between local 

citizens and the police.

Chester, Pennsylvania

The city of Chester’s Anti-Violence Task Force initiative comprises 

elected officials, police and fire department representatives, leaders of 

grassroots organizations, private business owners, clergy, and citizens. 

All work together to “take back their streets,” in the words of Reverend 

William “Rocky” Brown, associate minister of Bethany Baptist Church 

and a drug and alcohol counselor at Community Hospital in Chester. 

Reverend Brown partnered with the local District Attorney’s Office 

to eradicate neighborhood graffiti as part of this new antiviolence 

initiative. The District Attorney’s Office held a press conference to 

announce that a community team would paint over a “Stop Snitchin’ 

or Die” warning spray-painted on the side of an old pizza shop. The 

purpose of the collaborative effort, Reverend Brown said, was to replace 

that message of fear with one of hope. “We want to send a message 

that now it’s time to stop the silence and end the violence,” he said. 
37

Measures that have been taken by the Chester police to reduce violence 

and intimidation include creation of a Homicide Task Force as well as a 

Homicide Tip-Line program that encourages witnesses to come forward, 

even if they wish to remain anonymous. 

Prince George’s County, Maryland

The following is a personal account by Major Henry Stawinski of the 

Prince George’s County Police Department describing his department’s 

collaborative process for addressing the delays in the criminal justice 

process that exacerbate the stop snitching phenomenon: 

Robert Prender, the Administrative Court Commissioner for 

District 5 in Prince George’s County, Maryland, identified 

a problem with the process by which investigators in our 

jurisdiction obtain arrest warrants. The former Commissioners’ 

process was first come, first serve only. This meant that an 

investigator had to wait in court behind citizens and other 

investigators trying to obtain Peace Orders, summonses, and 

warrants for various matters. This could take hours depending 

on the complexity of the matters that the Commissioners 

had to address, and the number of individuals seeking the 

assistance of the Court. Mr. Prender suggested that the 

Court create a warrant “drop box.” First, an investigator can 

follow the old process of waiting in line if they choose to or 

circumstances require so. If not, they now have the following 

option. 

The optional process requires the investigator to log in the 

application so that they are subsequently dealt with in the 

order that they are received, and then leave the application 

paperwork in a secure box. Once the Commissioner has 

handled all of the citizen requests, the warrant applications 

are reviewed in the order that they were received. Upon 

review, where the elements of the crime have been 
38

articulated, a warrant is issued. The warrant is then 

delivered to the investigator via our inter-office mail system 

within 48 hours. 

This process has relieved pressure on the Commissioners, and 

allowed them to defer part of their workload. Obviously, 

they have an important role to play that requires particular 

attention to detail. By reducing their workload pressure, 

they can be more deliberate in their review of the matters 

before them and thus reduce the likelihood of mistakes 

being made. For our part, hours lost waiting for a warrant 

are now spent conducting investigations and concluding 

cases faster. As a collateral benefit, our investigators are 

improving their writing skills to ensure that applications 

are not “kicked back” for clarification or because they are 

missing details that establish the elements of the crime in 

question.

Mr. Prender proposed this to the Honorable Judge Love, 

Administrative Judge for District 5, who agreed that this was 

an improvement to the current procedure. At this point, a 

Memorandum of Understanding was drafted between the 

Court and the Prince George’s County Police Department. 

Chief of Police Melvin C. High signed on behalf of the 

Department, Judge Love on behalf of the Court, and Mr. 

Prender and I worked together to implement the new 

process. This is one real example of how the courts have 

partnered with the police to become more nimble.

Protecting Witnesses

Washington, D.C.

An increase in witness intimidation perpetuated by the stop snitching 

movement has made many citizens fearful of providing information 

directly to the police. The “text-a-tip” program in Boston, and 

Crime Stoppers13 programs nationwide have gained popularity by 

13Crime Stoppers is a nonprofit 

organization of citizens 

against crime. Crime Stoppers 

offers cash rewards of up to 

$1,000 to anyone furnishing 

anonymous information 

that leads to the arrest of 

criminals, including those 

committing serious felony 

crimes, and fugitives. 

Information is received 

through anonymous Crime 

Stoppers tips that are sent 

through a secure tips line 

or through a secure web 

connection manned by 

a professional program 

coordinator. Each caller is 

assigned a code number to 

ensure anonymity. See web 

site for more details: www.

crimestopusa.com/AboutUs.

asp#
39

encouraging the anonymous sharing of information with the police. 

The Sixth and Seventh Districts of the Washington Metropolitan 

Police Department (MPD) introduced their own pilot program, 

known as “Third Watch,” for citizens interested in taking back their 

communities without suffering retribution or having to live in fear of 

retribution. The stated goal of the initiative is “to provide citizens with 

a confidential voice to assist officers in fighting crime and building safer 

communities.” It has proven so successful that is has expanded to nearly 

all MPD districts. 

Third Watch offers a direct link between local police officers and 

residents who are willing to make anonymous tips to the police about 

criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Pamphlets about Third Watch 

were distributed throughout the pilot test area to inform people about 

the program. The program offers not only an opportunity for residents 

to report crimes without fear, but also a chance to speak with and get 

to know local officers. 

Persons interested in participating in the program are given a number 

to call, are asked to fill out a brief application form, and are then 

screened by MPD personnel. Participants’ personal files, including 

names and contact information, are kept in a secure location and are 

accessible only to the Third Watch Program administrator. Participants 

are issued a confidential number by which they identify themselves 

when they report crimes, instead of using their names. This gives the 

residents confidence that they can call in a report without officers 

coming and knocking on their door, and potentially alerting neighbors 

that they are working with the police. Participants remain anonymous 

at all times to the officer. The advantage to the officers is that they 

receive information about crimes and descriptions of offenders from 

screened, trusted sources. 

Citizens are not paid for their participation and there is no fee to join 

the program. The benefit to all is that police can receive valuable 

information and residents can help the police while reducing their 
40

vulnerability to retaliation. To maximize the impact of the program, 

the MPD, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and 

community partners train Third Watch volunteers in safe methods of 

intelligence gathering. The program is a collaborative effort between 

Detective Lieutenant Andre Wright of the MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office Community Prosecutor Nicole Wade. The program administrators 

meet regularly with a board of citizen advisors to further reach out to 

the community and solicit program feedback. 

Detective Lieutenant Wright used his years of experience in narcotics 

and working with confidential informants (CIs) to develop the program. 

He realized that, compared to average residents of a community, 

CIs enjoyed a special brand of anonymity, a “privileged level” of 

confidentiality, even though many of them have criminal records. 

Wright grew up in Washington and has watched firsthand as the 

stop snitching phenomenon gained ground. It struck him as wrong 

that law-abiding people fear the police coming to their door because 

they are afraid of being branded as snitches and suffering retribution 

from criminals. Therefore, he thought, why not afford upstanding 

citizens the same privilege of secrecy that CIs enjoy? The infrastructure 

for CIs already existed—guidelines, approvals, training, and general 

protocol. It just needed to be expanded to include everyday residents of 

Washington’s crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Once his idea was approved, Detective Lieutenant Wright recruited two 

officers to help him market the Third Watch program to community 

organizations, church groups, school programs—any meeting where 

they could find potential participants. Wright says he gives residents 

a “hard sell” when he arrives: he gets them angry about the situation 

in their neighborhoods and then challenges them, saying, “If you don’t 

take action today, what will you do? Freedom isn’t free. We want to 

give you the opportunity to live free. For your children to live free. 

We’re here. The resource is here. Try us and see.” 
41

He emphasizes that the entire program is anonymous: “You are never 

in a room with other program participants. Once your application is 

approved, you are given a participant number so you never have to use 

your name. You go through orientation and training with one person, 

your personal handler. You are then given a special phone number to 

call when you witness a crime or potentially criminal situation. You 

do not call 911, you do not call 311, you call a special number that is 

dedicated only to Third Watch calls. The response time is 20 times faster 

than calling the nonemergency number because you are not dealing 

with dispatch; you are dealing with a patrol officer dedicated to your 

needs who can respond immediately.”

Volunteers are able to avoid going to court where their identities 

could be revealed. Generally, crime victims and witnesses must go to 

court because when a suspect is prosecuted witnesses and evidence 

make the case stronger. But in the case of Third Watch, participants 

are encouraged to call the officer while the crime is in process and to 

describe exactly where the crime is being committed and what the 

offender looks like. This gives the officer enough specific information to 

arrive quickly, observe the crime himself, and thus become the witness 

when the offender goes on trial. 

Important to note is that program participants do not get paid, so there is 

no reason to question their motives for cooperating with the police. They 

are simply concerned citizens trying to make their communities safer. 

Detective Lieutenant Wright has also worked with Peaceoholics14 on a 

broader community goal: redefining the term “snitch.” In his view, “If 

you tell on the guy who is raping women in your community, you are 

not a snitch, you are a hero.” 

14Peaceoholics Vision 

Statement from web site: 

www.peaceoholics.org. 

Peaceoholics has touched 

the lives of more than 

10,000 youths and families 

in Washington, D.C., and 

surrounding areas. The 

Peaceoholics organization 

was founded following 

requests from area schools, 

politicians, community 

activists, youth, families, 

and clergy members for 

volunteer efforts to address 

crisis situations in local 

communities. Through the 

volunteer assignments, the 

need for a local nonprofit 

organization that has the 

ability to reach the most 

difficult youths became 

apparent. The organization 

was founded to serve as 

an advocacy organization 

for youths and families, 

to respond to and address 

escalating youth violence in 

Washington, D.C.
42

Preventive Efforts

Frederick, Maryland

At the PERF Executive Session, Connie Castanaro of Frederick, Maryland, 

described a youth program she helped to create that is designed to 

strengthen the younger generation’s ties and commitment to the 

community. The goal of the “Gal Pals Mentorship Program” is to instill a 

sense of self-confidence and to encourage respect for others—tools that 

help immunize youths against the effects of the stop snitching message. 

The mentorship program, which began in October 2007 and ran 

through June 2008, consisted of mentoring sessions with a dozen girls 

committed to meeting once a week at the Hillcrest Elementary School 

in Frederick. The meetings were held from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., and each 

session was led by a facilitator, a co-facilitator, a female police officer, 

and an assistant who served as an interpreter for those who were not 

quite proficient in English. The coordinators divided the course into 

three 10-week modules, named “You!,” “You Plus Others!,” and “You 

Plus Others Plus Community!” The schedule took into account academic 

events and holidays to avoid potential scheduling conflicts. 

Female leaders in Frederick County were asked to volunteer as mentors 

and to attend and lead one session during the program, for a total of 

30 volunteers. The girls, ages 10 to 15, learned from these role models, 

received affirmations of their own successes, and engaged in fun 

exercises and individual journaling to develop the following life skills:

» Coping 

» Handling new situations and transitions in life

» Managing anger, fear, and frustration

» Expressing emotions in productive ways

» Sharing life’s challenges and triumphs

» Encouraging teamwork and social cohesion

» Making good choices
43

» Taking responsibility for physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being

» Interacting and communicating successfully in multicultural settings

» Helping others

» Getting along with people from diverse backgrounds

» Resisting discrimination and intolerance

» Defending the rights of others

» Knowing the benefits of belonging to a caring community

» Becoming connected to others in Frederick County’s neighborhoods

» Learning the value of community service

» Learning what it takes to be a leader.

In summary, Ms. Castanaro said that the program was designed 

to “awaken students to the ‘can do’ power of being unique and 

exceptional human beings as well as start them on their way to 

conscious adulthood.” 

Frederick Police Chief Kim Dine said, “We believe that the basic premise 

of prevention programs is twofold: they are designed to reduce youth 

victimization and to reduce juvenile crime. We also believe that 

effective and enlightened policing comprises multifaceted efforts that 

include enforcement, community policing, education, prevention, and 

outreach. We know it is often argued that prevention is difficult to 

measure, but we know one thing: when young folks are participating 

in these kinds of programs, they are off the street and in a safe and 

productive environment, and they are not being victimized, nor are they 

committing crimes. Programs like this literally can change the lives of 

young people.”
44

Recommendations for Addressing 

Stop Snitching

A number of strategies can be utilized to counter the code of silence 

that exists in many high-crime neighborhoods and cities with gang 

problems. The police and community leaders who have been most 

active in responding to the stop snitching phenomenon indicate that 

countermeasures are designed to accomplish several interrelated goals.

Get the Entire Community Involved

“Stop snitching” is based in part on the real fear in high-crime 

neighborhoods that the criminal justice system cannot protect those 

who cooperate with police. Dealing with that kind of pervasive fear 

requires more than a limited program or two involving a few officers 

and community leaders. It requires getting the entire community 

involved in sending a message that violence and intimidation are not 

acceptable, said participants in the PERF Executive Session. Ultimately, 

local communities, working with the police, must change the culture of 

a neighborhood, and develop a strong, widely held feeling that “This is 

our neighborhood and we are taking it back.”

Police cannot accomplish this on their own, many participants said; 

however, police can get the ball rolling and encourage neighborhood 

groups to launch anti-stop snitching initiatives. To a large extent, this 

involves basic principles of community policing.

» Meet with neighborhood associations, youth groups, school-related 

organizations, religious groups, crime victim organizations, and so 

on—any group that can help spread the word that a community 

is working to take its streets back from criminal elements. Some 

groups report successes in putting pressure on local business to stop 

selling stop snitching t-shirts or other paraphernalia. Others have 

launched counter-campaigns with their own slogans, such as “You 

Bet I Told” in Rochester, New York, and have spread that message 

on billboards and through other devices, or in Minneapolis, where 
45

MAD DADS have distributed t-shirts with a positive message about 

protecting communities. Police, through their community policing 

efforts, meet with many different groups and can help spread 

the word about any organization that is launching an anti-stop 

snitching initiative.

» Recruit community activists, especially those who have faced their 

own challenges growing up in tough neighborhoods and may even 

have endorsed the stop snitching message in the past. A number 

of participants in PERF’s Executive Session noted that people who 

have turned a corner in their lives, rejecting gangs and crime, and 

taking on a constructive philosophy, have valuable “street cred” in 

reaching out to young people facing similar challenges.

» Work with clergy members and community leaders who encourage 

residents to take action against those who propagate the stop 

snitching message. 

» Increase the police presence in high-crime neighborhoods where 

stop snitching is a problem to help reassure law-abiding residents 

that they have not been forgotten and that the police are 

interested in their problems. Crime victims and witnesses may be 

more likely to contact the police if they already know and respect 

officers from community meetings or other contacts.

Acknowledge and Deal with the Fear of Retaliation

Police officials and community leaders at the PERF Executive Session 

agreed that the stop snitching message often takes hold because 

residents of a community do not believe that the justice system can 

protect them if they report crimes or otherwise cooperate with police, 

or even if they are perceived to have cooperated with the police. In 

some cases, fear of retaliation by criminals has a strong basis in reality, 

officials acknowledged.

Participants at the Executive Session said that police should do what 

they can to protect crime victims and witnesses who report crime, 

cooperate with police, and testify in court, and should make the 
46

community aware of their efforts in this regard. This may include such 

measures as the following:

» Facilitate anonymous tips through text messaging systems, 

telephone tip lines, Crime Stoppers programs, or other ways of 

allowing witnesses to report information to the police anonymously. 

The ultimate goal is to let the community know that police will 

be flexible about working with witnesses who are afraid to come 

forward openly. Some detectives report that they get better results 

by discreetly handing out their business cards to witnesses at crime 

scenes rather than trying to interview witnesses at the scene with 

dozens of other people present.

» Witness protection may involve working with the court system and 

the district attorney’s office to limit the exposure of witnesses. If 

federal prosecution is an option, federal court rules may provide 

greater protection of the identity of witnesses than state courts do, 

and federal sentences for convicted offenders may be more severe.

» While some participants at the Executive Session said they have 

witness relocation programs, there was agreement that this is a 

limited option—not only because of the high financial costs, but 

also because many witnesses have family members or other ties 

to a community that preclude their relocation, or because they 

would fear that family members left behind might be targeted by 

criminals for retaliation. Police can work with community groups or 

religious organizations that may be able to help provide resources 

to relocate a witness.

» Make the community aware of arrests and successful prosecutions 

of gang members or others known to have propagated the stop 

snitching message. A single victory may have a wider impact if 

people know about it. Perhaps the best example of this strategy 

is the Baltimore Police Department’s production of its own video, 

called Keep Talking, to counteract the Stop Snitchin’ videos. Keep 

Talking highlights the fact that “three of the people featured in the 

[Stop Snitchin’] video have already been arrested, and they won’t 

be coming home for a while.” 
47

Understand and Address the Underlying Lack of Trust 

in the Police and the Entire Criminal Justice System

Many experts at the Executive Session said that fear of retaliation is 

only part of the “lack of trust” problem that feeds the stop snitching 

movement. In addition, many residents of high-crime neighborhoods 

have general feelings of mistrust or resentment toward the police and 

the criminal justice system. They mention several factors that contribute 

to this mistrust:

» A feeling that some police have their own version of stop 

snitching—a blue wall of silence in which police do not report 

abuses by their fellow police officers. Participants at the Executive 

Session said that policing in high-crime areas can involve a very 

delicate balance: As police increase their presence in an effort to 

help a community take back its own neighborhood, they should 

try to avoid creating the feeling that they are an occupying force. 

This can be difficult to achieve. For example, when law-abiding 

residents are stopped and questioned by police, they may not 

realize that the goal of the police action is to identify and put 

pressure on criminal offenders, not to harass the innocent. Wellintended police activities may be perceived as abuse of power, and 

other officers’ knowledge of the activities is perceived as covering 

up the abuse with a blue wall of silence.

» A feeling that the criminal justice system discriminates against 

minority group members and the poor—in such ways as crack 

cocaine sentencing laws that are far stricter than the penalties for 

powder cocaine.

» A feeling that the justice system, and society in general, do not 

care about residents of high-crime, high-poverty, and minority 

neighborhoods as much as people who live in other areas. A 

homicide or other crime in a wealthy neighborhood often receives 

front-page coverage in the news media, while similar crimes in highcrime neighborhoods routinely receive little or no mention. And 
48

when a gang member, drug dealer, or violent criminal is murdered, 

there is often a general feeling that “he had it coming,” rather than 

any sense of sorrow over the tragedy of the entire situation. 

Participants at the PERF Executive Session said that police need to take 

a hard look at these factors and do whatever they can to restore a 

community’s trust in the police and in the entire justice system.

» Try to win the respect—not fear—of law-abiding residents in 

high-crime neighborhoods. This means taking community policing 

to a higher level in which officers work with residents not only to 

reduce crime, but also to help residents improve the lives of people 

in troubled communities. Police in Oakland, California, for example, 

are closely involved in an outreach program run by the city’s Human 

Services Department, which aims to exert a positive influence on 

youths and offenders returning to the community from penal 

institutions. The program even has been able to recruit employers 

who provide job opportunities to people who might otherwise drift 

into a life of street crime.

» Even simple gestures like organizing a community day for painting 

over graffiti can carry an important double message: the community 

knows that someone still cares, and the criminals know that 

someone is watching. Advertising a department’s concern and 

presence can inspire others to take action.

» Demonstrate by actions that all crimes are equally worthy of 

investigation and prosecution, regardless of what neighborhood 

they were committed in, and regardless of whether the victim has 

been a model citizen. As one district attorney said, “Even a drug 

dealer is someone’s baby.” 
49

Conclusion 

The idea of a code of silence among various groups of people is not 

new. What is new is the way the stop snitching message has morphed. 

Originally, the message referred to criminals who “ratted out” fellow 

criminals in order to receive a lighter prison sentence. Now, it is 

commonly understood to mean that any cooperation with police is 

considered snitching. 

The major target audience for the stop snitching message is youths and 

young adults who tend to be impressionable and are influenced by 

the news media, the rap music industry, and the availability of clothing 

and other products that promote this phenomenon. To reach this 

segment of the community and convince them to cooperate with law 

enforcement, police agencies must partner with other criminal justice 

agencies, with community organizations, and with other leaders to 

spread a positive message and reduce fear. 

In addition, police agencies must implement programs within their 

departments to protect the identity of witnesses. People will be more 

willing to cooperate if they feel safe, which will help solve crimes, put 

criminals behind bars, and reduce the intimidation factor.

What we learned from the law enforcement executives, detectives, 

community leaders, and other criminal justice representatives who 

participated in the PERF Executive Session is that a successful response 

will be twofold. Police can offer assistance to witnesses and assurances 

of safety to the community in general. Crime stoppers programs offer 

cash rewards, and witness protection and relocation services can help 

those who fear for their lives if they come forward and testify. These are 

immediate measures that can be implemented, although they require a 

commitment of resources that too often falls short of what is needed.
50

In addition, the root causes of why the stop snitching message 

takes hold in some neighborhoods must be addressed, as well. The 

relationship between the police and neighborhood residents, the crime 

that takes place seemingly with impunity in some neighborhoods, the 

slowness of the judicial system, court rules that allow witnesses’ names 

to be revealed before the court case or hearing takes place—these 

considerations factor into an individual’s decision about whether to 

come forward after having witnessed a crime. Police and other criminal 

justice agencies will have greater success countering the stop snitching 

message if they keep in mind the root causes of that message.

The fundamental success of a police department’s stop snitching 

program will be based not on any particular short-term initiatives, but 

rather on its fundamental efforts to build trust in the neighborhoods, 

create partnerships with other criminal justice and social service 

agencies, and establish strong relationships with community groups 

and leaders. Such efforts produce the confidence that a crime victim or 

witness needs to come forward.
51

Appendix

Participants: PERF Executive Session

Stop Snitching: Policing in a New Era 

March 6, 2008

Washington, D.C.

Devon Adams, Lieutenant

Savannah Police Department

Savannah, Georgia

Marc Alexander, Producer SPTV

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation

Fairfax, Virginia 

True-See Allah, Director of FOI

Nation of Islam 

Boston, Massachusetts

Carla Allen, Producer SPTV

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation

Fairfax, Virginia 

Frederick Bealefeld, Commissioner

Baltimore Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland

Allen Beck, Senior Statistical Advisor

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C.

Nancy S. Becker, Deputy Chief

Fort Wayne Police Department

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Robert Bethea, Citizen Outreach Volunteer

Trenton Crisis Ministries

Trenton, New Jersey

Mike Brown, Special Agent

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.
52

Reverend William “Rocky” Brown, Executive Director

Philadelphia Millions More Movement

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Greg Bucceroni

Philadelphia Police Advisory Council

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Reggie Burgess, Deputy Chief

North Charleston Police Department

North Charleston, South Carolina

Camille Cain, Deputy Associate Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

Connie Castanara, Citizen Leader

Frederick Police Activities League 

Frederick, Maryland

Barry Colicelli, Captain (retired)

Trenton Police Department

Trenton, New Jersey

Ron Couch, Captain

Manatee County Sheriff’s Office

Bradenton, Florida

Ben David, District Attorney

New Hanover County District Attorney’s Office

Raleigh, North Carolina

Edward Davis, Commissioner

Boston Police Department

Boston, Massachusetts

Ron Davis, Chief

East Palo Alto Police Department

East Palo Alto, California
53

Steve Derr, Chief of Operations Management

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, D.C.

John Dewar, Lieutenant

Pasadena Police Department

Pasadena, California

Rob Dewberry, Major

Baltimore County Police Department

Towson, Maryland

Kim Dine, Chief

Frederick County Police Department

Frederick, Maryland

Tim Dolan, Chief

Minneapolis Police Department

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Alexis Durlacher, Detective 

Trenton Police Department

Trenton, New Jersey 

Robert Ennis, Commander

Detroit Police Department

Detroit, Michigan

Dean Esserman, Colonel

Providence Police Department

Providence, Rhode Island

Ralph Evangelous, Chief

Wilmington Police Department

Wilmington, Delaware 

James A. Fenner, Captain

Montgomery County Police Department

Rockville, Maryland

Mike Ferguson, Assistant Special Agent in Charge

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, D.C.
54

Paul Fitzgerald, Deputy Superintendent

Boston Police Department

Boston, Massachusetts

Heather Fong, Chief

San Francisco Police Department

San Francisco, California

Larry Ford, Assistant Director of Public and Governmental Affairs

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Washington, D.C. 

Natosha Gale, Community Outreach Specialist

FBI, Philadelphia

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Brad Garrett (retired) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

Rick S. Gregory Colonel 

New Castle County Police Department

New Castle, Delaware

Alec Griffin, Captain 

Richmond Police Department

Richmond, Virginia

Clayton Guyton, Community Member

Rose Street Community Center

Baltimore, Maryland

Mustafa Haamid, Lieutenant

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Reverend Ray Hammond

Boston Ten Point Coalition

Boston, Massachusetts
55

Michal Handerhan

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation 

Fairfax, Virginia

Mark Harrell, Executive Director

Men United for a Better Philadelphia 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Keith Harrison

Baltimore Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland

Melvin High, Chief

Prince George’s County Police Department

Landover, Maryland

Shirley Hinton, Unit Chief

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

Richard Hite, Lieutenant Colonel

Baltimore Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland

Edwin O. Jacob, Officer

Montgomery County Police Department

Rockville, Maryland

Marvin Johnson, Executive Director

Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Greenbelt, Maryland

Dorothy Johnson

Mothers in Charge

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

James Johnson

North Charleston Community Member

North Charleston, South Carolina

Timothy Johnson, Senior Conciliation Specialist

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.
56

Dr. Dolores Jones Brown

John Jay College

New York, New York

Kenneth Kaiser

FBI/Criminal Division

Washington, D.C.

Frank Kaminski, Director

Evanston School District Department of Public Safety

Evanston, Illinois

C.B. Kimmins

Philadelphia Police Advisory Council

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

John Klofas

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester, New York

Gilbert Knowles, Director, Division of Community and Education

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation 

Fairfax, Virginia

David Kozicki, Deputy Chief

Oakland Police Department

Oakland, California

Cathy Lanier, Chief

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Mary Lou Leary, Executive Director

National Center for Victims of Crime

Washington, D.C.

Reverend Tony Lee

Community of Hope

Washington, D.C.

Jennifer Lichtenfeld, Assistant State’s Attorney

Frederick County State Attorney’s Office 

Frederick, Maryland
57

Ben Lieu, Senior Conciliation Specialist

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

Leroy Lindo, Commander

San Francisco Police Department

San Francisco, California

Robert Lockhart

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

Jennifer Lowery, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

Sandra Manderson, Superintendent

New Zealand Embassy 

Washington, D.C.

Joe Marshall, Board Member

San Francisco Police Board

San Francisco, California

Laurel Matthews, Special Assistant 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

Robert Mealy

Manatee County Sheriff’s Office

Bradenton, Florida

William McCarthy, First Assistant to the District Attorney 

Office of the Bristol County District Attorney

New Bedford, Massachusetts 

Valerie McKeever

Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Baltimore, Maryland

Katherine McQuay

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.
58

Michelle Milam, Crime Prevention Coordinator

Richmond Police Department

Richmond, Virginia

John Miller, Assistant Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

David Moore, Chief

Rochester Police Department

Rochester, New York

Gilbert Moore

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

Toni Morgan-Wheeler, Grant Adviser

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

Delrish Moss

Miami Police Department

Miami, Florida

Barry Nagle

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation 

Fairfax, Virginia

Catherine Neal, Crimestoppers Program

Savannah Police Department 

Savannah, Georgia

Thomas Nunemaker, Section Chief, Violent Crimes

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

Francisco Ortiz, Chief

New Haven Police Department

New Haven, Connecticut

Cynthia Pappas, Senior Social Science Analyst

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.
59

Tyrone Parker

Alliance of Concerned Men

Washington, D.C.

Carl Peed, Former Director 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

Lisa Potts

Area Resources for Community and Human Services

St. Louis, Missouri 

Timothy Quinn, Chief of Staff

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

Charles Ramsey, Commissioner

Philadelphia Police Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Kevin Robinson, Assistant Chief 

Phoenix Police Department

Phoenix, Arizona

Ronnie Robinson, Lieutenant

St. Louis Police Department

St. Louis, Missouri 

Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney 

District of Maryland

Baltimore, Maryland

Richard Ross, Deputy Commissioner

Philadelphia Police Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Eddie Russell, Officer

Richmond Police Department

Richmond, Virginia

Michael Sack, Lieutenant

St. Louis Police Department

St. Louis, Missouri 
60

Keith Sadler, Chief Inspector

Philadelphia Police Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Don Samuels, Council Member

Minneapolis City Council

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Joe Santiago, Chief

Trenton Police Department

Trenton, New Jersey

Dr. Matthew Scheider, Assistant Director

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

David Scott, Community Member

Baltimore, Maryland

John Skinner, Colonel

Baltimore Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland

V.J. Smith, President

Minneapolis MAD DADS

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Mark Spencer

Prince George’s County Police Department

Landover, Maryland

Henry Stawinski, Major 

Prince George’s County Police Department

Landover, Maryland

Sam Sutter, District Attorney

Office of the Bristol County District Attorney

New Bedford, Massachusetts 

Ronald Teachman, Chief

New Bedford Police Department

New Bedford, Massachusetts
61

Robyn Thiemann, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

John Timoney, Chief

Miami Police Department

Miami, Florida

James Tolbert, Commander

Detroit Police Department

Detroit, Michigan

Steve Tomaski, Section Chief

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, D.C.

Jim Trainum, Detective 

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Reverend Marlowe Washington

Baber African Methodist Episcopal Church

Rochester, New York

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Washington, D.C.

John Wilkinson

National District Attorneys Association

Alexandria, Virginia

Glenn Williams, Lieutenant Colonel

Baltimore Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland

Nichelle Williams

United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation 

Fairfax, Virginia
62

PERF Staff

Chuck Wexler

Executive Director

Gerard Murphy

Director of Homeland Security

Jessica Toliver

Research Assistant

Kristin Kappelman

Research Assistant

Rebecca Neuburger

Membership Administrator
Andre Wright, Lieutenant Detective 

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Cynthia Wright, Victim Witness Coordinator

Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 
U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

e030919195

The Stop Snitching Phenomenon: Breaking the Code of Silence

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)

This purpose of this document is to ascertain just how pervasive the stop 

snitching phenomena is and how it is affecting vitally important issues 

such as witness cooperation, clearance rates, and police departments’ 

overall ability to bring criminals to justice. PERF surveyed 300 law 

enforcement agencies and gathered together more than 100 criminal 

justice officials and community leaders at an Executive Session where 

attendees confronted the issue head-on. The goal of the project was 

to discover what is driving the stop snitching movement and to use that 

knowledge to develop programs and partnerships to address the issue. 

Based on the survey results and the frank conversations at the Executive 

Session, this publication addresses the factors that have led to the stop 

snitching movement, what makes the message “stick,” and what can be 

done to take back the communities affected by it.