Source: https://oig.justice.gov/special/0509/chapter2.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:13:39+00:00

Document:
The May 30, 2002, Investigative Guidelines that are the subject of this review are the latest version of the Attorney General's Investigative Guidelines, the first version of which was issued by Attorney General Edward Levi in 1976. Before addressing the FBI's implementation of the Investigative Guidelines in the succeeding chapters of this report, we believe it is important to describe the historical events that prompted issuance of the first set of Guidelines in 1976 and the context in which the various revisions to them were made thereafter.
Since their inception nearly 30 years ago, one of the principal legal constraints under which the FBI has operated has been the Attorney General Guidelines. The FBI does not operate under a general statutory charter but, rather, under Attorney General Guidelines that have been revised from time to time pursuant to the authorities set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 533.
Historically, the Investigative Guidelines have been divided into subject areas, addressing both the types of investigations the FBI may conduct (e.g., checking leads, making preliminary inquiries, or conducting full investigations in connection with general crimes or criminal intelligence investigations), and the specialized techniques the FBI may use in the course of such investigations (e.g., using confidential informants, undercover operations, or non-telephonic consensual monitoring).
In this chapter, we summarize the major revisions of the Attorney General's Investigative Guidelines, noting significant changes to investigative authorities and techniques and the events associated with each revision.
From its inception, the FBI has had as part of its mission the collection of domestic intelligence and the investigation of domestic security matters. Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte established the Bureau of Investigation within DOJ in 1908. During the post-World War I period, the Bureau of Investigation was charged with the investigation of suspected anarchists, Bolsheviks, socialists, and other radicals in contemplation of prosecution under the Espionage Act and the Immigration Act.
In 1919 and 1920, a series of bombs exploded in eight American cities that targeted federal and local officials, judges, police departments, and financial institutions on Wall Street. In response, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer established a position within DOJ to focus on anti-radical activities and obtained funding from Congress to fight subversion. On November 7, 1919, with the assistance of Justice Department attorney J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the DOJ's General Intelligence Division, and the Immigration Service within the Labor Department, Attorney General Palmer ordered the first of a year-long sequence of coordinated raids in 12 cities to round up and deport hundreds of members of the Federation of the Union of Russian Workers and other suspected "radicals." In early January 1920, a second wave of coordinated raids led to the arrest of between 5,000 to 10,000 suspected radicals.
During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed concern over the growing indications of subversive activities within the United States, especially those of communist and fascist supporters. At the direction of President Roosevelt, the FBI began gathering intelligence on the activities of such individuals and groups.25 After the end of World War II, as Cold War tensions grew, the FBI refocused its attention on counterespionage activities, including the investigation of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were convicted of espionage against the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union, and executed.
In the 1950s, the FBI also developed a series of covert programs designed to collect intelligence about the Communist influence in the United States (COMINFIL).29 The FBI established other counterintelligence programs, collectively referred to as COINTELPRO, to investigate "racial matters," "hate organizations," and "revolutionary-type subversives" whose activities were monitored in accordance with internal FBI policy even if they did not satisfy the "advocacy of violence" standard articulated in the Supreme Court's controlling decisions.
The [FBI's] Manual contains no standard limiting an informant's reporting to information relating to the commission of criminal offenses or even to violent or potentially violent activity. In fact, intelligence informants report on virtually every aspect of a group's activity serving, in the words of both FBI officials and an informant, as a "vacuum cleaner" of information.
As we discuss below, Congress did not adopt a general legislative charter defining the FBI's investigative authorities because of the adoption of the first Attorney General Guidelines in 1976.
In congressional testimony prior to release of the first Guidelines, Attorney General Levi stated that the Guidelines "proceed from the proposition that Government monitoring of individuals or groups because they hold unpopular or controversial political views is intolerable in our society."54 The Guidelines represented a significant shift in DOJ's approach to domestic terrorism. For the first time, investigations of domestic terrorism were treated as matters for criminal law enforcement, rather than as avenues for intelligence collection.
In the 1980s, the Guidelines were again revised following press accounts and congressional hearings concerning the FBI's domestic intelligence and counterespionage activities, and its undercover operations. The most dramatic revelations involved several high profile undercover operations, one of which targeted members of the United States Congress in the ABSCAM investigation.
ABSCAM was an FBI "sting" operation run out of the FBI's Hauppauge, Long Island office which initially targeted trafficking in stolen property and thereafter was converted to a public corruption investigation. The investigation ultimately led to the conviction of a United States Senator, six members of the House of Representatives, the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey, members of the Philadelphia City Council, and an inspector for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In the wake of ABSCAM, Attorney General Civiletti issued "The Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Undercover Operations" ("Civiletti Undercover Guidelines") on January 5, 1981.79 These were the first Attorney General Guidelines for undercover operations, and they formalized procedures necessary to conduct undercover operations.
The Committee's final report called for clarification of vague terminology in the Guidelines and strict approval procedures. The Committee stated that there were several weaknesses in the Civiletti Undercover Guidelines.
In September 1981, the FBI opened a criminal investigation of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, or "CISPES," a United States-based group that opposed the Reagan Administration's policies in Central America.125 According to the FBI, the investigation was opened to determine if CISPES had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611-621. The FBI closed the investigation in February 1982, but continued to collect information about CISPES from an informant who claimed that the group was involved in international terrorism. Under the auspices of its Counterterrorism Program, the FBI thereafter opened an international terrorism investigation in March 1983 pursuant to the Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations (FCI) Guidelines, during which it conducted surveillance of CISPES and allied groups. Finding no evidence to support the informant's claims, the FBI closed the investigation in June 1985.
Moreover, the Civiletti Guidelines required SAC approval for participation in "extraordinary" illegal activities, defined as those actions presenting a significant risk of "severe financial loss to a victim." DOJ stated that the basic agreement with Presser predated the Levi Guidelines and because there was no retroactive requirement to report either pre- or post-Guidelines authorization of illegal informant activity, there was no violation of DOJ or FBI policy embodied in the Guidelines.
The Committee staff also examined the role DOJ attorneys played in questioning Presser's handlers and their supervisors about Presser's informant relationship. Although DOJ was not at the time required either to approve or monitor the types of activities Presser was involved in, the Senate staff report expressed concern that the DOJ was not exercising adequate oversight of the FBI in informant matters.
A domestic security/terrorism investigation may be initiated when the facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for the purpose of furthering political or social goals . . . through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the United States.
The most extensive revisions to the Confidential Informant Guidelines occurred in January 2001, just before the end of Attorney General Reno's tenure. The Confidential Informant Guidelines had not been modified since Attorney General Civiletti issued the second set of Informant Guidelines in December 1980.
We provide in Chapter Three a detailed description of the FBI's association with Bulger and Flemmi. Evidence presented during pretrial hearings in the Government's case against Flemmi revealed misconduct and criminal activity by the FBI agents who handled the two mobsters. For example, agents accepted money and exchanged presents with them, hosted them for dinners, and provided intelligence on planned law enforcement activity targeted at their criminal operations, including identifying the location of electronic surveillance and the identities of informants. In one case, agents told Bulger and Flemmi that another FBI informant had implicated them in a murder. The informant was killed as he exited a restaurant in South Boston approximately one week after his request to be placed in the Government's Witness Protection Program was denied. In another matter, agents intervened with prosecutors and succeeded in having Bulger and Flemmi omitted from upcoming indictments. Although other law enforcement agencies, such as the Massachusetts State Police and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, had succeeded in charging other Winter Hill Gang members, Bulger and Flemmi's ability to evade prosecution for so many years raised suspicions that they were being protected by the FBI.
Following lengthy internal investigations by DOJ and FBI, charges were brought against two FBI agents who handled informants in the Winter Hill Gang. One FBI Special Agent, John Connolly, the principal handler of Bulger and Flemmi, was convicted in April 2002 of multiple counts of obstruction of justice and sentenced to 10 years in prison.151 The other Special Agent, H. Paul Rico, died in jail prior to his trial on murder conspiracy charges.152 In addition, approximately 20 civil suits have been brought against the FBI and several of its former agents based on the FBI's handling of Bulger and Flemmi. Many of these suits include claims for wrongful death brought by the families of victims who were murdered by Bulger and Flemmi.
As a result of the Bulger-Flemmi episode and other problem cases involving the FBI's operation of informants, DOJ formed a working group in 1999 to recommend revisions to the Confidential Informant Guidelines. The working group was initially chaired by Mary Jo White, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and later by Jonathan D. Schwartz, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and included representatives of DOJ investigative agencies and federal prosecutors, including FBI Director Mueller, who was then serving as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California. The group met regularly for two years and submitted its recommended changes to Attorney General Reno.
Both the Informant Guidelines and Domestic Security Guidelines remained in place without further revision until the events of September 11, 2001, prompted the reexamination of the existing Guidelines which led to issuance of the revised Guidelines on May 30, 2002.
Several themes echo throughout the history of the evolution of the Attorney General's Investigative Guidelines that we found to be instructive in conducting this review.
First, Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities.
Second, problems in the FBI's handling of informants or conducting undercover operations have occurred when field supervisors or FBI Headquarters, or both, failed to exercise appropriate oversight of field activities in accordance with the Guidelines.
Third, historically, the partnership between the FBI and DOJ in making key operational and oversight decisions has promoted adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines and allowed the Department to exercise critical judgments regarding sensitive FBI investigative activities, particularly with respect to its use of confidential informants and undercover operations.
Fourth, oversight by Congress has identified Guidelines violations and gaps in the coverage of the Guidelines.
Below we provide a timeline identifying the Attorney General Guidelines issued between 1976 and 2002, and the significant historical events associated with the revisions.
In the balance of our report, we present our findings with respect to the FBI's compliance with the May 2002 revisions to the Guidelines, mindful of their historical context and the lessons learned over the last 30 years.
The FBI's activities from 1936 to 1945 are described in the final report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, S. Rep. No. 94-755, at 23-37 (1976) (hereafter "Church Committee, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans").
18 U.S.C. § 2385 (1952).
18 U.S.C. § 2386 (1952).
Pub. L. No. 81-831, 64 Stat. 987 (1950) (codified as amended in 50 U.S.C. §§ 831-32; 834-35). The Supreme Court issued a series of decisions in the 1950s and 1960s examining the scope or constitutionality of some of the key federal statutes criminalizing subversive activities. Among the most significant cases were Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)(upholding constitutionality of the Smith Act); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957) (reversing Secretary of State's discharge of foreign service officer under the "McCarran Rider" to the Department of State Appropriation Act of 1947); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (overturning convictions of Communist leaders, requiring that the government must show advocacy Activities Control Act); and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (striking down state syndicalism law). "of action and not merely abstract doctrine" under the Smith Act); Communist Party of the United Activities Control Act); and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (striking down state syndicalism law).
Annual Report of the Attorney General for Fiscal Year 1958, at 338. COMINFIL authorized the investigation of legitimate noncommunist organizations that the FBI suspected were being infiltrated by Communist influences.
The FBI investigated the activities of the NAACP and its members for 25 years and specifically targeted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in attempts to neutralize his public appeal. The surveillance activity of Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) spanned nearly five years from December 1963 until his death in April 1968. It included wiretaps of Dr. King's home telephone and the homes and offices of some of his advisers, wiretaps of the SCLC's telephone, hidden microphones in Dr. King's hotel rooms, and the use of FBI informants. Conducted under the FBI's investigative classification COMINFIL, the efforts to discredit Dr. King included efforts to cut off SCLC's funding sources, disrupt his marriage, undermine his efforts with foreign heads of state, and discredit him with the clerical and academic communities as well as the media. Church Committee, Book III, Supplemental Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, S. Rep. No. 94-75, at 79-184 (1976) (hereafter "Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans"). The Church Committee concluded that the investigation was "unjustified and improper." Id. at 85.
Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 239.
Liuzzo v. United States, 565 F. Supp. 640 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 241. Liuzzo's heirs brought an unsuccessful civil suit against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, et seq. The court rejected their claim, holding in Liuzzo v. United States, 565 F. Supp. 640, 646 (E.D. Mich. 1983), that the Government was not liable because the FBI agents who handled Rowe as an FBI informant acted reasonably and prudently. After an Alabama jury found the three Klansmen not guilty of murder, the Klansmen were convicted of violating Liuzzo's civil rights. See Liuzzo v. United States, 485 F. Supp. 1274, 1275-77 (E.D. Mich. 1980).
Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 243-44.
Id. at 243 (footnote omitted).
Id. at 239. The Church Committee's final report included a case study on Rowe, noting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach's strong defense of the FBI's use of informants (calling them "critical to the solution of the three murdered civil rights workers") while at the same time acknowledged that an "effective informant program" may product what Attorney General Katzenbach termed "disruptive results." Id. at 240.
Id. at 244 (footnote omitted). Rowe also testified before the Church Committee. See Intelligence Activities: Hearings on S. Res. 21 Before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States, 94th Cong., Vol. 6: Federal Bureau of Investigation, at 107-32 (1976) (hereafter "Church Committee, Vol. 6: Federal Bureau of Investigation) (statement of Gary Thomas Rowe).
Rowe was also present when Walter Bergman, one of the "Freedom Riders," was attacked and severely beaten by a mob in Birmingham, Alabama in 1961. Bergman brought a civil suit seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, successfully maintaining that the FBI violated its common law and statutory duties by ignoring credible threats of violence and failing to report them to the Department of Justice until four days after the events. A federal district court upheld two of three theories of liability advanced by Bergman in resolving the "question of the government's responsibility to give effect and meaning to our system of laws, and protect those who sought to exercise their rights of free action." Bergman v. United States, 565 F. Supp. 1353, 1415 (W.D. Mich. 1983). See also Bergman v. United States, 551 F. Supp. 407 (W.D. Mich. 1982); Bergman v. United States, 579 F. Supp. 911 (W.D. Mich. 1984); and Bergman v. United States, 648 F. Supp. 351 (W.D. Mich. 1986), aff'd, 844 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1988). Rowe's December 1975 testimony before the Church Committee that he was an FBI informant at the time of the beatings and had told the FBI of the expected attack three weeks before it took place, was referenced in the court's opinion in Bergman v. United States, 565 F. Supp. at 1382-85, 1392. Rowe wrote an account of the Freedom Riders incident in his autobiography, My Undercover Years with the Ku Klux Klan (Bantam Books 1976).
Church Committee, Vol 6: Federal Bureau of Investigation, at 1-2 (statement of Chairman Frank Church).
Church Committee, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 6.
Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 3 (citation omitted).
The Church Committee held hearings on the FBI's role in COINTELPRO in November and December 1975. The body of its publicly released work included 1) an interim report with findings on the United States' involvement in assassination plots against foreign leaders; 2) seven volumes of public hearings; and 3) seven additional "Books" on various topics, including Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (April 26, 1976), and Book III, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (April 23, 1976).
Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 229-30 (footnotes omitted).
Church Committee, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans at 293-94.
Legislative Charter for the FBI: Hearings on H.R. 5030 Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong. 1 (1980) (hereafter "1979-1980 House FBI Charter Bill Hearings"); Law Enforcement Undercover Activities: Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee to Study Law Enforcement Undercover Activities of Components of the Department of Justice, 97th Cong. 1041 (1982) (hereafter "1982 Senate Select Committee Hearing on Law Enforcement Undercover Activities") (statement of William H. Webster, Director, FBI).
A major reform that emerged from the Church Committee was passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1801-11 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998), amended by Act of Dec. 3, 1999, Public L. No. 160-120, 113 Stat. 1606)), which was signed into law by President Carter on October 24, 1978.
1979-1980 House FBI Charter Bill Hearings 3-15 (Testimony of Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney General, and William Webster, FBI Director). The Senate's bill was S. 1612, The Federal Bureau of Investigation Charter Act of 1979, 96th Cong. (1979), reprinted in FBI Charter Act of 1979, S.1612: Hearings on S. 1612 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong. pt. 2, 427 (1980). Section 537 of the bill authorized the FBI Director to impose fines up to $5,000 on agents who willfully abused "sensitive investigative techniques," which included misuse of informants or intrusive surveillance authorities. Id. at 469.
1979-1980 House FBI Charter Bill Hearings, at 3 (Statement of Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney General).
The Levi Guidelines can be found at FBI Statutory Charter: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. pt. 1, 20-26 (1978) (hereafter "1978 Senate Hearings on FBI Statutory Charter Part I") and in FBI Oversight: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 181-87 (1978).
Today, the FBI includes a reference to the Levi Guidelines on its history timeline as one of only 12 key events in the 1970s. See www.fbi.gov/fbihistory.htm.
FBI Oversight: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong. 257 (1976) (hereafter "1976 House FBI Oversight Hearing") (testimony of Edward H. Levi, Attorney General, Department of Justice). A second set of Guidelines issued by Attorney General Levi governed the FBI's authority to investigate groups it suspected of links to foreign powers. The Attorney General's Guidelines for Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations (FCI) are classified. Today, these authorities are set forth in the Attorney General's Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection (NSI Guidelines). The unclassified portions are available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp.
1978 Senate Hearings on FBI Statutory Charter Part 1 at 20 (Levi Guidelines § II.A). Although titled the "Domestic Security Investigation Guidelines," the Levi Guidelines governed not only investigations of domestic security threats, but the FBI's general criminal investigative authorities.
Id. at 22 (Levi Guidelines § II.I).
The Levi Informant Guidelines can be found at Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities of Components of the Department of Justice, S. Rep. No. 97-682, at 531-35 (1983) (hereafter "1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities").
Id. The Guidelines "were intended, in part, to diminish the perceived need for legislation to regulate and restrict the FBI's use of informants." See generally United States v. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d 141, 190-91 (D. Mass. 1999).
According to the Church Committee, on December 23, 1974, FBI Headquarters sent employee conduct standards to all FBI field offices. The communication stated: "You are reminded that these instructions relate to informants in the internal security [domestic, intelligence] field and no informant should be operated in a manner which would be in contradiction of such instructions." Church Committee, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, at 267. According to the Church Committee report, this instruction was the only written provision applying FBI employee conduct standards to informants. Prior to the issuance of this instruction in 1974, there were no formal or specific provisions relating to informant conduct in FBI directives. Id.
1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 531 (Levi Informant Guidelines, Introduction).
1976 House FBI Oversight Hearing, at 258.
Under the Levi Informant Guidelines, the FBI was merely required to notify DOJ if a confidential informant violated the law in furtherance or unconnected to an FBI assignment when notification to local authorities was inadvisable due to "exceptional circumstances."
As we discuss in Chapters Three and Seven, since the Confidential Informant Guidelines were revised in January 2001, the decision to approve a high level, long-term, or a privileged or media-affiliated confidential informant is made by the joint FBI-DOJ Confidential Informant Review Committee (CIRC).
1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 533 (Levi Informant Guidelines § C.2). When an informant violated the law, and notification to local authorities was inadvisable due to "exceptional circumstances", the DOJ determined when law enforcement or prosecutive authorities should be notified; what use, if any, should be made of the information gathered; and whether the FBI should continue using the informant. Id. at 533-34 (Levi Informant Guidelines § C).
Report of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, 98th Cong., Impact of Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic Security Investigation (The Levi Guidelines) 5 (Comm. Print 1984) (hereafter "Impact of the Levi Guidelines"). The most significant drop occurred prior to the issuance of the Levi Guidelines, a development which the Subcommittee indicated was due in part to the fact that "the FBI was reducing its domestic security work for some time before the Guidelines were imposed." Id. From March 31, 1976, to February 24, 1978, the number of domestic security investigations dropped from 4,868 to 102. Id.
1979-1980 House FBI Charter Bill Hearings, at 4 (Statement of Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney General, Department of Justice).
Impact of the Levi Guidelines, supra n.65, at 9.
Attorney General's Guidelines on FBI Use of Informants and Confidential Sources (hereafter "Civiletti Informant Guidelines") can be found at 1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 517-30.
1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 523 (Civiletti Informant Guidelines § F.2).
Id. at 523 (Civiletti Informant Guidelines § F.3).
Id. at 524-25 (Civiletti Informant Guidelines § G).
Id. at 520 (Civiletti Informant Guidelines § L). In a memorandum explaining the Civiletti Guidelines, Director Webster stated that this provision was added merely to assist the prosecutor "in protecting the identity of our informants" and "should not be construed as the development of a partnership between the FBI and USDOJ in operating out informants." See Staff Study: Overview of Government's Handling of Jackie Presser Investigation, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs (May 9, 1986) (hereafter "Senate Staff Study on Jackie Presser Investigation"), reprinted in Department of Justice's Handling of the Jackie Presser Ghostworkers Case: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong. 105-106 (1986) (hereafter "Senate Subcommittee Hearing on the Jackie Presser Ghostworkers Case").
1983 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 521 (Civiletti Informant Guidelines § E).
For a discussion of the techniques used in ABSCAM, see United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908 (1983).
United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam), rev'g 539 F. Supp. 363 (D.D.C. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908 (1983); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1007 (1983); United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub. nom. Lederer v. United States, 461 U.S. 961 (1983); United States v. Alexandro, 675 F.2d 34 (2d. Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982); United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc), rev'g, 501 F. Supp. 1182 (E.D. Pa. 1980), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106 (1982).
See, e.g., United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 612, 613-14 (Aldisert, J., dissenting); United States v. Kelly, 539 F. Supp. at 373-74 & n.45.
The Civiletti Undercover Guidelines can be found at 1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 536-55. Attorney General Civiletti retained the Levi Domestic Security Guidelines but issued a revision on December 2, 1980, called "The Attorney General's Guidelines on Criminal Investigations of Individuals and Organizations." The revisions distinguished between general crimes investigations and "racketeering enterprise investigations", whose "immediate purpose" is to "obtain information concerning the nature and structure of the enterprise . . . with a view to the longer range objective of detection, prevention, and prosecution of the criminal activities of the enterprise." 1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities at 515 (Civiletti General Crimes Guidelines § II.C).
FBI Undercover Operations, Report of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. (1983) (hereafter "1983 House Subcommittee Report on FBI Undercover Operations"). The hearings are reported at FBI Oversight: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong. (1980); FBI Undercover Guidelines: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong. (1981) (hereafter "1981 House Oversight Hearings"); FBI Undercover Operations: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong. (1983) (hereafter "1982 House Subcommittee Hearings"); FBI Undercover Activities, Authorization, and H.R. 3232: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. (1983).
1981 House Oversight Hearings, at 2-7; 33-48 (statements of Professor Goeffrey R. Stone, Univ. of Chicago Law School, and Gary T. Marx, Professor of Sociology, MIT).
1982 House Subcommittee Hearings at 1-35.
1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 4-5.
Id. at 11. The Committee observed that undercover operations "have substantially contributed to the detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal activity, especially organized crime and consensual crimes such as narcotics trafficking, fencing of stolen property, and political corruption." Id.
Id. at 23-29; 1984 House Subcommittee Report on FBI Undercover Operations, at 9-11.
1982 Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities, at 377-78.
1984 House Subcommittee Report on FBI Undercover Operations, at 7.
Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic Security Investigations (Smith Guidelines): Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 1 (1983) (hereafter "1983 Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Smith Guidelines").
Id. at 5 (statement of Senator John P. East, Member, Committee on the Judiciary).
Impact of the Levi Guidelines, supra n.65, at 29, 34-35.
Press Release, Department of Justice (March 7, 1983), reprinted in 1983 Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Smith Guidelines at 47. The Smith Guidelines can be found at FBI Domestic Security Guidelines: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 67-85 (1983) (hereafter "1983 House Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines").
Press Release, Department of Justice (March 7, 1983), reprinted in 1983 Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Smith Guidelines, at 47.
1983 House Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines, at 75 (Smith Guidelines § III). There were two types of criminal intelligence investigations depending on the objective of the enterprise: a racketeering enterprise investigation and a domestic security/terrorism enterprise investigation.
Id. at 80 (Smith Guidelines § III.B.2). The Smith Guidelines brought the Civilette Guidelines' category of "racketeering enterprise investigations" under the rubric of "criminal intelligence investigations." Id. at 76 (Smith Guidelines § III.A).
Id. at 81 (Smith Guidelines § III.B.3).
1983 Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Smith Guidelines, at 13.
1983 House Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines, at 79 (Smith Guidelines § III.B.1).
Don Edwards, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, and others continued to urge the passage of restrictive charter legislation for the FBI after the Smith Guidelines were issued. See Letter to The Honorable William H. Webster, April 12, 1983, reprinted in 1983 Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines, at 141-144.
1983 House Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines, at 82 (Smith Guidelines § III.B.4.d).
Id. at 71 (Smith Guidelines § II.B and III.B). According to a 1976 GAO report, preliminary inquiries were used to open investigations of all black student leaders and in other political intelligence investigations in the 1960s. See General Accounting Office, FBI Domestic Intelligence Operations: Their Purpose and Scope: Issues That Need to be Resolved, GGD-76-50 (Feb. 24, 1976).
1983 House Oversight Hearings on Domestic Security Guidelines, at 71 (Smith Guidelines § II.B.3).
Id. at 82 (Smith Guidelines § IV.A).
Id. at 83 (Smith Guidelines § IV.B.3).
Leslie Maitland, Eased F.B.I. Curbs Touch Off Dispute, The New York Times, May 14, 1983, § 1 (remarks by Rep. Don Edwards, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Committee on the Judiciary).
The OPEA report, FBI Undercover Operations in Criminal Matters, made recommendations to refine the FBI's undercover training program, improve agent selection, initiate a debriefing program for lengthy undercover operations, improve national coordination of operations, and increase the fiscal flexibility for undercover operations.
See Undercover Operations Act: Hearing Before the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 9 (1984). The bill was never brought to a vote.
Id. at 175-76. With the exception of a number of modifications to the Undercover Guidelines that were made in 1992 by Attorney General William Barr, the Guidelines were not changed again until the May 2002 revisions described infra in Chapter Four. The 1992 revisions included changes to the definition of certain "sensitive circumstances," limited the applicability of the Guidelines to only those cases where an undercover agent was involved, authorized SACs to delegate approval authority to designated ASACs, and allowed SACs to authorize nonsensitive UCOs for up to one year.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 101st Cong., The FBI and CISPES 11 (Comm. Print 1989) (hereafter "The FBI and CISPES". At the time of the CISPES investigation, the FBI's authorities were governed by the Attorney General's Foreign Counterintelligence Guidelines. Id.
Committee in Solidarity With The People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 743-44 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
General Accounting Office, International Terrorism: FBI Investigates Domestic Activities to Identify Terrorists, (hereafter "GAO Report, International Terrorism: FBI Investigates Domestic Activities to Identify Terrorists") GAO/GGD-90-112, at 28 (Sept. 7, 1990), available at http://161.203.16.4/d22t8/142382.pdf.
The FBI and CISPES at 58.
Id. at 6, 89-91, 101, 120.
"(T)he FBI's international terrorism investigation of CISPES was initiated primarily on the basis of allegations that should not have been considered credible; it was broadened beyond the scope justified even by those allegations; and it continued after the available information had clearly fallen below the standards required by the applicable guidelines."
The FBI and CISPES at 12.
The Guidelines revisions issued in March 1989 were relatively minor. They clarified that the use in preliminary inquiries of investigative techniques that require approval by a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) must comply with the Guidelines' provisions that govern investigative techniques generally, authorized criminal intelligence investigations against enterprises engaged in narcotics trafficking, and specified that the use of trap and trace devices and access to stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records must be in accordance with Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The revisions were entitled, "The Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations."
GAO Report, International Terrorism: FBI Investigates Domestic Activities to Identify Terrorists, supra n.128, at 3.
We discuss in Chapter Five our concerns about the FBI's current inability to track the utilization of its broad authorities under Part VI of the General Crimes Guidelines, including its authority to visit public places and attend public events for the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities.
United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (affirming suppression of statements made to DOJ attorneys in prosecution for false statements in previous interviews). Friedrick subsequently recanted his admission that the FBI had authorized the "no show" employees. The FBI's OPR later concluded that Friedrick had concocted the authorization defense after the fact to protect Presser as a valued informant. Id. at 388.
Senate Subcommittee Hearing on the Jackie Presser Ghostworkers Case.
Senate Staff Study on Jackie Presser Investigation, supra n.74.
Id. at 101 (internal quotes omitted).
Id. (citing the Civiletti Informant Guidelines).
Combating Domestic Terrorism: Hearing before Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, 104th Cong. (1996) (hereafter "1995 House Subcommittee Hearing").
1995 House Subcommittee Hearing, at 13.
Advice to Field Offices Regarding Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations and Preliminary Inquiries Under the Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering and Doemstic Security/Terrorism Investigations, November 1, 1995.
United States v. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 1999).
United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2003).
J.M. Lawrence, At 78, Rico Dies Under Gaurd: Former G-Man Was To Be Tried for Murder, Boston Herald, Jan. 18, 2004.
See Department of Justice Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (January 8, 2001), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htm. The House Committee on Government Reform held hearings in 2001 and 2002 on the FBI's use of informants in New England, leading to issuance of a report in 2004 entitled, Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI's Use of Murderers as Informants, H. Rep. No. 108-414, 108th Cong. (2004), available at http://www.gpo.gov/hreports/108-414.html. We address the Boston informant matters in the next chapter.

References: § 611
 § 2385
 § 2386
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1801
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.