First, most Major Narcotics cases are investigated by specialized units of detective and or agents that primarily focus on narcotics. This is important because these investigators are often involved in proactive police work where they are out seeking offenders versus simply responding to reports of criminal conduct. Many Narcotic cases are developed over months of investigation and the specialized investigators use specific investigative tools.

Cooperating Individuals

Narcotics investigators often rely on what is commonly referred to as cooperating individuals. A cooperating individual is a person that is not a member of law enforcement that assists aids or provides information to law enforcement. These cooperating individuals are often people who have been arrested by law enforcement and they offer to help law enforcement officials in exchange for leniency. In addition, to cooperating individuals that are trying to “work off their case” law enforcement may also use “mercenaries” cooperating individuals that are paid for the information that they provide. Cases involving cooperating individuals also involve sealed search warrants and reports that are not provided in traditional discovery. Having a criminal defense attorney that knows how to spot these issues in cases and how to unseal search warrant can dramatically affect the outcome of these cases. Therefore having a criminal defense attorney that has extensive experience dealing with narcotics is the only way to effectively present a defense.

Under Cover Operations

In addition, to the use of cooperating individuals narcotics investigator also work in an undercover capacity to buy and sell drugs. The buying and selling of drugs by law enforcement agents can create strong evidence against the person that directly deals with the undercover officer. However, when officers directly engage a person in a drug transaction there may be issues of entrapment. As a knowledgeable criminal attorney, Donte Wyatt knows exactly how to deal with Under Cover Operations.

Entrapment

Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped. A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally lawabiding person to commit the crime.
Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.
Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct. If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the
defendant’s confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

Wire Taps

The most complicated tool used by narcotics investigators is the wire tap. Click here to read more about wire taps.

Wire taps present a formidable obstacle to effective criminal due to the fact that it is likely that the person charged has been recorded making admissions and or incriminating statements. However an experienced criminal defense attorney knows how to effectively evaluate a wire tap and organize an effective defense despite such an obstacle. A wire tap is an investigative tool that the court will allow for the investigation of certain offenses when other traditional methods of investigative have proven ineffective. Therefore, the law enforcement organization has to establish that the wiretap is the only way in which they can effectively investigate the target crime. The law enforcement officer has to file an application that outlines the probably cause and their prior efforts to use traditional investigative methods.

Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon the personal oath or affirmation of the Attorney General, Chief Deputy Attorney General, or Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Law Division, or of a district attorney, or the person designated to act as district attorney in the district attorney's absence, to the presiding judge of the superior court or one other judge designated by the presiding judge. An ordered list of additional judges may be authorized by the presiding judge to sign an order authorizing an interception. One of these judges may hear an application and sign an order only if that judge makes a determination that the presiding judge, the first designated judge, and those judges higher on the list are unavailable. Each application shall include all of the following information: