![confidential informant confidential informant](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mZMFpLK6z20/maxresdefault.jpg)
In 2008, FA was arrested for assaulting an LPD officer.In 2006, an assistant district attorney decided that FA was unreliable and believed that FA lied to him and arranged for misinformation to be supplied to the police.An LPD sergeant determined that FA was unreliable for future use by SIS, but there was no documentation of this decision. In 20, FA was arrested for cocaine trafficking and the sale of counterfeit goods.The purity of the recovered cocaine was low, and the prosecutor suspected that FA planted the drugs. In 2003, FA was involved in the arrest of a person for cocaine found in his car.There was no evidence that a suitability/reliability background investigation was done on him by any SIS officer. The SIS began to operate a confidential informant known as “FA” in 2001 or 2002.The court’s opinion provided multiple examples of how Detective Lafferty and other officers failed to properly supervise, control, manage, operate and vet confidential informants in narcotics investigations. In fact, Detective Lafferty, who worked in SIS from 2005-2013, and several other SIS officers, were not even aware of the existence of the informant policy. Systematic failure to supervise detective use and operation of informants.Systematic failure to vet informants, i.e., conduct appropriate suitability/reliability informant background investigations.
![confidential informant confidential informant](https://www.workplacewizards.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PRIVACY-CONFIDENTIALITY-AND-INFORMATION-INTEGRITY.png)
![confidential informant confidential informant](https://attorneydocs.com/wp-content/uploadspreviews/3399a8e80717c97d34ef35492af0f092-791x1024.jpeg)
Moreover, this failure to supervise amounted to “deliberate indifference” to the “known and obvious consequences” (i.e., violations of constitutional rights) suffered by the plaintiffs to the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the City of Lowell, through its superintendent of police, adopted a “custom” of failing to supervise the operation of criminal informants. Jonathan Santiago, Nel Sothy and Mihran Mosko sued the Lowell Police Department (LPD), Detective Thomas Lafferty and the City of Lowell, Massachusetts, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.