is safety valve snitching brands

As every criminal defense lawyer knows, there are some very draconian minimum mandatory sentences in Federal criminal court.  There are federal minimum mandatory sentences for certain drug offenses, firearm offenses, and for defendants who have certain convictions.   There are two ways to break the minimum mandatory sentence, which then allows a judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory.  The first is called “substantial assistance.”  Basically, if you snitch and the government wants your information, uses your information, and they determine that it was worthy of a sentence below the minimum mandatory, they can file a substantial assistant motion and if granted by the judge, the minimum mandatory would no longer apply.  You can only get less than the minimum mandatory sentence if the prosecutor files the motion.  If they decide not to file the motion, the judge must sentence you to the minimum mandatory sentence up to the maximum sentence.  But what if you don’t want to snitch? What if you don’t have any information that the government is interested in?  There is one more option that will allow the judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory sentence: Safety Valve.

The “Safety Valve” provision is a provision of law codified in 18 United States Code §3553(f).  It specifically allows a judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory required by law.  However, you must be eligible.  There is also a two level reduction in the sentencing guidelines under United States Sentencing Guidelines §2D1.1(b)(17).

A common requirement that disqualifies people is the prior criminal record requirement.  Basically, anything other than a minor one time conviction will disqualify you.  However, old convictions may not count and some minor convictions also do not count.  There is a whole section in federal sentencing guidelines manual that addresses which prior convictions count and how many points are assessed.

In order to get safety valve, you, through your criminal defense attorney, must contact the prosecuting attorney before your sentencing hearing, and tell them that you want to provide them with a statement.  You must be willing to tell them everything you know about the offense, who else was involved, and you must be forthcoming and truthful.  It will be up to the judge to determine whether you meet this requirement.  You should not wait until the last minute either, as the prosecutor has no duty to take your statement within a short period of time before the sentencing hearing and the judge has no duty to continue your sentencing hearing to give you time to provide the government with a statement.

One difference between Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance is that there is no requirement for you to cooperate against anyone else.  So, once your provide the information to the prosecutor, you should become eligible to seek safety valve at your sentencing, without having to cooperate against anyone else.

If you are not convicted under one of these statutes, there is no Safety Valve option.  For example, Safety Valve is not an option for someone convicted under the Aggravated Identity Theft statute that carries a 2 year minimum mandatory sentence consecutive to any underlying sentence.  Similarly, if you were convicted of similar conduct to those eligible for safety valve, but were convicted under a statute not listed above, you still would not be safety valve eligible.  For example, if you were convicted fo possession with intent to distribute cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. §1903(a), you would not be eligible for safety valve, even though someone convicted of the same conduct on land would be eligible.

After graduation, Mr. Lasnetski accepted a position as a prosecutor at the State Attorney’s Office in Jacksonville. During the next 6 1/2 years as a prosecutor, Mr. Lasnetski tried more than 50 criminal trials, including more than 40 felony trials. He was promoted in 2007 to Division Chief of the Repeat Offender Unit.  Mr. Lasnetski was also a full time member of the Homicide Prosecution Team. In 2008, Mr. Lasnetski formed the Law Office of Lasnetski Gihon Law and began defending citizens in criminal court.  He represents clients in both State and Federal criminal courts.

Many federal criminal defense attorneys are not aware of the pitfalls of the federal safety valve provisions. Persons charged with federal drug crimes need to retain an experienced criminal attorney familiar with all aspects of federal criminal law. An inexperienced or unknowing lawyer can expose a client to catastrophic risks. Here is why.

As we are all keenly aware, the federal government’s “war on drugs” is ensnaring hundreds of people with little or no criminal records who are caught up, for a myriad of reasons, with the distribution of drugs. This can range from a person carrying cash for a friend to pay for an airline ticket, to delivering a package to another person in exchange for cash to pay the rent or feed a child. Because of very harsh federal sentencing laws, the smallest players in a drug ring often end up being the most harshly treated. Most of time this is because the leaders of drug operations very often end up cooperating against others – including those below them whose “loyalty” they often gained through fear and threats of harm. Oftentimes, those persons caught on the lowest rungs of a drug conspiracy find themselves with few alternatives because they do not have significant information to provide to federal prosecutors, who retain exclusive control over who gets cooperation departures under the federal sentencing guidelines. As a result, defendants with minor or minimal culpability in a drug operation frequently end up on the receiving end of prosecutions involving tremendously high sentencing guidelines and, more critically, large minimum mandatory sentences.

In many situations, the only relief from mandatory sentences for those with little or no criminal history is the so-called “safety valve.” Many lawyers talk about the safety valve, but very few understand what it is and what it truly entails. It is perhaps the most misunderstood and most difficult opportunity for relief from mandatory minimum sentences and the sentencing guidelines. Federal crimes lawyers who do not specialize in federal criminal defense work run the risk of harming their clients through misguided efforts to gain relief under the safety valve provision.

It is critical to remember that there are only two ways to avoid minimum mandatory sentences upon conviction for a drug trafficking or drug conspiracy offense in federal court. One way is to cooperate with law enforcement and provide “substantial assistance” in the prosecution of others under section 5K1.1 of the guidelines. The other is to seek relief under the safety valve — Section 5C1.2 of the federal sentencing guidelines. (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)) This section allows a judge to reduce federal sentencing guidelines and ignore mandatory minimum sentences in determining punishment for eligible defendants.

But while understanding the possible benefits of relief under the safety valve is easy, becoming eligible for the relief is more difficult and fraught with peril for the unwary defendant. In fact, a failed attempt to gain “safety valve” relief can have a tremendously negative impact on a federal criminal defendant.

Section 5C1.2 allows guideline reduction and relief from mandatory minimum sentences when 1) a defendant ‘s criminal history is one point or less under the guidelines, and 2) the defendant truthfully discloses before sentencing everything the defendant knows about his own actions and those who participated in the crime with him. While a defendant is not required to testify in court or become a cooperator, the section does requires that he sit down with federal agents and prosecutors and tell them everything he knows about the charged crime. While a defendant won’t be a witness against others in his case, he still must tell on them. Government agents can affirmatively use the defendant’s information against others in the case without any limitation.

For example, if the defendant tells agents that he stored drugs in his brother’s house, agents can use that information to get a search warrant and raid that house for evidence, even though the defendant would never want his brother to be harmed. Moreover, because the defendant would not be a “cooperator,” prosecutors would be free to name him in their search warrant applications and make no effort to hide the source of their information.

Talking to the government in the context of a safety valve interview can potentially expose the client to consequences worse than those faced by cooperating witnesses.

Next, the attorney has to be 100% certain that the client is telling everything he knows and is not holding back information about himself or others. This requires that attorney be sure of what the government knows in the case before allowing a client to meet for a safety valve interview. If the government thinks that the client is lying, they can make the safety valve process impossible by telling the court about their impressions. If the government can prove the client is lying, then a court is free to increase a client’s sentence for obstruction of justice. Even worse, a client may also lose guideline point reductions for accepting responsibility for the offense and become subject to harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

A defense attorney has to know what the evidence the government has before allowing his client to even think about the safety valve. Anything less can expose the client to catastrophic risk.

The bottom line is that defendants considering a “safety valve” reduction had better have counsel who is experienced in federal criminal law and the pitfalls of federal criminal statutes – even those designed to help defendants. Before becoming a defense attorney, I spent almost a decade prosecuting federal criminal cases in U.S. District Court in Maryland. If you have any questions, contact Federal defense attorney Andrew C. White at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White. There is no situation with which we are not familiar.

In federal cases, Congress not only defines what is a crime that can cost the accused both freedom and property, but it also passes statutes that control how federal judges are allowed to sentence those who have been convicted of federal drug crimes.  For instance, federal judges must follow the United States Sentencing Guidelines when sentencing someone upon conviction of a federal crime.  For more on sentencing guidelines and how they work, read our discussion in Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Conspiracy To Distribute Controlled Substance Cases.

Sometimes, Congress sets a bottom line on the number of years someone must spend behind bars upon conviction for a specific federal crime.  The federal judge in these situations has no discretion: he or she must follow the Congressional mandate.

Of course, there are a tremendous number of federal laws that define federal drug crimes.  For purposes of illustration, consider those federal drug crimes that come with either (1) a sentence of 10 years to life imprisonment or (2) those that come with a sentence of 5 to 40 years behind bars, both defined as the mandatory sentences to be given upon conviction for these defined federal drug crimes.

For reference, these refer to the statutory language of 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(B), which instruct the federal judge on how he or she shall sentence anyone convicted of the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (i.e., an illegal drug) or possession with intent to either of these things.

Key here:  the judge is given the mandatory minimum number of years that the accused must spend behind bars by Congress via the federal statutory language.  A federal judge cannot go below ten (10) years for a federal drug crime based upon 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A).  He or she cannot go below five (5) years for a federal drug crime conviction based upon 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(B).

Can’t there be any way to get around that set-in-stone bottom line?  Yes.  There is also a statutory exception which allows the federal judge to dip below that mandatory minimum number of years in some situations.  It is called the “Safety Valve” defense.

The law, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), provides for an exception that allows the federal judge some leeway in drug crime convictions where he or she would otherwise be required to follow the mandatory minimum sentencing statute.  This is the Safety Value statute. It states as follows:

(f)Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in Certain Cases.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, in the case of an offense under section 401, 404, or 406 of theControlled Substances Act(21 U.S.C. 841, 844, 846), section 1010 or 1013 of theControlled Substances Import and Export Act(21 U.S.C. 960, 963), or section 70503 or 70506 of title 46, the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission undersection 994 of title 28without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation, that—

(A)more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;

(4)the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of theControlled Substances Act; and

(5)not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

Information disclosed by a defendant under this subsection may not be used to enhance the sentence of the defendant unless the information relates to aviolent offense.

The only way to allow for this exception to be applied in a federal sentencing hearing is for the defense to argue its application and to provide authenticated and admissible support for use of the Safety Valve.

How does the defense do this?  It takes much more than referencing the exception to the general rule itself.  The defense will have to demonstrate the convicted defendant meets the Safety Valve’s five (5) requirements.

Federal sentencing has its own reference manual that is used throughout the United States, called the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”).  We have gone into detail about the USSG and its applications in earlier discussions; to learn more, read:

In short, the idea is that the USSG work to keep things fair for people being sentenced in federal courts no matter which state they are located.  Someone convicted in Texas, for instance, should be able to receive the same or similar treatment in a federal sentencing hearing as someone in Alaska, Maine, or Hawaii.

Part of how the Sentencing Guidelines work is by assessing “points.”  Offenses are given points.  The points tally into a score that is calculated according to the USSG.

Essentially, the accused can be charged with a three-point offense; a two-point offense; or a one-point offense.  The number of points will depend on things like if it is a violent crime; violent crimes get more points than non-violent ones.  The higher the overall number of points, and the ultimate total score, then the longer the sentence to be given under the USSG.

For a successful safety valve defense, the defense has to show that the total Criminal History Points are four (4) or less.  If you have a maximum of four Criminal History points, you have met the first criteria for the safety valve.

Note:  prior to the passage of the First Step Act, things were much harsher.  If the defense had even two Criminal History Points, then the accused was ineligible for the safety valve.  The First Step Act increased the number of points, or score, from one to four as the maximum allowed for application of the safety valve.  For more on the First Step Act, see The First Step Act and Texas Criminal Defense in 2019: Part 1 of 2 and The First Step Act and Texas Criminal Defense in 2019: Part 2 of 2.

Looking at the Safety Valve statute ( 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)), the second step in achieving application of the safety valve defense involves the circumstances of the underlying criminal activity and whether or not it involved violence of threats or violence, or if the defendant possessed a firearm at the time.

It has been my experience that it is pretty common for there to be a firearm of some sort involved in a federal drug crime prosecution.  Here, the impact of Texas being a part of the Fifth Judicial District for the United States Court of Appeals (“Fifth Circuit”) is important.

This is because this overseeing federal appeals court has looked at  18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and its definition of possession of a firearm, and come to a different conclusion that the definition given in the USSG.

Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that under the Safety Valve Statute, the standard for the government  is much higher. According to their ruling, in order to be disqualified from application of the safety valve because of possession of a firearm, the defendant has to have been actually in possession of the firearm or in construction possession of it. See, US v. Wilson, 105 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 1997).

Consider how this works in a federal drug crime conspiracy case. Under the USSG, a defendant can receive two (2) points (“enhancement”) for possession of a firearm even if they never had their hands on the gun.  As long as a co-conspirator (co-defendant) did have possession of it, and that possession was foreseeable by the defendant, then the Sentencing Guidelines allow for a harsher sentence (more points).

The position of the Fifth Circuit looks upon this situation and determines that it is one thing for the defendant to have possession of the firearm, and another for there to be stretching things to cover constructive possession when he or she never really had the gun.

This is the example of the importance of effective criminal defense representation, where research reveals that it is easier to achieve a safety valve defense with a reference to case law.  The Fifth Circuit allows a situation where someone can get two (2) points under the USSG (“enhancement”) and still be eligible for the safety valve defense.

The commentary to § 5C1.2(2) provides that “[c]onsistent with [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct),” the use of the term “defendant” in § 5C1.2(2) “limits the accountability of the defendant to his own conduct and conduct that he aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused.” See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, comment. (n.4). This language mirrors § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Of import is the fact that this language omits the text of § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) which provides that “relevant conduct” encompasses acts and omissions undertaken in a “jointly undertaken criminal activity,” e.g. a conspiracy.

Being bound by this commentary, we conclude that in determining a defendant’s eligibility for the safety valve, § 5C1.2(2) allows for consideration of only the defendant’s conduct, not the conduct of his co-conspirators. As it was Wilson’s co-conspirator, and not Wilson himself, who possessed the gun in the conspiracy,the district court erred in concluding that Wilson was ineligible to receive the benefit of § 5C1.2. Because application of § 5C1.2 is mandatory, see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (providing that the court “shall” impose a sentencing without regard to the statutory minimum sentence if the defendant satisfies the provision’s criteria), we vacate Wilson’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The defense must also be able to prove that the defendant’s role in the underlying criminal offense did not result in the death or bodily injury of someone else to achieve the safety valve defense under  18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

In drug cases, this can mean more than some type of violent scenario.  The mere type of drug or controlled substance involved can impact the success of this defense.  Sometimes, the drugs themselves are the type that can cause severe harm or death.  Several controlled substances can be lethal.  In a federal drug case, there is a special definition for death resulting from the distribution of a controlled substance.

If the defense can prove with authenticated and admissible evidence that the defendant did not distribute a drug or controlled substance that ended up with someone’s death, or severe bodily injury, then the safety valve defense will be available to them.

Role adjustments happen when someone is alleged to be involved in a conspiracy, and they act in some type of position of responsibility.  They can be a leader, or organizer, or somebody who supervises other people in the operations, all as defined in the USSG.

If you are to achieve the safety valve defense, you cannot receive any “role adjustment” under the Sentencing Guidelines.  This must be established to the court by your defense attorney at the sentencing.

The defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

I realize that for many people, this language brings with it the assumption that the defendant has to be a snitch in order to meet this requirement for the safety valve defense.  This is not true.

This law does not require a defendant to cooperate against other people in a conspiracy, be it friends or family members or anyone else.  It does not force a defendant to turn over new or additional evidence to the police or prosecutors so the government can use it against other defendants.  It does not mean the defendant has to cooperate with the government to help them go after unindicted co-conspirators, either.

With an experienced criminal defense lawyer, what it does mean is that the defendant has a meeting with the authorities with the goal of meeting the Safety Valve Statute requirements and no more.

The attorney can limit the scope of the meeting.  He or she can make sure that law enforcement follows the rules for the meeting.   The meeting is necessary for the defendant to achieve a safety valve defense, so there is no way to avoid a safety valve interview.

To get the sentence that is below the mandatory minimum sentence, the meeting is a must.  However, it is not a free-for-all for the government where the defendant is ratting on other people.

One example involves a case where I represented a client before the federal district court in Corpus Christi, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  He was among several co-defendants charged in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.

I arranged for my client to have his safety valve meeting as well as establishing the other criteria needed for application of the Safety Valve statute.  I was present at the meeting.  There was no cooperation regarding the other defendants, and he did nothing more than the minimum to qualify for the defense.  He was no snitch.

As a result, the safety valve was applied by the federal judge and my client achieved a safety valve application where he was sentenced to 8 years for distribution of meth: well below the 10 years of the mandatory minimums and the USSG calculation in his case of around 14 years.

Sadly, the same day that my client was sentenced, so were several of the co-conspirator defendants.  I was aware that they were also eligible for the safety valve defense.  However, the federal agent at the sentencing hearings that day told me that their lawyers never contact the government for a safety valve meeting.

They were never debriefed, so they could not meet the requirements for application of the safety value statute.  The judge had no choice –they each had to be sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentences under the law.

A “safety valve” is an exception to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. A safety valve allows a judge to sentence a person below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met.  Safety valves can be broad or narrow, applying to many or few crimes (e.g., drug crimes only) or types of offenders (e.g., nonviolent offenders). They do not repeal or eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. However, safety valves save taxpayers money because they allow courts to give shorter, more appropriate prison sentences to offenders who pose less of a public safety threat. This saves our scarce taxpayer dollars and prison beds for those who are most deserving of the mandatory minimum term and present the biggest danger to society.

The Problem:Under current federal law, there is only one safety valve, and it applies only to first-time, nonviolent drug offenders whose cases did not involve guns. FAMM was instrumental in the passage of this safety valve, in 1994. Since then, more than 95,000 nonviolent drug offenders have received fairer sentences because of it, saving taxpayers billions. But it is a very narrow exception: in FY 2015, only 13 percent of all drug offenders qualified for the exception.

Mere presence of even a lawfully purchased and registered gun in a person’s home or car is enough to disqualify a nonviolent drug offender from the safety valve,

Even very minor prior infractions (e.g., careless driving) that resulted in no prison time can disqualify an otherwise worthy low-level drug offender from the safety valve, and

Other federal mandatory minimum sentences for other types of crimes – notably, gun possession offenses – are often excessive and apply to low-level offenders who could serve less time in prison, at lower costs to taxpayers, without endangering the public.

The Solution:Create a broader safety valve that applies to all mandatory minimum sentences, and expand the existing drug safety valve to cover more low-level offenders.

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

Congress changed all of that in the First Step Act. In expanding the number of people covered by the safety valve, Congress wrote that a defendant now must only show that he or she “does not have… (A) more than 4 criminal history points… (B) a prior 3-point offense… and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense.”

The “safety valve” was one of the only sensible things to come out of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the bill championed by then-Senator Joe Biden that, a quarter-century later, has been used to brand him a mass-incarcerating racist.  The safety valve was intended to let people convicted of drug offenses as first-timers avoid the crushing mandatory minimum sentences that Congress had imposed on just about all drug dealing.

Eric Lopez got caught smuggling meth across the border. Everyone agreed he qualified for the safety valve except for his criminal history. Eric had one prior 3-point offense, and the government argued that was enough to disqualify him. Eric argued that the First Step Actamendment to the “safety valve” meant he had to have all three predicates: more than 4 points, one 3-point prior, and one 2-point prior violent offense.

Last week, the 9th Circuit agreed. In a decision that dramatically expands the reach of the safety valve, the Circuit applied the rules of statutory construction and held that the First Step amendment was unambiguous. “Put another way, we hold that ‘and’ means ‘and.’”

“We recognize that § 3553(f)(1)’s plain and unambiguous language might be viewed as a considerable departure from the prior version of § 3553(f)(1), which barred any defendant from safety-valve relief if he or she had more than one criminal-history point under the Sentencing Guidelines… As a result, § 3553(f)(1)’s plain and unambiguous language could possibly result in more defendants receiving safety-valve relief than some in Congress anticipated… But sometimes Congress uses words that reach further than some members of Congress may have expected… We cannot ignore Congress’s plain and unambiguous language just because a statute might reach further than some in Congress expected… Section 3553(f)(1)’s plain and unambiguous language, the Senate’s own legislative drafting manual, § 3553(f)(1)’s structure as a conjunctive negative proof, and the canon of consistent usage result in only one plausible reading of § 3553(f)(1)’s“and” here: “And” is conjunctive. If Congress meant § 3553(f)(1)’s “and” to mean “or,” it has the authority to amend the statute accordingly. We do not.”

Imagine this scenario: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents bust a small-time drug dealer for, let’s say, nickel-and-diming in heroin. They take him to booking, run his fingerprints and discover this is his third arrest. As a multiple offender facing a long stretch in prison and with a public defender at his side, the suspect offers a deal.

The lead agent and his partner glance at each other. Here it is: a chance to nail the slippery kingpin who runs a multi-million dollar heroin ring that covers three states, but who has somehow managed to elude capture again and again. Never mind that coincidentally their case-closure rate will skyrocket, making them look good. There is a brief pause as the lead agent again glances at his partner, then back at our suspect.

You might think so, and you’d be right. But in the daily trenches of law enforcement, this scenario is not as far-fetched as it appears. In fact, wheeling and dealing is more of a way of life than many police officers and prosecutors care to openly admit. It is, quite simply, the practice of using snitches to obtain convictions. [See: PLN, June 2010, p.1; Feb. 2006, p.28].

But wait, you say. What about the old saying, “snitches get stitches?” Don’t rats end up at the bottom of the nearest river? If that’s true, then the river bottom is a very crowded place.

Nationwide, court records indicate that 25% of offenders sent to federal prison for drug-related crimes provided information to prosecutors in exchange for shorter sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Idaho, Colorado and the Eastern District of Kentucky, more than half did. Sometimes these sentence reductions can amount to 50% or more, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Given that incentive, it’s inevitable that some prisoners would find a way to profit from such a dysfunctional system. According to a 2012 USA Today investigation that examined hundreds of thousands of court cases, “snitching has become so commonplace that in the past five years at least 48,895 federal convicts – one out of every eight – had their prison sentences reduced in exchange for helping government investigators....”

Citizens who live their lives happily ignorant of the criminal justice system are unaware that it is a closed loop, starting at the top. Judges, many of whom are former prosecutors and who draw their paychecks from the same government that pays the police and prosecution, are generally hesitant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their brethren’s crime-fighting methods. Further, judge-made case law over the years has upheld the right of the police to use almost any tactic to solve crimes, including lying and the use of informants.

As a result, prosecutors at both the state and federal levels face few checks upon their power. Knowing that jurors fear crime and seek safer neighborhoods, U.S. Attorneys and their local district attorney counterparts gather information to use as evidence in criminal cases from whomever they can, including prisoners seeking to shorten their sentences.

The incarcerated – and the people who guard them – know there are few secrets in jail or prison. People talk about everything, including their cases. The more canny and opportunistic prisoners realize from first-hand experience that prosecutors “pay” well with sentence reductions for information on someone they have insufficient evidence to convict.

To the naïve or uninitiated, law enforcement, in its battle against crime, should be able to use every tool at its disposal. If that means relying on testimony from one criminal to convict another, so be it. Except in the most obvious cases of prosecutorial overreach, juries hold their collective noses and vote guilty, ignoring misgivings about the source of the incriminating “proof” or the motives of the jailhouse snitch who takes the stand against a defendant.

However, the USA Today investigation that examined the culture of snitching questioned the usefulness of such testimony and cast doubt on whether it serves the ends of justice.

Justice, in its purest form, relies on truth – but within the snitching community, truth is a rare commodity and can be the first casualty in a system that seems more interested in obtaining convictions than dispensing justice. Prosecutors eager to close a case often reward criminals with sentence reductions for inaccurate, manufactured or questionable “evidence” or testimony against another offender.

The case of federal prisoner Marcus Watkins is one example of the unintended consequences of the institutionalized culture of snitching. According to USA Today, “For a fee, [Watkins] and his associates on the outside sold ... information about other criminals that they could turn around and offer up to federal agents in hopes of shaving years off their prison sentences.”

Watkins’ case is not the only one of its kind, but certainly one of the most documented. His outside associates collected and offered to sell information about the drug trade to fellow prisoners at the Atlanta City Detention Center, most of whom had the money, and incentive, to pay for it. And they were not the only customers; according to Watkins, “the biggest buyer of information is the government.” Only the currency was different. “They pay in years,” Watkins said, claiming that federal agents he spoke with “knew money’s been changing hands. They basically authorized all of this.”

Robert McBurney, a former federal prosecutor from Atlanta, called it “a pernicious situation that sadly, undid some good works,” but FBI agent Mile Brosas testified under oath that agents acted “just based on the names that Mr. Watkins gave us.” At the time Watkins provided the information and names referred to by Brosas, he had already been behind bars for some time. Therefore, the logical assumption would have been that he was receiving his information from outside the prison – though that did not deter the prosecutors who relied on that information in other criminal cases.

The court was not amused. The then-chief judge of the federal district court in Atlanta, Judge Julie E. Carnes, decried the “abominable situation” of such information peddling, stating she was “appalled that it’s going on to the level it appears to be going on.”

And Watkins’ case is clearly not an isolated example. As noted by Professor Tim Saviello at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, “People are willing to pay $20,000 or $30,000 to get a piece of information. That tells you how valuable it is.”

The pressure to snitch is overwhelming. Suspects accused of federal crimes almost always accept plea bargains. Those who don’t are generally convicted at trial, and the lengthier sentences they typically receive for refusing to plead guilty are known as the “trial penalty.” For someone in such a position, who may be facing a mandatory minimum prison term of 10 to 20 years, informing on fellow criminals is their only chance at leniency.

The fact remains that most prisoners serving time for drug offenses are not major players in the drug trade. In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that only 11% of federal drug trafficking defendants were major traffickers; the rest were lower-level offenders. Even “safety-valve” modifications to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines did little to reduce the explosion in the number of prisoners convicted of drug crimes. Such offenders are under pressure to offer “substantial assistance” to the government, often in the form of information about other drug dealers, as a means of obtaining sentencing relief. During the past five years, fully one-third of drug traffickers sentenced in federal court received sentence reductions for providing “substantial assistance.”

Drug conspiracy laws enacted in 1988 also contributed to the influx of federal drug offenders, allowing the government to win convictions for what prisoners often term “ghost drugs,” by swearing that any information provided was about a suspect who was part of the snitch’s drug ring. Unfortunately, such a system can snare innocent bystanders – defendants who become the victims of lies told by their codefendants who have figured out how to manipulate the sentencing laws in order to reduce their own prison terms.

One of the most egregious examples of misuse of the justice system by both police and prosecutors occurred in Louisiana, where the Colomb family suffered years of prosecution, imprisonment and economic disaster that began with a minor drug possession charge against the teenaged son of Ann Colomb, the family matriarch. According to court filings, prosecutors claimed that Colomb and her sons, living on a mostly black street in a white section of the town of Church Point, Louisiana, ran a $70 million drug operation.

The trouble started when two of Colomb’s sons, Sammie and Edward, pleaded no contest to felony possession and received probation. Church Point, like many southern towns, suffered from documented racial tensions, heightened by the fact that another Colomb son, Danny, dated a white woman. According to Rodney Baum, the Colomb family lawyer, “They took a bunch of unrelated police harassments of these people over 10 years, coupled it with a parade of jailhouse snitches.... It was ridiculous.” The federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Bret Grayson, used more than 30 imprisoned informants to compile his evidence of a drug conspiracy.

As the case neared trial, U.S. District Court Judge Tucker Melancon began having misgivings and sought to bar many of the informants from testifying. The case, despite being already weakened by a lack of hard evidence and the fact that Colomb family members had continued to work construction and oilfield jobs while supposedly netting millions in the illicit drug trade, moved forward. The jury convicted the family in 2006 and they went to prison.

Then another convicted federal prisoner, Quinn Alex, in a letter to his former prosecutor, revealed the scope and details of a snitching-for-hire scheme at the Federal Correctional Institution in Three Rivers, Texas, the source of the information used by U.S. Attorney Grayson in the Colomb case. A motion for a new trial soon followed, and Judge Melancon vacated the convictions and freed the family.

The Colombs were “fortunate,” as they were released from prison and justice prevailed. But under any definition of justice they shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place, and the case vividly demonstrated the unintended consequences of the snitching industry that is firmly entrenched in the U.S. justice system. Ann Colomb expressed it best: “What happened to us should never happen to anyone. It breaks my heart....”

But the real victim is justice itself, in the form of wrongful convictions, official corruption, public deception and the weakened legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the public. The use of snitches has become so prevalent that the practice and its damaging effects are the subject of a book, Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice, by Alexandra Natapoff, published in April 2011.

Under such scrutiny the practice of snitching, spurred by harsh sentencing laws and win-at-any-cost prosecutors, might gradually fade. Snitching has already faced a backlash due to a controversial DVD series called “Stop Snitching,” created by Ronnie Thomas, a Baltimore resident also known as Skinny Suge. The first video was released in 2004 and a sequel followed in 2007; Baltimore police have called the DVDs a form of witness intimidation.

Suge is now serving a 19-year federal prison term. In an ironic twist of fate, his 14-year-old son, Najee Thomas, was murdered in April 2014, shot in the head as he sat inside his home in the Cherry Hill section of Baltimore. Police have not said whether Najee’s death was related to his father’s violent past, but blame the DVDs for a declining case-closure rate. They say the “Stop Snitching” videos have created an increasing unwillingness by members of the public to come forward with crime tips.

Perhaps a TV crime drama might not be the best setting for a discussion of the culture of snitching in our nation’s criminal justice system. A more appropriate venue might be a game show – for example, “Let’s Make a Deal.”

President Vladimir Putin is getting primed for Russia"s parliamentary elections in September by tightening the safety valve provided by independent critical media and the political opposition. Journalists are now afraid of being locked up for posting coments on Facebook, but it remains to be seen whether the pressure points caused by these actions will eventually blow up.

Under Putin, the Kremlin has always tried to silence, co-opt, jail or expel opposition leaders, as well as impose restrictions and control over the most influential mass media. Up until now, a safety valve has always been provided for the disaffected to let off steam via independent newspapers, free radio and the internet"s social networks.

With Russia"s economy struggling to emerge from a two-year recession, Putin seems set on choking off any dissension and criticism before the elections to the State Duma, the lower chamber of parliament. He has a precedent to avoid: Moscow saw the biggest anti-government protests since the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 2011 and 2012 as hundreds of thousands of liberals, communists and nationalists set aside their differences and marched to condemn alleged ballot-rigging in the last round of elections. The protests came a year after Russia, under then President Dmitry Medvedev, had experienced a softening in media oppression and the arrival of several niche outlets critical of the government, including TV Rain and Kommersant Radio.

Russia"s annexation of Crimea in early 2014 and its fuelling of the conflict in East Ukraine exacerbated the trend. "The TV networks have been turned into raw propaganda machines, and dissenting voices condemned as national traitors," wrote political analyst Maria Lipman.

This time around for the Duma elections Putin is taking no chances with the opposition, and the free media are taking a hammering. New laws capping foreign media ownership forced the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times to sell their holding in the respected financial daily Vedomosti in November to a Russian businessman said to be a proxy for a Kremlin holding.

Novaya Gazeta, the opposition newspaper where fearless reporter Anna Politkovskaya worked before she was gunned down near her Moscow apartment in 2006, had its St Petersburg office raided on June 23 as part of "a major fraud investigation". Alexei Venediktov, the station chief at liberal Ekho Moskvy radio, said in early July on Twitter that website chief editor Vitaly Ruvinskiy, journalist Andrei Piontkovsky, and two other members of the editorial staff were being interrogated by the FSB.

Accusing Ekho Moskvy of broadcasting information "steeped in hatred for Russia", Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader and Putin"s attack dog, earlier this year called for a crackdown on Western mouthpieces in Russia who seek to "destroy our country".

Most recently, two journalists from the state-owned TASS news agency were on July 7 given top editorial roles at RBC, the media group owned by billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. Reports suggest Prokhorov is having to sell off his assetsafter RBC reported on the business dealings of Putin"s daughter Ekaterina and her husband Kirill Shamalov.

In a meeting with RBC"s staff, newly hired editor Igor Trosnikov told them that restrictions apply to what they can report. "I can"t tell you there are no restrictions whatsover," Trosnikov said, according to a transcript published by Meduza media. "They do exist. If people here think there aren"t any restrictions, then they"re better off writing on Facebook. You can still get away with that there." To which an unnamed RBC staffer piped up: "They"re locking people up for that now, too."

Many of the protests about the last Duma elections were organised through social media networks. The Kremlin is now also stepping up measures to control these networks, with state internet regulator Roskomnadzor announcing on July 8 that it had blocked four sites that contained calls to boycott the elections.

Persecution of people for making seemingly mild comments online has been on the increase for the past few years. Yekaterina Vologzheninova, a 46-year-old mother from Yekaterinburg, was sentenced to 320 hours of community service for "inciting hatred and animosity", and her VKontakte social network page was scrubbed. Her crime was sharing a cartoon that showed Putin bending over a map of war-shattered East Ukraine with a knife in his hand. Vologzheninova"s plight made national headlines when the judge ordered the destruction of her laptop and mouse as "criminal weapons".

Darya Polyudova, a political activist from the southern Krasnodar region, was convicted to two years in a penal colony for three posts supportive of Ukraine on VKontakte. "One of them was a picture of me standing at a rally with a sign that says "No to a war in Ukraine, yes to a revolution in Russia,"" Polyudova told the Moscow Times.

Like television, the internet is something that authoritarian rulers realise that they must try to control. The viral zeitgeist of social networks is increasingly worrying regimes in Russia, China and Iran. In order to get a handle on it, they are turning to methods that have proven useful in the manage­ment of traditional media.

Two years ago, Putin gave a pretty good indication where he stands on the worldwide web, calling it a "CIA project". This June, the president ratcheted up the pressure with the signing of the so-called Yarovaya law, a package of repressive measures reminiscent of Soviet-era surveillance. The final version of the legislation, championed by Duma deputy Irina Yarovaya and which has been passed by both chambers of parliament and signed by Putin, obliges Russian internet and telecom companies to keep messages and voice calls on their servers in Russia for six months or more, starting January 1, 2018.

"Putin has signed a repressive new law that violates not only human rights, but common sense. Dark day for Russia," Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower in a self-imposed exile in Rusia, tweeted on July 7 after three years of exile in Russia. "Signing the Big Brother law must be condemned. Beyond political and constitution consequences, it is also a $33bn tax on Russia"s Internet."

Equally ominously, the law also introduces criminal liability for "failure to report a crime" that someone "has been planning, is perpetrating, or has perpetrated". Under the legislation, children as young as 14 can face up to a year in prison for such a "failure" and for other reasons related to extremism, terrorism and participation in mass demonstration.

"Hello, it"s a brave new world for the internet, with jails for children, with global surveillance and prison terms for non-snitching," Dmitry Gudkov, one of the few genuine opposition politicians in the Duma, wrote on his

While the Kremlin continues to tighten the vice on the media, the opposition continues to flounder, either unable to unite amid their bickering, or deliberately hamstrung from outside. Alexei Navalny, the Putin critic who masterminded the protests four years ago, has been sidelined after being found guilty of fraud and laundering funds from French cosmetics firm Yves Rocher. In a cruel twist, Navalny was given a three-year suspended sentence while his brother Oleg was imprisoned.

Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister and head of Russia"s Parnas opposition party, was smeared by a sex video in April while Boris Nemtsov, a reformer under former president Boris Yeltsin, was assassinated near the Kremlin walls last year. Nikita Belykh, a key liberal figure who actually holds office as governor of Kirov, was implicatedin a corruption scandal in June.

But for all their fragmentation, the opposition haven"t thrown their hands up either. Activists can be heard decrying the Big Brother legislation, and have now applied for a protest permit, according to a Facebook post by liberal politican Ilya Yashin.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

EPA regulations under Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are designed to protect the ozone layerozone layerThe region of the stratosphere containing the bulk of atmospheric ozone. The ozone layer lies approximately 15-40 kilometers (10-25 miles) above the Earth"s surface, in the stratosphere. Depletion of this layer by ozone depleting substances (ODS) will lead to higher UVB levels, which in turn will cause increased skin cancers and cataracts and potential damage to some marine organisms, plants, and plastics. The science page (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html) offers much more detail on the science of ozone depletion. and to provide for a smooth transition away from ozone-depleting substances (ODSODSA compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion. ODS include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, hydrobromofluorocarbons, chlorobromomethane, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/index.html) of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available.).

EPA is also charged with enforcing these regulations. Enforcement actions range from civil fines to criminal prosecutions. Enforcement is performed within EPA by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

If you suspect or witness unlawful releases of ODS refrigerant or other violations of CAA regulations, report an environmental violation to EPA. See a list of fugitives accused of violating environmental laws, including smuggling ODS and evading arrest, for more information.

The most immediate consequence of possessing illegal CFCs/HCFCs is having them confiscated. The U.S. Customs Service, under its laws and regulations, may confiscate any goods that enter the United States illegally. The U.S. Customs Service can confiscate illegally imported CFCs/HCFCs all the way down the distribution chain. Purchasing your CFCs/HCFCs from a reputable wholesaler or distributor does not relieve you of responsibility. If the CFCs/HCFCs you possess were illegally smuggled into the United States, you could lose the valuable product, even though you paid for it.

There are many other potential consequences of purchasing or possessing illegal CFCs/HCFCs. If the U.S. Customs Service confiscates your CFCs/HCFCs, you might become the subject of an investigation by the Customs Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Investigations of your company might involve interviewing your employees and reviewing your records. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also might decide to audit you or your company regarding payment of the excise taxes on CFCs.

To make sure you purchase or possess legal CFCs/HCFCs, you should know where the specific brand was produced and the name of the manufacturer. Making sure you have legal material that meets the industry purity standard is good business practice. The U.S. EPA recently identified sales of a product marketed as Cool Penguin “F-12.” Sold in small cans through online retail platforms for motor vehicle air conditioner use, some cans of Cool Penguin consisted of CFC-12, CFC-114, HCFC-142b and HCFC-22, along with non-ozone depleting components. Under current regulations, not only is the import of these cans illegal, no person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any regulated ozone-depleting substance that they know, or have reason to know, was imported illegally (e.g., without appropriate allowances or after the phaseout date for that chemical). For more information on the phaseout of ODS, please visit EPA ODS Phaseout.

Before you buy CFCs/HCFCs, you should ask the seller for documents of prior ownership of the product (and a laboratory analysis of the quality). Investigating the source of the material and the chain of ownership is your responsibility. If the material was imported, you should know when, where, and from whom it was imported. You also should ensure that the packaging for the material is appropriate. Illegally imported refrigerant is sometimes packaged in wrong size containers or fixed with improper valves. Remember, if you purchase or possess CFCs/HCFCs that entered the United States illegally, the U.S. Customs Service can confiscate the product.

The following is a partial list of recent, major completed cases. Additional information on other cases, including older ones, can be found at EPA"s Enforcement website here.

Schnitzer Steel Inc. has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,550,000 and implement compliance measures worth over $1,7000,00 to prevent the release of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The settlement resolves alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at 40 scrap metal recycling facilities throughout the United States. Schnitzer is also required to implement an EPA-approved Refrigerant Recovery Management Program and perform an environmental mitigation project involving the destruction of all R-12 in scrapped appliances and automobiles received at its facilities.

JTR handles the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes. EPA alleged that on at least two separate occasions, JTR knowingly vented R-22 and R-410a refrigerant during servicing of those appliances. Under the settlement, JTR will pay a $28,919 civil penalty and resolve the alleged violations.

Derichebourg Recycling USA Inc. has reached a settlement for Clean Air Act Violations at 10 scrap metal recycling facilities in Texas and Oklahoma. The federal complaint alleges that Derichebourg failed to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicle air conditioners before disposal. Under the settlement, Derichebourg will pay a $442,500 civil penalty, halt any further release of ozone-depleting refrigerants, and implement a Refrigerant Recovery Management Program at its 10 U.S. facilities.

Connecticut Scrap, LLC and their five related scrap metal companies in Connecticut and Rhode Island agreed to pay a penalty of $160,000 and take important steps to comply with the Clean Air Act. These measures included certifying that Connecticut Scrap, LLC is complying with the regulations designed to limit releases of refrigerants used in air conditioning systems and cooling equipment that harm the ozone layer and climate system.

American Fire Technologies (AFT) has agreed to pay a penalty of $57,397 for importing 2,825 kg of used Halon 1301, a Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS), without prior approval from the EPA consistent with the petition requirements.

AKE Safety has agreed to pay a penalty of $52,345 for violating the halon emissions reduction requirements by releasing Halon 1211 during promotional demonstrations and for failing to properly label fire extinguishers containing Halon 1211. AKE Safety has corrected the violations by ceasing to perform demonstrations that release Halon 1211 to the environment and properly labeling its products.

Southeastern Grocers Inc., owners and operators of regional grocery store chains BI-LO LLC, Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., Fresco y Más and Harveys Supermarket, have agreed to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting gases from refrigeration equipment at 576 stores under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Under the settlement, finalized January 21, 2020, Southeastern Grocers will spend an estimated $4.2 million over the next three years to reduce their company-wide average leak rate to 17% and upgrade fifteen stores to advanced refrigerants that have lower global warming potentials and do not deplete the ozone layer. The company will also pay a $300,000 civil penalty.

Trident Seafoods Corporation has agreed to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment on its vessels, under a proposed settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Under the settlement, Trident will spend up to $23 million to reduce refrigerant leaks from refrigerators and other equipment, use non-ozone depleting refrigerants, and improve company-wide compliance. The company will also pay a $900,000 civil penalty.

Mahmoud Mohamed Alkabbani, the owner of USA Car Parts, entered into an agreement with a Chinese company to purchase R-22, which was packaged in cylinders bearing counterfeit “Glacier” trademarks. The 2013 contract with the Chinese company listed the product as R-134a – which does not deplete the ozone layer – but a second, secret agreement called for the Chinese company to actually sell R-22 to Alkabbani.

Terminix International Company LP and U.S. Virgin Islands operation Terminix International USVI LLC were sentenced for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands pest control company illegally applied fumigants containing methyl bromide in multiple residential locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the condominium resort complex in St. John where a family of four fell seriously ill in March 2015 after the unit below them was fumigated. According to the plea recommendation, TERMINIX LP and TERMINIX, USVI are to pay a total of $10 million in criminal fines, community service, and restitution payments. Under the agreed recommendation, TERMINIX, USVI will pay $4 million in fines and $1 million in restitution to the EPA for response and clean-up costs at the St. John resort. TERMINIX LP will pay a fine of $4 million and will perform community service related to training commercial pesticide applicators in fumigation practices and a separate health services training program.

U.S. Seafoods of Seattle will implement enhanced leak detection practices and replace freezer equipment to address violations of the Clean Air Act resulting from releases of ozone-depleting substances from two of its fish processing vessels in Alaska. EPA investigators discovered that in 2012 the freezers on two vessels owned by U.S. Seafoods -- the F/V Seafreeze Alaska and the F/V Alliance -- were leaking an ozone-depleting refrigerant called R-22. EPA found that the vessel owners and operators failed to repair the leaks in a timely manner and failed to confirm that the freezers were not leaking when finally repaired. U.S. Seafoods will pay a $135,000 penalty, replace some or all of its current R-22 freezers with units that use ammonia, and retire those not replaced. The company will also implement enhanced leak detection and repair practices.

Under a settlement with the EPA, two pesticide distributors, Superior-Angran LLC and Superior Angran Caribbean Inc. of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, were required to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act and federal pesticides law. The two companies also agreed to pay a $210,000 fine and provide professional training for pesticide applicators. From 2013 to 2015, Superior-Angran purchased, stored and sold two pesticides containing methyl bromide without complying with the Clean Air Act’s ozone-depleting substances reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Superior Angran Caribbean exported the same two pesticides containing methyl bromide without complying with the Clean Air Act’s ozone-depleting substances reporting requirements.

Shannon Wayne Harrold, 48, of Glenford, Ohio, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 54 months in prison and ordered to pay $29,045 in restitution for violating the Clean Air Act by cutting the tubing on air conditioning units he was stealing, which released a regulated refrigerant into the environment. In August and September 2015, Harrold engaged in a scheme to steal air conditioner units in order to sell the copper and parts from the units at scrap yards. He targeted suburbs in Central Ohio, stealing several units and dismantling them on site. “Refrigerants deplete the ozone layer which protects people from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation such as skin cancer, so it’s imperative that they are handled properly and in accordance with the law,” said Jeffrey Martinez, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Ohio. “Through the illegal venting of refrigerants and the sale of stolen air conditioner parts, the defendant violated the Clean Air Act, which protects public health and clean ai