In the state of NY, an officer tried to serve a subpoena to my cousin who is supposedly a witness to a crime. He, the witness, is a controlled informant. The subpoena had his CI number on it but I don't believe his name was on it. I was right there when we arrived and I heard his landlord say that he was told by the server to give it to him. No envelope. Just a piece of paper. I know that a subpoena can be served to someone else on the premises if they are 18 or older but since this was not protecting his identity, is this legal?

For whatever reason(s) he is doing this, "helping", and why, I am no longer certain. Either way, I don't think that his reason(s) should affect how he was served. From what I read and heard, his identity is supposed to be protected. Maybe not in this case?

Hello tr:

His CI status is a COP thing. The courts don't care about protecting him... In fact, all he is, is fodder for the courts. They want a conviction, and they don't give a CRAP about his safety.

excon

Also, if and when he shows up in court is he going to wear a Ronald McDonald mask over his face and disguise his voice? No. It does not matter if he is/was a CI as pretty soon everyone will know. Masking his identity while the investigation/arrest was underway is a completely different matter but now that the arrest/investigation is completed and the matter has gone to trial, it becomes a totally different story. It's not what you see in the movies that happens in real life.

Hey ExCon, I had a feeling you might answer this. Whether you meant for it to be funny or not, thanks for the laugh. At the same time, I'm kind of ticked because that's exactly what it seemed like and was my first instinct or thought. What SOB's. THANKS.

Twinkie, how are the raccoons? Thanks for replying as well.

I think I'll find out more tomorrow but I was under the impression that there's a grand jury first. This is definitely not my area at all and it's confusing. The way I understand it is that he would see a list of names of the GJ and also get to take a look before entering to make certain that he doesn't recognize anyone. Big deal! "They" say that the GJ is not allowed to talk about anything that goes on. What they are not allowed to do and what they really do outside of court is a different story. Of course people talk. Next step is a trial I believe if the defendant wants to take it to trial. This is where I believe my cousin and the defendant would see each other face to face so this is all a bunch of boloney. I guess there's really no way for a D.A. or Asst. D.A. to ever prevent a trial. No wonder why he was so ticked. I can't say I condone what he's doing because I'm not really sure why yet but these B's are feeding him the bull aren't they? So I guess this subpoena was legal the way they went about serving him?

My question is - if his name was not on the subpoena, just his CI number, how did the Officer serve it? The Affidavit of Service has to have a name on it, you have to ask for the person by name when you serve. I'm a little confused about that part.

And, honestly, in many cases CI are simply fodder - I find it unfortunate but true. The Police protect people as much as they can - but then the DA gets into things and doesn't pay close attention, people run into each other at Police Stations, whatever else can happen.

I don't find the way this was served to be illegal but I do find the "no name on it" to be extremely strange and I don't know how service was accomplished.

I have also never seen a CI served in this matter - they usually get a phone call to come in, they get handed the Supoena - they're a friendly witness. I'm not a CI but this is how it works when I'm subpoenaed to testify - I get a call that I will be needed, time and date. I then go into Court and get handed the Subpoena as I walk in. Saves them the time and trouble, saves me the time and trouble.

Did this answer the question? I think the answer is - CI are not necessarily protected as well as they should be.

I found out that the officer(s) who served or gave the subpoena to my cousins landlord were his controlling officer and the supervisor in case that makes a difference. He did call and speak with them and they told him that they were just doing their job. He understands that it is just a professional relationship they have but he feels betrayed by them. Served but not protected.

I did very recently see the subpoena myself and it indeed only had a CI# on it and not his name. The landlord knocked on my cousins door that day and said that "All they told me was that you were a witness to a crime and that I must give this to you." So the LL handed the subpoena to him. I'm a first hand witness to that much. I thought that was ridiculous because of course the LL now knows that he's a CI and who knows who the LL will talk to. Just as important, it listed the name of the defendant on it too. This is not my area of expertise at all but it sounds like a pretty rotten thing to have done even if he may have deserved it in part for doing such work in the first place.

I had to subpoena someone a few years back for something and it looked nothing like this piece of paper. Maybe it was time sensitive and they just typed it up quickly on MS Word. It must be authentic though because it has a signature or signature stamp on it by the D.A. Either way, sounds like they can get away with anything.

My cousin said the reason for the subpoena was because he was lied to, so he says. He said he told the officers that he would have no problem testifying for the grand jury and since he had done so in the past for other cases. But in this particular case, he wanted to be assured that IF he had to go further and testify in a trial that it would be a closed hearing where it's just the judge,. (I'm sorry, I forget who else.) But the main thing is that he would NOT see the defendant. I cannot find anything on the internet about such a thing. Just an "in camera" type hearing but it wasn't for the state of NY.

I believe that since he has quit or is trying to now because he lost trust in them, maybe they just don't give a hoot about protecting his identity. I did finally find out that he was doing this to make money so they don't see him as a criminal of sorts. I can't say I agree with why he or anyone would do such a thing. He has a pretty good job and makes good money. He says he never lied to them about anything and mainly he felt betrayed. Also, he did say that he asked his controller to please just call him if the D.A. or Asst. D.A. wants or needs to subpoena him. He told them that he will meet them and there is no need for an inconvenience. Well the officer lied and said he was trying to reach him that entire day. That much they did lie about because I was with my cousin that entire day. His phone was on. We were back and forth and at his place periodically so he was not trying to hide or anything silly. We were back at his place at a reasonable time. So for whatever reason, they must have been afraid he would run? I must admit, I am thoroughly confused about that part. I'm sorry to say that I strongly believe that these cops are no good liars. I'm not saying ALL cops.

My cousin has not been here to guide me since I posted this on AMHD. He will be here at my place this Sunday. Since he is backwoods and doesn't own a computer, I will let him on mine again in case I'm not explaining this fully. It's accurate but I may be leaving some things out.
Thanks so much for your reply.

Whatever else is going on I find it frightening and dangerous that he is NOT being protected by the very people he is helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trmpldonagn

I'm sorry to say that I strongly believe that these cops are no good liars.

---

Hello again, tr:

I don't know what you're sorry for.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tr:

I dunno what you're sorry for.

excon

---

Aaaaaand first laugh of my day thank you!! And if I may, I would like to take back my apology. The only thing I would like to apologize for is that I said, "I'm sorry to say....."
And possibly MOST cops. K, now I might be offending some people out there so I better be careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Whatever else is going on I find it frightening and dangerous that he is NOT being protected by the very people he is helping.

---

Agree. Does this sound legal so far? As far as how the subpoena was served?

Also wondering if there's a way they can have this "closed" hearing or sorts if the defendant does choose to go to trial. I only read somewhere through Google that in some cases, the defendant can choose to have the CI revealed and/or meet face to face. By the way, and you probably know this already, it's a confidential informant, not a controlled informant which I originally wrote. Can see why they call it "confidential".

Hello again, t:

I don't know why anybody would want to help the cops in their drug war. I don't know why the cops would want to burn somebody who was helping them.

None of it makes sense to me - NONE of it. The drug war is destroying my country. Some day we'll wake up from this nightmare - unless the drug war overwhelms us first.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, t:

I don't know why anybody would want to help the cops in their drug war. I don't know why the cops would want to burn somebody who was helping them.

None of it makes sense to me - NONE of it. The drug war is destroying my country. Some day we'll wake up from this nightmare - unless the drug war overwhelms us first.

excon

---

We'll see if any of it makes sense once he's here and explains further over the weekend. Will definitely keep you posted. Most of it, definitely not everything, makes sense except for those couple of things. As far as if the cops are really really burning him so to speak, I think it may just seem more likely that they just don't care a whole lot especially because of the way they served the subpoena. I could see why he was ticked. As far as why anyone would want to help, I'm with you there. It would be nice yes, if the drug war was just gone or most of the bad anyway, no?
Not that it wouldn't be a commendable thing to do otherwise, (?), but I really wondered if he got in trouble, a dwi or something and maybe wants a reduced sentence? From what I read and have heard myself, that is why most people do it. For lack of a better word, a snitch. I shouldn't say that though because I'm not sure. He does't do drugs. They could have just used him. Could be so many things and I could be wrong altogether. I got a dwi in November of 1997 and I just paid the piper and the price. Luckily, since I had no record and it was my first, they dropped it to a dwai which you probably already know is equivalent to a traffice infraction but still bad. All in all, it's rare I believe when you have a ci that does these things out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a nice thing on one hand but also pretty dangerous I would think.

Maybe I read too much on the internet but I did see where these CI's help nail pedophiles and I would have preferred he chose to do that. Not that they wouln't retaliate. The drug war? I agree. And, hopefully we will wake up one day and things will be the way they were in the old(er) days. Ah yes, those old days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I have also never seen a CI served in this matter - they usually get a phone call to come in, they get handed the Supoena - they're a friendly witness. I'm not a CI but this is how it works when I'm subpoenaed to testify - I get a call that I will be needed, time and date. I then go into Court and get handed the Subpoena as I walk in. Saves them the time and trouble, saves me the time and trouble.

---

This was the first thing that occurred to me when I read this. Something doesn't smaell right here.

First the fact he got a subpoena means he is going to have to appear in court and testify, was this for the actual trial, or a grand jury hearing.

But once he takes the stand to testify they will all know who he is and what he is going to say.

CI is only good until they become a witness that has to testify.

He had told them that he was unconfortable that if he testified for a grand jury that it may possibly go to trial. No guarantees. Not long after he refused and stated his concerns, he was indeed subpoenaed by the same officers he was helping. They told him that either the DA or Asst. DA told them to and that they then were just doing their jobs by following order and serving the subpoena.

Yes, he was asked to testify and said no, so the DA merely is going to force him to. Happens all the time.

The CI is not working for the police they are using him because they have blacked mail him into it most likely due to some crime they caught him on.

At the grand jury he can still remain unknow, but if they need to have him testify in court, the defense will have to be told of who is going to testify

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

First the fact he got a subpoena means he is going to have to appear in court and testify, was this for the actual trial, or a grand jury hearing.

But once he takes the stand to testify they will all know who he is and what he is going to say.

CI is only good untill they become a witness that has to testify.

---

I agree Fr_Chuck. I agree with Excon and you when said that now they don't give a hoot once the whole trial process begins. Our posts crossed. Just in case... he was subpoenaed for the grand jury. He won't see the defendant in that case. At least not yet. They couldn't guarantee that the defendant and/or his lawyer would choose to go to trial after that. If yes, in that case, I believe he was at least hoping for a "closed" hearing in which his identity would still be protected somewhat. (He would just meet with the judge. I'm not sure about the defendant's lawyer.) Maybe in the state of NY, they can't guarantee such a thing. But as far as the subpoena, I did see it. A lesson to be learned here I think. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, he was asked to testify and said no, so the DA merely is going to force him to. Happens all the time.

The CI is not working for the police they are using him because they have blacked mail him into it most likely due to some crime they caught him on.

At the grand jury he can still remain unknow, but if they need to have him testify in court, the defense will have to be told of who is going to testify

---

If it goes to trial, supposedly, he would only be identified by his CI#. That much doesn't make sense to me because the defense will still see him. The court process actually confused me a bit so I googled. I believe if it goes to court/trial, that is where the defendant and my cousin will meet face to face, not at the grand jury. He obviously wants to avoid that but from what I understand, he doesn't have much of a choice. Again, a lesson to be learned. Supposedly, the jury cannot talk about anything or disclose who the ci is/was but we're living in the real world. Will definitely keep you posted. This is why if I see wrong doing; children (2) left in the car while the father "did his thing" just days ago, I report it anonymously. Some of my past posts also tell of where I felt I needed to report a situation and I was glad in the end that I did as much as I struggled with it. This "helping" the cops the way he did is very risk-taking in the first place. I will keep posted. He seemed lost and confused. He did not show for the past Easter weekend. He is supposed to call and come by my place tomorrow.
Thanks.

The answer to my own? Remains to be seen. One lawyer told him it was illegal. Another said it was definitely wrong but didn't want to take the case. Yes, he is actually trying to sue which is ridiculous! He doesn't want to be exposed? I was embarrassed to show my cousin the post anyway. I told him there was a problem with my computer. Simply detached something. I do feel bad that I was wrong and thought he was in trouble. He has been doing this for some time but never had to go to a trial. There is a strong chance this time he may have to. So it's true I guess that a ci only good until they have to testify at a trial. It's also true in a way that some cops are only good at protecting until they gather all that they need. Lesson here? He should have stayed out of all of this. I understand I should not have even posted such a question. I was not even able to post this question on a couple of other sites. They immediatedly banned my IP address and I did not know why at first. At least there are some people out there looking to protect somewhat. I'll get this removed asap. Thanks everyone for trying to answer the question.

Ahhhhh OK. I emailed someone and asked them to use their discretion on whether to delete this thread. They must feel it could be helpful to someone in the future. So thanks Sunflower. It may have helped and/or will help someone down the road. Thanks again to everyone who answered.