How is parallel construction legal?

DEA teaches agents to recreate evidence chains to hide methods

Drug Enforcement Administration training documents released to MuckRock user C.J. Ciaramella show how the agency constructs two chains of evidence to hide surveillance programs from defense teams, prosecutors, and a public wary of domestic intelligence practices.

(follow link for the rest and links to the original story from Reuters)

So... basically they hide the means by which they know a thing happened - then use various techniques to come by that information (like saaay a traffic stop where they just happen to get lucky!).

Question 1: Isn't this subversion of the accused's constitutional right to face his accuser in a court of law?

Question 2: Isn't the fact that they keep it a secret from the prosecutor an indication that they know this isn't something they want people who prosecute crimes for a living knowing they do?

Question 3: Will the revolution be televised?

I'm sure there's a secret court somewhere using secret evidence to make it secretly legal using secret laws, no worries.

They don't want us to know about the talking cars. Whoops, I've said too much. Hey! Where are you taking me?! Let go! Murnph.

I'm part of the conspiracy.

On a currently active criminal I might have anywhere from 1 to 12 cases where they are a suspect. On one case i have a plate, others i have a good eyewitness, and another i have a good sale. Suspect pisses off girlfriend/wife. She then calls me and says that the suspect will be at a certain place at a certain time committing a certain crime. I watch in an unmarked till i hopefully observe an offense. Then in an attempt to hopefully preserve my source I get a marked unit to do a traffic stop for an observed valid traffic violation. The suspect is then arrested for the observed offense or for being in possession of whatever illegal thing they have.

What then do I release in discovery? All 12 cases including those that don't have enough evidence? The fact that it was the wife/girlfriend/mother/friend/etc that gave me the tip? What would happen to them if the suspect found out? Did the person giving the tip actually observe An offense? Or did they just hear the suspect idly chatter about a possible offense?

The tip might have put me in the right place at the right time but it was my observation of an offense that actually makes the case.

In reply to Ojala:

That seems perfectly reasonable. I guess my follow on question... is more an uneasyness with the if you can't beat em join em thing. Your example seems fine but the implication in the training materials did seem to make the suggestion that if there was no convienient real tip that perhaps a little contrived search in the right place might back up something that was obtained in a different way. I guess the subtle difference is just disconcerting because it's subtle and secret. Discovery is supposed to be the real story. Im sure this is mostly used exactly as you describe and it isn't widely abused but I live in the home of the Kids for Cash scandal. Eventually, every well meaning deception turns ugly. Potential for abuse is always realized.

Thank you for offering an actual scenario where this makes sense. I can't say I agree with it but I do understand the motivation better.

they are the government. everything they do is legal because they just did it.

I have learned over the years not to trust alphabet agencies (FBI DEA etc). There are some that are still good cops, but the culture seems to encourage "intel" and "sources" preservation above actually catching criminals and preventing crime. I will say that what they usually lack in street smarts they usually make up for with book smarts.

The revolution will not be televised. It may or may not be available to view on the internet.

I like the way he says "usually" in relation to law enforcement intelligence. Its comforting

I guess I don't see too much conspiracy problem here. Often there's lots of small players in a grander scheme. If you give up a source early on, or show all your cards on the first take down, you give up any chance of further developing the case or moving up the ladder to your higher targets. Doing a good job of covering up the timing of an informant, or by waiting for a more solid "red handed" arrest will expediate the required evidence for prosecution, and protect the information sources who are trying to do the right thing.

I'd imagine this is fairly common in practice, whether it's been in secret training or not.

I'm sure cops have a bunch of dirt on people that they can't actually use on them in a court of law, until they can get them in the right place at the right time to connect all the dots.

Just to approach the other side of this argument...Have the rules about unreasonable search and so on gotten so strict that the lawyers have forced police into this kind of action? "Well, officer, my client had the gate closed, so when you walked in on him berkeleying the 4 year old, you invaded his privacy, so the witness of the berkeleying is not allowed."

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

The laws, both statutory and common, have changed on what exempts a search from the warrant requirement. But "exigent circumstances" exempt a search from warrant in cases where there is imminent danger to the victim.

That isn't what drives a practice like "parallel construction". Strict rules on discovery are, in my opinion, necessary to prevent convictions of innocent people or convictions where you "know they did it" but can't prove it. But rules on discovery can be tedious and cumbersome to implement. Videos , statements, line-ups, and confessions are now all barcoded and tracked through the chain of custody.

I definitely construct cases with an eye torward what information will be available to discovery and what will play well toward the grand jury. That's all just part of making better cases and not just dumping a pile of E36 M3 in an envelope and sending it to grand jury.