PHILADELPHIA — Officers in the Philadelphia Police Department’s narcotics unit have sued their bosses for allegedly ordering them to lie on arrest paperwork to protect informants, a practice that analysts say raises the possibility of corruption and illegitimate prosecutions.
According to the December civil rights lawsuit, narcotics bureau commanders told their officers to disobey the department’s rules and illegally omit names, change locations, and modify other information on documents that are used as evidence during drug prosecutions if the arrestee is willing to become an informant.
‘‘This flipping process is kind of like the quick and dirty way to do the confidential informant process without following the rules required to ensure due process and integrity,’’ said attorney Brian Mildenberg, who is representing the group of African-American plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs include a staff inspector, a lieutenant, and a captain, who all work in the narcotics bureau and say they were racially discriminated against for refusing to carry out the request.
The charge made its way into the federal lawsuit after allegations of procedural and racial misconduct in the narcotics unit were announced during a September press conference held by the Guardian Civic League, a group that represents black police officers and also is a plaintiff in the case.
The debate widened in the same month when Philadelphia’s police commissioner told reporters of an ongoing internal affairs investigation into the allegations.
The department makes rules about recruiting, handling and paying their confidential informants available online. Before an informant can be used in most cases, officers are supposed to compile their biographical data, photographs, criminal records, and signatures, according to guidelines.
The directives also state that only the district attorney’s office can grant informants immunity from prosecution.
Analysts say police often exercise discretion on whether to arrest a person and may choose not to detain someone in exchange for a quick snippet of information, especially if a suspect can divulge something that could lead to the dismantling of a criminal enterprise.
But if supervisors ordered police to lie on official paperwork and officers complied, that puts the department in troublesome legal territory, said Eugene O’Donnell, a former New York police officer and prosecutor who is now a lecturer in criminal justice.
