Feds & Narcs in a Comparative ScholarshipnJames Q. Wilson: The Investigators:nBasic Books: New York.nby Charles E. RicenOince the death of J. Edgar Hoovernin 1972, the Federal Bureau of Investigationnhas been subjected to extensivenscrutiny and criticism. In the process,nthe realities of what the Bureau actuallyndoes have been obscured. We havenneeded a balanced look at those realities.nFortunately, we now have it in thisnvolume.nThe author, the Henry Lee ShattucknProfessor of Government at Harvard,nhas already established himself as anperceptive analyst of crime and policenmatters. This volume is a comparativenstudy of the management systems of thenFBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.nIn Chapter One, the authornanalyzes the influence of the bureaucraticnstructure on law enforcementnagencies, noting the effect of outsidenpolitical influences in impeding thenattention of those agencies to their tasks.nProfessor Wilson stresses the differingntasks of the FBI and the DEA. especiallyncomparmg the emphasis of the FBI onndetection of crimes alreadv committednand the instigation by DEA agents ofndrug offenses where otherwise therenwould be no complainants. This is onenof the crucial distinctions between thentwo agencies, accounting for the FBI’snemphasis on clean-cut. presentablenagents who would inspire trust in intervieweesn(most of whom are law-abiding)nand the DEA’s reliance on agents capablenof blending into the drug world andnof getting cooperation by inducementsnand threats.nThis distinction is further discussednin Chapter Two which details the dayto-dayntasks of the investigators in thentwo agencies. “Talking to people is thenCharles Rice is Professor of Law atnNotre Dame Universitv.n20inChronicles of Culturenname of the game.” the author quotesna veteran FBI agent. “Everything elsenis just overhead.” With the DEA. however,n”the dominant strategv of theseninvestigators is not that of detecting ornrandomly observing a crime but of instigatingnone under controlled circumstances.”nOne problem confronted by the DEAnis that “the federal courts appear tonregard narcotics trafficking about asnseriously as interstate shipment of stolennmotor vehicles and much less seriouslvnthan bank robbery . . .” Added to thatnis the difficulty created by federalism.nUnlike other nations, such as Francenwhich has a national police force, ornEngland which has a single police forcenfor each city, police responsibilities innthe United States are divided amongnlocal, state and federal authoritiesnwith often overlapping and competingnjurisdictions. The author analyzes wellnthe problems this situation creates inndrug cases, but that such a federal rolen”will inevitably entail the developmentnby federal agents of their own stock ofninformants.’ Professor Wilson takes anmeasured approach, too, to the subjectnof “dirty tricks.” such as the allegationsnthat the FBI “wrote anonymous lettersndesigned to embarrass members of thenKlan, the Black Panther Party, and variousnleftist organizations.” He suggestsnthat “there are circumstances in whichnone might reasonably contemplate authorizingnsuch acts,”‘ but that theirnemplovment should be strictlv definednand hmited.n1 he book contains a good analysisnof the difficulties involved in dealingnwith that undefinable category, “whitencollar crime.” With respect to the usenof informants, plea bargaining and offersnof immunity, the author aptly observes,n”Those observers who find such methodsnobjectionable when employed inn”There remains enough evidence . . . that fascism will come disguised asnthe means of suppressing illegal drugs . . .; Wilson might have exhibitednmore awareness of the FBI as a suppressor of civil liberties…”n” —Nationndealing with a drug traffic whichnoperates without regard to politicalnboundaries.nw ilson brings to his work a refreshingncalmness and spirit of realism.nHe demonstrates that the use of informantsnis essential in many FBI cases andnindispensable in virtually all DEA cases.nThe DEA’s problem here is aggravatednby the fact that the DEA usually requiresnits informants to testify in court,nwith obvious risk to the informant,nwhile the FBI does not require its informantsnto testify unless they are defendantsnin the case. The author’sntreatment of informants is balancednand practical. He recognizes that onlynthe federal government can adequatelyndevelop large interstate or internationalnnnnarcotics cases should pause beforenerecting their objection into a principlenand reflect on whether they wish to barnthe use of these methods in investigatingncorporate or governmental consensualncrimes.”nOne useful point emphasized by ProfessornWilson is that the desire fornautonomy, rather than for largernbudgets, more personnel or larger powers,nis the dominant motive of publicnexecutives generally. This is true particularlynof the FBI and DEA. The essentialndifference between the twonagencies, from the perspective of theirnexecutives, is that the FBI was able tonestablish a high degree of autonomynwhile the DEA was not. He credits J.nEdgar Hoover with the “great achievement”nthatn