Marijuana Policy Project

Far more questions than answers surround the slaying last week of 23-year-old Rachel Hoffman, a Florida State University graduate who was working as a confidential informant on behalf of Tallahassee police. 

Besides the terrible tragedy surrounding the violent death of a young woman who police say was abducted while trying to buy drugs and a gun from two men now facing charges, the sheer number of red flags this case raises demands more than internal review by the Tallahassee Police Department or even a grand jury of local citizens.

It cries for an independent outside investigation to minimize doubts about objectivity — not only to ascertain what did or didn't happen without regard for who may have dropped the ball, but also to protect and perhaps rebuild public confidence in law enforcement.

In addition, this case gives more weight to the argument that a standing civilian review board should be established to examine procedures of local law-enforcement agencies when a death occurs. Both the NAACP and this editorial board have previously supported this concept, which is in place in several cities around the nation.

In early 2006, the NAACP urged the creation of a citizen review panel following the fatal shooting in November 2005 of a 17-year-old youth from Thomasville, Ga., who TPD officers believed was reaching for a weapon. A grand jury later determined the shooting was justified, and a federal jury last month ruled that officers did not use excessive force.

In August 2006, the NAACP renewed its request for an independent citizens panel after two more TPD confrontations with criminal suspects ended with their deaths. The Tallahassee Democrat endorsed the idea as a strategy to improve public understanding of police work and the hazards that officers face.

The killing of Ms. Hoffman raises a different set of questions. Unlike the previous cases involving suspects' deaths, this time there is no reason to believe that any officer's safety was in immediate danger.

Rather, this killing poses troubling questions related to how confidential informants are managed, when it is appropriate to place them in potentially dangerous circumstances, and who should be informed before someone becomes, in effect, an agent of law enforcement.

Police have said that Ms. Hoffman, who was facing numerous felony drug charges and was in a drug diversion program, strayed beyond the bounds of her assignment and lost contact with officers overseeing the operation.

But authorities have yet to answer why a young woman — whose criminal past did not, according to public records, include weapons or violence — met with dangerous suspects to buy a gun.

Additionally troubling is the fact that while several of her friends say they knew that the young woman was working undercover, State Attorney Willie Meggs knew nothing. Mr.  Meggs said he is routinely informed in cases like this.

Also troubling is the fact that Ms. Hoffman's attorney was unaware that his client was acting on behalf of police. Defense lawyers' are paid to look out for their clients' interests; it's a fundamental principle in our system. That Ms. Hoffman's attorneys did not have that opportunity only adds another layer of doubt about how this case was handled.

The system certainly needs to assess what went wrong.  But for the sake of public trust, an outside review is necessary. Beyond that, it's time to start a citizen review board — not to impede law-enforcement agencies, but to enhance understanding and confidence in how they do their job.