Law & Politics

DEA Steals Woman's Identity to Entrap Her Friends, Source: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1622273/thumbs/o-DEA-AGENT-facebook.jpgSometimes it feels as if the DEA’s policy is, “So we’re stomping your civil rights, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?”

New York woman, Sondra Arquiett, was arrested in 2010 on a cocaine charge. She and her boyfriend were accused of participating in a drug distribution ring. Apparently the cocaine charge was legit, as Arquiett plead guilty in 2012 and was sentenced to weekend incarceration for 6 months.

Sometime during all of this, DEA agent Timoty Sinnigen pulled photos and other data off Arquiett’s cell phone and proceeded to create a Facebook page using her name and personal information. Agent Sinnigen went so far as to impersonate intimate conversations with Arquiett’s friends and associates, peppering in phrases and details regarding drugs. His aim was to get more people to incriminate themselves via their relationship with Arquiett.

“Sondra Arquiett’s Facebook account looked as real as any other. It included photos of her posing on the hood of a sleek BMW and a close-up with her young son and niece. She even appeared to write that she missed her boyfriend, who was identified by his nickname. But it wasn’t her. The account was the work of DEA Agent Timothy Sinnigen.”

Title: DEA Steals Woman's Identity to Entrap Her Friends, Source: http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_41/705356/141007-dea-facebook-jsw-310p-crop_eb170f248bda1ed9e04aacc5d6e9cd7c.nbcnews-ux-720-520.jpg

In court, the government defended the actions of Agent Sinnigen, claiming that Arquiett “implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in … ongoing criminal investigations.”

It’s not certain exactly to what Arquiett agreed, but the claim of “implicit consent” seems very suspicious to me. Consent, by its very nature, is explicit. Consent implies that the one consenting is fully aware of what giving said consent would entail. Clearly, this was not the case.

Arquiett is suing Agent Sinnigen because she believes he endangered her and her son. Considering what we know black market coke dealers to be like, I think she is probably correct in feeling endangered. Sinnigen’s use of her identity to trap others implied that Arquiett was willingly aiding the DEA and actively trying to throw her Facebook contacts to the wolves.

Facebook policies dictate that, “You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.” It’s safe to assume that Arquiett did not give her permission for this.

Facebook themselves came out and released a statement that they do not condone the DEA creating false accounts. Joe Sullivan, facebook’s chief security officer stated in response to the Arquiett situation, “We regard the DEA’s conduct to be a knowing and serious breach of Facebook’s terms and policies,” and that they have “long made clear that law enforcement authorities are subject to these policies.”

Now, because the “victim” here is a convicted felon and no one gets a lot of sympathy for peddling cocaine, this story won’t likely get much media attention. But where does the line get drawn if this sets a precedent for DEA enforcement? If I get arrested and the cops ask for my phone to put in storage with my belongings, did I just unknowingly give implicit consent?

Even criminals have rights, and this agent just wiped his ass with Sondra Arquiett’s. Agent Sinnigen may get reprimanded, but what about his superiors who green-lighted the idea? When will the DEA be held accountable for their blatant disregard for civil rights?

People — always be careful about what you put online and what you say to law enforcement. I’m sure most officials are trying to do right, but there will always be a contingent of thugs who think that the ends justify the means.