Undercover police or detectives must engage in authorized crimes for two major reasons: to provide the suspects the change to engage in the target crime and to maintain a false identity or enhance access to the suspect (Joh, 2009). They may engage in the crime as long as their conduct fulfills or enhances the operations' objectives. The opportunities they provide are often crimes themselves if the authorization to commit them has not been previously given. The detectives provide opportunities by pretending to be drug users or illegal gun buyers in search of a willing seller. They participate in the organization's crime in order to maintain their status by convincing the criminals of their willingness to engage in the criminals' crime. It may not always calm suspicions but authorized criminality is only one of the tools available to undercover officers in their surveillance task (Joh).

Question number 3 asks if the undercover officers should be compelled to intervene in order to prevent crimes already known to them. Undercover operations are normally used as a first course of action instead of as a means when other courses fail (Joh, 2009). Sociologist and leading scholar of undercover policing Gary Marx enumerated the three different types of undercover investigations as surveillance as the most passive, preventive as the more active, and the facilitative as the most active and involving the police. The second type, prevention, seeks to stop or prevent an offense or make it difficult. The undercover agent will diffuse the crowd by arguing for non-violence, for example, or strengthening victims (Joh). This is more active than the first type, surveillance, which is the assignment given to the 2 undercover detectives. They are, thus, not compelled to intervene.

Established criteria that need to be clarified beforehand consist of applicable State and federal constitutional law restraints...

These laws generally understand and accept that these undercover officers breach the law in order to catch criminals. They are relevant and applicable doctrines on the direct criminal liability of police officers engaged in authorized criminality, limitations on targets caught, and administrative guidelines within police departments. The direct liability doctrine imposes mental state and public authority defense requirements. The prosecution of targets has limitations and barriers. And administrative guidelines require prior approval by the special agent in-charge; prohibit participation in violent acts except in self-defense; and lack the regulatory force of a stature that can impose sanctions or defend a target of an undercover investigation (Joh).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banks, C. (2004). "The Interaction between Ethics and the Criminal Justice System."

Ethics and criminal justice. Part I. Sage Publications. Retrieved on March 30, 2013

from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/46945_CH_1.pdf

Gunter W.D. And Hertig, C.A. (2005). An introduction to theory, practice and career development for public and private investigators. IFPO: International Foundation for protection Officers. Retrieved on March 30, 2013 from http://www.ifpo.org/articlebank.intro.pdf

Heibutzki, R. (2013). Practical and ethical issues facing undercover police officers eHow: Demand Media, Inc. Retrieved on March 29, 2013 from http://www.ehow.com/info_8423453_practical-facing-undercover-police-officers.html

Joh, E. (2009). Breaking the law to enforce it: undercover police participation in crime.

Vol. 62 # 1, Stanford Law Review: The Stanford Law Review. Retrieved on March

29, 2013 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Breaking+the+law+to+enforce+it%3a+undercover+police+participation+in...-a0216682480