UNDERCOVER DECEPTION CLUES: A CASE OF RESTRICTIVE DETERRENCE*

Although studies on drug dealing have examined techniques sellers use to ensure against undercover infiltrations, none has explored the use of such techniques at the interactional level. The objective here is to address this void by exploring the perceptual shorthand dealers use to determine whether buyers in question are undercover. This perceptual shorthand processes one of two types of deception clues in making this judgment: trend discontinuity and interpersonal illegitimacy. Trend discontinuity is associated with police in formants and results from situations in which (I) familiar customers suddenly introduce unfamiliar others who wish to buy drugs and (2) familiar customers suddenly and signifcantly increase quantities they themselves desire to purchase. Interpersonal illegitimacy is associated with undercover agents and results from situations in which unfamiliar buyers emit certain physical and verbal “vibes” believed to be indicative of covert law en forcement personnel. Discussion focuses on the data's presuppositional and microstructural implications for restrictive deterrence (Gibbs, 1975). Data were drawn from semi-structured interviews with 32 semi-institutionalized heroin user-dealers located in a very large western US. city.

[1]  David Sudnow,et al.  Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office , 1993 .

[2]  B. Jacobs Undercover Drug-Use Evasion Tactics: Excuses and Neutralization , 1992 .

[3]  P. Biernacki Junkie Work, “Hustles” and Social Status among Heroin Addicts , 1979 .

[4]  L. Zurcher,et al.  The Paradoxical Impact of Criminal Sanctions: Some Microstructural Findings , 1984 .

[5]  L. Redlinger Marketing and Distributing Heroin: Some Sociological Observations , 1975 .

[6]  Marcus Felson,et al.  ROUTINE ACTIVITIES AND CRIME PREVENTION IN THE DEVELOPINGMETROPOLIS , 1987 .

[7]  Jeffrey Alexander FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE VOLUNTARISM IN THE WORK OF TALCOTT PARSONS: A THEORETICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL REINTERPRETATION* , 1978 .

[8]  Henry Scowcroft Bettenson,et al.  Concerning the city of God against the pagans , 1984 .

[9]  C. Faupel Heroin use and criminal careers , 1987 .

[10]  J. Langer Drug Entrepreneurs and Dealing Culture , 1977 .

[11]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[12]  R. Paternoster,et al.  The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues , 1987 .

[13]  Prestige, Paranoia and Profit: On Becoming a Dealer of Illicit Drugs in a University Community , 1976 .

[14]  Bruce A. Jacobs,et al.  UNDERCOVER DECEPTION , 1992 .

[15]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  B. Lex,et al.  NARCOTICS ADDICTS' HUSTLING STRATEGIES , 1990 .

[17]  J. Harry,et al.  Deterrent and Experiential Effects in Perceptual Deterrence Research: a Replication and Extension , 1982 .

[18]  M. Girodo Symptomatic Reactions to Undercover Work , 1991, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[19]  P. Ekman,et al.  Detecting deception from the body or face. , 1974 .