Figure D1 provides an overview of the steps undertaken to identify and interview a sample of high-level smugglers. We first obtained data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), coordinated with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and most importantly, gained approval for the study from Abt's Internal Review Board (IRB)²⁷.

Steps To Interview High-Level Cocaine Smugglers

Sample Selection

Sample selection procedures were developed to identify high-level drug smugglers who have experience smuggling large loads of illegal drugs into the United States. We focused on smugglers who were likely to have information on smuggling behavior patterns, perceptions of interdiction activities, and attitudes about the risks associated with smuggling drugs into the U.S. The goal was to identify at least 100 such prisoners and, predicting a 50% response rate, to obtain 50 interviews. It is important to note that the sample selection process was purposive, rather than random.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Data

Under Congressional directive, the Sentencing Commission receives official documents on each felony offender sentenced in the federal courts, including the judgment and commitment order, pre-sentence investigation report (PSR), written plea agreements, statement of reason for sentencing, and guideline application. From these documents, the Sentencing Commission codes approximately 300 variables into their database. These variables include such things as the amount of drugs involved, the offender's role in the offense, number of co-defendants, jurisdiction, sentence imposed, and demographics of the offender.

The PSRs provide an opportunity to incorporate in-depth information about offenses. The reports offer detailed descriptions of how the offense occurred, how the arrest/indictment occurred, the role federal officials played in securing an arrest or indictment, the number of participants, reasons for the offender's participation, amount and use of weapons, how much the offender knew about the offense, demographic information (e.g., marital status, health, education, drug use, employment, family relationships), and prior criminal record and prior drug involvement of the offender. The files also include copies of the indictment, plea agreement, objections by the prosecutor or the government, and the sentencing report.

Sample selection began with the identification of all those offenders sentenced between 1992 and 1998 and serving time for a violation of section 18 U.S.C. 2D1.1. This section refers to unlawful manufacturing, importing, exporting, or trafficking of illegal drugs (including possession with the intent to commit these offenses and attempt or conspiracy). The time frame was limited to offenders sentenced since 1992 because our interest is primarily on smuggling activities that occurred in the 1990s and because 1992 was the first year that the Bureau of Prisons began distinguishing between crack and powder cocaine. This distinction is important because prior to 1992 it is impossible to identify whether the primary drug related to the trafficking offense was crack or powder cocaine. Fiscal year 1998 was the cutoff because this was the most recent data available.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission provided their electronic database for all offenders sentenced from 1992 through 1998 for drug trafficking, as either the primary or one of the five most serious charges. Four hundred and fifteen (415) offenders were identified who met these criteria.

Of these 415, we wished to distinguish between high-level drug smugglers and those who operated at a lower level. Based on the literature, our interviews with undercover agents, and conversations with USSC staff, variables that distinguished between these two groups included:

• aggravated role in the offense
• criminal history points²⁸, as calculated from the defendant's prior criminal history
• offense level²⁹, the defendant's final adjusted offense level
• acceptance of responsibility
• defendants' departure status, including whether the defendant provided substantial assistance

We reviewed the majority (93%, or 51 of 55) of 1998 PSRs³⁰ to assess how each variable was related to the offender and the instant offense. Part of this sample (39) included all those who had either accepted responsibility or cooperated with the government, under the assumption that this would be the group that would be the most likely to agree to an interview. The reviewers paid particular attention to the differences between those that accepted responsibility or provided substantial assistance and those who did not, however, ultimately this difference didn't affect our decision.

Although the level of detail in each PSR varied across reports, a specific set of elements, when available, were coded for each report (see Appendix DI for the coding document developed for culling information from PSRs). The coded data included background information (age, place of birth, education, and ethnicity), prior arrests and sentences, and the specifics of the instant and other offenses (region of smuggling activity, role in the offense, size of the load, type of drug, method of conveyance, codefendants and any other information provided). This information was used to make a determination of the offender's level of involvement in drug. Selection at this point was done through a case by case assessment of the decision-making authority the offender had in the instant offense, their past experience smuggling drugs, and their role in the instant offense.

The primary variable used to make this assessment was the role in the offense, where mules, couriers, offloaders, and those who managed, led, or supervised activities that were unrelated to the transport were excluded from the pool of eligible interviews. The role of the defendant in the instant offense was typically well documented in the PSR. We also focused on the scope of the operation that the defendant was overseeing and the defendant's relationship to the actual importation of the drugs.

The review indicated that U.S. citizens were more likely to have authority over picking-up the smuggled load and distributing the drugs within the U.S. and were less likely to have had any decision-making authority over the actual transport of the drugs into the U.S. We also found that females were more likely to have played a minor role in the offense, often acting as couriers, mules, or assistants to their male companion. Based on the review of the sample of 1998 PSRs, the following decisions were made to narrow the pool of eligible interviewees for offenders sentenced in all years:

• Women were excluded from the sample due to the expense associated with interviewing at both female and male correctional institutions.
• U.S. citizens with no prior convictions and who were not leaders or organizers of more than 5 people as part of a smuggling operation were excluded from the sample. Offenders who fit these criteria were more likely to be transporting drugs within the U.S. and, if involved in the actual transport, had reduced roles in the transportation activities, such as courier, mules, or off-loaders. Therefore, the U.S. citizens who remained were all those with a criminal history, regardless of their role, or who were leaders or organizers of a conspiracy involving 5 or more people. The reason these criteria could not be extended to non-U.S. citizens was because the non-U.S. criminal history is not systematically recorded.
• All offenders with an offense level below 32 were excluded from the sample. A base offense level of 32 indicates that one smuggled or conspired to smuggle at least 5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms of cocaine into the U.S. This criteria would include the majority of cases where the offenders held leadership positions in a conspiracy to smuggle more than 15 kilograms of cocaine.

The following are examples of cases reviewed:

Case 1: A 37 year-old Haitian who recruited body carriers to transport drugs from Haiti to the U.S. on commercial airlines.
Case 2: A 52 year-old Cuban worked for an organization receiving drugs transported via a commercial vessel and distributed drugs within the U.S. His role was to hire people to transport the drugs to retailers in the U.S.
Case 3: 47 year-old Cuban who worked with Colombian contacts to organize airdrops to private vessels in the Bahamian waters.
Case 4: 53-year old U.S. citizen who was responsible for all aspects of the transportation of up to 600 kilos of cocaine through Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Islands into the U.S., using a variety of methods.

The first two cases were excluded because PSR information indicated that they worked for someone else who was the actual organizer of the operation. The defendants described in cases 3 and 4 were described as being more involved in the organization of the transportation operations and were included in the sample.

The BOP matched the selected inmates to prison data, identifying the prisons where the offenders were housed. As Figure D2 depicts, the 174 offenders were located in 50 separate prisons (with anywhere from 1 to 15 offenders per prison, indicated in the figure by the size of the pentagon), scattered across the U.S. It would have been cost prohibitive to go to all the prisons, so we limited ourselves to prisons where there were four or more offenders or there was someone that we were particularly interested in. Figure D3 summarizes the sample selection process.

Location of Prisoners

Sample Refinement Process

Final Sample and Interview Process

Interview Process

Ultimately we went to ten different prison facilities. Because the warden has complete control over the facility, the interview procedure varied from prison to prison. In general, inmates were placed on "call out"³¹ and were taken to a room in the institution for the interview. In some cases inmates were approached about the study by prison staff and in others interviewers approached inmates.

Reasons for refusal included claims of innocence, mistrust of the confidentiality claim, not wanting to relive the past, attorney recommended non-participation, and hearing what the interview was about before hand and already decided on non-participation. One interview was not completed after signing the informed consent because language barriers became too difficult.

Subjects who agreed to participate seemed interested in sharing their experiences with the interviewers. A few subjects also mentioned that they were already cooperating with the government in some capacity so felt they had nothing to hide. The subjects did not request additional assurances of confidentiality during the interview and did not ask any questions or express any concerns after the interview. Additionally, no one refused to answer any questions during the interview. Interviewers obtained interviews from eleven inmates.

Although the approach used by the interviewers to gain participation was standard, the call out procedure and privacy level was different at each institution. For example, At Miami FCI, inmates were scheduled for a 30-minute call out to the Psychology Department. Those who agreed were then scheduled for a second call out for either that afternoon or the next morning and interviewed in either an empty office or a conference room. The facility had decided that call outs to the Psychology Department would raise the least number of questions among the inmates. Although the interviewers were initially concerned that the inmates who agreed to participate may change their mind once they returned to their cell, the interviewers did not find this to be a problem. In addition, the break gave two inmates the time to consult their attorneys before participating.

Overall, the inmates seemed willing to participate, regardless of the call out procedures or the level of privacy in the interviewing area. Appendix DII summarizes experiences at each of the ten facilities visited.

The Interview Guide

The interview guide was designed for conducting a semi-structured open-ended personal interview. Talking points developed based on a variety of methods. First, interviews were conducted with four U.S. Customs Agents who had worked undercover narcotics cases in the preceding 24 months in all four regions of the United States. Second, the interviews were supplemented by extensive input from Coast Guard and Customs sponsors. The third basis for developing the guide was a review of the extant literature.

The interview guide (see Appendix DIII) examined a variety of topics, including prior arrest and convictions, the specifics of the inmate's first, most recent, and typical smuggling offense, and perceptions of the risk associated with smuggling drugs into the U.S. Questions were also included to measure the smuggler's reaction to various levels of risk of apprehension, conviction, and sentence. The wording, order, and follow-up questions were dependent on the inmate's responses. Interviews were tape recorded to insure accurate recording of the interviewees' responses. Validity checks were also made across responses and against official records and offense information contained in the pre-sentence report.

The instrument was translated into Spanish and was used in those cases (8) where the inmate was more comfortable discussing their smuggling activities in Spanish. When conducted in Spanish, a translator was used to translate the questions asked by the interviewer and the responses provided by the inmate and were tape recorded as well.

Sample Description

Interviewees varied in age from 32 to 70, with an average age of 48. Participants in the study were arrested for their current offense between 1988 and 1997, and 59% of the sample was arrested in 1993 or later. According to the PSRs, subjects' average period of incarceration was 305 months (about 25 years). Sentence lengths ranged from 10 months to 470 months. 15 out of 34 respondents (44%) had prior criminal history points (reflecting past U.S. convictions). Only 2 of those without U.S. criminal records admitted to any prior non-U.S. arrests.

Just under half (46%) of the reporting sample classified their ethnicity or background as being Cuban, a quarter (25%) Colombian, 11% Puerto Rican, 7% Venezuelan, 4% Haitian, 4% Peruvian, and 4% Bahamian. Six respondents did not specify their ethnicity. According to the PSRs, 31 respondents (94%) were classified as 'white' (both Hispanic and Anglo), 2 (6%) were classified as 'black', and 1 was not given an ethnicity or background classification.

The PSRs document that at the time of sentencing, 16 respondents (47%) were U.S. citizens, 11 respondents (32%) were U.S. residents or legal aliens, 5 respondents (15%) were illegal aliens, and 2 respondents (6%) were non-U.S. citizens. During the interviews, 43% of the reporting sample indicated having a U.S. citizenship, 23% Colombian, 13% Cuban, 10% U.S. resident alien, 3% Venezuelan, 3% Peruvian, and 3% Bahamian. Four respondents did not report their citizenship status.

During the interviews, 23% of the sample reported ending their studies in elementary school (before 9th grade), 29% reported having a high school diploma or GED (and no further formal education) or some high school experience, 29% indicated having some college experience, 16% claimed having a college degree, and 3% reported having some graduate school experience (one respondent). Three respondents did not indicate the level of education they completed. According to PSRs, 16 respondents (48%) did not continue their formal education past the high school level.

According to the respondents, 40% of the sample had engaged in occasional or social drug use (mostly marijuana and cocaine), 28% had used illicit drugs moderately (once or twice a week), 20% had never used illicit drugs, and 12% had used illicit drugs heavily. Nine interviewees did not report their level of prior personal drug use.

The average age at which subjects first became involved in drug smuggling was 31. 32% of the sample reported that their first involvement with drug smuggling occurred between the ages of 16 and 25. Subjects indicated that their length of involvement in drug smuggling ranged from 1 year (instant offense representing their first involvement) to 24 years, with an average of 11 years.

Excluding those who said this was their first drug related offense (5 respondents), the average length of involvement in drug smuggling was 14 years. Results from the interviews indicate that the average number of career smuggling trips among interviewees was 30, ranging from 1 to 200. Excluding those who said that the instant offense represented their first time, respondents averaged 39 trips before apprehension. Thirty-two percent of these reported involvement in over 50 trips during their careers. According to the interviewees, the average load size for a typical smuggling operation was approximately 900 kilograms, although load size varied widely with transportation method. Although smugglers' exaggerations and limitations must be taken into account when interpreting load amounts, over half of the sample (59%) reported average load sizes of 500 kilograms or more.

Although all interviewees were informed that their responses would not affect their standing within the criminal justice system, answers relating to particularly sensitive and potentially incriminating acts should be viewed with some degree of discretion. Researchers had to take into account both hyperbole and the extent to which respondents might curtail potentially incriminating information. However, the vast majority of interviewees were forthcoming, and responses rarely contradicted information provided on the PSRs.

All participants in the study accurately identified the current offense for which they were imprisoned. Subjects probably assumed that we possessed at least this much of their file. Perhaps more surprising though was their high disclosure rate concerning past offenses. Fully 94% of subjects' criminal history responses were consistent with those indicated on the PSRs.

Most demographic information gleaned from the interviews was consistent with the PSRs. The majority of discrepancies dealt with educational background where 18% of the respondents provided responses to questions about their educational background that did not match the PSR. These participants indicated a level of education that exceeded the level reported on the PSR (possibly in an attempt to impress interviewers).

A slightly higher percentage (24%) of the respondents described their role in the offense as being less than what is indicated on their PSR. This result probably has more to do with the ambiguity of the PSR terms 'manager' and 'supervisor' than with respondents' possible misrepresentation of their roles. Most interviews produced detailed explanations of subjects' roles in the offense; discrepancies between reported roles and roles as indicated on the PSR seemed to be a matter of semantics.

Appendix DIV presents summary information for the sample. Appendix DV provides thumbnail sketches of the final sample interviewed.

31 Call out is when prisoners are called from their cells to receive mail, visitors, or medication, meet with staff, and conduct other personal business.

Previous

Contents

Next

Download Adobe Acrobat Reader