◆ SpookStack

@ @ ‘States, _—SosUS. __,_: 47:«;ULS.L.W. 4423 (April 1979), upholding the right of FBI officials to break and enter’ to install an authorized "bug"), and this must be taken into account in determining that the defendants here knew or should have known that their conduct violated the constitutional norm. If the circumstances here create reasons for individual FBI employees to conclude that their conduct in supplying information violated constitutional rights, then virtually any time a law enforcement officer supplies information to another law enforce- ment nyency, he ig comeemad to know that his conduct in supplying the information may violate constitutional norms if constitutional rights are ultimately held. to be violated by the recipient agency. 1.. Federal appellees had no reason to believe that the use of informant: O'Neal. "violated the constitutional norm" [see Slip Op. 1l and 59]. The placing of informants in black nationalist organizations was specifically suggested by then Attorney General Ramsey Clark who said: | + *« »« Sources or informants in black nationalist organizations, SNCC and ‘other less. publicized groups should be developed and expanded . . . to determine the where- abouts of persons who might be involved in instigating riot activity in violation of federal law. ... [Fed. Def. Ex. 9, Attach- ment, p. 3.] - . . . . . : a 5 . . 4/ Judge Swygert's opinion says: "The rights which plaintiffs contend that defendants have violated are clearly established" [Slip Op. 60]: but does not discuss the evidence including testimony of federal appellees as to why they reasonably believed that their conduct did not violate the constitutional norm.