Undercover Drug‐Use Evasion Tactics: Excuses and Neutralization

Although research has examined the corruptive influences of undercover drug operations on agents (Girodo 1991 b; Manning and Reddlinger 1977, 1978), it has not examined the processes by which these influences can be neutralized. In this paper, I address these neutralization processes through a typology of routine and non‐routine drug‐use evasion tactics. Routine tactics involve excuses based on greed, business constraints, and role obligations (occupational, legal, and interpersonal). Nonroutine tactics involve two components: reverse accusation and simulation. Discussion focuses on excuses where I provide a dramaturgical interpretation that accentuates their deceptive and fraudulent nature, unlike traditional interpretations (e.g., Scott and Lyman 1968) which highlight their role as a reparative technique and aligning action (Margolin 1990). Data were drawn from ethnographic interviews with 35 light undercover narcotics agents located in a moderate‐sized midwestern municipality.