|
|
| Shaky Evidence Makes Mockery of Dallas Drug Busts |
|
Posted by FoM on March 17, 2002 at 09:48:27 PT By Susan Parrott, The Associated Press Source: Associated Press 
The cases unfolded -- and unraveled -- one by one: drug bust after drug bust in which investigators later found little or no drugs in the evidence that was seized. The FBI is examining the role of Dallas police and prosecutors in about 70 drug cases -- involving more than 40 defendants -- dismissed in recent months after lab tests revealed fake drugs or tiny amounts of the real thing mixed with large amounts of gypsum. Whether it's a case of corruption or a massive system failure remains to be seen. But the botched cases have spilled over into the race for district attorney and angered the newly elected mayor. Some victims have threatened civil rights lawsuits, and Hispanic advocacy groups are calling for the resignations of the district attorney, city manager and police chief. "It's the worst law enforcement scandal I've heard of in the Northern District of Texas in the 20 years I've practiced here," said Paul Coggins, a former U.S. attorney. The scandal began unfolding last fall, when prosecutors notified Dallas police of evidence tests showing little or no illegal drugs. But defense attorneys say they had beseeched District Attorney Bill Hill to look into the cases long before that. Hill defends his office, saying his prosecutors were first to discover the problem and send the evidence for lab tests. He said his staff found a pattern in some of the cases in early November and within two weeks halted all prosecutions involving two police officers and their informant, even though some of those cases may have been valid. The Police Department placed the two narcotics detectives on administrative leave. Police Chief Terrell Bolton has declined requests for interviews with The Associated Press. The FBI also declined to give details, citing its investigation. Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, defended his suspended colleagues. "They went out and did their job and they happened to have an informant that is unreliable," White said. "The informant realized if he delivered large amounts, he'd get more money." Critics say police and county officials had several clues that the busts weren't legitimate. They question why Hill's office had not ordered lab tests before indicting defendants based on uncorroborated field tests by the arresting officers. "How did these field tests, if they were actually run, mistake gypsum for cocaine?" Coggins asked. White said most district attorneys and federal agents in Texas require lab tests before indicting suspects in large drug busts. Field tests are notoriously unreliable; something as innocuous as aspirin can test positive as cocaine, he said. "This is not a corruption case," White said. "It's a system failed." Dallas County's policy had been to hold off on more conclusive lab tests until trial. In some cases, defendants pleaded guilty to lesser charges and were jailed or deported. The new policy calls for lab tests before indicting suspects. Former Dallas County prosecutor Robert Montserrat blamed lack of supervision in the Police Department and poor communication in the overworked district attorney's office. Because the growing drug caseload is spread among several prosecutors, a pattern of inconsistency is harder to spot, he said. "The cops are not watching each other," Montserrat said. "The DA's office is not watching the cops." Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry said his office has always required a lab test before proceeding with an indictment. He called Dallas County's previous policy "a pretty sloppy way to handle it." Bob Baskett, the attorney for Senior Cpl. Mark Delapaz, one of the narcotics officers, said his client did not conduct the initial field tests and didn't know the drugs were fake. He said drug dealers may have set up the informant, who was paid up to $200,000 by police. "There are lots of theories that people knew this informant was an informant so they were messing with him. Another is the informant, who was getting paid by the kilo, was rolling the dice to get a bunch of money," Baskett said. No telephone number could be found for Eddie Herrera, the other officer implicated. The informant, Jose Guadalupe Ruiz, 33, is now jailed without bond for returning to Texas after he was deported in February on old charges of failing to appear at a 1999 hearing on a weapons violation. That same year, he became an informant in a deal struck after a drug arrest. His attorney, William Nellis, said Ruiz has cooperated with authorities and should be released on bail. The issue is a major thorn for Hill, who is running for a second term this fall. His Democratic opponent, lawyer Craig Watkins, has criticized Hill's handling of the cases. "He just wasn't doing his job," Watkins said. "He should have been on top of it and knew the policy that had been there for many years was outdated." Mayor Laura Miller has asked Bolton and City Manager Ted Benavides to brief the council, something they have yet to do publicly. Both men have said the ongoing investigation and pending civil lawsuits prevent them from discussing details. Several Latino advocacy groups have demanded the resignations of Hill, Bolton and Benavides because many of the defendants were Mexican nationals. "We think justice has died in Dallas," said Alfredo Castaneda, president of Mexicanos Unidos. Related Articles: 'Sheetrock Scandal' Hits Dallas Police Fake Drugs Force an End To 24 Cases in Dallas Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 12:02:16 PT |
| Thanks. I have Opera on my other computer but not on this one. I stick with IE. Got Netscape too but I've used IE since I got my first computer and am use to it and all it's bugs! LOL! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 11:47:42 PT:
|
| My bad; I am testing the OPERA browser, and have just discovered it does not automatically refresh with each posting and change of frame. Nasty trick, that. There's no problem at your end... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 11:10:01 PT |
| Is everything ok now? If not let me know and I'll report the problem to Matt. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 10:57:20 PT:
|
| Now I see the comment I made. Hmmm..... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 10:56:10 PT:
|
| I have posted comments on this and other issues, but this time I have posted twice on seperate issues and they both have disappeared. What's going on? [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 09:14:32 PT:
|
| Must be the diet; not enough iodine in their foods to prevent cretinism in the Dallas police force. How else can we explain this? Incompetence? Lying? Corruption? Oh, sorry, this "... is not a corruption case," White said. "It's a system failed." Ah, now maybe, if they actually realized what he had said...and take it to the logical conclusion...they might understand that the situation would not have existed at all if they had not criminalized possession of plants. But that requires a modicum of mental capacity...which evidently they don't possess. This bodes well for murderers, rapists and child molestors...not to mention white collar crimals. They should all move to the Dallas area...where they can assured of acquittal because of the caliber of investigative capabilities illustrated there.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by mayan on March 17, 2002 at 16:10:34 PT |
| Prohibition has created an environment in which corruption can thrive. When those who have sworn to uphold the law disregard the law...nobody will respect the law. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Ricardo on March 17, 2002 at 11:09:02 PT |
| You have to pitty anyone that has to live in Texas.
And what ever happened to our bill of rights? Weren't they DESIGNED to protect the minority from the majority, what's going on? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 17, 2002 at 09:58:42 PT |
| Source: Modesto Bee Author: Ty Phillips, Bee Staff Writer Published: March 17, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Modesto Bee It would have been an easy decision many years ago. Last July, Modesto police reported the discovery of about 150 marijuana plants growing in a man's garage and back yard. They arrested him and sent the case to the Stanislaus County district attorney's office. The district attorney's office rejected it a few weeks later. Now it is being re-examined at the request of Modesto police, but prosecutors still have made no decision. Why? The main reason is Proposition 215, the 1996 statute that legalized medical marijuana. Since then, it has become increasingly difficult for prosecutors to convince juries to convict medical marijuana cases. "We look at each case individually," Assistant District Attorney Carol Shipley said. "But if we're convinced a jury wouldn't convict, we may decide not to prosecute. What they have to have is a legitimate purpose for the use of the marijuana that is recognized under the law." One case that particularly frustrated local prosecutors began in July 2000. Police arrested Barbara Varley of Modesto on charges of marijuana cultivation after police found her growing 300 marijuana plants, Shipley said. Varley used a medical marijuana defense. A Superior Court judge eventually declared a mistrial when a jury could not return with a verdict, Shipley said. Seven of the 12 jurors favored a conviction. That is how most every medical marijuana case in Stanislaus County has ended during the past five years. The exception came Dec. 7 when a jury convicted Kip Charles Dali of Modesto on charges of possessing marijuana for sale. Last March, police found Dali sitting in his car with about 1 pound of marijuana in two small plastic bags, Shipley said. He also had scales used to weigh the drug as well as a membership card to an Oakland cannabis club. Dali was sentenced to 120 days in jail -- county prosecutors' first win against a medical marijuana defense to date, Shipley said. "There are citizens in Stanislaus County who would find it difficult to vote guilty in marijuana cases," she said. "That's one of the obstacles we're trying to overcome." The problem facing law enforcement and prosecutors is that the medical marijuana law's wording is extremely vague. It calls for a note from a physician who has recommended the drug to treat cancer, chronic pain, spasticity, arthritis or other illness for which marijuana provides relief. Since those other illnesses are not defined, theoretically any ailment could qualify. Also, the law allows possession and cultivation of plants for medical use. But it does not specify how many plants or how much marijuana is allowable. Gray area for authorities "This is definitely murky water," said Sgt. Dave Van Diemen, a supervisor with the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency. "It's confusing for the cop on the street, the dope cop, it's confusing for everybody, really. It varies from county to county. We haven't even gotten a definitive answer from the attorney general's office." The problem has drug units everywhere sticking more to the pursuit of drugs like methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin -- cases that rarely find sympathetic juries. "We don't look at marijuana the way we used to," said officer Craig Gundlach of the Modesto Narcotic Enforcement Team. "When I used to come across a cultivation, I'd look at it as a good case. Now there's just so much gray area involved. Everybody's got a (doctor's) note." Snipped Complete Article: http://www.modbee.com/local/story/1875528p-1975190c.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |