Pubdate: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
Source: Weekly Planet (FL)
Copyright: 2001 Weekly Planet Inc.
Contact:  http://www.weeklyplanet.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/611
Author: Douglas Leoni
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1274/a02.html?3052

COUNTERSPIN

Re: "Burning Question" by Rochelle Renford (July 12-18)

On the cover of the Weekly Planet you write: "What was so menacing about a 
South St. Pete home that would cause police to burn it down?" Police didn't 
burn it down. The house caught on fire by accident.

To put a sub-headline on your paper like that puts you in the same class as 
some of those trashy tabloids sold at your local grocer.

First, the slant of the story where the "good guys," the cops are portrayed 
as the "bad guys" and the real "bad guys" are portrayed as innocent 
victims. I am not privy to any of the details of what transpired in the 
execution of the search warrant, other than what has been reported in the 
local news. I am however, privy to certain common sense and certain 
standard operation procedures of Florida law enforcement, as a former 
Deputy Sheriff and one who has been the "uniform deputy" for the execution 
of search warrants, in drug raids. Certain things can be assumed if a 
search warrant is being served:

1. A judge has signed and approved of the search. 2. Law enforcement had 
probable cause of a crime being committed. 3. Statistically speaking, 
serving search warrants on suspected drug dealers is high risk for law 
enforcement, innocent bystanders and suspects. 4. Officer safety and the 
safety of innocent persons make up the first and most important issue.

I specifically address the following state-ments that Rochelle Renford 
wrote in her article as inflammatory:

1. "... And then the police just say, "Oops we made a mistake, we can't 
arrest anybody because we burned up the evidence." Obviously, that is 
making a mockery of the facts.

I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement officer would be so 
callous about the facts and speak with such sarcasm.

The reality is, an accident happened.

It was not planned to burn the apartment as a means to serve a search 
warrant. 2. "... it's difficult to imagine the SWAT Team showing up in 
Coffeepot Bayou looking for relatively small amounts of marijuana ..." I 
can assure you, presented with the same facts, police procedure would have 
been the same. To say that there is a small amount of marijuana is an 
ignorant remark.

I take it you think the police should first ascertain how much marijuana is 
in question and they should obtain this information without a search 
warrant somehow?

The reality is this, they had enough evidence or probable cause to obtain a 
search warrant.

With that search warrant, they can then do a deeper investigation to 
ascertain how much narcotics the suspect actually do have and other 
evidence to assist in the prosecution of the suspects.

I don't think a drug dealer is going to show all of his drugs to a 
prospective buyer. 3. "... the informant did not indicate that there were 
any weapons visible or hostages tied up in the living room ..." When it 
comes to officer safety, you must assume that all criminal suspects have 
weapons. If there were hostages in tied up in the living room, no one would 
have busted in with a percussion grenade without first trying to negotiate 
a release of the hostages. The issue of law enforcement enforcing the drug 
laws unequally against whites and blacks is an issue and a valid one; 
however, to use this example as basis only discredits your cause.

You have made the cops look like the bad guys when they are the ones 
risking their lives daily, to protect you.

Douglas Leoni Via e-mail