Pubdate: Thu, 13 Jun 2002
Source: Times-News, The (ID)
Copyright: 2002 Magic Valley Newspapers
Contact:  http://www.magicvalley.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/595
Author: Robert B. Norton

SERVING WARRANTS OFTEN REQUIRES SURPRISE TO WORK

Your analogy of comparing the Twin Falls Police action at the motel (which 
was textbook) to the serving of a search warrant where evidence could and 
would of been destroyed is like comparing apples to oranges.

Hundreds of search warrants are served daily across the USA in the same 
method as the Jerome Sheriff's office did. Why? Because that's the way it 
has to be done. When trying to arrest a suspect that you believe has any 
type of contraband such as counterfeit money, drugs, stolen property, etc., 
the element of surprise is mandatory.

A judge reviews the facts. If they are sufficient, he or she then issues 
the agency requesting a warrant to do just as the Jerome Sheriff's office 
did. Why not blame the judge? Maybe the judge should have said to the 
sheriff's office, "I want you to park a block away and phone the suspect 
and request that he please come outside to be arrested." But don't forget 
to ask him to bring all the evidence out with him so that we can put him in 
prison. Please! That would be nice, but it doesn't work that way. But at 
least that way (The Times-News way), we would not have to build more 
prisons. But I guarantee we will need more drug rehab centers.

Did it go bad in Jerome? Damn right. Did the Jerome sheriff's office do it 
right? I have to say from what I understand of the case, yes! Does Sheriff 
Weaver want to have that night back to do all over again? Yes. No narcotics 
arrest is worth three men's lives. Our law enforcement people do the job as 
they are trained to do, so when you see the Twin Falls SWAT kicking in a 
door assisting the narcotics officers, maybe now you will understand. 
Sometimes you have the luxury to wait, sometimes you don't.

ROBERT B. NORTON

Twin Falls
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth