Pubdate: Sun, 04 Aug 2002
Source: Johnson City Press (TN)
Copyright: 2002 Johnson City Press and Associated Press
Contact:  http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1983
Author: Jim Wozniak, Press Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids)

AREA OFFICIALS DEFENDING SWAT TEAM

An appellate court might not like how the Washington County SWAT team
handled a raid on a local business in a 2000 drug case, but those who
oversee and work with the unit are coming to its defense.

"Quite frankly, the Washington County SWAT team is as good as any
other special operations team in the area," District Attorney General
Joe Crumley said Friday. "I've observed the training of the SWAT team,
and they're very well-trained, very well-organized, and quite frankly,
I feel safer in the community by having them around. Sergeant Keith
Sexton is a very experienced operator and an excellent team commander."

On April 28, 2000, the SWAT team entered The Weed, 116 Claude Simmons
Road, with machine guns and shotguns. Team members spread out and had
their weapons ready to fire. They ordered people to the ground and
handcuffed them. Agents with the 1st Judicial District Drug Task Force
then came in and executed a search warrant.

Jack Roger Norton, 57, same address, was charged with possessing 5.2
grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver it and having drug
paraphernalia.

Criminal Court Judge Bob Cupp suppressed the evidence, ruling the SWAT
team should have announced its presence before entering the business.
The state Court of Criminal Appeals overturned that decision, saying
officers had the right to enter the business without announcement, but
the judges were critical of the tactics used by the SWAT team.

"Under the facts of this case, we consider the conduct of the SWAT
team to be dangerous and an unduly frightening experience for the
several innocent persons present," the court said. " . . . And we note
that the record is also devoid of proof that anyone else present in
the tavern during the raid was armed.

"We are concerned, along with the trial court, about the inherent
danger to officers and the innocent bystanders alike when methods of
the type employed by the SWAT team in this instance are utilized."

One of the appellate judges, Jerry Smith, wrote a concurring opinion
in which he said he was "astonished and dismayed" over what happened.

"I am dismayed because Officer Sexton . . . was not only unremorseful
for this sorry business but indicated that he and his team would do
the same thing again," he said. " . . . Those actions (by the SWAT
team) as they relate to the bar patrons do merit the condemnation of
anyone who believes that this country is not, at least for the moment,
a police state."

Crumley said he does not believe the appellate court knew what type of
business The Weed was at the time of the raid. He said officers found
.223 ammunition, which is used in an M-16 rifle, in the business.

"There had been a motorcycle gang (at the tavern) earlier the evening
of the raid, several of whom were displaying fixed-blade knives," he
said. "We had rumors that there was going to be a sawed-off shotgun or
a submachine gun. I truly believe the way they conducted the raid was
done according to standards for SWAT teams nationwide. I think any
deviation could cause a risk of life."

Sheriff Fred Phillips said last week that reports about the weapons
inside were the reason the SWAT team was used.

"We're going to go in and meet force with force, and if we get that
information tomorrow or next week or tonight that our officers face
weapons, we're going to go in," he said.

Norton was arrested again July 26 at The Weed on drug charges, but the
SWAT team was not used that night because there were no advance
reports of weapons inside. Officer later discovered two guns inside,
one loaded. Phillips said he has participated in raids in which
officers used the same procedures that were employed in 2000. He also
has learned that the tactics his team uses are universal. Still, he
said, the team's policies are under review.

After reading the appellate court's ruling, Crumley said officers
might need to treat commercial businesses different than residences.
But he said each case should be handled on an individual basis and be
based on the risk for everyone involved. He said, though, that some
situations are fairly easy to determine.

"It's obviously different if you got a suspect at McDonald's as
opposed to a bar that caters to underworld type of people," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake