Pubdate: Tue, 13 Jul 2004
Source: Virginian-Pilot (VA)
Copyright: 2004, The Virginian-Pilot
Contact:  http://www.pilotonline.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/483
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/corrupt.htm (Corruption - United States)

MIXED SIGNALS ON MALL SHOOTOUT

If first impressions are lasting impressions, then Norfolk Police
Chief Bruce Marquis, on the job only since Jan. 19, already has dug
himself a hole.

In his first real test, Marquis invited doubts about his leadership
last Thursday.

That's when he removed the supervisors of the narcotics unit
responsible for the controversial June 11 undercover drug bust and
shootout at the entrance to Military Circle mall. No bystanders were
hurt in the gunplay, but two officers were shot when the suspects
opened fire. Two suspects were wounded.

The incident sparked an emotionally charged debate about the judgment
of the officers and whether they should be permitted to make an arrest
when so many people are nearby. A few days after the raid, Marquis
told Norfolk City Council the unit had acted appropriately.

At the same meeting, and in interviews over the next several days,
Councilman Paul Riddick harshly criticized the raid and insisted that
the policy of permitting drug busts in public places needed to be reviewed.

A backlash followed and the new chief was not heard again on the
issue. Whether he intended to or not, the actions of Marquis suggest
he was disciplining the officers because he disapproved of the way the
raid was handled or because the two officers defended it publicly in
the letters forum on this page against Riddick's criticism.

Officially, Marquis tried to spin the reassignment of Capt. Les
Barnard and Lt. Rue Bagwell as part of normal rotations.

But the timing and choice of assignments gave off the unmistakable
odor of demotions. Barnard was sent to run the records division and
Bagwell to the detective bureau.

Barnard's letter of June 18 and Bagwell's of July 1 sought to correct
what they said were errors of fact or assumptions in Riddick's argument.

Their inside view of the battle against drug dealers filled in
important blanks in the story and provided an authoritative
explanation of why public places can't be made off limits for drug
arrests. They risked the ire of a council member but they gave the
public essential information.

If Marquis didn't want senior officers in the chain of command to
confront Riddick, then he should have made that clear early in the
controversy. It would have been better if he had called a private
meeting, heard their concerns and made a promise to stand up for them.

In fairness, the chief might have been surprised by Barnard's June 18
letter. If so, he had ample opportunity for this conversation with the
department's senior leadership before Bagwell's July 1 letter.

But apparently, no meetings were held and the performance of two good
officers wrongly have been called into question.

Marquis, not his senior officers, should have given a more robust
defense of his anti-drug unit. Instead he was virtually silent in his
first major test as police chief.

This episode dramatizes why the free speech rights of public employees
must be protected. Retribution of the kind given to Barnard and
Bagwell serves only to make it harder for the public to learn what
politicians want to keep secret. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake