Pubdate: Sun, 05 Feb 2006
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Copyright: 2006 Journal Sentinel Inc.
Contact: http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/submit.asp
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/265
Author: Mike Nichols

SMOKY CLOUD LIFTED FROM OFFICIAL 'POTHEAD'

Mario Altuzar appeared to be a pretty seasoned pothead.

When he smoked the stuff outside the bars of Washington County, he
even "French inhaled," breathed, that is, the smoke that he blew out
his mouth back in through his nose, those who were with him told
investigators.

They were absolutely convinced he was getting high - so convinced that
they let down their guards and became ensnared in what Washington
County Sheriff Brian Rahn now calls, and quite justifiably, Altuzar's
"phenomenal accomplishment."

Mario Altuzar wasn't a drug user.

Nor, a long investigation by the state attorney general's office has
concluded, is there any credible evidence he ever assaulted anyone,
contributed to the delinquency of a child or did any of the other
things his detractors once claimed.

He is, rather, an unusually talented undercover officer who gathered
evidence against a fairly extraordinary number of people: somewhere
around 50.

The fact that there was an "aggregation of allegations" by a good
number of them did, Assistant Attorney General Gary Freyberg wrote in
a summary of his investigation of Altuzar, give him "pause."

Freyberg also wrote, however:

"Taken in context, the allegations against Altuzar are the product of
criminal defendants and their allies, all of whom have obvious biases,
and in some cases, lengthy criminal records. None of the accusations
of wrongdoing by Altuzar was made until well after the defendants were
formally charged with committing their own crimes. The majority of the
accusations were made by individuals who, by their own admissions, had
been consuming alcohol, drugs, or both, at the time they claim to have
witnessed Altuzar's alleged misconduct, and were recalling their
observations months or years after the events. The allegations are
vague as to time, place and circumstances. There is no physical
evidence to substantiate the allegations. Some of the allegations are
contradicted by other available information. In sum, there is no
credible basis upon which to issue any criminal charge."

Thus ends one of the more sensational - though ultimately unmerited -
investigations of law enforcement around here in some time.

Freyberg's report, which was issued in November but never became
public, runs 14 pages and addresses in detail numerous
allegations.

In some instances, it's clear, his accusers probably only thought they
saw something.

They thought Altuzar was getting drunk when he could just have been
dumping many of his drinks down a bathroom sink.

They thought he was "French inhaling" when what he could, just as
easily, have been doing was using a simulation technique taught to
undercover officers.

In other instances, it appears, his accusers either made things up out
of whole cloth or were incapable because of the fog of alcohol and
drug use of knowing exactly what happened or when.

The allegations of Altuzar's misdeeds received quite a bit of
publicity, and the Washington County Sheriff's Department itself, as a
result, was also put under a cloud. Two state investigators, according
to the sheriff, came in and scrutinized the department's operations.
They found nothing improper.

Altuzar was filling out the proper reports, they found, and there's
nothing to suggest his supervisors were not in the loop.

If he'd been a rogue officer, Rahn suggested, if he'd been coming in
drunk or high after nights out working, it would have been noticed.

Moreover, says Rahn, these sorts of allegations often arise in drug
cases.

The difference in this particular case was that some of the defendants
had attorneys - Waring Fincke, William Mayer and Daniel Patrykus - who
took the unusual step of requesting both the appointment of a special
prosecutor and criminal charges.

Fincke said he doesn't agree Altuzar was necessarily exonerated. He
thinks the attorney general's office simply found there was
insufficient evidence to establish wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact, my reading of it is, the only way anybody would ever have
gotten a jury to convict the guy based on the flimsy or non-existent
evidence was if they got the jurors themselves to inhale.

And you'd have to watch pretty closely, everyone now knows, to make
sure they really did. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake