Pubdate: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 Source: Houston Chronicle Page 37A Contact: http://www.chron.com/ DA ignores some drug cases, cites costs By THADDEUS HERRICK Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle San Antonio Bureau SAN ANTONIO A district attorney on the U.S.Mexico border is refusing to prosecute suspects from smalltime federal drug busts because he says the related costs are unfairly being passed on to local taxpayers. The prosecutor's refusal is the latest showdown between border states and the federal government over who should shoulder the burdens associated with the Mexican border. Routine busts, such as those that turn up less than 100 pounds or so of marijuana, are usually referred to local authorities, allowing federal officials to pursue bigger cases. But Laredo District Attorney Joe Rubio, who represents Webb and Zapata counties, says the cost of incarcerating the roughly 600 offenders arrested by federal officers each year is about $600,000. "I'm no longer going to accept them," said Rubio, who warned federal officials of his intent last summer but took no action until Oct. 1. He argues that the federal government should pay to prosecute and jail all of its offenders which in his jurisdiction, it has suddenly been forced to do. The federal caseload in Laredo is expected to double. In a letter to state and federal officials last week, Rubio said, "I do not understand the federal government's apparent unwillingness to reimburse Webb and Zapata county for the expenses associated with these cases since the federal government is responsible for them anyway." The district attorney's cause has met with tremendous support from prosecutors up and down the 2,000mile border, where drug trafficking has surged in past years. Nearly all the prosecutors say their predominantly poor, minority communities are being stretched thin by pennyante federal cases. "You can't blame a community like Laredo for trying to get some relief," said El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza. "There is a clear economic impact from the government's policy." Border states and communities that share the international boundary with Mexico have long argued that they are being asked to do too much on a variety of matters related to illegal immigration and crime. This week the Supreme Court ruled against Arizona and California in their claim that as victims of an "invasion" of illegal immigrants they should be reimbursed millions of dollars. Texas argued a similar case, but after losing chose not to appeal to the high court. In the Laredo case, the federal government has expressed some interest in resolving Rubio's dilemma. Gaynelle Griffin Jones, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, which includes Rubio's district, said the district attorney's argument is valid but problematic. "Webb County is aggressively pursuing the issue, as it should," said Jones. "But a huge influx of cases could create real problems for us." The Laredo debate took little time to reach Washington, where Texas legislators seized the issue. In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno dated Aug. 14, Rep. Henry Bonilla and Sens. Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison, all Republicans, admonished the federal government. "As representatives of this region, we believe strongly that our constituents must not be exposed to unnecessary risks and that the federal government must meet its responsibilities," they said. Border prosecutors fear that crackdowns such as Operation Rio Grande, which supplies the Border Patrol with more tools and manpower between Brownsville and Laredo, will mean more federal cases for them to prosecute. Federal officials say this is not necessarily true. "As they bring more resources to the border, they make more arrests," said El Paso's Esparza. "That has a ripple effect on our system."