Pubdate: Wed, 20 Jun 2001
Source: Montgomery Journal (MD)
Copyright: 2001 The Journal Newspapers
Contact:  http://cold.jrnl.com/cfdocs/new/mc/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/545
Author: Willard J. Adams

OFFICER IN DRUG ARREST WAS JUST DOING HIS JOB

The June 8 opinion column by Gary Bonnett, ``Court was right to 
overturn drug conviction," was wrong.

To begin with, a police officer has more reasons to pull a driver 
over than the intention to make an arrest. Surely the possibility 
existed, especially late at night, that the man was about to fall 
asleep causing harm to himself and possibly to others should 
faster-moving traffic appear shortly thereafter. The fact that Rowe 
was driving 50-55 mph on an interstate highway might also suggest to 
a cop that the driver was having car trouble. Jones was doing his 
duty, not violating Rowe's rights.

Jones' questions regarding `tired" or ``drunk" would follow 
routinely, as would Rowe's denials. I didn't read the original 
accounts of the arrest and trial, so I don't know whether Jones asked 
for an explanation from Rowe, or Rowe spoke up, but ``something 
dropped on the floor" came out. So far, Jones was still doing his 
duty.

Now comes license and registration. Is this standard operating 
procedure, and therefore allowable to the police, or must the officer 
have further reason than the driving behavior to request them? If the 
former, then Jones is still OK. If the latter, did Jones explain why 
he asked? Did the Court of Appeals rely on this issue for its 
decision?

Did any of the ensuing matters of an expired rental agreement, issued 
to another person, constitute good police work or was Jones going so 
far out of bounds as to constitute a rights violation? Did the Court 
of Appeals' decision speak to this? Would a well-trained officer, 
given all of the above, have his suspicions aroused enough to ask for 
the search, or aren't officers allowed to act on suspicion? Did 
Rowe's written permission to allow the search legalize the request 
for it? The first Circuit Court disallowed the motion to suppress for 
lack of probable cause. The jury found Rowe guilty; the Court of 
Special Appeals upheld.

Don't tell me that this is why we have a Court of Appeals. This 
hierarchy of judicial review is meant to safeguard the innocent, not 
somebody lugging 25 pounds of Mary-Jane in his vehicle with the clear 
intent to distribute.

Nor do I believe the Court of Appeals acted properly by protecting 
Rowe, and thereby our legal system, from future ``abuses" by Jones 
and his fellow law enforcement officers. Unless there are some 
damaging things to say about Jones that were left out of the column, 
I am convinced that Jones was, as Sgt. Friday used to say, ``Just 
doing my job."

WILLARD J. ADAMS
Rockville
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe