Pubdate: Mon, 20 Dec 2004
Source: Capital Times, The  (WI)
Copyright: 2004 The Capital Times
Contact:  http://www.captimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/73
Author: Scott Favour, president of the Madison Professional Police Officer's
Association
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04.n1752.a03.html

PROGRESSIVE DANE AT ODDS WITH POLICE

An article in The Capital Times Dec. 7 identified Stephanie Rearick of
Progressive Dane's drug policy task force as requesting a review by
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and Police Chief Noble Wray of the Madison
Police Department's drug search policy/procedure.

I have been following the voting record and public statements by
members of Progressive Dane, and it appears to me that the group's
agenda is nearly always in opposition to the Police Department and its
ideas or programs.

A hypothetical incident, similar to one Rearick is complaining about,
illustrates the problem. Say a person sets up a marijuana growing
operation at 500 Easy St. A police officer pulls that person over for
speeding and notices an odor of unburned marijuana. The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that this is probable cause for the arrest of that
person and any occupants in that vehicle.

The officer arrests the person and searches the vehicle, as allowed by
law. The officer finds baggies of marijuana, and is able to obtain
enough information to convince a judge to sign a search warrant
authorizing a search of 500 Easy St. Inside, officers discover the
marijuana growing operation.

All of these actions are completely legal under current law. The
resident of 500 Easy St. is arrested and the grow operation is dismantled.

Now let's say police decide not to pursue the case because the city
has a policy not to enforce marijuana laws. The neighbors of 500 Easy
St. may not be too pleased, as they will have to endure the night and
day traffic associated with drug dealing.

They may also be upset if competitors of the resident decide to
eliminate their competition using violence. This type of activity is
not unheard of in Madison, where we have had shootings and homicides
that are related to "rip-offs" of marijuana dealers in houses or apartments.

Progressive Dane can argue the merits of the illegality of marijuana,
but the fact remains that it is contraband - and as such, there are
tremendous illicit profits to be made. It is the job of law
enforcement not just to enforce the drug laws but also to protect the
innocent from the violence that the drug dealers create.

City Council President Brenda Konkel, a member of Progressive Dane,
also has an anti-police voting record. For example, she voted against
the State Street area glass ban for the Halloween weekend. She also
was critical of the police use of pepper spray to disperse an unruly
crowd - even though no one was injured and there was little if any
property damage.

The glass ban was to protect citizens and officers from flying
projectiles, as well as to protect property. The use of pepper spray
was to safely de-escalate a dangerous situation. It seems to me that
Konkel votes against the interests of law enforcement every chance she
gets, even if that vote defies logic. How does this benefit her
downtown Madison constituents?

I'd like to challenge Progressive Dane leaders to tell us their vision
for law enforcement in Madison. What is it they would propose? Should
we just ignore the marijuana laws? Should we only target dealers of
"hard" drugs? What about the buyers of "hard" drugs? Is the Police
Department just a nuisance in our progressive city?

One reason why Madison is consistently rated one of America's best
places to live is our extremely low crime rate. Maybe, just maybe,
policing has something to do with that. I'd ask Madison voters this
April to ask Progressive Dane candidates about their ideas on law
enforcement. Do they mirror your ideas? I'd be very surprised if they
do.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin