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