DAS ON BORDER LAUNCH DRUG-CASE BOYCOTT

Federal Officials Don't Expect Sudden Court Jam

A state prosecutors' boycott of low-level federal drug cases along the
U.S.-Mexican border began its first day Monday quietly enough.

Officials at the U.S. attorneys' offices that cover the border areas said
there would be no instances of suddenly jammed court dockets because of the
boycott.

"We anticipate a jump in the number of federal cases along the border,"
said Mervyn Mosbacker, U.S. attorney for the Houston-based Southern
District of Texas, which ranges from Brownsville to Laredo. "However, we
don't expect to see an immediate rise in the numbers."

Nor did the boycott have an immediate effect on other federal agencies on
the front lines of the drug war. "We've received no instructions from U.S.
attorney's office to change our practices. We're continuing our border
checks as we have before," said Ramiro De Anda, spokesman for the U.S.
Border Patrol, in McAllen. "We have been told we are not to decline
prosecution if the DAs refuse our cases."

Which is exactly how prosecutors along the border in Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California thought it would be.

"There was nothing dramatic occurring today," said El Paso County District
Attorney Jaime Esparza. "It will take a few days before the federal
government feels the pinch."

Mr. Esparza and other local district attorneys in counties along the border
vowed to stop accepting small federal drug busts for county prosecution at
the beginning of fiscal year 2001, which began Sunday. The long-simmering
dispute is centered on the district attorneys' complaint that the federal
government provides insufficient funding in return for the service.

For years, many county prosecutors had extended the federal government the
courtesy of handling low-level drug cases – such as those involving 100
pounds or less of marijuana – so federal agents could concentrate on major
traffickers.

"We feel the ball is now in the government's court," Mr. Esparza said. "We
want to see if the government shows any willingness to offer some long-term
solutions. If so, we can resolve this quickly."

Congress approved $12 million for a border-assistance fund this summer to
cover costs of courtroom technology, construction of holding facilities,
administrative expenses and the cost of court-appointed attorneys. That is
nice, but it does not cover the bigger costs to the counties, Mr. Esparza said.

"Payment for pretrial incarceration and the cost of prosecution are the
issues that really hit the counties hard," Mr. Esparza said. "We can't
afford to continue doing the federal government's job for free."

Cost issues

An informal Justice Department study found that state prosecutors from
Brownsville to San Diego, Calif., absorbed an estimated cost of $96 million
to handle federal drug cases over the last five years. In Texas, the annual
cost borne by border prosecutors ranged from about $1 million to $5 million.

Only one border-county district attorney has agreed to continue taking
federal cases. Maverick County District Attorney Roberto Serna reached
agreement with Bill Blagg, U.S. attorney for the San Antonio-based Western
District of Texas, to continue accepting referrals for reimbursement at a
rate of 32.3 percent of the total caseload.

Webb County District Attorney Joe Rubio has refused to handle federal
referrals for about three years.

Just up the border, Val Verde County will continue accepting referrals
until Jan. 1, when a new district attorney will be sworn in. Fred
Hernandez, who is considered the likely victor in the district attorney's
race, has already said he will join the boycott.

"For us, the situation is easy, compared to what the government will face,"
Mr. Esparza said. "It's one less thing we have to do. But we believe the
smarter solution would be for the government to continue funding the
long-standing relationship between the federal government and the states
and recognize our role in the war on drugs."