COUNTERSPIN

Re: "Burning Question" by Rochelle Renford (July 12-18)

On the cover of the Weekly Planet you write: "What was so menacing about a
South St. Pete home that would cause police to burn it down?" Police didn't
burn it down. The house caught on fire by accident.

To put a sub-headline on your paper like that puts you in the same class as
some of those trashy tabloids sold at your local grocer.

First, the slant of the story where the "good guys," the cops are portrayed
as the "bad guys" and the real "bad guys" are portrayed as innocent
victims. I am not privy to any of the details of what transpired in the
execution of the search warrant, other than what has been reported in the
local news. I am however, privy to certain common sense and certain
standard operation procedures of Florida law enforcement, as a former
Deputy Sheriff and one who has been the "uniform deputy" for the execution
of search warrants, in drug raids. Certain things can be assumed if a
search warrant is being served:

1. A judge has signed and approved of the search. 2. Law enforcement had
probable cause of a crime being committed. 3. Statistically speaking,
serving search warrants on suspected drug dealers is high risk for law
enforcement, innocent bystanders and suspects. 4. Officer safety and the
safety of innocent persons make up the first and most important issue.

I specifically address the following state-ments that Rochelle Renford
wrote in her article as inflammatory:

1. "... And then the police just say, "Oops we made a mistake, we can't
arrest anybody because we burned up the evidence." Obviously, that is
making a mockery of the facts.

I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement officer would be so
callous about the facts and speak with such sarcasm.

The reality is, an accident happened.

It was not planned to burn the apartment as a means to serve a search
warrant. 2. "... it's difficult to imagine the SWAT Team showing up in
Coffeepot Bayou looking for relatively small amounts of marijuana ..." I
can assure you, presented with the same facts, police procedure would have
been the same. To say that there is a small amount of marijuana is an
ignorant remark.

I take it you think the police should first ascertain how much marijuana is
in question and they should obtain this information without a search
warrant somehow?

The reality is this, they had enough evidence or probable cause to obtain a
search warrant.

With that search warrant, they can then do a deeper investigation to
ascertain how much narcotics the suspect actually do have and other
evidence to assist in the prosecution of the suspects.

I don't think a drug dealer is going to show all of his drugs to a
prospective buyer. 3. "... the informant did not indicate that there were
any weapons visible or hostages tied up in the living room ..." When it
comes to officer safety, you must assume that all criminal suspects have
weapons. If there were hostages in tied up in the living room, no one would
have busted in with a percussion grenade without first trying to negotiate
a release of the hostages. The issue of law enforcement enforcing the drug
laws unequally against whites and blacks is an issue and a valid one;
however, to use this example as basis only discredits your cause.

You have made the cops look like the bad guys when they are the ones
risking their lives daily, to protect you.

Douglas Leoni Via e-mail