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