DREWEL TRIED TO CONTACT MURPHY ABOUT DRUG USE

State Board of Pharmacy investigators walked into Snohomish County
Executive Bob Drewel's office six years ago, flashed badges and laid
out a story about narcotic drug prescription that the county's top
administrator didn't want to hear.

He and a few other county officials saw the results of a board survey
saying then-appointed Sheriff Patrick Murphy had been getting a lot
of drugs from numerous health care providers at several area
pharmacies, Drewel testified Wednesday.

At that meeting on June 12, 1995, board investigators had a "concern
there was ... a pattern of requesting these drugs," Drewel told a
Snohomish County Superior Court jury in a civil trial.

That ignited concerns in Drewel's mind about the county's top law
officer, who had access to a county car and a gun.

What were his concerns, Drewel was asked?

"The health and safety concerns from a public standpoint and health
concerns for Patrick," the executive responded.

The testimony came in the second week of what could be a three-week
trial or more. Murphy is suing the Pharmacy Board for allegedly
conspiring to disclose the ex-sheriff's confidential prescription
information to Drewel and others. He's seeking up to $10 million in
damages.

The board acted on the complaint of pharmacists who questioned the
number of prescriptions Murphy had for a chronic jaw disorder
suffered in 1988, as well as a series of separate accidents and also
tooth problems stemming from the jaw injury, according to testimony.

On its own, the board surveyed area pharmacies and found that Murphy
had more than 260 prescriptions filled in 17 months. Investigators
were concerned about the amount of medication as well as the type.

Murphy was charged with fraudulently seeking prescriptions for
controlled drugs, and he lost an election that would have given him
four years as sheriff. The charges were later dropped when a
Jefferson County judge ruled that the evidence against him had been
improperly obtained without a search warrant.

Murphy was receiving muscle relaxants and narcotic painkillers such
as Vicodin ES and Percocet, sometimes as many as 12 pills a day.

It was the survey that was revealed to Drewel, who testified that he
set out immediately to find out what was wrong with Murphy.

Drewel told jurors he tried to telephone Murphy that day and couldn't
contact him. He tried five or six times during the week, and received
only a referral to Murphy's lawyer in Seattle, Drewel said.

Before that June 12 meeting, Drewel added, he never had any
indication that Murphy should not be in possession of a firearm or
drive a county car.

But another witness told jurors he had driven with Murphy numerous
times and the ex-sheriff never exhibited a problem driving or showed
signs that drugs were affecting his decision-making ability in the
office.

Tony Lukin, a law enforcement educator who was hired by Murphy to be
a major in the sheriff's office, told jurors Murphy "embodied what I
thought a good sheriff should be. ... I would say he was a caring
individual and was concerned for those who worked for him."

Lukin, who described himself as a good friend of Murphy's, conceded
that the sheriff's policy manual required all sheriff's office
employees to report any prescription drug medication to their
supervisor. To his knowledge, Lukin said, Murphy never made such a
report.

However, he maintained that since sheriff is an independent, elected
position, Murphy didn't have a supervisor and was not required to
follow that rule.