U.S. ATTORNEY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAKE PEACE

Judges Mediate Dispute Over Release Of Public Information

U.S. Attorney Greg Miller and Escambia County Sheriff Ron McNesby
ended a monthlong standoff Tuesday, resolving a rift over publicizing
criminal cases that caused the two to stop working together.

Three of Pensacola's federal district judges -- Lacey Collier, Casey
Rodgers and Roger Vinson -- clarified on Friday the court's rules on
releasing information during a meeting with Miller and McNesby.

A joint statement from Miller and McNesby stated they are "confident
that the relationship of the agencies has been restored" and that
cooperation would resume on criminal cases.

The announcement did not address the substance of the dispute or its
resolution but said both officials agree that "the safety and the
welfare of the public in Escambia County is paramount."

Miller had no other comment, a spokesman said.

"We were able to come away with a clearer understanding of what the
court expects so we can move ahead," said Escambia Chief Deputy Larry
Smith. "We all had our own interpretations, but the judges helped us
since it's their rule and not ours or the U.S. attorney's."

Relations between Miller and McNesby broke down in early July when
the Sheriff's Office released information about the arrest of two
Mexican nationals in a methamphetamine and firearms case, a joint
federal, state and local investigation.

A Sheriff's Office spokesman reported that officers seized 9 ounces
of meth with an estimated street value of $50,000, 3 kilograms of
cocaine with an estimated street value of $250,000, an Uzi, a Mac 90,
two automobiles and $20,000 cash in what perhaps was the largest bust
of pure meth in county history.

Miller was so angry he refused to prosecute the pair, forcing the
Sheriff's Office to redirect the case to the State Attorney's Office.

If the split had lasted, defendants could have benefited from being
tried in a crowded state court system, where prosecutors often are
young and less experienced than their federal counterparts.
Defendants also might get lighter sentences in cases where federal
law calls for harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

State Attorney Bill Eddins said his office was prepared to handle an
influx of cases, but he was glad to be relieved of the burden. Eddins
said he will follow through with plans to assign an experienced
prosecutor to work on major drug cases, thanks to additional money
from the state Legislature this year.

"We were ready, but I'm pleased we'll be able to free up our
personnel to focus on state court cases," Eddins said.

Smith said no other cases had been diverted because of the rift.

At the time, Miller said "the sheriff has made it clear that he
cannot and does not intend to abide by the local court rules, and
because of that intentional disregard, we have mutually decided that
we cannot work together."

In a meeting between Miller and McNesby, the sheriff refused to
change his policy of releasing information.

In fact, Miller said, McNesby told him that "because he gets so much
negative publicity in the media, he's going to take positive press
whenever he can get it."

On Tuesday, some observers said the reconciliation was inevitable.
Cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies
is too valuable to be forfeited for what in the long run is a
relatively minor dispute, said Escambia Circuit Judge Nick Geeker, a
former U.S. attorney.

"The only beneficiaries of a split such as occurred would be those
who violate the law, and that certainly was not the intent of
anyone," Geeker said. "In either event, both of them are in an
embarrassing situation.

"It's one of those live and learn things," said Geeker, adding that
he was pleased to see everyone "back on the same page."

Former U.S. Attorney Mike Patterson, who preceded Miller, also
praised the renewed relationship.

"It's the best thing for everyone," he said.

The court's rules generally say law enforcement officers can only
release information about a case that is already in the court's
public record, although part of the rule specifically permits the
release of certain basic facts, including a description of evidence
seized, the suspect's name and the circumstances of the arrest.

There is a gray area, however.

"It becomes iffy if they say this (meth bust) represents the largest
seizure of this type of controlled substance in Escambia County," Geeker said.

Smith has said that was one of the statements that upset Miller.

If Miller thought it violated the court's rule, he could have filed a
motion alleging the Sheriff's Office was in contempt of court, which
would have triggered a hearing.

"Probably, the federal judge would have looked at this instance and
said: 'Hey, there is no violation of the order here,' " Geeker said.
"I think (Miller) understands that now, and everyone can move on. ""
I think it's just a little hiccup there."

Collier declined to talk about the specific case, citing the
prohibition against judges establishing opinions on matters that
might come before them in court. He said only that he is glad the
issue was resolved.

"I've known these two gentlemen for many years," he said. "I know
them both to be good public servants, and I'm confident that they'll
work together in the public interest in the years to come."

[SIDEBAR]

What information can be released?

The local rules of the Northern District of Florida prohibit the
disclosure of information about a case that is not part of the
court's public record. The rules specifically allow the release of:

The suspect's name, age, residence, occupation and family status.

The fact and circumstances of the arrest, including time and place of
arrest, resistance, pursuit and use of weapons.

Identity of investigating and arresting officer or agency.

Length of investigation.

A description of the physical evidence seized.

A brief description of the offense charged.