NEXT STEP IN THE STRATFORD CASE

Harrowing images from a videotape showing Goose Creek police pulling
guns in the midst of more than 100 students in a Stratford High School
hallway linger. So does the question of whether any officers will be
charged for their roles in an ill-advised, failed drug raid that has
attracted unflattering national publicity. And though local residents
have been choosing sides in the continuing debate over that
controversial Nov. 5 police action, there has been dismay expressed on
both sides that 9th Circuit Solicitor Ralph Hoisington, after
conducting an investigation of his own and considering a 200-page SLED
report on the incident, has declined to file any charges or to declare
the case closed. Instead, Mr. Hoisington has withdrawn from the case,
turning it over to the state attorney general.

Though some criticize Mr. Hoisington for passing the buck, the
solicitor told us Friday that he had no alternative. He said that
because he is "part of the law-enforcement community" and frequently
prosecutes cases in alliance with the Goose Creek police, he is not
the appropriate prosecutor to move forward on charges against any of
their officers. As he put it: "If I had somebody on my staff charged
with a crime, it wouldn't be this office that would prosecute that
case."

He likened his investigation to "a preliminary inquiry," explaining
that if he failed to find sufficient evidence to advance the case, he
would have dropped it -- just as he dropped a case after failing to
find sufficient evidence to charge North Charleston police in the 2000
shooting death of Edward Snowden. But Mr. Hoisington said he could not
reach such a conclusion in this case, so he sent it to Attorney
General Henry McMaster.

Even so, Mr. Hoisington was critical of what he called the police's
"paramilitary" tactics: "People that have weapons drawn on them would
consider that to be force."

He added: "Can you justify restricting the rights of all those people
in such a dramatic fashion to try to catch the few? I don't think so."

The solicitor's decision raises the question: If a conflict of
interest precludes a prosecutor from filing charges against police
from a department with which he regularly works, why should that
prosecutor be in a position to clear those police?

Yet Mr. McMaster's spokesman, Trey Walker, told us Friday: "Solicitors
commonly refer these types of cases to our office. It's a longstanding
practice."

Mr. Walker also said that the attorney general will review the
solicitor's information, the SLED report and any other related
material, then "decline prosecution, prosecute or refer it to another
law-enforcement entity." That other entity would likely be another
solicitor in this state. The attorney general's office declined to
give a time frame for its decision on this case.

Solicitor Hoisington said possible charges in this case include
pointing and presenting a firearm, assault, assault and battery, and
assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He added that
federal authorities could file charges for civil rights violations.

The attorney general's office should recognize the extraordinary
public attention created by this case and, albeit with deliberation,
move to expedite a decision.