SCRUTINIZING A SCANDAL: BOTH PROBES WARRANTED IN FAKE-DRUG CASE

In dueling press conferences this week, city and county officials both
vowed to do what their federal counterparts have failed to do so far - get
to the bottom of the fake-drug scandal. We are going to hold them to their
word.

Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill was smart to appoint defense
lawyer Dan Hagood as a special prosecutor in the case. He is to determine
if any state laws were broken that warrant indictment in state court. While
describing former Dallas detective Mark Delapaz as his starting point, the
one-time Dallas County prosecutor pledged to follow the investigation down
whatever roads it leads.

Mr. Hagood can lay claim to an impressive resume, as well as to a
reputation for integrity and independence. As for following roads wherever
they lead, that is essential - even if some of those roads should happen to
lead back to the district attorney's office itself. After all, the dozens
of innocent people who were wrongly accused in the fake-drug scandal
weren't just arrested but prosecuted. And all along, one of the nagging
questions has been whether the office's command staff had figured out that
something was amiss well before Jan. 16, 2002, when prosecutors began
dismissing cases and letting people out of jail. This independent
prosecutor must remain truly independent, and his findings must be made
public. That is non-negotiable.

Over at City Hall, Mayor Laura Miller and other City Council members
promised to come forward with more specifics tomorrow but told the public
to expect an intensive internal investigation of police procedures with an
eye toward determining how this all happened and who was responsible.

The city has a couple of options. It could leave it to Dallas City Attorney
Madeleine Johnson to head the investigation. Or it could appoint an
independent fact-finding panel in the style of the Christopher Commission,
which investigated police procedures in Los Angeles a decade ago. Whatever
its form, the city's investigation should take a hard look not just at the
conduct of the recently acquitted Mr. Delapaz but also that of his
supervisors in the chain of command. It also should delve into the issue of
the field tests that determine if drugs are real and explain how it is that
so many narcotics officers vouched for the authenticity of pounds of
evidence that turned out to be bogus. All of this should be done quickly
and transparently.

Ordinarily, competing investigations might only muddy the waters, but not
in this case. Nearly two years after the fake-drug scandal first came to
light, there still are plenty of questions. What we're short on are the
answers.