COUNCIL WON'T SHIFT DRUG CASES.

Williams Wanted To Move First-Offense Marijuana Cases To City Court.

LAFAYETTE - An attempt to send first-offense possession of marijuana
cases to city court was narrowly rejected Tuesday by the Consolidated
Council.

Councilman Chris Williams asked the council to move to city court all
first-offense possession and attempted possession of marijuana cases
in the city of Lafayette.

The change would give local government more jurisdiction over drug
cases and make it easier to track the outcome, Williams said.

All drug possession cases go to district court under state law. That
means the district attorney's office prosecutes all cases and collects
court costs and fines, said District Attorney Mike Harson.

Several council members said the ordinance proposed by Williams would
simply add a layer of bureaucracy, with some drug cases going to city
court and others to district court.

"Why does it matter where he's prosecuted as long as he's prosecuted?"
asked Councilman Rob Stevenson.

The City Prosecutor's Office is under direct jurisdiction of
city-parish government, so moving first-offense misdemeanor drug cases
to that court would give city-parish government more jurisdiction over
how those cases are prosecuted, Williams said. Certain neighborhoods
in the city are plagued by drug activity and more needs to be done, he
said.

"Whatever we have now, it's not working. That's the bottom line,"
Williams said.

"In my heart, I feel like we're doing nothing but passing another
piece of legislation," added Councilman Bobby Castille. Too often,
violators receive a slap on the wrist and are on the street the next
day, he said.

City Prosecutor Gary Haynes said his office has a difficult time
keeping up with its current caseload. Twenty to 50 percent of city
court cases end with a plea bargain agreement because of backlogs, he
said. Adding the burden of first-offense marijuana cases would require
additional staff and an increased budget of 30 percent to 50 percent
for the City Prosecutor's Office and 20 percent to 30 percent for city
court, he said.

"This does nothing," Harson said of the proposal.

People who violate drug laws don't care whether they're prosecuted in
city court or district court, he said. The ordinance would be almost
meaningless since the district attorney has the discretion of deciding
if he wants to prosecute drug offenders, regardless of the existence
of a city ordinance, Harson said.

Voting in favor of Williams' ordinance were council members Castille,
Williams, Louis Benjamin and Randy Menard. Voting against were council
members Lenwood Broussard, Jerry Trumps, Marc Mouton, Stevenson and
Bobby Badeaux.