REPORT: DRUG UNIT MISSED DANGER SIGNS

Outside Study Looks At Case Of Indicted Ex-Officers

Metro Narcotics supervisors missed or ignored warning signs that might have
more quickly revealed allegations that detectives Mark Watson and Christie
Richardson were fabricating informants and search warrants, according to
the draft report of an outside review of the drug unit.

The Washington-based Police Executive Research Forum says in its 49-page
report, for example, that Watson and Richardson, who have resigned from the
department, recorded so many cases that there might not have been ''enough
hours in the day'' to do what they claimed to have accomplished.

The review team said it found a ''systemic failure'' in which supervisors
focused so much on the detectives' extraordinary number of searches and
arrests that they were ''immune from normal restrictions.'' The review team
also says in its report -- a copy of which was obtained by The
Courier-Journal -- that it was ''exceptionally notable'' that Metro
Narcotics did not include successful prosecution of cases as a critical
part of job performance and had no means to check whether cases were
dismissed because officers failed to appear in court.

Jefferson County Police Chief William Carcara ordered the $60,000 review
after Watson and Richardson, county detectives who were partners in Metro
Narcotics, were indicted in March on more than 450 counts of theft,
burglary and perjury.

The indictments destroyed dozens of cases that the detectives had
investigated -- convictions of eight defendants have since been set aside,
and charges against 49 more have been dismissed.

Watson and Richardson have pleaded innocent and are scheduled to be tried
on Jan. 14 in Jefferson Circuit Court. Yesterday their attorneys disputed
the report's allegations of wrongdoing by the detectives.

Officer Dwight Mitchell, a Jefferson County police spokesman, said Carcara
would not comment on the report because it is a draft and contains errors
that will be corrected in the final report, which is expected soon.

Carcara would not identify the errors, Mitchell said.

Metro Narcotics is staffed by both Jefferson County and Louisville police
officers, although it is currently under county jurisdiction. City police
are scheduled to take command in January, but a final decision on that has
not been made.

Through a spokeswoman, Louisville Police Chief Greg Smith declined to be
interviewed about the review.

The review team's report said that Metro Narcotics officers and supervisors
acknowledged in interviews that they had missed potential signs of
unprofessional conduct by Watson and Richardson. For example, according to
the report:

a.. Watson was ''infamous'' for going into locations already searched by
experienced officers and quickly finding drugs they supposedly had
overlooked. ''While this was thought to be suspicious, it was not openly
questioned by platoon members,'' the review team said.

a.. Watson and Richardson would alert supervisors that a controlled buy
would occur at a certain time and place, but when the supervisors arrived,
they were told that the buy had been completed early and that the informant
and accused had already been released.

a.. Watson and Richardson never executed a ''dry'' search warrant -- one in
which they failed to find drugs -- and they often acted as ''lone
rangers,'' conducting searches without help from other officers, despite
the safety risk that posed. Responding to the report, Mary Sharp, one of
Watson's lawyers, said that such language as ''lone ranger'' ''implies some
form of criminal activity, and I don't think there was any.''

Richardson's lawyer, Steve Schroering, said: ''It is clear that going into
the audit . . . there was a presumption that my client was guilty of the
conduct she was indicted for, and that is one of the premises that they
drew conclusions from. She absolutely maintains her innocence.''

Schroering also said that much of the information for the review appears to
have come from officers in Metro Narcotics who are ''trying to distance
themselves'' from procedures allegedly exploited by Watson and Richardson.

Schroering also dismissed as ''ridiculous'' the report's assertion that
most Metro Narcotics officers interviewed said they believe ''Watson was
intent on retaining his profile as top performer within the unit and
recruited Richardson into existing deceitful practices to assist him in
maintaining the image.''

The Police Executive Research Forum is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to improve policing. Its team of law-enforcement experts came to
Louisville in June to interview current and former members of Metro
Narcotics, review data and procedures and observe the unit in operation.
The forum's director of management services, who is in charge of the
review, could not be reached yesterday. However, a forum spokesman said the
organization normally does not comment on a review in progress.

The draft report cites key findings and makes recommendations for change.
It found, for example, that:

a.. Narcotics detectives are allowed to remain in the unit indefinitely, as
long as they are productive, although officers in similar units elsewhere
must rotate out of narcotics work ''to diminish the opportunities for
disgruntled or criminal-minded officers to do harm to the organization.''

a.. Supervisors in Metro Narcotics are moved out of the unit faster than
detectives are, as they accept promotions elsewhere on the city or county
police forces. As a result, detectives are often supervised by sergeants
with less drug-enforcement experience. Watson, for example, may have had as
many as eight supervisors in seven years, the review team was told.

a.. Watson and Richardson allegedly were able to tell supervisors that they
had arrested non-existent parties because Metro Narcotics neither sought
nor obtained confirmation from the county jail that the alleged suspects
had been locked up.

a.. The detectives allegedly were able to submit search warrants to
supervisors bearing photocopied signatures of judges, despite a requirement
that the warrants be originals, signed in blue ink.

a.. Although Metro Narcotics requires two officers to be present when
payments are made to an informant, the rules allow an officer to witness a
payment made by his or her partner. That allegedly allowed Watson and
Richardson to ''collect the payments for fictional informants,'' the report
said.

a.. Watson received ''immunity from oversight for nearly five years simply
because he produced a high number of arrests and citations.'' The quantity
of work -- the number of arrests, search warrants executed and informants
paid -- was given a much higher priority and status than the quality of
work, the report said. And despite some reforms, the unit is still
''stat-driven.''

a.. Watson and Richardson were ''renowned'' for the number of misdemeanor
citations they issued, yet no one questioned their practice of issuing
citations ''for offenses that were clearly felonies.'' Because misdemeanor
charges are heard in District Court, which is ''chaotic at the best of
times,'' few alarms were raised when cases were dismissed for lack of
evidence or when the accused or Watson or Richardson failed to show up.

''Clearly a thorough review of Watson's case files would have revealed that
many of his citations should have been felony arrests,'' the report says.

The review found that Metro Narcotics had no provisions for monitoring
cases that were dismissed or in which the defendant was acquitted.

The Courier-Journal reported in March that 21 of Watson's 41 cases last
year were dropped because he didn't appear in court, and that he
nonetheless got court overtime pay in 10 of the dropped cases. The
investigation of Watson and Richardson began after a random check by the
unit found discrepancies in his court pay.

The review team also said that several officers formerly assigned to Metro
Narcotics alleged that Watson received a ''very high level of internal
'protection' '' from senior county police staff, and that other officers'
complaints against him weren't taken seriously because his ''JCPD internal
network of friends'' attributed the complaints to jealousy.

''If there is any question about whether or not (alleged) misconduct by the
two offending officers could have been exposed earlier,'' the review says,
''it lies with undocumented suspicions that Mark Watson took care to
establish trusting relationships with persons at higher ranks that served
to shield him . . . from allegations that he was practicing deceit.''

The report says the supervisors involved no longer work in the unit so
there is ''little point in revisiting the circumstances.'' Still, the
reviewers said the possibility that Watson was able to deflect suspicion
through personal influence should be carefully noted by both departments.

The audit found that Metro Narcotics has already made some important
changes in the wake of the WatsonRichardson case -- including a requirement
that the unit's commander meet and approve every new informant.

Also, a new rule requires that any narcotic evidence seized must be taken
to the Louisville Police Department property room by the end of the seizing
officer's tour of duty.

But the draft report recommends a host of other changes, including a
requirement that officers be rotated out of the unit after a set number of
years, based on how long it takes to learn the job and become effective.
The audit acknowledges that will encounter fierce resistance among officers.

The draft report also recommends that:

a.. Police partners not be allowed to serve as the required second witness
to informant payments.

a.. Detectives be required to present a booking sheet and jail photograph
each time a new case is opened, to prevent rogue detectives from claiming
they booked suspects who don't exist.

a.. Supervisors be required to work in the unit for at least three years.

a.. Managers should systematically examine the verdicts and court rulings
related to each officer's cases to look for patterns of abuse.
''Supervisory practices must be firm in the notion that the unit's primary
objective is exceptional investigative efforts, not the exclusive pursuit
of high arrest and seizure values,'' the report said.

a.. A duty officer who has no connection to the investigation should review
each search warrant to verify the informant's identity and reliability.

a.. An inventory-control officer be assigned to seize evidence at the scene
of drug buys and arrests and take it to the property room. The draft report
concludes that ''it was not egregious omission that permitted criminal
abuse of the system but rather the exploitation of a combination of small
but critical loopholes, together with the failure by supervisors and
commanders to consistently administer existing policies.''

It continues: ''Commanders and supervisors must from this time forward
maintain a vigilant watch over all aspects of work and hold members
accountable, consistently and equitably.''