D.A. SEES NO CHARGES FOR TOPEKA POLICE OFFICER

No drug cases were compromised and no criminal laws were broken by a
police supervisor who flushed marijuana that wasn't evidence and asked
another officer to write a false receipt to balance a drug buy fund,
District Attorney Joan Hamilton said Tuesday.

"I don't see any charges that we could file in Shawnee County,"
Hamilton said. Hamilton said she didn't see any criminal intent in the
incidents linked to Sgt. Randy Listrom, a longtime supervisor of the
police narcotics unit.

"There is no evidence, whatsoever, that there were any cases
compromised," Hamilton said. There wasn't any evidence to show any
police officers using drugs, said Hamilton, who added there wasn't any
comparison between investigations of Listrom's conduct and the ongoing
drug scandal at the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department.

Listrom has been the focus of a police internal affairs investigation
and a probe by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, which surfaced
publicly last week.

It wasn't clear Tuesday whether Police Chief Dean Forster had made a
decision about possible disciplinary action for Listrom, a Topeka
police officer since 1977 and a narcotics officer for almost his
entire career.

Forster said at a news conference June 14 that information about
disciplinary action in the case probably wouldn't be released because
officer discipline is a personnel matter. A phone message from The
Topeka Capital-Journal left for Forster at his home Tuesday wasn't
returned.

Listrom's attorney, Gary Laughlin, said he and Listrom wouldn't
comment on the case until after Laughlin had spoken with Forster, whom
he hadn't been able to reach by Tuesday evening.

On Tuesday, Hamilton outlined two instances investigated in connection
with Listrom.

In July 1998, Listrom was at Kansas City International airport when he
noted he had his police badge. Listrom, who was traveling to Florida
to attend a national drug officers association conference, took off
the badge and was placing it in a pocket of a briefcase when he found
a small container of marijuana weighing one-sixteenth ounce to
one-eighth ounce. Not wanting to get on a plane with a controlled
substance, Listrom went to the men's room to flush the marijuana in a
toilet, Hamilton said.

The marijuana wasn't obtained as evidence in a drug prosecution case
but had been purchased in a "controlled buy," in which a confidential
informant makes a drug buy to prove his veracity, Hamilton said.
Listrom hadn't used the briefcase for awhile, Hamilton said.

Hamilton said the marijuana wasn't properly handled, according to
police procedure, but Listrom didn't break a criminal law.

"It was not a criminal act," Hamilton said.

"We're not talking about a briefcase of drugs," Hamilton said,
referring to a rumor a large amount of drugs had been flushed.

In the second instance, Listrom received an e-mail April 15, 1999,
from a supervisor instructing him to balance a police account in which
$200 wasn't accounted for, Hamilton said. The fund can be used to buy
drugs in investigations, Hamilton said.

Listrom looked for the unaccounted money, asking members of the
narcotics unit if they knew what happened to it, Hamilton said.
Listrom admitted he finally asked an unidentified officer to write a
"falsified" receipt to account for the money, Hamilton said.

The receipt was made with the understanding it would be held while
Listrom continued to look for the missing funds, Hamilton said. When
the fund was re-checked, it balanced, and the receipt wasn't needed,
Hamilton said.

Some police officers with concerns approached Forster around May 12,
and Forster contacted Hamilton about the same time to tell her about a
police investigation of the incidents, Hamilton said.

At the June 14 news conference, Forster didn't name Listrom
specifically but said an officer had been transferred to another area
within the department following an internal investigation into
potential mishandling of drugs.

The transfer wasn't a disciplinary action, Forster
said.

Hamilton has heard comparisons between the investigation in the police
department and the earlier sheriff's department drug scandal. The
Listrom incidents bear no resemblance to the sheriff's department drug
scandal, Hamilton said Tuesday.

"This is so completely different (from the sheriff's case) I don't see
how they can be compared," Hamilton said.

In the sheriff's department scandal, Sheriff Dave Meneley, a sergeant
and a former deputy face criminal charges, and Meneley faces an
attempt by Attorney General Carla Stovall to oust him from office.
Hearings in a drug case led to testimony that drug evidence was
missing, and a deputy was discovered to be a cocaine user.

Two drug cases have been dismissed, efforts to overturn several drug
convictions investigated by deputies are pending and defendants in
several pending drug cases are seeking dismissal of the charges. A
judge's ruling following a lengthy hearing blasted the conduct of a
small group of officers and lambasted the credibility of sheriff's
drug investigations for three years starting in 1994.

Hamilton said the Listrom case was different in that:

Forster called her at home as soon as the allegations surfaced to
assure her nothing was being covered up;

As checks and balances, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation was asked
to investigate the police case as was the police internal affairs
unit, which delves into complaints of officer conduct;

A KBI agent and internal affairs officers contacted Hamilton to ask
her whether she wanted more investigation into the police case and to
determine whether she wanted to file criminal charges in the incident;

No evidence from cases was missing, and no cases were
"compromised."

Hamilton acknowledged Listrom's credibility will be challenged by
defense attorneys when he appears in court to testify as a prosecution
witness in upcoming drug cases he has investigated.

At the same time, Hamilton said a recommendation she has seen to
transfer Listrom out of the narcotics unit and to demote him is
"harsh" for an officer of his "expertise" and because of his
forthrightness during the investigation.