JUDGE FOLLOWED CLEAR STATE LAWS

I have a copy of the written ruling made last week by Criminal Court Judge
Paula Skahan (May 21 article, "Drug bust is erased by judge/ Says suspect
with 33 pounds of cocaine not nervous enough"). Your letter writers (May
23-24) seem justifiably concerned that this ruling suppressed the seizure
of a large amount of cocaine as evidence in the case. However, what they
overlook is that it is the duty of the courts -- the judicial branch of
government -- to protect citizens from excessive and abusive behavior by
police -- part of the executive branch of our government. This is the
classic check-and-balance our state Constitution provides.

In the case, it was proved that Eric Berrios was stopped only for driving
eight miles an hour over the speed limit. He was then locked in the back of
the patrol car for almost 40 minutes (7:41 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.) while an
illegal search was conducted. Tennessee law is absolutely clear that a
police officer can detain a person only temporarily, and then no longer
than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop. In this case, the stop
was to issue a speeding ticket. Very few of the questions from the Shelby
County Sheriff's deputy related to the traffic offense. He began
questioning Berrios without even starting to write the ticket.

The court found that the officer exceeded his legal authority and
unreasonably extended the length of the detention.

The officer testified that the only basis for any suspicion was that the
defendant was nervous. After listening to the officer's testimony and
looking repeatedly at the video recording of the event, the judge found
there was nothing "on camera to suggest a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity." In addition, the judge pointed out that it would be normal to
show nervousness as a result of being locked in the back of a police car
while the officer keeps his driver's license.

Having illegally detained Berrios, the consent to search given by him to
the police officer was also illegal. Tennessee law again is clear: If a
consent to search is given after an illegal search and seizure, evidence
found by police pursuant to the consent must be suppressed unless there are
other factors that were not present in this case. This is what Skahan ruled.

Perhaps the most important part of her ruling was this: "We have no choice
but to find ... that the cocaine resulting from that search should be
suppressed." This is not the pronouncement of a judge happy to find that
the police violated the law; this is not the ruling of a judge delighted to
free someone connected with drugs. Rather, it is a courageous,
well-reasoned decision that upholds Tennessee law against excesses of
police, even when well-intended.

Your letter writers' outrage is based only on the "headlines" reporting of
the case, not a reading of the ruling. Skahan protected them from illegal
police action. Her courageous position should be praised, rather than
condemned.

Kemper B. Durand

Memphis