ALLEGATIONS HAUNT UNRELATED DRUG TRIAL

The credibility of police officers who ask for search warrants is
essential, defense attorney Pat Layden said Tuesday. If the officer has
done something wrong, has a history of doing things that aren't within the
letter of the law, any evidence obtained from serving the search warrant is
suspect.

Layden made the statements during the trial of Charlie Williamson, who is
charged with endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine.

Williamson, 48, McAlester, was one of five people charged after members of
the District 18 Narcotics Task Force served a search warrant on a home at
804 N. First St. on Sept. 30.

The lead officer in that particular case was District Attorney's
Investigator Brad Inman, who is currently suspended with pay while he is
under investigation for allegedly committing perjury or forgery.

District Attorney Chris Wilson suspended Inman and asked the OSBI to
investigate after the allegations against him arose during a request for a
new trial in another case. In that case, Hartshorne resident Roger Clark
had been sentenced to two life prison terms after being convicted of
trafficking in illegal drugs.

Since Inman was the lead investigator in the Williamson case, and had been
the officer who requested the search warrant, Layden said, any evidence
seized while serving the search warrant is suspect.

Layden had asked District Judge Steven W. Taylor to dismiss charges against
Williamson, but Taylor denied the request.

While a jury of 10 men and two women waited outside the courtroom, Layden
asked the judge to suppress the evidence seized when the search warrant was
served.

Although the motion to suppress wasn't filed by Dec. 23, as it should have
been, Taylor said. "I'm not going to ignore this motion on a technicality."

Assistant District Attorney Jimmy Harmon said he believed the search
warrant should be suppressed only if there was evidence that the officer
who asked for the warrant had been dishonest or acted with "reckless
disregard."

"He's trying to impeach the affiant by some unrelated case," Harmon said.

Layden said he believes the real question is "Would the magistrate have
signed the warrant if all the information had been available at that time?"

Taylor said he was unsure of the law in this type of case. If the law is
that officers have to be completely beyond reproach, defense attorneys
could later point out their faults in an effort to suppress evidence. If
the law is, as prosecutors contend, that a judge should act on the best
information available at the time, the search warrant should still be
valid. Taylor ordered attorneys for both sides to research the matter and
meet with him this morning.

"There's no question it is a high crime for a law officer to commit forgery
and perjury," he said. "S If you're a forger or a perjurer and you're a law
enforcement officer, you're a lowlife."