News (Media Awareness Project) - US CT: Editorial: Will State Prosecutors Change? |
Title: | US CT: Editorial: Will State Prosecutors Change? |
Published On: | 2002-06-02 |
Source: | Hartford Courant (CT) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-23 05:58:27 |
WILL STATE PROSECUTORS CHANGE?
With terrorism the new primary focus of the FBI, state and local law
enforcement agencies in Connecticut will have to work harder to offset what
may be a diminished federal presence in fighting drug criminals and
corruption cases.
FBI officials here say the agency will not completely drop its role in
investigating narcotics crimes or bank robberies. But a number of agents
have been reassigned to counter-terrorism duties. Michael Wolf, who directs
the FBI's Connecticut operations, says the main focus other than terrorism
will be the most violent of violent crimes and the most complex
racketeering cases.
State and local police say that for the most part, they can take up the
slack. That may be wishful thinking. As Hartford Police Chief Bruce Marquis
says, the cities have come to depend on federal assistance in fighting drug
gangs. "We do ask a lot of the FBI, and I would hate to see that diminished."
The federal presence - the FBI, the U.S. attorney's office, federal grand
juries - in fighting political corruption cases is even more prominent. FBI
investigators helped build cases that led to the arrests of former state
Treasurer Paul Silvester on bribery charges, former Waterbury Mayor Philip
Giordano on child-sex charges and Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim on
corruption charges. The FBI also has delved into the scandal involving the
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority and Enron Corp. If it weren't for
federal agents, Connecticut would be a safe haven for corrupt politicians.
A change of culture at the office of Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey
is also needed.
Mr. Bailey argues he doesn't have subpoena power or other tools needed for
effective prosecution of criminals. But he could use what he has - the
search warrant, the ability to petition for a one-judge investigative grand
jury - far more aggressively than he does. Further, the legislature should
give the chief state's attorney the power to issue subpoenas.
Connecticut should not be left defenseless because the FBI has changed its
priorities and state law enforcement agents do not seem determined to fill
the void.
With terrorism the new primary focus of the FBI, state and local law
enforcement agencies in Connecticut will have to work harder to offset what
may be a diminished federal presence in fighting drug criminals and
corruption cases.
FBI officials here say the agency will not completely drop its role in
investigating narcotics crimes or bank robberies. But a number of agents
have been reassigned to counter-terrorism duties. Michael Wolf, who directs
the FBI's Connecticut operations, says the main focus other than terrorism
will be the most violent of violent crimes and the most complex
racketeering cases.
State and local police say that for the most part, they can take up the
slack. That may be wishful thinking. As Hartford Police Chief Bruce Marquis
says, the cities have come to depend on federal assistance in fighting drug
gangs. "We do ask a lot of the FBI, and I would hate to see that diminished."
The federal presence - the FBI, the U.S. attorney's office, federal grand
juries - in fighting political corruption cases is even more prominent. FBI
investigators helped build cases that led to the arrests of former state
Treasurer Paul Silvester on bribery charges, former Waterbury Mayor Philip
Giordano on child-sex charges and Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim on
corruption charges. The FBI also has delved into the scandal involving the
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority and Enron Corp. If it weren't for
federal agents, Connecticut would be a safe haven for corrupt politicians.
A change of culture at the office of Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey
is also needed.
Mr. Bailey argues he doesn't have subpoena power or other tools needed for
effective prosecution of criminals. But he could use what he has - the
search warrant, the ability to petition for a one-judge investigative grand
jury - far more aggressively than he does. Further, the legislature should
give the chief state's attorney the power to issue subpoenas.
Connecticut should not be left defenseless because the FBI has changed its
priorities and state law enforcement agents do not seem determined to fill
the void.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...