COURT TO HEAR CONSPIRACIES CASE

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review a ruling that
questions the way the government catches and charges suspected drug dealers
and terrorists.

The case, stemming from narcotics arrests of two immigrants near an Idaho
mall, is the first with implications for terrorism to catch the court's
interest since Sept. 11.

The Bush administration played up the issue in urging the court to
intervene. The government lost in a lower court and will get to argue for a
reversal in the court term that begins next fall.

The case revolves around prosecutors' use of conspiracy charges for crimes
that have already been discovered and prevented by law officers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a string of cases dating back
five years, has said that law officers cannot stop a crime, lure people
into getting involved with the help of informants, then charge them with
being part of the conspiracy.

That's what the appeals court said happened to Francisco Jimenez Recio and
Adrian Lopez-Meza when they were arrested during a sting operation
involving a flatbed truck loaded with about $12 million worth of cocaine
and marijuana.

Officers had seized the truck and arrested a driver and companion near Las
Vegas in 1997. With the companion's help, lawmen set up the sting operation
at a mall in Nampa, Idaho. Recio and Lopez-Meza were arrested after showing
up at the mall to get the truck.

The 9th Circuit said Recio and Lopez-Meza would likely not have been
involved in the conspiracy had they not been lured into it. The court said
the government did not prove any other involvement in a conspiracy.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court in a filing that
the appeals court finding "exonerates culpable defendants and needlessly
complicates the prosecution of conspiracy cases."

"The vital need for undercover government efforts both to apprehend
conspirators and to prevent their planned offenses from actually occurring
extends far beyond drug cases. Similar legitimate law enforcement tactics
are crucial in violent crime, terrorism and other contexts," Olson wrote.

The two men had received prison sentences of more than 10 years. Recio also
was convicted of possession of drugs with intent to distribute, a
conviction the 9th Circuit left undisturbed.

Thomas A. Sullivan, the attorney for the two, told the court that
prosecutors did not have enough evidence for a conspiracy charge. He said
they could pursue a similar charge against Lopez-Meza.

"There is no crisis of law here," he wrote in court papers.

The men were wearing pagers and had calling cards when they were arrested,
the chief evidence against them. The man who was cooperating with
authorities had never met the two.

The San Francisco-based appeals court speculated that they could be drivers
hired at the last minute with no involvement in a conspiracy.

Olson said it should not matter if the government intervenes during a
crime. He said under the standard of the appeals court, officers who fear
compromising prosecutions would have to be careful in stopping crimes.

The case is United States v. Recio, 01-1184