TV Version Of Drug Bust Paints Different Story

Drug Case Ruling Delayed

Wow. Now all those years of watching Law and Order shows and their reruns is going to pay off.

For two days stories about a YouTube video secretly taken and posted by a Sanford police officer has made the front page of the Sanford Herald. The significance of the video can be best understood by watching the WRAL coverage of the story because a small excerpt of the actual video can be seen in television. (Click here)

The video as evidence plays two potential roles in the case. First, and here comes all my Law and Order expertise, is the requirement that prosecutors turn over all evidence in a case to the defense.

The sheriff's office, state, and federal agencies had not involved the Sanford Police Department in the processing of the crime scene. The sheriff's office was aware that two Sanford Police officers had come out to the scene. It seems obvious that the Sanford Police did not consider itself to be a part of the investigation or it would have turned the the video over to the Sheriff's Office or the District Attorney.

It was the inquiries of the defense attorney that alerted the Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney to the existence of the video. Naturally, the defense attorney is going to move that the case should be dismissed on procedural grounds--that is, not all evidence was turned over to the prosecution. If you can get a case dismissed on procedural grounds, the issue of guilt or innocence of the client doesn't come up--it just goes away.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for this morning but was postponed.

Second, if the defense losses its motion, it can still use the video as evidence. It is here that seeing the snippet of video helps to understand what is going on. The defendants claim that they did not know that the packages they were handling contained marijuana. The video on YouTube showed agents removing the marijuana from some sort of packaging. The video doesn't necessarily prove what the defendants knew but it does show how is was packaged. It is clearly relevant and could influence the outcome. To the extent that the video actually adds to a proper determination of guilt or innocence, it ought to be looked upon as a good thing. That some law enforcement officer would make an unauthorized video and post it on the Internet suggests that some training is needed somewhere.

Both Bill Horner (Click here) and Gordon Anderson (Click here) have written blogs about the story that shed further light on the story and its significance. There is little to add here.

What is worth adding, however, is how the media found out. It was the Sheriff's Office that alerted the media and that alert brought WRAL-TV to town (and sent Gordon scrambling). As an elected official, Sheriff Carter feels that he is accountable to the public and has an obligation to keep the citizens informed. That he and/or the Sanford police may be embarrassed by the story was not a relevant consideration. About that, the Sheriff was prepared to let the public draw its own conclusion.

The Chief of Police reports to the City Manager. That perhaps explains what looks like another attitude toward volunteering information to the public in this case.