Columbia police's internal investigation finds no wrongdoing by SWAT officers

Thursday, May 20, 2010 | 3:33 p.m. CDT; updated 10:12 p.m. CDT, Thursday, May 20, 2010

COLUMBIA — The Columbia Police Department has concluded its investigation into a Feb. 11 SWAT raid that has gained worldwide attention over the Internet, Chief Ken Burton said in a Thursday afternoon news conference.

"Were the actions of the officers on scene appropriate, based on policy, law, and what they knew?" Burton asked. "Yes."


Related Media

Related Articles

The announcement was the result of an internal investigation of the raid, in which police with a search warrant for marijuana entered the home of Jonathan Whitworth* while he, his wife and 7-year-old son were home. The officers shot a pit bull to death, wounded another dog and found paraphernalia and a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. Whitworth eventually was fined $300 for possession of paraphernalia.

Burton's news conference, his third in two weeks on the subject, continued the a familiar pattern in addressing the incident.

On one hand — though contrite about the results of the raid — Burton has shown steady support for the actions of the officers involved; on the other, he has made adjustments to department policy that he said will cause the number of SWAT raids in Columbia to "plummet."

Burton reiterated his stance that the department made some wrong decisions.

"What I know as your chief is that while our SWAT members are well-trained and are held to strict guidelines, we have utilized SWAT routinely in circumstances and situations where we should not," Burton said, referring to the fact that the warrant was served eight days after it was issued and that police did not perform proper surveillance before conducting the raid.

His comments came on the heels of previous announcements about restrictive changes involving SWAT's command structure, speedy warrant execution and increased surveillance before raids.

But Thursday's news conference added a few new wrinkles to the conversation. Burton said that all SWAT officers now will be equipped with $300 helmet cameras and that the department's policies regarding paid informants is now under review. He also was open to the idea of monthly reports on SWAT raids.

He added that a separate investigation is being conducted into an allegation that a police officer told one of Whitworth's neighbors, who had called the station, that the raid was only a "training exercise." Although the internal review is still under way, Burton said it would likely result in a reprimand.

"It's never OK to tell a law-abiding citizen wrong information," Burton said.

Burton, who fielded questions from reporters and citizens alike, ran into a back-and-forth over marijuana laws.

Local attorney and American Civil Liberties Union chapter president Dan Viets attended the news conference and challenged the chief on a 2004 ordinance passed by Columbia voters that says the "enforcement of laws against marijuana shall be among the lower priorities of law enforcement."

Burton said there was a distinction between misdemeanor and felony amounts of possession, but Viets, who helped write the original ordinance, fired back, saying no such distinction existed in the law's language.

At one point, Burton shrugged.

"I'm not sure how to accomplish what the ordinance says," he said.

When it came to the Citizens Police Review Board, the legal ambiguities continued.

Under law, the board can review the result of the department's internal investigations, but Burton doesn't think the board could review an internally initiated investigation. Someone would have to file a complaint, and Burton said no one involved in the incident has done so.

Could anyone file a complaint? Columbia's law only defines a complainant as "a person who files a complaint with the police department against a police officer." Burton wasn't sure people not involved with the incident have a legal standing to file a formal complaint with the department.

Whitworth is still considering filing a complaint or a lawsuit, his attorney Jeff Hilbrenner said during a telephone interview after the news conference.

"The fact that they’ve continued to paint him as a drug dealer is a concern to Mr. Whitworth," Hilbrenner said. Hilbrenner also expressed dismay that the department is releasing "new facts" not contained in the officers' original incident reports.

For instance, during Thursday's news conference Burton defended the department's decision to raid Whitworth's home by saying the outcome would have been different had the department moved faster; Burton cited duffle bags found in the house that "reeked of marijuana."

The duffle bags are mentioned only once in the original report, after an officer searching Whitworth's home said he saw a marijuana pipe in the garage.

"I further observed duffle bags in the attic access of the garage," the officer writes, concluding the report. The duffle bags were not listed among the evidence seized by the department.

A different officer in the report wrote about opening Whitworth's personal safe and smelling "the overwhelming odor of fresh high-grade marijuana," which Burton also cited at the news conference.

Thursday's announcement suggested that most of the department's response to the Whitworth incident had reached an informal end. The City Council, however, has requested a formal report on the raid, and the Citizens Police Review Board has asked that Burton give a presentation on SWAT policy in June.

"I think I've moved to the point where I've done all I can and can't go any further," Burton said of the policy changes, which he previously has called "unpopular" among some in the department.

"I've not been easy on them," Burton added, becoming emotional as he reflected on the changes he's made as chief. The room fell silent as he came close to tears. "I'm not easy to work for."

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Eric Cox May 20, 2010 | 7:30 p.m.

Burton isn't sure how to accomplish the ordinance? Am I supposed to believe that he doesn't understand that using the most expensive resource you have is the exact opposite of lowest priority? Seriously?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz May 20, 2010 | 9:53 p.m.

Jeff Whitworth? I thought his first name was Jonathan?

I haven't had a chance to read all of the SWAT officer reports yet, but I'm curious how the "odor of fresh high-grade marijuana" differs from plain old mary jane?

(Report Comment)
Carl Kabler May 20, 2010 | 9:54 p.m.

At one point, Burton shrugged.

"I'm not sure how to accomplish what the ordinance says," he said.


(Report Comment)
Carl Kabler May 20, 2010 | 9:56 p.m.

Not sure or not willing?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz May 20, 2010 | 10:10 p.m.

Carl, it seems to me that the ordinance does nothing to prevent CPD from enforcing marijuana laws, nor penalize them from doing so. Not to take away anything from Dan's writing of the ordinance, but that's just how I'm reading it. Chief Burton would likely fall back on the same reading I'm getting.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock May 20, 2010 | 10:35 p.m.

To clarify on Burton's comment about enforcement of Columbia's marijuana ordinance:

Burton did say he wasn't sure how to accomplish what the ordinance says. He cited state laws against felony amounts of marijuana and the fact that some violent crime does occur around marijuana cases. He gave a couple of examples of local cases where guns were found with large amounts of marijuana. Burton said that if there are other offenses at play besides something marijuana-related, the police are obligated to uphold the law. Additionally, while the Columbia ordinance makes no distinction between felony amounts and misdemeanor amounts, Burton did note that state law does.

You can view the Twitter stream from the news conference at

(Report Comment)
Carl Kabler May 21, 2010 | 7:20 a.m.

John what do you think the 'spirit' of the ordinance was that voters passed and in what way do you think it is or isn't being carried out? Do you think perhaps voters need to pass a new ordinance that more clearly lays out EXACTLY the INTENT of what they had in mind just in case it's not clear?

Jake, just a fine point I guess, but what relevance does it hold if guns are found in homes where cannibas is found too any more than if fishing rods were found there or perhaps if guns were found in a home where someone had commited a felony DWI offense? I see this in the media alot, where it's as if there is some kind of demonization attempt to try and always mention guns along side cannibas. Is this really fair? Isn't this just an attempt to try and smear and 'link' things that really are often (usually) separate issues? Not saying there is NEVER a link, but this seems like way overused sterotyping at it's worst.

(Report Comment)
Sean Coder May 21, 2010 | 9:49 a.m.

The police department finds nothing wrong with what they did? This is no surprise!

(Report Comment)
Chris Harris May 22, 2010 | 4:40 a.m.

So let me get this straight, the same people who are at fault are supposed to investigate themselves and ever find anything other than their actions being appropriate? They didn't even do any investigation into this case before raiding the house, why would their "investigation" of themselves be any different? Hold a jury trial and I bet our peers wouldn't feel they acted correctly... Sure would be nice if I could investigate myself and determine I am not at fault if I screwed up big time!

(Report Comment)
Arthur Long May 22, 2010 | 11:42 p.m.

The USA is addicted to the War on Drugs. When you're an addict, you throw away anything and everything to get your fix. Dead people, wasted money, the rule of law, the Constitution -- nothing like that matters to a junkie. Surely nobody expected the delusional addict to say something like "I need to change my behaviour"? That doesn't happen until you hit bottom.

I just hope that when the USA does hit bottom, it's not as horrible a hard landing as I'm expecting.

(Report Comment)
hoka hey May 23, 2010 | 7:41 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Jose Melendez May 30, 2010 | 1:43 p.m.

Let's get this straight: the police shoot the defendant's dog, threaten to take his kid, impugn his character without any trial and make up "new" observations on reports?

Millions of otherwise law abiding citizens have been arrested on the basis of the false claim that marijuana has no safe, accepted medical use in the US since the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) applied for US Patent No. 6630507, "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" in 1999 with dozens of supporting references, linked here:

If Dan Viets teams up with a commission attorney and advertises they will take on marijuana lawsuits, people might line up and fight back.

Sue repeatedly and clog their "justice" system. Any questions? Start by contacting HHS with polite, informed requests about cannabis' scheduling from the top link at

And FREE MARC EMERY! It takes email, letters, faxes, phone calls and protests and more. What can YOU do?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.