advertisement

Text of the letter from Green Aid

Tuesday, August 31, 2010 | 10:07 a.m. CDT; updated 9:23 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Editor's Note: This is a copy of a letter from California marijuana reform law activists Ed Rosenthal and Angela Bacca to Columbia City Manager Bill Watkins. It  appeals the decision by the Citizen Review Board to exonerate members of the Columbia Police Department SWAT team who took part in a raid in which a dog was killed.

30 August 2010

MoreStory


Related Media

Related Articles

William Watkins

City Manager, Columbia, MO

PO BOX 6015

Columbia, MO 65205

 

Dear Mr. Watkins,

In May 2010 we filed a complaint with the Columbia Police Department about the officers involved in the February SWAT raid at 1501 Kinloch Ct. that was recorded and uploaded to Youtube.com, where it has been viewed by almost 2 million people.

Chief of Police Ken Burton responded to my complaint in a letter dated May 28, 2010 that the officers had done nothing wrong or outside of standard procedure, and he exonerated the officers involved.

We appealed this decision to the Civilian Police Review Board, where the appeal was overturned in a 4:3 vote. Much of the focus of the CPRB has been that we reside in California. We have reason to believe that federal funds were used in this raid, therefore this matter concerns us as federal taxpayers and we are choosing to appeal to you to hear this case (City Code of Ordinances CPRB: Section 21-53.)

Here are the following reasons we are appealing the decision of the Civilian Police Review Board:

1.  In reading the file kept by the Columbia Police Department, it is clear that the investigation was conducted with no regard to our original complaint. Additionally, the outline of the Scope of Investigation clearly states that the following would not be taken into account: Columbia’s marijuana lowest priority law, probable cause to issue the warrant, whether a SWAT team should have been used to issue the warrant, the timing of the search warrant (8 days late), and the use of “dynamic entry” tactics by the SWAT team.

2. The CPRB decision made was not based on our appeal. No one from the CPRB contacted us to discuss our appeal and we were illegally barred from addressing the board during the hearing of our appeal.

3. We have reason to believe that the CPRB has a bias to the police department. Boardmember Susan Smith likely taught two of the officers involved in the incident at Columbia College.

4. In the City Council Minutes for a Special Meeting Dated June 8, 2009, it was noted that in the writing of the ordinance that created the CPRB that the board was expected to contact yourself to contract an independent investigator to investigate complaints.

5. The warrant was issued based on two anonymous phone calls received by the department one year apart. It is highly unusual for the police to receive anonymous tips regarding marijuana. Did a member of the Police Department actually make these phone calls? We can find this out by checking the sound on the recordings to see if police personnel made the calls, and to see if the telephone numbers they were made from were government offices. An independent investigator (outside of CPD) would be an appropriate means of investigating this claim.

6. There was no indication of sales by the suspect only use, which is protected by Columbia’s lowest priority initiative. Did the judge (Hon. Leslie Sneider) commonly issue warrants based on such flimsy evidence? Was the judge colluding with the police to violate peoples’ rights to be secure in their homes? This also warrants an independent investigation.

7.  The Whitworth family’s rights and reasonable expectation to be safe in their home violated? Additionally, this violation of their rights directly violates the rights of all other Columbia residents or visitors to Columbia who have a certain expectation of their rights under Columbia laws.

8. Our personal investigation shows that this was not a lone incident and other incidents like this have happened before. What were the circumstances? Were these same personnel involved? It would behoove City officials and the police department to answer to citizens and visitors of Columbia on this manner.

9. Did the SWAT Team have training in working in civil matters or did they just have paramilitary training? (Which was inappropriate for this situation.)

10. Were the officers given any type of personality test to make sure they had personalities that could cope reasonably with stressful situations such as these? We have reason to believe that these officers could have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the police procedures and should be psychologically evaluated to determine if they are fit to carry guns and enact SWAT raids.

11.  Although the Chief of Police has determined they did nothing wrong and at the time it was standard procedure to serve narcotic search warrants with a SWAT team, the behavior of the officers was beyond reasonable discretion. The suspect was compliant, the dogs injured and killed were non-violent and there was a 7-year-old child present. These officers should have used reasonable discretion and not fired their weapons. This child will likely be traumatized for years to come and the family and community have lost their faith in law enforcement.

12.  Why did the police violate City policy regarding “lowest priority” for marijuana cases?

It is clear that as the City manager you have the right and duty to investigate any incident and its circumstances to find the truth, wherever it may lead. We believe that this incident deserves a full investigation to find out why citizens’ rights are being violated.

Angela Bacca

Media Coordinator, Green Aid

Angela@green-aid.com

Ed Rosenthal

Executive Director, Green Aid

Ed@green-aid.com 


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.


Comments

Carlos Sanchez August 31, 2010 | 10:21 a.m.

Are these people for real?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2010 | 11:23 a.m.

Are you? Are any of us?

(Report Comment)
Carlos Sanchez August 31, 2010 | 11:45 a.m.

@John Schultz no seriously these people are only looking for any and all publicity they can get and if Bill Watkins feeds into their ego that is all he is doing is feeding their ego. These types have absolutely no stake in our city,county and or state besides to get themselves publicity. This subject was decided by a panel chosen by City Council and City Council backed up the panel. Case closed.

We need to move forward not backward as these publicity hounds are wanting to do.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2010 | 12:49 p.m.

Their motives may not be completely in line with the local groups seeking reform, but they are still following the law passed by the city council. I'll also point out that your claim saying the council backed up the panel (presumably you mean the CPRB) is incorrect since they council has not heard anything on the Rosenthal appeal and I don't think there is a direct appeal process from the CPRB to the council, if at all.

(Report Comment)
Carlos Sanchez August 31, 2010 | 1:20 p.m.

When the CPRB last met they passed their results to the City Council at which time I do believe the Council accepted those results.

This is a new appeal. Either way Bill Watkins needs to throw it out like the dribble and publicity stunt it really is. If they want to continue appealing take it into a Federal Court.

Go big or go home in fact the latter is the best advise in this case.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 31, 2010 | 3:14 p.m.

No, it is not a new appeal. It is a further appeal of their original complaint to Chief Burton. The council has no overview of the CPRB, other than appointing members to it and approving their annual funding, and does not "accept" reports from the CPRB regarding appeals it hears. The CPRB did make a recommendation to the council on modifying the original ordinance, which the council approved with an amendment at its last (I believe) meeting.

(Report Comment)
Carlos Sanchez August 31, 2010 | 4:02 p.m.

@John Schultz either or it is just a way to stir up more bad juju and get them more publicity in a issue that does not directly effect them. I hope Watkins throws it out as it should be and then if they want to start their trash take it to Federal Court. This is nothing but a ongoing publicity stunt being forced on more tax payer expense of the citizens of this community by an outsider.

(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.

advertisements