Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Surveillance appeal could inhibit drug bust methods
11-10-06|Daily Mail|Justin D. Anderson

The head of the Metro Drug Unit in Charleston says the outcome of an appeal before the state Supreme Court could have major ramifications on how his people battle drug dealers.

Justices are set to hear arguments in the case of a Boone County man who was videotaped and audio recorded by a confidential police informant during a drug deal at his home. The man said the surveillance violated his right to privacy because law enforcement did not first get a search warrant.

Charleston Police Lt. Chuck Carpenter said such surveillance is standard procedure in drug investigations, and it's a tool police must have to investigate and help prosecute dealers.

Carpenter said a search warrant usually comes after a drug deal.

"You have to have probable cause to apply for a search warrant," Carpenter said.

Carpenter says a ruling for the defendant in this case, Eddie Mullens, would have a "very negative impact" on law enforcement's ability to investigate drug crimes.

Mullens entered a conditional guilty plea last November to charges that he delivered 3.23 grams of marijuana to the police informant at Mullens' home in Whitesville in Dec. 2003. The plea gave Mullens the opportunity to appeal.

Prior to entering the plea, Mullens tried to get the surveillance evidence suppressed from any trial proceedings. The judge denied his request.

Mullens and his lawyer, Benjamin Conaway, now argue that the Supreme Court should overturn the Boone Circuit Court's decision to allow the surveillance evidence. They say the court should prevent future "extreme intrusions" by the government into people's homes.

"This ruling will still allow police to record conversations, using informants, that take place outside of the home, without a warrant," Mullens' petition says. "This ruling will still allow informants to enter homes and make drug buys for the police. This ruling will not prohibit the informant from testifying about what the informant saw or heard inside the home."

Carpenter, the drug unit head, said that last part is crucial. Most times, confidential informants aren't the most credible people. Surveillance evidence fills in whatever credibility gaps might exist.

"These are safeguards," Carpenter said. "An informant can come back and tell you anything. The informant may have a personal ax to grind or financial motives. This is a way we corroborate on what an informant says."

He said operating secret recording devices also is crucial for keeping an informant safe, and an officer can't simply head down to the magistrate's office and ask for a search warrant on a property. There has to be evidence, Carpenter said.

"You can't say I think this guy is dealing drugs," he said. "I know of 100 locations in Charleston right now where that might be going on."

The state said in its response to Mullens' appeal that the defendant invited the informant into his house and therefore forfeited his right to privacy.

The state also argues that the actual drug transaction was not recorded by the secret video camera. Mullens had argued that videotape surveillance was the most intrusive kind used by law enforcement.

Justices are set to hear arguments in the appeal on Nov. 14.