Texas Supreme Court Takes Church Prison Ministry Case

This press release from the Liberty Legal Institute describes an important court case that will determine whether Texas cities can bar prison ministries from assisting nonviolent offenders in their jurisdictions using zoning laws. The Texas Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the case. From the Liberty Institute::

DALLAS, Dec. 18 /Standard Newswire/ -- The Texas Supreme Court announced it will hear the case, Pastor Rick Barrard Phileneon Homes v. City of Sinton, the first case at the high court interpreting the Texas Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA).

"This is good news. The decision below was wrong, and overturning it will be important to the religious freedoms of all Texans." Said Kelly Shackelford; Chief Counsel of The Liberty Legal Institute who is representing Pastor Barr and Plileneon.

The case was originally filed by Pastor Barr and Philemeon Homes after the City passed zoning laws barring this ministry from the city. The church ministry's purpose was to assist and rehabilitate non-violent criminals after their release from prison. The trial judgment at the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, finding the Texas Religious Freedoms Restorations Act did not protect the church and ministry.

"This case not only involves the crucial religious freedom of churches to minister and change lives," said Shackelford. "It also involves correctly interpret the Texas RFRA, which would restore the religious freedoms of every Texan."

The outcome of this case will affect Texas in addition to all other states with RFRA laws as well as the national RFRA which protects all U.S. Citizens. Amicus briefs have thus been filed supporting the Pastor by National Prison Fellowship and ever groups as divergent as the American Civil Liberties Union and American Center for Law and Justice. Oral argument is expected this Spring.

Resisting "the urge to regulate mindlessly" on sex offenders

The Galveston Daily News published a thoughtful editorial today arguing that "People should have second thoughts about new laws that regulate where sex offenders can live. After seeing drafts of bills to be considered when the Texas Legislature meets in January, we’d say the urge to regulate mindlessly is worse than we thought." Read the whole thing. Thanks to Dennis for the tip.

New Dallas DA should signal real change with "open file" policy

Via Carolyn Barta at DallasBlog, new Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins announced this morning that "Terri Moore, former deputy chief of the criminal division in Tarrant County, will serve as his first assistant. Dallas defense attorney Kevin Brooks will serve as Trial Bureau chief. Toby Shook, the unsuccessful Republican candidate for D.A. and chief of the felony trial division, has informed Watkins that he will leave the D.A.'s office." (More detail from Unfair Park.)

A commenter at DallasBlog offered a great suggestion that I think would signal Watkins' intention to change not just the image, but also some of the problematic practices at the office that gave us the fake-drug scandal and ten recent DNA exonerations where the wrong people were convicted of major crimes: The new Democratic DA should announce an "open file" policy similar to the one Ms. Moore worked under in Tarrant County.

Grits discussed the problem of closed criminal case files the other day upon reading the interim report of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, which analyzed the question of "reciprocal discovery" in criminal cases but punted on making a recommendation. In response I wrote:

The reform needed here isn't "reciprocal discovery," but simply to mandate that all Texas prosecutors maintain an "open file" policy to let defense counsel view and make copies of any documents they deem relevant to their defense. The system works well where it's been implemented, and where it hasn't it's a source of constant grousing and wasted time for the already clogged courts.

Mr. Watkins enters office after an historic election in Dallas where Democrats took control of the DA's office and many judgeships for the first time in two decades. He should take this opportunity to set an example for other jurisdictions and give voters a reason to think it matters which party wins these relatively little-watched races.

Creating an open-file policy would offer both symbol and substance to Watkins' promises for reform, without cleaning house or disrupting the work of the office. And since his new first assistant has experience working under an open-file system in Fort Worth, the transition should go smoothly. That's a damn fine suggestion from a blog commenter - Watkins should take it.

UPDATE

Questioning Barack Obama's support for Tulia-style drug task forces

After the Tulia scandal and numerous other cases of misconduct, Texas finally got rid of its network of regional drug task forces financed by the federal "Byrne grant" program earlier this year. Governor Perry decided to shift the money to border enforcement, drug courts and other criminal justice programs.

At the Huffington Post, Maia Szalavitz questions whether Barack Obama's support for similar drug task forces in other Illinois and other states signals that he "remains part of our on-going national nightmare."

Szalavitz cites some of my research for the ACLU and even links to a Grits post to question, "If Obama won't oppose this drug war excess which both George W. Bush and George Soros rejected, how likely is he to understand the need for genuine reform in far more controversial areas?"

Wow, the reverberations from Texas' drug task force scandals just keep on coming, don't they? Perhaps I was premature to declare the end of the Tulia saga?

UPDATE: The links to two public policy reports I authored on Texas' Tulia-style drug task forces appear to be dead on the ACLU site mentioned above. Those interested can find them here:

• Flawed Enforcement, May 2004 report on drug task force highway interdiction practices
• Too Far Off Task, Dec. 2002 report on drug task force scandals and alternatives

Who would staff new Texas prisons and jails?

As I hear more talk of building prisons and jails in Texas, I keep wondering who would staff these behemoth facilities? The state is chronically 3,000 guards short now but is considering building three new prison units. In Houston, Harris County Commissioners want to increase the state's largest county jail by 50% capacity, but they can't fully staff the facilities they've got now. Meanwhile, other counties are expanding local jails, and new immigration detention centers are going up.

So if you build all these new facilities, will more guards come? As I mentioned yesterday, sometimes the most important questions are the unasked ones, and I seldom hear anyone proposing new jail spending address this question head on.

Complicating matters further, Governing magazine's 13th Floor blog predicts that proposed permanent increases in numbers of US military personnel will make recruiting local police officers (not to mention guards at prisons and jails) increasingly difficult:

Over the past year, it's become increasingly clear that many municipalities are facing a crisis in police recruitment. There are plenty of factors involved -- from low unemployment to changes in the workforce -- but one of the reasons is more and more competition from the armed services, which themselves are pressed for manpower.

That's because cops and soldiers are similar folks. Both groups are disproportionately young, male, willing to accept dangerous careers and comfortable using firearms. As a result, if the military ups benefits to try to recruit more troops, police forces may have no choice but to follow suit.

A commenter correctly adds another reason boosted military recruitment will impact recruitment of police officers and prison guards:

many police officers are in the reserves and when they are called up to active duty they deplete the local police force. Larger departments are better able to handle this than smaller PD's.

I've heard tons of anecdotal evidence that that's happening in Texas.

All the "tuff" jail and prison building proposals touted so cavalierly by those spending other people's money are always discussed based solely on building costs. But the really big items that soak taxpayers in the long haul are things like guard pay, constitutionally required healthcare for inmates, and other ongoing operational costs that stretch out ad infinitum.

If you can't find or afford guards to staff them, does it really matter how much prison or jail space you build?

House Corrections interim report is massive, but available

Okay, the Texas House Corrections Committee interim report (pdf) is 150 friggin' pages long and jam packed with information, so it's going to take me a little time to bust it down into manageable chunks, probably in several blog posts over the next week or so. (The Tyler Morning Telegraph offered initial coverage, as well as the Back Gate blog.) Until then I at least wanted to get the link out there in case others were interested in viewing the document.

In the meantime, don't forget to check out Grits' coverage of other recent Texas House interim committee reports on on criminal justice topics, see:

• Lawyers, Guns and Money: The report from the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee

and from the Texas House Law Enforcement Committe:

• False burglar alarms drain police resources
• Real ID Act a boondoggle for states
• What happened to Texas kids seized under new meth law?

Finally, the House Judiciary Committee has not yet completed its interim report, but I recently wrote up a segment of testimony taken by the committee on their "interim charge" related to whether Texas needs a journalist shield law, see:

• Does Texas need a shield law? Do journalists s#*t in the woods?

More soon - I'm going to try to systematically work my way through the highlights in all these reports over the next week or two.

What happened to Texas kids seized under new meth law?

Sometimes, the unasked questions are the most important ones. Like the one in the headline to this post.

Continuing with analysis from the Texas House Law Enforcement Committee interim report (pdf), another "charge" to the committee was to monitor the implementation of HB 164, Texas anti-meth law passed in 2005 that authorized the state to take custody of children seized near meth labs and required consumers to show ID and sign for pseudoephedrine products (like cold tablets) that are used to make homemade meth.

I was disappointed the committee failed to focus at all in its report on the most important aspect of this bill: What happened to the children seized as a result of this new law? Were they later returned to their parents? Did they enter the foster care system? Since HB 164 provided no new or specialized resources for these chidren, do we know whether they received counseling and support needed by a child traumatized by removal from their family? None of these questions are discussed in the report - we don't even know how many children were seized under the new law - 10, 50, 100, 500, quien sabe?

Did anybody see 60 Minutes' segment on foster children who were taken away from their parents last night? Here's the video. What happens psychologically to children under such circumstances really can't be understood unless you've witnessed it. These kids are psychically brutalized then basically thrown away. And the Law Enforcement Committee's report reflects that - nobody even looked to see what happened to them.

The one part of the bill that officials say worked as planned, sort of, is the registration requirements for "precursor" meth-making chemicals - according to DPS, the number of small meth labs discovered by law enforcement decreased in all counties between 50-80%, depending on the county. However, there has been no decline in the availability of meth because of increased importation of higher purity Mexican meth which has flooded the Texas market despite millions in boosted border enforcement.

In addition, while large retailers largely are complying with the law, many smaller retailers do not and DPS suggests a public education campaign among them to increase compliance with the law.

Rep. Lon Burnam pointed out that Texas' strategy seemed to ignore the demand side of the equation, and rightly suggested more focus be placed on funding drug treatment. Not only did HB 164 fail to provide treatment for meth addicts, treatment for all low-level drug users in Texas state jails was discontinued in 2005 for lack of funds.

Still, according to the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, meth-related entries into drug treatment increased from 1,821 in 2000 to 11,238 in 2004, said the interim report. In a state with 20+ million people, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the need.

I opposed HB 164 in 2005. I'm glad the number of meth labs has declined, but I sure wish somebody was keeping track of the kids taken from their parents as a result of this statute, and that state officials would focus resources on treatments for meth addiction instead of ever-more prison time for more people.

REAL ID Act a real boondoggle for states

Talk about unfunded mandates. The federal REAL ID Act will cost Texas $8.67 million in FY '06 to implement, and $4.4 million per year annually thereafter to maintain, according to the interim report (pdf) from the Texas House Law Enforcement Committee (p. 31).

If Texas doesn't implement the changes by May 2008, then Texas driver licenses will no longer be accepted for a variety of federal purposes like entry onto airplanes or federal courthouses.

Unbelievable.

Even more frustrating, when the Texas Department of Public Safety convinced legislators in 2005 to approve gathering biometric identifiers on Texas drivvers, they told them it was to pre-empt what the REAL ID Act would force them to do. That turned out to be a bunch of hoakum, just an excuse to remove restrictions on law enforcement use of drivers' biometric data. They don't even know yet for sure what the final REAL ID rules will require (cost estimates reflect "anticipated" federal rule language that hasn't been finalized).

From what I've heard, many states probably won't be ready by the May 2008 deadline and the likelihood that the feds will reject a drivers license from any state in order to board an airplane, much less a state as rich and large as Texas, strikes me as an empty threat. Especially for such an expensive and clumsily executed unfunded mandate, and especially since May 2008 comes in the middle of an election year, I just don't see it happening.

The Law Enforcement Committee recommended spending whatever is necessary to implement the REAL ID Act, but maybe Texas should just call the feds' bluff and wait to see if things change under the Democratic Congress. I can think of lots of other things Texas could better spend that much money on. How 'bout you?

Lawyers, Guns and Money: House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee releases interim report

Since the Texas Legislature only meets 4.5 months every two years, during the "interim" standing committees in each chamber study more complex issues and make recommendations for legislative reform. The main committees covering criminal justice topics in the House are Criminal Jurisprudence, Corrections, Law Enforcement, and Judiciary.

Interim reports from Texas House Committees are out, and I thought I'd run through the ones related to criminal justice, starting with the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee's report (pdf). With Committee Chairman Terry Keel leaving the House after an unscuccessful bid for a statewide judicial post, this interim report was basically his last legislative hurrah before returning to his private law practice. (Good luck, Chairman Keel.) Let's run through the report's high points:

Restitution

The committee report contains a lengthy discussion of "restitution" and its role in jurisprudence written by academics at the Crime Victims Institute at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville. Their analysis builds on some of the work by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and ideas proposed in Texas by various prison ministries. But their recommendations - more study and expanding who can be compensated from the victims compensation fund - don't go nearly as far as TPPF and others have suggested. I was disappointed that after the lengthy analysis, and given the state's looming overincarceration crisis, they didn't go further toward promoting restitution as an alternative to incarceration.

The idea of restitution as punishment for theft goes back all the way to Mosaic Law, where the standard punishment for theft was to repay the victim double what was stolen. Ironically, to this day in Texas, while individuals are routinely sentenced to jail or prison for theft, when corporations commit crimes they can either be sentenced to standardized fines, or, at the judge's discretion, "the court may sentence the corporation or association to pay a fine in an amount fixed by the court, not to exceed double the amount gained or caused by the corporation or association to be lost or damaged, whichever is greater." (TX Penal Code Sec. 12.51)

In other words, when incarceration isn't an option (since a corporation is a legal entity that can't be incarcerated - e.g., Jeff Skilling can go to prison, but Enron can't), Texas law to this day follows Moses' dictum that repaying double what was stolen constitutes justice. TPPF has suggested ways to more aggressively use restitution schemes to supplant incarceration for non-violent property offenses, benefitting victims and reinforcing postive values for offenders as well as punishing them for negative ones.

Discovery in criminal courts

(UPDATE: More from Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer.)

The committee also looked at the topic of "reciprocal discovery" - i.e., allowing pre-trial discovery in criminal cases the way parties operate in civil trials. A Democrat-dominated subcommittee was appointed to look at the question, but they punted on making any recommendations.

The real problem with "discovery" isn't the lack of reciprocity - it's that many DAs don't make files available to criminal defense counsel, and policies vary from county to county. Prosecutors are required to disclose "Brady" material, which is essentially exculpatory evidence, but as you might imagine DAs and defense lawyers can have wildly varying views on what constitutes exculpatory. In some counties, like Tarrant or Wichita, DAs have an "open file" policy where defense counsel are allowed to see all evidence the state has accumulated against their client. In other counties, like Harris, you'd basically need a ski mask and a shotgun to gain access to those files.

The reform needed here isn't "reciprocal discovery," but simply to mandate that all Texas prosecutors maintain an "open file" policy to let defense counsel view and make copies of any documents they deem relevant to their defense. The system works well where it's been implemented, and where it hasn't it's a source of constant grousing and wasted time for the already clogged courts.

"The Castle Doctrine": No Retreat Before Self Defense

Easily the most controversial of the committee's recommendations was its support for allowing use of deadly force to defend one's home or vehicle, overriding a court-generated requirement that force only be used when a reasonable person wouldn't "retreat." Similar legislation was passed last year in Florida, and the topic is a priority this year for the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association.

I support this change, mainly because once you're retreating, it's hard to fire a pistol over your shoulder.

But the addition of vehicles to the "castle doctrine" is an interesting twist, mostly because of legislation Chairman Keel sponsored last session aimed at allowing legal gun owners to carry a stowed weapon in their personal vehicle. The interpretation of that new law is in dispute and will likely be a topic for debate during the 80th Texas Legislature - there appeared last year to be wide support at the Lege for letting people carry legal firearms in their car. Taken together with this suggestion, the Legislature would essentially be saying you have a right to carry a gun in your car and the right to use it if anyone uses deadly force against you, with no duty to retreat.

Personally I don't have a problem with that - if I've got a legal gun with me and you try to hijack my car, I'd probably blow your head off. And where would you retreat to, anyway? The back seat? But I'll bet the police associations and DAs will throw a conniption fit at the idea that the public might protect themselves instead of relying on them to do it. We'll see, but that's my prediction where the main opposition to this bill will come.

Nuisance Abatement

Finally, the committee joined with the House General Investigating Committee to issue a lengthy joint report on the subject of nuisance laws, particularly their enforcement in Dallas. This was a hobby horse of Chairman Keel's last session. The full joint report is here, for those who are interested.

I won't go into detail on this subject except to note with interest the first recommendation of the joint report that "legislation should be considered regarding the propriety of a city using criminal activity that was brought onto a property by law enforcement" as part of undercover operations "when that city takes action against that property under Chapter 125 Civil Practice and Remedies Code." That's interesting - the city creates crime on a property owner's premises through an undercover drug transaction, then fines them under nuisance codes using the police-generated crime as evidence. Talk about doubly f*#ked!

See the full interim report. More soon analyzing reports from the other criminal justice-related committees.

Sex offender registry filled with errors

What good is a sex offender registry if the information in it isn't correct?

Joshunda Sanders reports in the Austin Statesman that information in the Austin PD's sex offender database doesn't match that in Texas' statewide database, and both contain data that's inaccurate and outdated. In one case Austin actually posted the photo of the wrong person online beside information from a registered sex offender.

Even if the information was accurate, it wouldn't help much. Most sex crimes aren't committed by people on the list. I couldn't find more recent stats, but according to the Department of Justice, "Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release."

We've now reached a stage in the public debate about sex offenders where politics has utterly trumped reason. The politically popular sex offender registration system in Texas is a complete mess and doesn't make anyone safer. Mostly it's just a source of media hype - providing fodder for useless "analysis" by reporters that fill the public with anxiety but really help no one. (I suppose it also gives prosecutors an extra set of technical violations to use to try to get probation revocations.)

Indeed, inaccurate information in the database such as the Statesman describes inevitably serves to manufacture unjustified fears based on bad data or even a false sense security when an offender isn't listed accurately. Plus, Texas has added too many low-level crimes to the registry - it's not just rapists and child molesters, but everyone from pimps to 19 year olds convicted of statutory rape for consensual relationships. With monitoring resources spread so thin - we're wasting community supervision resources on low-level people while the folks we need to be watching closely receive too little scrutiny.

Sure, the sex offender registration sounds good in theory. But in practice it's basically useless to the public, and when it's filled with errors and omissions it becomes actively harmful. At this point, I can't identify any real public safety use for it at all. All that appears to be left is it's PR value.

UPDATE: Corey Yung at the Sex Crimes Blog says similar accuracy problems with sex offender registration databases have arisen in Missouri and Iowa.

Texans for Medical Marijuana needs your help

I received an email yesterday from the good folks at Texans for Medical Marijuana who for several years now have been speaking out in Texas on behalf of the sick and infirm, especially patients with MS, cancer, glaucoma and other ailments where marijuana has been identified as a useful treatment.

When Noelle Davis first founded Texans for Medical Marijuana, I have to admit I was cynical. I considered the issue basically a stalking horse for the marijuana legalization movement, but since then I've come around on the question 180 degrees. One of the great merits of TMM's campaign has that they've scrupulously refused to allow the issue to be framed as part of the drug legalization debate, insisting on highlighting stories of real patients and hard medical science while eschewing politicized rhetoric. I admire that approach and have become convinced that there are real, medically based reasons for allowing marijuana use by some patients, and the issue really deserves to be considered on its own merits.

Apparently not everyone at the Texas Legislature has had a similar transformation in their thinking, because Noelle's email asked TMM supporters to help educate their own local representatives on why these patients deserve exemption from prosecution. With her permission I reprint the letter in full:

For the past five months I have traveled across the state meeting with Texas State Legislators to ask them to support a medical marijuana bill during the legislative session starting January 9th. I am glad to report the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans said they agreed that patients should not be locked up for following their doctors’ advice. However, as of today at least, none feel politically safe enough to join Representative Naishtat in bravely breaking the silence and offering a solution that has proven effective in 11 other states. Now I have not met with all the legislators, so I still hope to find some who are brave enough, but simply have not been asked yet.

Two of the legislators I spoke with shared exactly the same reason why they would not publicly support our bill: they fear their primary opponent or general election opponent running a TV commercial against them saying, “He voted to LEGALIZE MARIJUANA!!!” Sadly, they are probably right to fear such intentionally deceptive commercials.

The number one reason legislators gave as to why they won’t publicly support medical marijuana is that they do not have enough political cover. They want political cover in the form of public support for medical marijuana legislation from groups like the Texas Medical Association, their local prosecutors and law enforcement groups. So far my attempts to talk with these groups have been mostly met with silence. Two law enforcement associations have said they will likely remain neutral, which in the game of Texas politics is sometimes the best you can get.

Several of the legislators also said they are not hearing from medical marijuana supporters in their district, and one said he had only heard from people who are opposed.

This is where you come in. Your personal participation will have a huge impact on the effectiveness of this campaign. The time has come to start educating your state legislators either by a phone call, hand written letter, or the most effective method (when you are well prepared), a personal visit.

Why do you personally care if they support medical marijuana legislation? Please tell them either by calling, writing or personally visiting, and ask them to support a policy change that would save state law enforcement the precious resources of money and time, while creating a program that will help some of the most vulnerable people among us. Here are the main points that need to be included in a bill to make it an effective law:

• protect registered seriously ill patients - and their registered caregivers - who possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana with their doctors' certification from arrest and prosecution by state authorities;

• create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials will be able to easily tell who is a registered qualified patient or caregiver and who is not, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards;

• protect doctors from being punished for advising their patients that - in their sincere professional judgment - the benefits of the medical use of marijuana for the patient would exceed the risks;

• allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to raise a medical defense in court; and

• prohibit the public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana, among other common sense restrictions.

Between now and the beginning of April, if every person receiving this message contacted their legislators and successfully encouraged one friend or family member to reach out to their legislators also – that might generate enough “political cover” to get the legislators in Austin to do the right thing and support Representative Naishtat's bill.

We need your help telling people what we are trying to achieve and explaining how they can join you in playing an important role in speaking up for safe access. You can find who represents you in the Texas State Legislature, and their contact information, by inserting your address at the following link: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Thank you for demonstrating your courage and commitment by speaking up for safe access!

Happy Holidays,

Noelle Davis
Executive Director
Texans for Medical Marijuana

www.TexansforMedicalMarijuana.org

A family that's jailed together

Eye on Williamson County has an update on a new type of private immigration detention center that will incarcerate children along with their adult family members in Williamson County. Protesters plan to oppose the new facility, which Grits wrote about last spring, on Saturday.

UPDATE: See news 8 Austin's coverage of the protest. More from the Texas Civil Rights Review.

New USDoJ statistical publications

Via Tamara Thompson at PI Buzz, "The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics has released a new collection of statistics and publications on the demographics of prison populations." Here are the publications she listed released in November:

* Prisoners in 2005, 11/06.
* Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005, 11/06.
* Jails in Indian Country, 2004, 11/06.
* Survey of State Procedures Related to Firearm Sales, 2005, 11/06.
* HIV in Prisons, 2004, 11/06.
* Medical Problems of Jails Inmates, 11/06.
* Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2005, 11/06.
* Key Crime and Justice Statistics at a Glance, 11/06

Amachi Texas recruits mentors for kids with parents in prison

Via Wretched of the Earth I noticed a link to the Amachi Texas campaign, an effort to recruit mentors for children of incarcerated parents. In October, Amachi announced this new faith based partnership, and I see they've launched a new outreach effort. Here's how it's described on the Big Brothers Big Sisters site:

Amachi Texas launched ... [an] advertising campaign to put a face on ... [a] statewide program that matches children with an incarcerated parent to caring adult mentors.

In Texas, approximately 400,000 children have a parent in jail. Statistics show that 70% of children with a parent in jail will end up in prison themselves. Those are numbers that the Amachi Texas program hopes to change.

The campaign puts a face on that “70%” statistic by asking volunteers to “Break the Chain” of incarceration by becoming a mentor to one of these children.

If you're a high school senior or older and want to participate in this program, go here to volunteer. I don't know how much money will be spent on the recruitment effort, but here are some of the PR materials created for the program:

Radio Advertisement

Amachi Print Advertisement (Click on image for larger view)
Amachi Poster (click on image for larger view)

Winnsboro, TX: Illegal drug capital of the universe?

Is it really possible more than 1.6% of the population in tiny Winnsboro, Texas (pop. 3,600) are drug dealers?

You'd think so to listen to the new chief of the police department after undercover drug stings netted more than 60 people in the last six months, according to local TV news reports. In the story, the chief portrays everyone charged as "dealing drugs," but in the specific cases discussed the charges were mere possession.

There's just no way a town that size could support that many folks selling drugs. That would make Winnsboro, TX the illegal drug capital of the universe!

Here's an instance where police are clearly drilling down much deeper than just "dealers" to bust low-level users in large numbers. "I'm very delighted, and very proud of what they are doing," said Winnsboro Mayor Carolyn Jones. "We are not welcoming these people that are doing drugs, selling drugs and if they don't want to be caught they better watch out." Such politicized bluster needlessly fills up local jails and prisons and doesn't make the public safer, but it sure makes for good headlines.

Good question: What were they thinking?

"Why did Kevin Wilson spend 20 hours behind bars for a bottle of water?," asks Isiah Carey. Good question! Two Houston police officers responsible were reassigned, Carey reports in an update to his Fox News story. Wilson filed complaints against the officers and is suing the department store Dillards where they worked off duty providing security.

On PBS' weekly news show Washington Week, moderator Gwen Ifill will occasionally ask viewers to suggest "What were they thinking?" regarding some inexplicable act or statement by this or that Washington pol. That's the question I keep coming back to here. Watch the TV story and you tell me: What were they thinking? What could possibly explain this incident besides straight-up racial profiling?

Meanwhile, perhaps reporters should ask Mr. Wilson his opinion about why the Harris County Jail is full.

False burglar alarms drain police resources

The next time your local police chief says he needs to hire more cops, ask him (or her) how much officer time the department wastes chasing false burglar alarms - I'll bet the answer would surprise you.

Responding to false alarms operated by private companies at homes and businesses are the number one type of police service calls in Plano and Richardson, according to a recent analysis by the Texas House Law Enforcement Committee, topping 911 calls and traffic accidents as the main way police in those cities spend their time. False alarms were the second most common type of police call in Garland, and the third most common in Irving.

Those were the Texas towns included with 16 other US cities in a comparison chart from 2003 labeled Appendix E (p. 39) as part of the Law Enforcement Committee's recently released interim report. (In all cities surveyed false alarms were among the top three types of police service calls.)

Think about it - officers in Plano and Richardson spent more time responding to false burglar alarms than any other departmental function!

An astonishing amount of police power is wasted essentially subsidizing the bottom line of these private businesses. In Plano, for example, police responded to 18,716 false alarms in 2003. This is in a town that puts about 50 officers on the street each day, so nearly 10% of the department's manpower is being wasted chasing false alarms.

I've never understood this setup, but the problem is ubiquitous - the rate of false alarms is typically around 98-99%, and even when it's not a "false" alarm, the likelihood police will catch anyone is virtually nil. But taxpayers subsidize private alarm companies year in and year out, even though their entire "service" is to flip a switch that calls the cops.

I'm a fan of "verified response" for private alarm companies - I think they should be required to send a security guard to check if something's wrong before calling the cops. Right now taxpayers subsidize the cost of private alarm services up front, and they don't appear to improve public safety much at all.

Meet Dallas Sidebar

I've wondered in the past why we don't see more prosecutors in the Texas blogosphere, so I was pleased to stumble onto Dallas Sidebar, which appears to be written by someone working in the District Attorney's office in Dallas. The primary blogger, Proximo, was a big fan of outgoing DA Bill Hill, and isn't too excited about his replacement Craig Watkins. He also commented recently in opposition to the whosarat database, which Grits discussed recently.

Dallas Sidebar has been added to the list of Texas blog links in Grits' right-hand column.

DoJ report on Dallas jail healthcare now online

After Matt Pulle at Unfair Park broke the story (see Grits' coverage yesterday), the complete report from the US Department of Justice Civil Rights division criticizing healthcare at the Dallas County Jail is now available online:

See Part One and Part Two of the 47 page report.

Bottom line (p. 4): The Dallas County Jail "fails to provide inmates with adequate medical care that complies with constitutional requirements." Ouch! It's one thing for defense attorneys and inmate advocates to make such claims; it's quite another for Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department to say so.

The only things wrong with healthcare in the Dallas jail, says the USDoJ, are "inadequate":

• intake screening
• acute care
• chronic care
• treatment and management of communicable disease
• access to healthcare
• followup care
• record keeping
• medication administration
• medical facilities
• specialty care
• staffing, training and supervision
• quality assurance, and
• dental care

Other than that, everything is just peachy, thank you very much.

Does Texas need a shield law? Do reporters s#*t in the woods?

If the Legislature gives the media a "shield law," said Barry Macha, the Wichita County District Attorney, then "you're going to give them license to run naked through the woods."

Hmmmmm. I've heard of bloggers in their pajamas, but that's a new one to me about reporters naked among the trees.

Seriously, noticing on Rep. Peña's blog that the Texas House Judiciary Committee this morning was discussing journalist shield laws, I turned on the hearing just in time to hear my friend Wichita DA Barry Macha denouncing a "shield law" for reporters in Texas, saying that if approved it "would destroy the grand jury process in this state."

Two things come to mind here:

First, don't other states with shield laws run their grand juries just fine?

Second, shield laws are about many things besides grand jury testimony. Couldn't you exempt grand jury information?

Macha said he wouldn't mind an informer privilege, but only where the informer had not engaged in any criminal conduct. That's ironic - the informer privilege DAs and police use every day covers up plenty of criminal conduct.

Chair Will Hartnett picked up on this - the journalists, he said, just want "exactly the same" privilege the DAs themselves use. (Not even that, really.) Macha admitted that's right, but returned to his meme that what reporters "really" want is access to grand jury testimony.

Hartnett pressed Macha whether he thought journalists who obtained "material evidence" as opposed to the "extreme" example of grand jury testimony should receive a privilege. Macha responded by reading a letter from the prosecutor in the Jasper, Tx James Byrd murder - a racially charged incident where Byrd was dragged behind a pickup truck that made national headlines. The letter said that after the first two convictions, prosecutors obtained evidence incriminating the third defendant from an interview with the network TV show 60 Minutes. Macha implied the case couldn't have been made otherwise, but a later witness pointed out the evidence obtained from 60 Minutes was never entered at court in Jasper, so it wasn't "critical to the case."

I think it was Rep. Veronica Gonzales who noticed that the prosecutor can issue a grand jury subpoena to a reporter, but defendants cannot do the same if the reporter has exculpatory evidence. Macha confirmed that the defense could not depose witnesses, but they could supbpoena them at trial, he said. (Of course, that's a red herring - fewer than 1% of Texas criminal cases ever reach trial.)

Rep. Alonzo went back to the grand jury issue and asked point blank how the public could be sure the secret, non-transparent grand jury process wasn't being abused? According to Macha the only way to tell would be indirectly, if a lot of cases indicted by the grand jury started getting tossed. But he could not give any examples of how such misconduct might ever come out.

Rep. Peña has filed HB 382 that would create Texas' first journalist shield law since the common law version was struck down by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1993.

UPDATE: More from Capitol Annex, the Texas Law Blog, the Austin Statesman, the Brownsville Herald, the Associated Press, and an editorial from the Lufkin Daily News.