Aftermath of Atlanta "Drug Raid" Killing of 92-Year Old

Guilty Pleas Only the Beginning in Aftermath of Atlanta "Drug Raid" Killing of 92-Year Old

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/484/atlanta_killer_narcs_plead_guilty_investigations_continue

Last Thursday, two Atlanta narcotics officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges in the shooting death of an elderly woman during a botched drug raid, but that is just the beginning in what looks to be an ever-expanding investigation into misconduct in the Atlanta narcotics squad. A federal investigation is already underway, and yesterday, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to launch a thorough investigation of issues raised by the case, including police misconduct, the use of confidential informants, arrest quotas, and the credibility of police officials.

Things began to unravel for the Atlanta Police Department's 16-man street narcotics team on November 21, when three Atlanta narcs broke into the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston using a "no-knock" warrant that claimed drug sales had taken place there. The elderly Johnston responded to the intruders dressed in plain clothes by firing one shot from an old pistol, which missed the officers. The narcs responded with a barrage of bullets, firing 39 shots, five or six of which hit Johnston, who died shortly afterward.

Since then, investigators have found that in the Johnston case:

* The narcotics officers planted drugs to arrest a suspected drug dealer, who in turn pointed them toward Johnston's residence.
* The narcotics officers lied on their search warrant application, saying that a confidential informant had bought drugs at that address when that did not happen.
* The narcotics officers lied on their search warrant application, saying the house was occupied by a large man who employed surveillance cameras.
* The narcotics officers planted mar1juana in Johnston's basement after they shot her in order to bolster their case and impugn her reputation.
* The narcotics officers asked another confidential informant to lie for them after the fact and say he had bought drugs at Johnston's residence.

But that confidential informant, Alexis White, instead went to the feds with his story (and this week, he went to Washington, DC, to talk to congressional leaders about snitching), and the fabric of lies woven by the Atlanta narcs rapidly unraveled. Last Wednesday, three of them, Officers Gregg Junnier, Jason Smith, and Arthur Tesler, were indicted on numerous state charges, including murder, as well as federal civil rights charges. The following day, Junnier and Smith pleaded guilty to a state charge of manslaughter, with sentencing to be postponed until after the federal investigation is complete. They face up to 10 years on the manslaughter charge and up to life in prison on the federal civil rights charge.

But the problems in the Atlanta narcotics squad run deeper than one incident of misconduct. According to federal investigators, what the Atlanta narcs did during the botched Johnston raid was business as usual.

"Junnier and other officers falsified affidavits for search warrants to be considered productive officers and to meet APD's performance targets," according to a federal exhibit released Thursday. "They believed that these ends justified their illegal 'Fluffing' or falsifying of search warrants. Because they obtained search warrants based on unreliable and false information, [the officers] had on occasion searched residences where there were no drugs and the occupants were not drug dealers."

Cutting corners, though, can have serious consequences. As prosecutors noted, once the narcs had received a tip there were drugs at Johnston's residence, Officer Junnier said they could get a confidential informant to make a buy there to ensure there actually were drugs at that location. "Or not," Smith allegedly responded.

At a news conference last Thursday, FBI Atlanta Special Agent in Charge Greg Jones called the officers' conduct "deplorable." In an ominous addendum, Jones added that the agency will pursue "additional allegations of corruption that other Atlanta police officers may have engaged in similar conduct."

US Attorney David Nahmias said Johnston's death was "almost inevitable" because of such widespread activity and vowed a far-reaching investigation into departmental practices. He said he expects to find other cases where officers lied or relied on bad information. "It's a very ongoing investigation into just how wide the culture of misconduct extends," Nahmias said. "We'll dig until we can find whatever we can."

And now, House Judiciary Committee head Rep. Conyers wants to ensure that the feds dig deep. In a letter released yesterday, Conyers told Attorney General Gonzales:

"There are several key issues raised by the Johnston case: police misconduct (falsifying information and excessive use of force); misuse of confidential informants; potentially negative impact of arrest quotas and performance measures; and the integrity and credibility of law enforcement officials. We are particularly concerned about the misuse of confidential informants. The reliability of confidential informants used in narcotics cases is often compromised because they are cooperating with law enforcement in order to extricate themselves from criminal charges. The absence of corroboration requirements for information obtained through confidential informants leaves room for abuse. All these factors can have the effect of eroding public confidence in the criminal justice system.

"We are concerned that the Atlanta incident may be indicative of a systemic problem within the Atlanta Police Department. Additionally, we are disturbed that the actions of the Atlanta Police Department may be a reflection of conduct used in other jurisdictions throughout this country. Significantly, the number of "no knock raids" has increased from three thousand in 1981 to more than fifty thousand in 2005."

Former New Jersey narcotics officer and current head of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Jack Cole shares Conyers' concerns. "I think this kind of thing is going on across the country," he told Drug War Chronicle. "If anyone really dug into this, you would find similar things in a lot of departments. It's about using a war on drugs metaphor. When you have a war, you need an enemy, someone despicable, so you can do whatever you want to them," he said. "We train our police to feel like they have to win at any cost because it's a war."

Maybe, just maybe, the federal investigation into the Atlanta narcs will morph into the kind of hearings on drug war policing that are long, long overdue. If not, at least Kathryn Johnston has won a measure of justice.

 

If you cannot dispute the substance, then run away, little boy. The adults are having a conversation.

BTW, it is just like you to downplay the unjustified murder of a 92 year old woman in the pursuit of the drug war.

 

pgabriel made one of my points for me [shaking fist]damn you pgabriel[/shake].

The absence of drug prohibition would create an evironment where the police don't have to execute "no knock" warrants for any but the most dangerous criminals, where drug users, even heavy ones, wouldn't have to rob and steal to support their habits, and where overdoses were a thing of the past.

BTW, though there are many addicts who "sack and pillage" to support their habits, these people rarely if ever commit assault or murder in the process.

If you had even a modicum of education on the subject you would be aware of this, but sadly on this issue as on dozens of others, you have no knowledge, no logic, and no credibility.

 

I don't believe that there would necessarily be fewer addicts, but in places where drugs, even hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, are legal or decriminalized, addiction rates are comparable or slightly lower than in the US.

Cocaine is legal in amounts appropriate for personal use in several countries in South America (Bolivia and Peru to name two) and their rates of cocaine addiction are slightly lower (not a statistically significant difference, so we will just call it the same rate of addiction as the US).

In Holland, mar1juana is tolerated, but regulated. The adult usage rates in Amsterdam and San Francisco are nearly identical, but teen usage rates in Amsterdam are less than half what we see here, proving that a regulated market can keep drugs out of the hands of children (which should be the first, second, and third priority when it comes to our drug policy) more effectively than prohibition. These statistics are further bolstered by the highly effective "We Card" programs that started in the '90s and reduced teen use of tobacco and alcohol by 25% and 50% respectively.

Regulated markets work. Prohibition does not.

What an "argument."

You have not shown any evidence of increased usage at all. Even so, lets assume that usage rates increase and we have the same rates of overdose that we had in the early 1900s when you could buy cocaine and heroin from the General Store. Do you know how many overdoses there were in those days?

Nearly zero.

This is because they were buying pure, unadulterated products (adulterants are the actual killer in 90% of overdose cases), they knew how much was safe to take (there is no such education these days and even if there was, varying purity makes dosing impossible, see Len Bias), and they weren't afraid to go to or take a friend to the doctor.

Yes, you should take a break from your uninformed, uneducated, unintelligent "arguments."

Again, assuming there is an increase in usage (when alcohol prohibition ended there was a slight increase in usage that was attributed to more accurate reporting, but by all estimates there was no actual increased usage), people would be taking a known quantity of a known substance instead of a street drug that could literally be anything.

BTW, studies have shown that people across the globe use drugs at nearly (statistically insignificant differences) the same rate no matter what the law is. From countries with the death penalty for dealers (Thailand recently executed a deadly "purge" that claimed 5,000 "dealers") to countries that don't prosecute drug crimes, usage rates are nearly identical.

Drug laws do not reduce usage, never have, never will. As our drug laws have gotten more and more prohibitive, we have seen zero reduction in drug use over the last 35 years.

One of us needs a good hard dose of reality, but it is not me.

The VAST majority of the harms from drugs are directly caused by prohibition as opposed to the drugs themselves.

If you were even marginally educated on the subject, you would be aware of this.

 

I can't do anything else now that I am educated on the subject.

 

I am not so arrogant. However, given what I know, I do believe that the harms of regulating the manufacture and sale of currently illegal drugs are far overshadowed by the harms created by prohibition.

History is my best evidence, but current statistics also point in that direction.