Does Harold Pryor’s Drug Trafficking Unit (DTU), the minimum-mandatory wielding, questionable traffic stop loving special unit have a policy precluding Motions To Suppress during plea negotiations?
Or is it more of an unwritten rule, stretching back to the days Mike Satz was blocking the path of law enforcement accountability whilst speeding the mass incarceration highway?
Whatever you want to call it, whether real, perceived, or wholly imagined, it does seem DTU prosecutors have a particular distaste for litigating stop and other motions, to the point not many are filed (or certainly heard) for fear of Defendants’ losing offers typically involving prison time below the judicial discretion-robbing, draconian, mandatory penalties as charged in the aggressively filed original Informations. Sometimes the deals are welcome, of course, while on other occasions innocent or drug addicted individuals, or victims of flat-out, unchecked illegal police tactics, may have their lives destroyed. And all because they can’t risk a hearing or trial challenging the evidence, searches and seizures, or the traffic stops themselves.
We’re not alone in our concerns. Plenty of private lawyers have felt the pinch, while a few others we are aware of have been allowed to file motions without getting burned.
For his part, Gordon Weekes, Broward’s elected Public Defender, had this to say earlier today:
“I spoke with my division Chiefs and attorneys concerning DTU cases, and I found there is a longstanding pattern of forgoing suppression hearings to support plea negotiations, particularly when compared to other divisions. It is my understanding that if a motion to suppress is filed or goes to hearing with DTU that plea negotiations will be withdrawn.
These suppression motions are constitutional safeguards that must be addressed to ensure the credibility of both the investigating officer and the investigation itself. Both the Defense and the State should welcome these hearings, as they are essential to upholding procedural and constitutional protections. Suppression hearings hold law enforcement accountable to the community, especially in cases where alleged trafficking is discovered through routine traffic stops, which is frequently the case. Exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights should never come at the cost of losing a plea offer.”
So, what gives? Is there a policy, or not?
One thing’s for sure – there’s a ton of confusion out there, and that’s definitely not a good thing, particularly in an era when the credibility of the justice system is under attack from all sides. Not to mention, of course, the pain and suffering visited upon individuals (and their families) who may have needlessly gone up the road for way, way too long.
Toward the goal of eliminating all confusion on DTU’s practices and procedures going forward, and to ensure police accountability, we’ve been emailing and speaking with various higher ups at the SAO, and we need your help.
Post a comment here if you have any insights that can help clear up the confusion, or that we can relay to the SAO for clarification. If you prefer, drop us a private line here. And if we’ve got the whole thing dead wrong, then please don’t be shy – let us know that too.
For now, we’ve been directed to speak with the SAO’s Chief of Special Administration, Steven Klinger, and to Harold Pryor’s media relations office in anticipation of a meeting with Pryor himself. The meeting was suggested last week by Julio Gonzalez, the head of the SAO’s Public Corruption Unit. We’ll make sure all your questions and concerns are heard, and will report back.
The more information you can provide the better, as we believe Harold’s stated commitment to transparency, fairness, and the integrity of the criminal justice system he leads in Broward County can be brought to the fore to protect everyone’s constitutional rights, whether accused of a misdemeanor, a murder, or a drug offense …
*LET’S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!
