h1

Cops, drugs, youtube, and blogs

May 14, 2008

So I’ve been a neglectful blogger in the past week or so. I apologize for that.

Many of you have probably seen the article I wrote for today’s paper about video of a drug bust by Lee County sheriff’s deputies and federal agents which somehow ended up on youtube. This is a story that many people in Lee County have been aware of for a while now. I was only able to begin officially reporting on it last night though, because a motion filed by one of the defendants’ attorney for the first time mentions the existence of the video in a public way.

So, upon finding out that there was a public document which mentioned the video (since removed from the internet), I returned to work at 7:30 p.m. yesterday to get the story in. WRAL, I’d discovered, was also looking into it, and I’ll usually do anything in my power to avoid getting beat on a story by a TV station that’s based 40 miles from Sanford.

Anyway, I had to tell my superiors to make room for the story because by that time the front page was pretty much almost done. So I was working with a limited amount of space, and when that happens, lots of details get left on the cutting room floor. This is a story with plenty of details, and while I had to make some tough decisions last night about what should and shouldn’t go in my story, this whole blog phenomenon really takes some of the pain out of those decisions. So here is at least one more very important piece to the story you may have read this morning:

There is a temptation to look at this story as the Lee County Sheriff’s Department vs. The Sanford Police Department. That would be a mistake. Yes, Sanford Police Chief Ronnie Yarborough and Lee County Sheriff Tracy Carter certainly both made statements that contradict one another. That was an important part of the story, because one of the biggest questions in this narrative is “why were there Sanford Police officers at the scene of a drug bust in an unincorporated part of Lee County in the first place?”

But both men also made statements to me that, unfortunately, I couldn’t include. Yarborough, who claims his men were asked by sheriff’s officials to be on the scene in a support capacity, said “I can’t say what type of mix-up in communications may have caused this type of thing to happen.” Carter told me that “a mistake was made, and it’s been dealt with. We need to move forward with this.”

Nobody who pays attention disputes that relations aren’t perfect between the two departments, but to cast this situation as an outgrowth of those conditions is probably not fair. Leaders in both offices have said mistakes are what led to the situation. I think that’s important.

In other news, I’ve discovered through the grapevine that a couple more of my friends have jumped into this blogging business:

*Jay is a friend of mine dating back about 10 years. We graduated together from Lee Senior in 1998 before attending our first year of college together at ECU, where even then we had some pretty spirited conservative/liberal debates. Jay’s blog is mostly about politics.

*Lindsay is another friend of mine whose blog I discovered a couple of days ago. I met Lindsay through my friend Ross, who she’s about to marry. Her blog makes me hungry.

Check both of them out!

5 comments

  1. I’m a little confused to why the video would be a big deal. Since your paper’s website is so wonderful, I was unable to read your article on the subject. Why the big hubbub over a video of law enforcement officers making a bust? Who shot the video?


  2. The video itself isn’t a big deal; it’s the fact that it wasn’t turned over to the case’s lead investigators and the prosecutor. Video like that is considered evidence and is required by law to be turned over to defense attorneys.

    The second reason that it’s a big deal is that undercover federal agents are visible on the video. For that reason especially (although there are others which are important too) the video should never have appeared anywhere for public viewing.

    Finally, the defense attorneys are arguing that the video, which shows the agents breaking open clay floor tiles to find packages of marijuana within, corroborates their clients’ position that they were hired only to unload the truck and that they weren’t aware the floor tiles contained marijuana.

    I guess the blog entry wasn’t very understandishable without being able to read the story.


  3. It’s an interesting blog entry, that answers my questions. I was thinking the angle that it would be considered evidence until the end of the trial. Then I thought about security camera footage of crimes that are usually played on the news before the trial. Do the police just release that kind of footage only when they are looking for a suspect? Or is it public?

    I totally see the problem with showing undercover agents. Why would anyone upload that to YouTube? I thought it was just some amateur video of a drug raid. It sounds like one of the officers or sheriff’s did uploaded it. That’s really bad form if that is true.

    They should have gone to BLUTube.com. At least you can secure the video there.


  4. Thanks Gordon! We have to plan a time for you to come over and we’ll feed you something tasty.


  5. Thanks for the shout-out, Gordo. You’re right that the story shouldn’t be Sheriff vs Police issue, but in talking with people around town (way before this story broke), that seems to be the feeling. This story could be about the Sheriff’s office getting an extra box of ammo and people would say, “Well, thats just a slap in the police dept.’s face.” There seems to be the mentality that these guys just don’t get along and jsut can’t stop stepping on each other’s toes. Any disagreement they have just gets overblown by conspiracy theories.



Leave a Comment