-------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Supreme Court Says Knock And Talk No Good
(The Text Of Today's Decision In State V. Ferrier, In Which The Court
Reversed The Conviction Of A Bremerton Woman Accused Of Manufacturing
A Plant, Ruling That The Victim Was Not Told By Police That She Had The Right
To Refuse To Consent To A Search)

Return-Path: (acquit@teleport.com)
Subject: WA S Ct says Knock and Talk No Good
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 08:53:22 -0700

Below is copy of opinion of State V. Ferrier decided yesterday by WA Supreme
Court...Lookin' Good!

Argued September 18, 1997. Decided August 27, 1998.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 64930-8
Respondent, )
)
v. ) En Banc
)
DEBRA M. FERRIER, )
)
Petitioner. )
) Filed August 27, 1998

Trial Court: Superior Court, Kitsap County County,
No. 94-1-00154-8, James D. Roper, J.

John P. Jensen, for petitioner.
Pamela B. Loginsky, Kitsap County Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, for respondent.

ALEXANDER

DURHAM, C.J., dissents by separate opinion.

ALEXANDER, J. -- We granted Debra Ferrier's petition to review
a Court of Appeals' decision affirming her conviction for
manufacture of a controlled substance. At issue is the
validity of a warrantless search of Ferrier's home by officers
of the Bremerton Police Department. One of Ferrier's
contentions is that the so-called "knock and talk" procedure
employed by the police officers to obtain her consent to the
search is violative of both the state and federal
constitutions. She asserts, additionally, that she did not
voluntarily consent to the search that was conducted by the
police officers. We conclude that because Ferrier had
heightened privacy rights in her home, as guaranteed by
article I, section 7 of our state constitution, she should
have been informed that she need not consent to the search.
Because she was not, the search was unconstitutional and the
evidence obtained as a result should not have been admitted
into evidence. We, therefore, reverse her conviction.

On April 19, 1993, two officers of the Bremerton Police
Department received information from Ferrier's son, who was
then in detention at the Youth Services Center in Port
Orchard, that his mother was conducting a marijuana grow
operation at her house in Bremerton. Because Ferrier's son
had no record as an informant, the officers were unable to
make any judgment about his credibility. They did, however,
drive by the residence that was located at the address given
to them by the youth and confirmed that a house matching the
description given to them was at that location.

Possessed only with the information Ferrier's son had provided
to them and knowledge of the location of Ferrier's home, the
officers met with two other Bremerton police officers at a
"covert police department location" to discuss a procedure
whereby they could gain entry to the home. Verbatim Report of
Proceedings (VRP) (vol. II) at 151. At this meeting they
hatched a plan to conduct a "knock and talk" because they
believed that they could not obtain a search warrant without
disclosing "the name of the informant, and we could do a knock
and talk without doing that." VRP (vol. I) at 40.

According to one of the police officers who testified at a
suppression hearing, a knock and talk is a procedure
like any other follow-up investigation that a detective
or police officer would do. You go to the door, knock
on the door, make contact with the resident, ask if you
can come in to talk about whatever the complaint
happens to be, which in this case there's a complaint
of a marijuana grow.

Once you're inside, you talk about why you're there and
you ask for permission to search the premises.

VRP (vol. I) at 24. The officer also testified that police
officers have a high rate of success in getting home
dwellers to consent to a search during a knock and talk. He
indicated that "[v]irtually everybody allows you in. . . . I
would say about half of them [knock and talks] were
successful in terms of the fact that we found evidence of a
crime." VRP (vol. I) at 26.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the four police officers
proceeded to Ferrier's residence. They were all armed and each
wore a black "raid jacket[]" which had the word "police"
emblazoned in yellow letters across the front and back. VRP
(vol. I) at 28. Upon arriving at Ferrier's residence, two of
the officers went to the back of the house in order to "secure
the premises." VRP (vol. I) at 45-46. The others proceeded to
the front entrance.

The officers who initially went to the front door of Ferrier's
home later testified at the suppression hearing that Ferrier
opened the door in response to their knock. They said that
they immediately identified themselves to Ferrier as police
officers, whereupon she invited them into her house. Upon
entering the front room of Ferrier's home, the officers
noticed that there were two infant children in the room.
According to both officers, they then radioed the officers at
the rear of the home who responded by entering the dwelling.
Upon their entry into the home, the 15-by 15-foot front room
contained Ferrier, her two infant grandchildren and the four
Bremerton police officers.

According to all three officers who testified at the
suppression hearing, Ferrier was told by them that they had
information that a marijuana grow operation was being
conducted in the house, and that they wanted to search the
home and seize the marijuana. All of these officers indicated
that Ferrier was then asked to consent to a search and that
they went over a "consent to search" form with her before she
signed it. The form did not indicate that she had the right to
refuse consent to the search. The officers conceded that
Ferrier was not told by them that she had the right to refuse
to consent to a search, nor was she informed of any other
rights. According to these officers, the consent form was
signed by Ferrier within six or seven minutes after their
entry into the home.

Ferrier, according to two of the officers, eventually led them
upstairs to a locked door, which she unlocked after retrieving
a key. The officers then entered the previously locked room
and proceeded to search it. One officer testified that Ferrier
was crying during the time the police officers were searching
the room. Another officer indicated that Ferrier appeared
frightened and nervous throughout the entire time they were at
the premises.

Ferrier's testimony about the events leading to the search of
her home varied in several respects from that of the police
officers. She testified that when the officers were at her
front door they said they wanted to talk to her about her son,
and that they then "stepped into the house while they said
that." VRP (vol. II) at 288. She also stated that "I was
terrified. I was scared. They [the police officers] told me
they were going to take my grandchildren to Child Protective
Services." VRP (vol. II) at 261. Ferrier indicated that she
only signed the consent to search form "[b]ecause I didn't
want them to take my grandchildren away." VRP (vol. II) at
264. Ferrier confirmed that the police officers did not tell
her that she could refuse to consent to a search nor did they
inform her of any other rights.

The search of the upstairs room resulted in the seizure of 29
mature marijuana plants, 39 starter plants, and other evidence
of a marijuana grow operation. The police officers also seized
$2,120 in cash from Ferrier's purse. Ferrier was thereafter
charged in Kitsap County Superior Court with manufacturing a
controlled substance. /1

Ferrier moved, pursuant to CrR 3.6(a), to suppress all of the
evidence obtained as a result of the search of her home.
Following a suppression hearing, the trial court denied her
motion and entered findings of fact generally consistent with
the State's version of the events leading to the seizure of
the marijuana and other evidence. Ferrier and the State then
entered into a stipulation as to the facts and submitted them
to the trial court which, following Ferrier's waiver of a jury
trial, found Ferrier guilty of the charged crime. Ferrier
appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed. State v. Ferrier, No. 19280-2-II, slip. op. (Wash.
Ct. App. Nov. 27, 1996). This court thereafter granted
Ferrier's petition for review. /2

I.

Ferrier contends that the knock and talk procedure, as
employed here, is violative of her rights under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. /3 Thus, she
argues, the consent to search given by her is vitiated.
Because she cites no authority for her argument that her
federal constitutional rights were violated, we are not
obliged to consider the contention. /4 See State v. Lord,
117 Wn.2d 829, 853, 822 P.2d 177 (1991). In any case, the
failure of the police to warn an individual of their right to
refuse to consent to a warrantless search has previously been
found to be merely a factor, and not necessarily dispositive,
in assessing the voluntariness of the consent under a Fourth
Amendment analysis. State v. Shoemaker, 85 Wn.2d 207, 212, 533
P.2d 123 (1975) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.
218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973); United States v.
Heimforth, 493 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1974)).

II.

Ferrier's principal contention is that the knock and talk
procedure as employed here violated her right to privacy
granted by article I, section 7 of Washington's Constitution
and thus invalidated the consent she gave to the officers to
search her home. Because Ferrier engages in the independent
analysis required by State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 61-62,
720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986), we can consider her
claim under our state constitution. State v. Wethered,
110 Wn.2d 466, 472-73, 755 P.2d 797 (1988).

Article I, section 7 of our state's constitution provides that
"[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his
home invaded, without authority of law." This provision
differs from the Fourth Amendment in that "[u]nlike the Fourth
Amendment, Const. art. 1, sec. 7 `clearly recognizes an
individual's right to privacy with no express limitations.'"
State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 180, 867 P.2d 593 (1994)
(emphasis added) (quoting State v. Simpson, 95 Wn.2d 170, 178,
622 P.2d 1199 (1980)).

Nevertheless, in order to determine whether article I, section
7 provides greater protection for Ferrier's privacy interests
under the present facts, we must apply the six nonexclusive
criteria that were first identified in Gunwall,
106 Wn.2d at 58. Because this court is examining the same
constitutional provision that was at issue in Gunwall, we
merely adopt the analysis of factors one, two, three, and five
that we undertook there. /5 See State v. Boland,
115 Wn.2d 571, 576, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990). Thus, we need
examine only factors four and six to decide whether the knock
and talk procedure, as employed here, ran afoul of Ferrier's
state constitutional right to privacy. Even this examination
need not be exhaustive because "[o]ur analysis of art. I, sec.
7 of the Washington Constitution begins with the proposition
that warrantless searches are unreasonable per se." State v.
Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 70, 917 P.2d 563 (1996). While
"consent" to a warrantless search is one of the "narrow
exceptions" to the warrant requirement "[t]he burden rests
with the State to prove" its presence. Hendrickson,
129 Wn.2d at 71. This is no easy task because "[t]he
exceptions to the requirement of a warrant, including consent,
are "`"jealously and carefully drawn."'" Hendrickson,
129 Wn.2d at 72 (quoting State v. Bradley,
105 Wn.2d 898, 902,
719 P.2d 546 (1986) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403
U.S. 443, 454, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1971))).

We look first to the fourth Gunwall factor, preexisting state
law, Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 61-62, in order to determine the
degree of privacy protection that Washington has historically
afforded to individuals in similar situations. Numerous cases
from this court have indicated that article I, section 7 goes
further than the Fourth Amendment in protecting "against
warrantless searches and seizures, with no express
limitations" to this protection. City of Seattle v. Mesiani,
110 Wn.2d 454, 456, 755 P.2d 775 (1988) (citing Simpson,
95 Wn.2d at 178); see, e.g., Young,
123 Wn.2d at 188
(prohibiting warrantless infrared surveillance of home);
Boland, 115 Wn.2d at 578 (prohibiting warrantless search of
curbside trash); Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 63 (prohibiting the
warrantless obtaining of phone records or installation of a
pen register); State v. Chrisman, 100 Wn.2d 814, 818, 676 P.2d
419 (1984) (finding article I, section 7 violation in
warrantless intrusion into student's dormitory room).
Especially evident is the fact that "[i]n no area is a citizen
more entitled to his privacy than in his or her home. For this
reason, `the closer officers come to intrusion into a
dwelling, the greater the constitutional protection.'" Young,
123 Wn.2d at 185 (citation omitted) (quoting Chrisman,
100 Wn.2d at 820). /6

In addition, our state Legislature has long provided
protection against unlawful government intrusions into the
home, making it a gross misdemeanor "for any policeman or
other peace officer to enter and search any private dwelling
house or place of residence without the authority of a search
warrant issued upon a complaint as by law provided." RCW
10.79.040.

We find that preexisting state law, the fourth Gunwall factor,
amply supports independent review of this case under article
I, section 7. We, therefore, next look to the sixth Gunwall
factor, which requires us to examine whether the privacy
interest at issue is a matter of particular state or local
concern. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 62. Because of some overlap,
the discussion under the fourth factor also applies here. See
Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 67.

Ferrier correctly cites Young for the proposition that the
degree of privacy a Washington citizen has in the home is
primarily a local concern, and that there is no need for
national uniformity on this issue. Indeed, her argument that
the privacy right at issue is local in nature finds support in
this court's willingness, in other contexts, to forsake
national uniformity by refusing to abandon our state's
well-established protections against "unreasonable
governmental intrusions." State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432,
443, 688 P.2d 136 (1984).

However, the State cites two cases in arguing that "Washington
courts that have considered whether a different standard of
consent applies under Const. art. I, sec. 7, have rejected
this contention." Supplemental Br. of Resp't at 13 (citing
State v. McCrorey, 70 Wn. App 103, 108 n.3, 851 P.2d 1234,
review denied, 122 Wn.2d 1013, 863 P.2d 73 (1993); State v.
Williamson, 42 Wn. App. 208, 213, 710 P.2d 205 (1985), review
denied, 105 Wn.2d 1012 (1986)).

Both of these cases are distinguishable from the present, and
not just because they predate our holding in Young concerning
the protections afforded the home dweller. /7 To guide it in
reaching its decision, Division One in McCrorey found only
"precedent construing federal authority and not our own state
constitution." McCrorey, 70 Wn. App. at 110. Because we had
not yet spoken on whether a separate state constitutional
analysis for voluntary consent applied under article I,
section 7, Division One concluded that we were in lockstep
with the federal rule on this issue. Williamson dealt with the
standard of consent to search under the Fourth Amendment; in
fact, that opinion did not even refer to article I, section 7.
Thus the State's citation to Williamson in support of its
argument is inexplicable. Furthermore, even where we have
previously conducted only a Fourth Amendment analysis, we have
found that one of three identified factors used in determining
the "voluntariness of a consent to search" is "whether the
consenting person had been advised of his right not to
consent." Shoemaker, 85 Wn.2d at 212.

Moreover, the State's response ignores the crux of Ferrier's
challenge to the constitutionality of the procedure employed
here. Ferrier does not argue that the voluntary standard of
consent is unconstitutional under article I, section 7. The
core of her argument is that the police here violated her
expectation of privacy in her home because they conducted the
knock and talk in order to search her home, thereby avoiding
the general requirement that a search warrant be obtained.
Indeed, Ferrier argues that the violation of her privacy right
was one of the factors that made her eventual consent
involuntary. This right is clearly an interest of local
concern under the sixth Gunwall factor due to "[t]he
heightened protection afforded state citizens against unlawful
intrusion into private dwellings [that] places an onerous
burden upon the government to show a compelling need to act
outside of our warrant requirement." Chrisman,
100 Wn.2d at 822 (emphasis added).

Having satisfied the need for an independent analysis, /8 we
next consider whether the police violated the greater privacy
protection provided by article I, section 7 in the manner in
which they conducted this knock and talk procedure in an
effort to obtain Ferrier's consent to search her home. It is
significant to our analysis, in this regard, that it is
undisputed that Ferrier was in her home when the police
initiated contact with her. In addition, the officers admitted
that they conducted the knock and talk in order to avoid the
necessity of obtaining a search warrant authorizing a search
of the home. This, especially, flies in the face of our
previous admonition that "`[w]here the police have ample
opportunity to obtain a warrant, we do not look kindly on
their failure to do so.'" State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 735, 744,
782 P.2d 1035 (1989) (quoting approvingly from United States
v. Impink, 728 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984)). Finally, and
most importantly, the officers concede that they did not
advise Ferrier that she had the right to refuse to consent to
a search of her home. Based on these facts, all of which were
found by the trial court, we conclude that the knock and talk,
as carried out here, violated Ferrier's state constitutional
right to privacy in her home and, thus, vitiated the consent
she gave. This is so because she was not advised, prior to
giving her consent to the search of her home, that she could
refuse to consent.

Central to our holding is our belief that any knock and talk
is inherently coercive to some degree. While not every knock
and talk effort may be accompanied by as great a show of force
as was present here, we believe that the great majority of
home dwellers confronted by police officers on their doorstep
or in their home would not question the absence of a search
warrant because they either (1) would not know that a warrant
is required; (2) would feel inhibited from requesting its
production, even if they knew of the warrant requirement; or
(3) would simply be too stunned by the circumstances to make a
reasoned decision about whether or not to consent to a
warrantless search. In this context, Ferrier's testimony,
which was supported by the officers, that she was afraid and
nervous seems totally reasonable. Indeed, we are not surprised
that, as noted earlier, an officer testified that virtually
everyone confronted by a knock and talk accedes to the request
to permit a search of their home.

We wish to emphasize that we are not entirely disapproving of
the knock and talk procedure, and we understand that its
coercive effects are not altogether avoidable. They can,
however, be mitigated by requiring officers who conduct the
procedure to warn home dwellers of their right to refuse
consent to a warrantless search. This would provide greater
protection for privacy rights that are protected by the state
constitution and would also accord with the state's Fourth
Amendment burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing
evidence, that consent to a search was voluntarily given.
State v. Smith, 115 Wn.2d 775, 789, 801 P.2d 975 (1990)
(citing Shoemaker, 87 Wn.2d at 210; State v. Nelson,
47 Wn. App. 157, 163, 734 P.2d 516 (1987)).
Our decision is also consistent with that of the New Jersey
Supreme Court, which has held under article I, paragraph 7 of
its state constitution that "where the State seeks to justify
a search on the basis of consent it has the burden of showing
that the consent was voluntary, an essential element of which
is knowledge of the right to refuse consent." /9

State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 346 A.2d 66, 68 (1975)
(emphasis added). We would simply go further to state the
obvious -- that the only sure way to give such a protection
substance is to require a warning of its existence. If we were
to reach any other conclusion, we would not be satisfied that
a home dweller who consents to a warrantless search possessed
the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision. That
being the case, the State would be unable to meet its burden
of proving that a knowing and voluntary waiver occurred. As
the United States Supreme Court has noted in another context:
"For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed
simply to make them aware of it -- the threshold requirement
for an intelligent decision as to its exercise." Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694,
10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1965). After all, "[a]ssessments of the
knowledge that the defendant possessed . . . can never be more
than speculation; a warning is a clearcut fact." Miranda, 384
U.S. at 468-69 (footnote omitted).

In reaching the conclusion we reach here, we are aware that an
argument could be made that the rule we adopt today may be
somewhat redundant because an officer's request for consent to
search already implies that one has the right to refuse that
request. That argument is unpersuasive and self-defeating. If
we assume that the right to refuse consent is implicit in the
request made by the police, then there is no harm in requiring
them to explicitly inform the home dweller of that fact.
Furthermore, we do not believe that requiring police officers
to inform residents of their right to refuse consent to the
search will seriously impede the ability of the police to use
the knock and talk as an investigative tool, considering that
there are many cases where a suspect consented to the search
after being informed of the right to refuse consent. See,
e.g., State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239
(1997) (defendant signed a written consent to search that
contained "a clear statement that the Defendant had `the
lawful right to refuse to consent to such a search.'")
(emphasis added), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1193 (1998); Smith,
115 Wn.2d at 790 (defendant "signed a written consent to the
search which included specific language that documented his
right to refuse consent.") (emphasis added); cf. Paul G.
Cassell & Bret S. Hayman, Police Interrogation in the 1990s:
An Empirical Study of the Effects of Miranda, 43 U.C.L.A. L.
Rev. 839, 859 (1996) (reporting study showing that 83.7
percent of all criminal suspects waived their Miranda rights).
We believe that the expectation of privacy in the home is
clearly "one which a citizen of this state should be entitled
to hold," City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 270, 868
P.2d 134 (1994), because "the home receives heightened
constitutional protection." Young, 123 Wn.2d at 185. In light
of the importance that we attach to that right in Washington,
we are satisfied that public policy supports adoption of a
rule that article I, section 7 is violated whenever the
authorities' fail to inform home dwellers of their right to
refuse consent to a warrantless search. After all, as we noted
earlier, we have already held that the failure to warn is a
factor to be employed in assessing the voluntariness of
consent under the more permissive Fourth Amendment standard.
See Shoemaker, 85 Wn.2d at 212. In our judgment, further
protection for individuals in their home is necessary because,
unlike a search warrant, a search resulting from a knock and
talk need not be supported by probable cause, or even
reasonable suspicion, and the constitutionality of the search
might otherwise only be reviewed, if ever, months after the
search was conducted at an optional CrR 3.6 suppression
hearing. Moreover, unlike a search based upon a warrant, the
scope of a consensual search is often not limited to specific
areas. See 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 8.1, at
596-97 (3d ed. 1996).

While we recognize that a home dweller should be permitted to
voluntarily consent to a search of his or her home, the waiver
of the right to require production of a warrant must, in the
final analysis, be the product of an informed decision. We,
therefore, adopt the following rule: that when police officers
conduct a knock and talk for the purpose of obtaining consent
to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining
a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the
person from whom consent is sought that he or she may lawfully
refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at
any time, the consent that they give, and can limit the scope
of the consent to certain areas of the home. The failure to
provide these warnings, prior to entering the home, vitiates
any consent given thereafter. /10

In light of our holding that the knock and talk procedure
involved here was unconstitutional, we need not address
Ferrier's argument that what followed, her consent to the
search of her home, was involuntarily given.

Finally, we have previously held that "[w]ithout an immediate
application of the exclusionary rule whenever an individual's
right to privacy is unreasonably invaded, the protections of
the Fourth Amendment and Const. art 1, sec. 7 are seriously
eroded." State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 111-12, 640 P.2d 1061
(1982). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in
failing to suppress the evidence obtained in the unlawful
search of Ferrier's home. Ferrier's conviction is, therefore,
reversed.

SMITH, JOHNSON, MADSEN, TALMADGE and SANDERS, JJ., concur.

***

1 RCW 69.50.401(a) provides in pertinent part:
"(a) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for
any person to manufacture . . . a controlled substance."

2 Ferrier also raised double jeopardy and right to counsel
issues at the Court of Appeals. She did not, however, raise
these issues in her petition to this court.

3 The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
. . . ."

4 Regardless, "to apply the federal constitution before the
Washington Constitution would be as improper and premature as
deciding a case on state constitutional grounds when statutory
grounds would have sufficed, and for essentially the same
reasons." State v. Coe, 101 Wn.2d 364, 374, 679 P.2d 353
(1984).

5 Those factors are: (1) the state constitution's textual
language; (2) significant textual differences between parallel
state and federal constitutional provisions; (3) state
constitutional and common law history; and (5) structural
differences between the state and federal constitutions.
Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 61-62.

6 We can find a historical antecedent for this principle in a
passage quoted in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307,
78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332 (1958), from a speech given
in 1763 by William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham, during a debate
in Parliament: "`The poorest man may in his cottage bid
defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its
roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may
enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot
enter -- all his force dares not cross the threshold of the
ruined tenement!'"

7 In Young we held that "in examining our state constitution's
explicit protection of the home, the fact the search occurs at
a home is central to the analysis." Young, 123 Wn.2d at 185
n.2.

8 The dissent contends that "we have already determined that
federal precedent controls in evaluating consent cases under
article I, section 7." Dissenting op. at 2. Cited in support
of this proposition are "common authority to consent to a
search of a home" cases such as State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 735,
782 P.2d 1035 (1989). Dissenting op. at 2. We disagree with
that contention. The question there was who can provide
consent, not whether consent was voluntarily given. See Leach,
113 Wn.2d 735. Our holding here is in no way contrary to
Leach.

The dissent's more serious criticism of our holding is that
"in a case very closely on point, we utilized an exclusively
Fourth Amendment analysis to resolve an article I, section 7
challenge to the voluntariness of a person's consent to search
his home." Dissenting op. at 2-3 (citing McNear v. Rhay,
65 Wn.2d 530, 534, 536-38, 398 P.2d 732 (1965)). McNear is
inapplicable here, though. Not only does it predate Gunwall,
but it even predates this court's first real articulation of
the differences between the Fourth Amendment and article I,
section 7. See State v. Simpson, 95 Wn.2d 170, 177-78, 622
P.2d 1199 (1980). Article I, section 7 jurisprudence simply
cannot be frozen in time as of 1965. "[T]he constitution was
not intended to be a static document incapable of coping with
changing times. It was meant to be, and is, a living document
with current effectiveness." Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v.
State, 90 Wn.2d 476, 517, 585 P.2d 71 (1978). McNear does
mention, in passing, the defendant's assertions that article
I, section 7, along with various other federal and
constitutional rights, was violated. See McNear,
65 Wn.2d at 534-35. However, it does not disclose any effort
at independent analysis of article I, section 7. Indeed, after
this court's sparse summary of the defendant's assertions
McNear never again mentions article I, section 7. Mere silence
cannot signal the adoption, forevermore, of a Fourth Amendment
voluntary consent analysis. Accordingly, the dissent is left
in the unsupported position of being unable to deny that a
search of a home is governed by article I, section 7, but
arguing that consent to that same search is somehow governed
by the Fourth Amendment alone.

9 This decision was remarkable inasmuch as the court noted
that New Jersey's article I, paragraph 7 (quite unlike
Washington's article I, section 7) "is taken almost verbatim
from the Fourth Amendment and until now has not been held to
impose higher or different standards than those called for by
the Fourth Amendment." Johnson, 346 A.2d at 68 n.2. In
contrast, we are faced with a clearer imperative.

10 Although the police procedure involved here was
constitutionally infirm, the general use of a "consent to
search" form, such as the one signed by Ferrier and the ones
found in Stenson and Smith, carries with it the advantage of
creating evidence that avoids ambiguity over whether consent
was actually given.

Aug. 1998 STATE v. FERRIER (dissent) 1
Cause No. 64930-8

DURHAM

DURHAM, C.J. (dissenting) -- The majority holds that, under
article I, section 7 of our state constitution, a person's
consent to search his or her home is invalid unless the police
expressly inform that person of the right to refuse consent.
Because there is no basis for such a rule under our case law,
I respectfully dissent.

Ms. Ferrier challenges the validity of her consent under both
article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution and
the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. The
majority observes that this court will resort to independent
state constitutional grounds rather than deferring to
comparable federal constitutional provisions only when
warranted in light of the Gunwall /1 factors. Majority at 9.
Given our extensive prior evaluation of article I, section 7
in light of the Gunwall factors, the majority focuses the
inquiry on the degree of privacy protection our preexisting
state law "has historically afforded to individuals in similar
situations." Majority at 11. Yet, in justifying a separate
state constitutional analysis, the majority fails to cite a
single article I, section 7 case involving consent to search a
home. Instead, the majority demonstrates only that this court
has historically afforded broader state privacy rights against
infrared surveillance and against searches of curbside trash,
phone records, and dormitory rooms. /2 Were we without any
cases more closely on point, these cases might be sufficiently
"similar situations" because of the common element of the
home. However, we have already determined that federal
precedent controls in evaluating consent cases under article
I, section 7.

For example, we have expressly adopted federal precedent as
determinative in article I, section 7 cases regarding the
common authority to consent to search of a home. See State v.
Mathe, 102 Wn.2d 537, 543, 688 P.2d 859 (1984) (adopting
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. Ct. 988, 39 L.
Ed. 2d 242 (1974) "as the proper guide to determine test
questions of consent issues under Const. art. I, sec. 7");
State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 735, 739, 782 P.2d 1035 (1989)
("This court has expressly adopted the Matlock standard for
determining issues of consent under Const. art. 1, sec. 7.")).
And, in a case very closely on point, we utilized an
exclusively Fourth Amendment analysis to resolve an article I,
section 7 challenge to the voluntariness of a person's consent
to search his home. McNear v. Rhay, 65 Wn.2d 530, 534, 536-38,
398 P.2d 732 (1965).

Thus, our preexisting case law suggests that Fourth Amendment
analysis is appropriate in evaluating the validity of consent
to search a home under article I, section 7. Under the Fourth
Amendment, the voluntariness of consent to search is a
question of fact to be determined by considering the totality
of circumstances surrounding the consent. State v. Smith,
115 Wn.2d 775, 801 P.2d 975 (1990). Factors to be considered
include whether Miranda warnings had been given prior to
obtaining consent, the degree of education and intelligence of
the consenting person, and whether the consenting person had
been advised of the right not to consent. Smith,
115 Wn.2d at 789; State v. Shoemaker,
85 Wn.2d 207, 212, 533
P.2d 123 (1975). The Courts of Appeals have also considered
(1) whether the police made any express or implied claims of
authority to search or enter; (2) previous illegal actions of
the police; (3) the defendant's degree of cooperation; and (4)
police deception as to identity or purpose. State v. McCrorey,
70 Wn. App. 103, 112, 851 P.2d 1234, review denied,
122 Wn.2d 1013 (1993); State v. Flowers,
57 Wn. App. 636, 645,
789 P.2d 333, review denied, 115 Wn.2d 1990 (1990). In the
present case, the police did not give Miranda warnings and did
not expressly inform Ms. Ferrier that she could refuse
consent; but Ms. Ferrier had completed the 11th grade, the
police did not claim authority to search or enter, the court
found that Ms. Ferrier had cooperated with the police, and
there was no indication of police deception or illegal
activity. Indeed, the police made clear from the beginning
that they wanted permission to search for illegal drug
activity and that the fruits of the search would be used
against her in court. Under these circumstances, Ms. Ferrier's
consent was voluntary and the seized evidence was properly
admitted at trial.

I would affirm.

GUY, J., concurs with DURHAM, C.J.

***

1 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th
517 (1986).

2 Majority at 11-12 (citing State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173,
188, 867 P.2d 593 (1994); State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 578,
800 P.2d 1112 (1990); Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 63; State v.
Chrisman, 100 Wn.2d 814, 818, 676 P.2d 419 (1984)).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Oversight Council Formed ('The Seattle Times'
Optimistically Says Journalists Vie With Lawyers For Rock-Bottom Ranking
On The Scale Of Public Trust, So It's A Good Time To Start An Organization
To Consider Complaints Against The Media, And 'The Seattle Times'
Will Support John Hamer, Founder Of The Counterpoint Center For ReMEDIAtion,
A Conservative Media Watchdog Group, Who Has Rounded Up An All-Star Group
Of Public And Private Citizens To Serve On The Board Of The Fledgling
Washington News Council - One Remembers When 'The Oregonian' Set Up
A Similar Group In The 1980s, Only To Ignore It)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-Hemp Talk" (hemp-talk@hemp.net)
Subject: HT: WA Media oversight council formed
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:08:45 -0700
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

We should keep in contact with this council. They should be on our side if
the giva a crap about the truth. Bob_O

***

Copyright (c) 1998 The Seattle Times Company

Posted at 07:03 a.m. PDT; Thursday, August 27, 1998
Media oversight council formed

by Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times staff reporter

Columnists who make up characters, a front-page apology to an offended
multinational corporation, libel judgments against television news shows.
Across the nation, journalists vie with lawyers for rock-bottom ranking on
the scale of public trust.

It's a good time to start an organization to consider complaints against the
media, believes John Hamer, founder of the CounterPoint Center for
ReMEDIAtion, a conservative media watchdog group.

Mike Fancher, executive editor of The Seattle Times, agrees. "If there has
ever been a time to do this, this is it," said Fancher.

Hamer has rounded up an all-star group of public and private citizens to
serve on the board of the fledgling Washington News Council.

Fancher, who is not on the council, and Hamer say they want fair, honest
evaluation of the news media, public involvement and education, and an
independent forum where the public can bring its complaints.

But can public figures whose own actions have been criticized by the media
be fair in their evaluations?

"I think several of (the board members) have been the subject of press
scrutiny," Fancher noted. "One wonders what the motivation is for some of
those individuals."

Fancher said he supports the concept of a news council and independent
evaluation of the media "if it's a good-faith effort to improve journalism.
And I hope that's what this is."

But he added that Hamer's criticisms of the media in the past often have
appeared to be motivated by a political agenda.

"John has become such an ideologue and so self-serving in his criticism of
the press it's shameful. So that concerns me," said Fancher.

Hamer responded: "I think that's an unfair characterization. My criticisms
of the press certainly have been from a conservative point of view because I
feel, and continue to feel, that that's one of the criticisms of the press."

Hamer, a former Times editorial writer who now has a column in the Seattle
Weekly, said he chose board members for the new council from a wide
political and ideological spectrum, zeroing in on "blue-ribbon, respected"
people who would give the organization balance and credibility.

"It cannot be seen as an organization with an ax to grind, a point of view
that it is `going after' the media," he said.

Board members include politicians from both parties, business and labor
leaders, as well as former media executives. The board eventually will be
expanded to include citizens from around the state, Hamer said.

Among the members are former Seattle mayor and television reporter Charles
Royer, former Governor Mike Lowry, conservative activist Pat Herbold, former
University of Washington President Bill Gerberding, former state Senate
Majority Leader Jeannette Hayner, Washington State Convention and Trade
Center Chairman Jim Ellis and philanthropist Patsy Bullitt Collins.

As governor, Lowry received critical media scrutiny for proposing a tax
increase immediately after winning election and for allegations of sexual
harassment against him by a staffer in his administration.

But yesterday Lowry said he wasn't interested in criticizing the news
media's treatment of him.

In general, the credibility of the media is essential for democracy to
operate effectively, he said.

"I think many people in the media are very concerned about the credibility
of the media," Lowry said. "Some of the leaders in the media are the ones
I've heard doing the most talking about the need to do this."

Hamer said he thinks the council can help restore trust in the media.

The model for Hamer's concept is the Minnesota News Council, an independent
organization that has operated for nearly 30 years.

With a panel of 24 voting members - half journalists and half
non-journalists - the group mediates complaints from the public.

It also conducts public forums, produces a cable-television show on ethics
and holds workshops for news organizations to help them avoid "the kinds of
lapses that lead to complaints," said Gary Gilson, the group's executive
director.

In 28 years, half the complaints have been decided for the news
organizations and half against, Gilson said.

A council vote carries with it no sanctions, although the organization asks
the news media to cover the decision.

In recent years, the Minnesota News Council has taken on a number of
high-profile cases.

One involved a 17-year-old incest victim who was identified in a newspaper
story when her father was convicted of the crime.

The newspaper maintained that it merely had reported what was in the court
record and that to do anything less would have abandoned the "whole truth"
standard. The council, Gilson said, concluded that the paper had been
insensitive.

In another case, a lengthy feature story on an unmarried young black mother
resulted in a complaint by a community group that the paper had perpetuated
a stereotype.

In that case, the council supported the newspaper. But the newspaper
decided, after listening to testimony, that it needed to work at covering
communities of color and launched an effort to improve, Gilson said.

"You don't need a news council at all if news organizations figure out ways
to make themselves open to questions and complaints," he said. "The problem
is that most news organizations have not created systems for handling
complaints. They have systems to handle complaints from advertisers and
subscribers, but not from readers or viewers."

Carol M. Ostrom's phone message number is 206-464-2249. Her e-mail address
is: costrom@seattletimes.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Trial May Shed Light On Demise Of 'Safer' Cigarette ('The Los Angeles Times'
Says The First Of Several Tobacco Industry Lawyers Who Will Begin Cooperating
With Antitobacco Plaintiffs Will Be Lawrence G. Meyer, A Former Outside
Counsel To The Liggett Group Inc. Who Has Agreed To Testify For The State
Of Washington When Its Civil Lawsuit Starts September 14 - His Testimony
Is Sure To Revive The 20-Year-Old History Of The Death Of The 'XA' Project,
Which Involved The Blending Of A Catalyst With Tobacco To Neutralize
Cancer-Causing Compounds In Cigarette Smoke)

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:32:21 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Trial May Shed Light On Demise Of 'Safer' Cigarette
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Pubdate: 27 August 1998
Author: MYRON LEVIN, Times Staff Writer

TRIAL MAY SHED LIGHT ON DEMISE OF 'SAFER' CIGARETTE

Courts: Ex-industry lawyer is expected to testify about 'XA' project.
Liggett Group once saw product as savior.

Of all the accusations being hurled at tobacco companies,
none is more damning than the charge that they colluded to squelch
development of "safer" cigarettes, fixating on avoiding legal
liability rather than customers' welfare.

Cigarette makers have hotly denied the claim. But the line of attack could
get a significant boost from new evidence on the demise of a supposedly
safer smoke that struggling Liggett Group Inc. once viewed as a breakthrough
against lung cancer and the salvation of its dying business. In the first
case of an industry lawyer cooperating with antitobacco plaintiffs,
Lawrence G. Meyer, former outside counsel to Liggett, has agreed to
testify for the state of Washington at its trial, scheduled to start
Sept. 14. His testimony is sure to rekindle a 20-year-old mystery
concerning the death of the "XA" project, which involved the blending
of a catalyst with tobacco to neutralize cancer-causing compounds in
the smoke. Meyer, a 57-year-old Washington, D.C., attorney, also is
expected to be debriefed by lawyers for the three dozen other states
with pending antitobacco suits, and by Justice Department
investigators involved in a criminal probe of Big Tobacco. Nor is
Meyer the only knowledgeable insider who has not been heard from yet.
Another who has not been contacted by the states is J. Bowen Ross Jr.,
a former Liggett patent lawyer who recently gave The Times copies of
his notes from more than 100 meetings on the XA project between 1976
and 1983. Ross, 60, who said he has had three relatives die of lung
cancer from smoking, believes Liggett blew a big opportunity--and not
just because it "would have made a lot of money . . . I thought if you
came out with something that's beneficial, you have an obligation" to
bring it to market.

Mild Sensation Soon Fizzles

The XA affair created a mild sensation in 1988 when it was first revealed
in a New Jersey tobacco case. Amid charges and denials, the story soon
faded into the mists. But now Washington and other states--whose lawsuits,
among other things, charge cigarette makers with conspiring to not compete
on product safety--are beginning to dig deeper. Meyer was a partner in the
law firm of Patton, Boggs & Blow, and an outside lawyer for Liggett from
1974-86. He advised the firm in its dealings with federal agencies,
and at times represented Liggett on the Committee of Counsel, where
top industry lawyers plotted legal and regulatory strategy. Meyer also
attended some of Liggett's meetings on the XA project. At one such
meeting, Ross said, Meyer made this statement that appears in Ross'
notes: "Other tobacco companies will look upon this [the XA] as a
catastrophic event." Lawyers for Washington first contacted Meyer in
May. His cooperation would have been impossible but for the landmark
out-of-court settlement Liggett reached last year with Washington and
other states. In return for dismissal from their lawsuits, the
financially wobbly firm agreed to help them gather evidence against
its larger rivals. Under the agreement, Liggett had to waive
attorney-client privilege to allow Meyer to testify. Other tobacco
companies are seeking to limit the scope of Meyer's testimony.

However, his recollections are outlined in a document filed by his
lawyer, Dwight P. Bostwick, this month in state court in Seattle. The
10-page proffer alludes to the pivotal role of Joseph Greer--former
general counsel of Liggett's tobacco division--in scrubbing the XA.

Greer, a smoker who died of lung cancer in 1985 and was a close friend
of Meyer's, was under pressure from Liggett defense lawyers, who
thought the XA would undermine their defense of smoking and health
cases, the proffer states. It says Greer also was leaned on "by other
tobacco companies," which feared that "Liggett's marketing and sale of
a safe cigarette could result in infinite liability in civil
litigation as it would constitute a direct or implied admission that
all other cigarettes were unsafe." A tobacco industry lawyer said he
could not comment until Meyer testifies. But cigarette makers have
always rejected claims that they ignored health concerns, arguing that
they have gradually lowered tar and nicotine yields and invested
millions trying to come up with novel new brands. "Is there a silver
bullet for cigarette design?" industry lawyer David Bernick asked
jurors earlier this year at the state of Minnesota's big tobacco
trial. "Nobody's told us about it. We've spent a hell of a lot of
money trying to find it. We can't."

Costly Failure of Effort Cited

The costly failure of R.J. Reynolds' Premier brand in the late 1980s is an
oft-cited example of the industry's efforts. Premier heated, rather than
burned, tobacco and appeared to lower risks from smoking and from
secondhand smoke. After bombing in test markets it was canceled.

But there also is evidence the industry took a dim view of such
efforts and the potential legal fallout. In 1987, for example, a
lawyer for Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Big Tobacco's leading courtroom
defenders, noted with alarm that Premier could prove injurious to "the
tobacco industry's joint defense efforts." "The industry position has
always been that there is no alternative design for a cigarette as we
know them," wrote the lawyer, William S. Ohlemeyer. "Unfortunately,
the Reynolds announcement . . . seriously undercuts this component of
industry's defense." Liggett, smallest and weakest of the companies,
was tormented by such fears as it planned the launch of its new
product, documents and interviews show.

The XA evolved from bombshell research that triggered the country's
first big cancer scare. In 1953, researchers announced they had
produced cancerous tumors on the backs of mice by daubing their skin
with liquid condensate, or 'tar,' from cigarette smoke.

The industry generally sought to belittle the study, arguing tests on
mice had no relevance to human lungs. But Liggett, something of a
maverick even then, secretly decided to replicate the work.

The company hired scientists from the consulting firm of Arthur D.
Little who validated the findings through their own skin painting
tests. But that was just the beginning. The idea was "to do something
about changing cigarettes if it were true that [cigarettes] do cause
cancer," according to a 1954 memo.

Over the years, Liggett spent more than $15 million and tested more
than 200 additives in search of one that might blunt the carcinogenic
effects of smoke. Eventually, researchers found that trace amounts of
palladium--a metal used in automobile catalytic converters--and
magnesium nitrate blended with tobacco would destroy a group of
compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The result was
that in skin painting tests, cancerous tumors were reduced by up to
100%.

When Liggett obtained the first of several patents in 1977, the timing
seemed perfect. Liggett's sales were sinking fast, and it was
desperate for a way to right the ship. Once an industry giant with
more than 20% of the market, Liggett was stuck with tired brands and a
market share under 3%. Ross' meeting notes show the company thought
the XA could quickly grab a 2% market share, or about 12 billion cigarettes.

Preparations were so serious that Liggett purchased huge inventories
of palladium. Once, when a truckload arrived at Liggett's Durham,
N.C., plant during a strike by Liggett workers, the 55-gallon drums
were trucked late at night to Ross' home and rolled into his basement.

Obstacles to Marketing Brand

But there were obstacles. In the marketing arena, the challenge was in
touting a safer cigarette without making health claims that would draw
the ire of the Federal Trade Commission.

Indeed, the XA did nothing to counter heart disease or emphysema.

And while mouse skin painting had become standard, the XA's favorable
data was not solid proof of benefit to smokers' lungs.

This gave XA foes great ammunition: Why take the legal risks, they
asked, if the XA could not be properly promoted? But documents and
testimony suggest this was less a reason than an excuse.

"Whenever any problem came up . . . the legal department would pounce
upon that in an attempt to kill the project," said former Liggett
scientist James D. Mold, whose deposition in 1988 first brought the
episode to light.

In a 1977 memo in which Greer voiced his staunch opposition to the XA,
he noted that Liggett in defending itself in court had always debunked
the mouse skin tests. To launch a brand whose superiority was based on
those very tests could be disastrous, Greer argued.

The company would be "taking enormous risks in the defense of
governmental actions and civil litigation with its attending
subjection to vast amounts of monetary liability," Greer wrote.

Greer earlier had taken the precaution of ordering that a lawyer
(often Ross) be present for all XA meetings, with all notes to be
collected by the law department so the firm could assert
attorney-client privilege and refuse to produce them in court.

Ross recalled being on an out-of-town trip when Greer ordered company
officials to ignore an impending deadline for paying the negligible
fee for issuance of an XA patent.

"I went ballistic," Ross recalled--adding that he got Greer to relent
by raising the specter of stockholders suing over the wasting of
corporate assets.

Greer also interfered with a strategy Liggett officials had devised to
cope with the marketing problem, documents and testimony show.

In October 1978, Mold and Charles Kensler of Arthur D. Little flew to
Buenos Aires for the 12th International Cancer Congress, hoping to
drum up publicity for the XA. They believed the scientific press would
seize on the news, and the popular press would pick it up from there.

As they prepared to stage a press conference, Mold recalled getting "a
frantic call from Mr. Greer" with orders to not distribute "the press
release and not hold a press conference, that they had changed their
mind." According to the Meyer proffer, Greer feared that if "Mold went
forward with his comments at the Buenos Aires conference, the world
press would report on the attendant scientific advances . .
. and, thereafter, Liggett would not have the option of abandoning the
project," the document states.

Liggett's peril, according to Ross' rough notes, was thus twofold.

The XA could increase "potential [liability] for existing products."
But "if withheld, conspiracy," and "nonuse of valuable asset to public
good," his notes said.

Retribution Claim Is Denied Mold said Liggett President K.V. Dey Jr.
told him in 1981 that a Philip Morris executive had vowed unspecified
retribution if the XA were launched. "They would not sit back and
allow us to market this without creating problems," Mold said. Dey
denied there were such threats.

Nonetheless, Liggett decided to avoid the U.S. and seek licensing
deals with foreign manufacturers. If the XA succeeded overseas, they
might then bring it home.

Mold, Ross and another Liggett executive pitched cigarette makers in
France, Austria, Germany and Russia--but found no takers. Mold, who
left Liggett in 1984, said the effort was doomed from the start.

In essence, Liggett told the Europeans, "This is a great product but
we're not going to produce it," Mold recently told The Times.

The obvious question, he said, was, "If it's that great, why aren't
you going to produce it?"

Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

-------------------------------------------------------------------

State Prison Guards Win Restraining Order Against Investigators
('The Fresno Bee' Says The California Prison Guards Union Obtained
A Temporary Restraining Order Tuesday From San Francisco Superior Court
Judge Raymond Williamson Against Investigators Probing Allegations
That Guards Set Up Inmate Rapes At Corcoran State Prison -
A Hearing Was Scheduled September 4 On The Union's Request
For A Permanent Injunction)

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:12:15 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: State Prison Guards Win Restraining Order Against
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison (jo-d@norml.org)
Source: Fresno Bee, The
Contact: letters@fresnobee.com
Website: http://www.fresnobee.com/
Pubdate: 27 Aug 1998
Section: Local News

STATE PRISON GUARDS WIN RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST INVESTIGATORS

SACRAMENTO - The state prison guards union has won a temporary restraining
order against investigators probing allegations that guards set up inmate
rapes at Corcoran State Prison.

Investigators from the state Attorney General's Office, the Department of
Corrections and the FBI are investigating allegations that Wayne Robertson,
a 6-foot-3-inch, 230-pound inmate nicknamed "Booty Bandit," raped a
120-pound inmate after guards prompted him.

He also is accused of sexually assaulting 15 inmates at Corcoran State
Prison between the late 1980s and mid-1990s, according to documents and
testimony at a recent legislative hearing. Robertson was never charged.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Raymond Williamson granted the
restraining order Tuesday. The California Correctional Peace Officers
Association requested the order after state agents interviewed more than 20
prison officers last week, but barred union representatives or union
lawyers from accompanying them.

State agents said they didn't want to tip off potential criminal targets to
the investigation.

"The officers just know they are being treated like dogs," said Michael L.
Rains, a lawyer representing the union. "The Department of Corrections
folks were threatening witnesses."

Corcoran Warden George Galaza cited a state law in forcing officer
witnesses to cooperate with the investigation or be removed from their job
for insubordination, according to court documents.

The union argued that the lack of union representation was a denial of
fundamental rights. A Sept. 4 hearing was scheduled on the union's request
for a permanent injunction.

State authorities vowed the investigation would continue despite the court
order.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Prison Sergeant Arrested In Drug Bust ('The Las Vegas Sun'
Says A Sergeant At Northern Nevada Correctional Center Was Among Four People
Arrested During A Raid On A Home In Carson City Wednesday - James Lillo
Was Held In Lieu Of $7,500 Bail For Allegedly Having Marijuana
And Methamphetamine, Paraphernalia And A Hypodermic Needle)

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 06:41:11 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NV: Prison Sergeant Arrested In Drug Bust
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)
Contact: letters@lasvegassun.com
Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Pubdate: Thur, 27 Aug 1998

PRISON SERGEANT ARRESTED IN DRUG BUST

CARSON CITY (AP) - A sergeant at Northern Nevada Correctional Center was
among four people arrested during a drug raid on a Sherman Drive home late
Wednesday.

James Lillo, 48, was taken into custody for allegedly having marijuana and
methamphetamine, paraphernalia and a hypodermic needle when a search warrant
was served on his home. He was jailed in lieu of $7,500 bail.

According to a spokeswoman for the TriNet Task Force, Lillo's wife, Susan,
42, was the raid's primary reason.

Lt. Wendy Armstrong said Mrs. Lillo was the subject of a three-month
undercover investigation.

Mrs. Lillo was arrested on two trafficking counts. She is also being held on
counts of possession of a controlled substance, paraphernalia, hypodermics
and a misdemeanor warrant. Her bail is $75,000.

Hazel Smith, 30, was arrested on counts charging possession of a controlled
substance, paraphernalia and hypodermics. Her bail is $4,790. Russell
Bridges, 31, was arrested for allegedly having burglary tools and
paraphernalia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tulsan Arrested In Pot Case ('The Tulsa World' Says John Frazee
Is Being Jailed In Lieu Of More Than $30,000 Bail
Because He Had 332 Marijuana Plants In His Back Yard
He Wasn't Even Trying To Conceal - No Word On What Police Did
To His 11-Year-Old Daughter)

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:31:36 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OK: Tulsan Arrested In Pot Case
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Michael Pearson (oknorml@swbell.net)
Pubdate: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
Source: Tulsa World (OK)
Contact: tulsaworld@mail.webtek.com
Website: http://www.tulsaworld.com
Author: World's own Service

TULSAN ARRESTED IN POT CASE

A Tulsa man remained in jail Wednesday after police found 332 marijuana
plants, some 6 feet tall, growing in his back yard.

John Frazee, 48, was arrested about 7:15 p.m. Tuesday at his residence at
1821 N. Evanston Place, Sgt. Wayne Allen said.

Uniform Division North Street Crimes officers received a tip from a
confidential informant that marijuana was growing at that residence, Allen
said.

The resident voluntarily led them to the back yard, where they found the
plants, Allen said.

There was no apparent attempt to hide the plants, Allen said.

Allen said Frazee also allowed officers to search his residence, where they
reportedly found two marijuana cigarettes and three guns.

Police reports indicate that Frazee's 11-year-old daughter was home at the
time of the arrest, Allen said.

Frazee, who told officers that he was self-employed, was being held in the
Tulsa Jail on more than $30,000 bail.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Board Settles Suit Filed By Worker ('The New Haven Register'
Says Robert Lyon, A Former Custodian Who Claimed He Was Fired In October 1994
By The East Haven, Connecticut, Board Of Education Because He Was Once
A 'Drug' User, Has Obtained A Of $6,300 Settlement, But Not His Job Back)

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:32:25 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CT: Board Settles Suit Filed By Worker
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Source: New Haven Register
Contact: editor@ctcentral.com
Website: http://www.ctcentral.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
Author: Allan Drury

BOARD SETTLES SUIT FILED BY WORKER

EAST HAVEN - The Board of Education has reached a settlement with a former
custodian who claimed he was fired because he was once a drug user.

The board has authorized payment of $6,300 to Robert Lyon, who lost his job
in October 1994. The board will pay an additional $3,000 to Lyon's law firm,
Williams, Polan & Pattis, of New Haven, to cover his legal expenses.

Before Lyon sued the board in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, the state
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ruled there was "reasonable
cause" to believe Lyon was a victim of illegal discrimination.

Norman Pattis, Lyon's lawyer, said he believes the board's willingness to
make the payment vindicates his client.

"We're very thankful to the Board of Education for settling," Pattis said
Thursday. "We take that to be recognition that they made a bad decision" in
firing Lyon.

Pattis said the settlement does not require the board to give Lyon his job
back, but Lyon said he wants to return. He currently works for a limousine
service, he said.

"If we're going to take rehabilitation seriously, then we should take Mr.
Lyon seriously," Pattis said. "It's time to welcome him back to the
community."

Lyon, 49, of Branford, said he "would love to come back" to the schools job.

He has admitted to once having a drug problem and having a police record,
but says he has recovered.

Board Chairwoman Linda Abbott declined to comment, saying she believed
neither side was supposed to comment on the settlement.

"It's a personnel matter and I won't discuss personnel issues," she said.

Board lawyer David Ryan, of Waterbury, is on vacation and could not be
reached.

Lyon said in the lawsuit, which he filed in December 1996, that just before
he was fired, then-Civil Service Commission Chairwoman Patricia Mellion, who
would later become a board member, complained about a drug addict and
convicted felon working in the system.

Mellion, who served on the board from 1995 to 1997, later said she was not
singling out Lyon or any other employee and did not recall making a comment
about a drug addict. She said she was trying to make the point that the
board employed some people who were not on approved civil service lists.

Two days later, school board Director of Buildings and Grounds told Lyon he
was fired, but did not give him any reason why, Lyon said in the lawsuit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

West Virginia, Kentucky Fraternities Take Pledge To Phase Out Booze
(An 'Associated Press' Article In 'The Miami Herald' Says Starting This Week,
West Virginia University's 15 Chapter Houses Are Phasing Out Alcohol
And By The 2000-01 School Year, They Will Be Alcohol-Free -
At The University Of Kentucky In Lexington, Officials Have Banned Alcohol
From On-Campus Undergraduate Housing, Including The School's Fraternities)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: West Virginia, Kentucky fraternities take pledge to phase out booze
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:03:33 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Published Thursday, August 27, 1998, in the Miami Herald

West Virginia, Kentucky fraternities take pledge to phase out booze

Associated Press

The days when hundreds of students could pile into a fraternity house to
chug from beer kegs and liquor-filled bathtubs are over at West Virginia
University and the University of Kentucky.

Starting this week, WVU's 15 chapter houses are phasing out alcohol. By the
2000-01 school year, they will be alcohol-free.

At Kentucky's campus in Lexington, officials banned alcohol from on-campus
undergraduate housing, including the school's fraternities. Sororities and
undergraduate dormitories have been dry for years.

"Personally, I wish they didn't do it," said Jeremy Nalli, a junior and
president of UK's Kappa Sigma chapter, "but if that's the way it comes down,
we're going to enforce it."

The drive to ban alcohol took on added importance with the alcohol-related
deaths of students last year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Louisiana State.

Kentucky is one of nine universities that have adopted alcohol-free housing,
according to the Indianapolis-based National Interfraternity Conference,
which represents 66 national fraternities. The others are Rhode Island,
Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Utah State, Northern Arizona, Colorado and
Washington State.

At West Virginia, the new drinking policy that went into effect Monday
allows for some drinking this year and next, but only under strict
supervision and with much more limited guest lists than in years past.

Sororities at WVU already are dry, along with four fraternities that
volunteered to go booze-free. The other chapter houses agreed to the new
policy after a weekend meeting with WVU administrators.

***

When away, you can STOP and RESTART W.H.E.N.'s news clippings by sending an
e-mail to majordomo@hemp.net. Ignore the Subject: line. In the body put
"unsubscribe when" to STOP. To RESTART, put "subscribe when" in the e-mail
instead (No quotation marks.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Cigarette Companies Back Out Of Talks With States ('The Associated Press'
Says RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company And Brown And Williamson Tobacco
Corporation, For Unstated Reasons, Have Dropped Out Of Negotiations
With The Attorneys General For Three Dozen States Who Have Been Trying
To Extort A National Tobacco Settlement - Mississippi, Minnesota, Texas
And Florida Settled Their Lawsuits Separately For $36.8 Billion)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Two cigarette companies back out of talks with states
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:06:14 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Two cigarette companies back out of talks with states

By Todd Lewan, Associated Press, 08/27/98 06:14

NEW YORK (AP) - As state attorneys general return to their efforts to reach
a national tobacco settlement, two leading industry players - R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - have dropped out of the
negotiations.

In the latest effort to settle more than three dozen lawsuits by states
seeking to recover Medicaid funds spent treating sick smokers, losing
Reynolds and Brown & Williamson, the second and third-largest cigarette
makers, was an unexpected hitch.

"Apparently, we're down to negotiations with two companies," Fred Olson, a
spokesman for Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire, said
Wednesday.

Phillip Morris Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. are still involved in the
talks, which were to resume today after a three-week recess. Other states
involved are North Carolina, California, Massachusetts, North Dakota, New
York, Oklahoma and Colorado.

It was unclear why the companies were boycotting the talks or how serious
the rift was between the tobacco companies.

Spokesmen for Reynolds and Brown & Williamson declined to comment late
Wednesday, as did Scott Williams, an industry spokesman in Washington.

Olson said Reynolds and Brown & Williamson refused to cede ground on "public
health initiatives that are critical" to the states.

"If and when they want to talk about those terms the attorneys general will
welcome them back to the table," he said.

The negotiations are an attempt to salvage a proposed national agreement
reached in June 1997 in which Big Tobacco would have paid $368.5 billion
over 25 years in return for broad protection from liability suits. That deal
collapsed in June in Congress, which had to approve it.

Mississippi, Minnesota, Texas and Florida settled their lawsuits separately
for $36.8 billion, so the rest of the states began direct talks with
America's biggest tobacco companies in mid-July.

The industry offered an estimated $180 billion to $200 billion to be split
among the remaining 46 states. The money would come from a 35 cents-a-pack
increase in cigarette prices. One proposal had the industry paying the first
$15 to $20 billion to the states over a period of five years.

But the talks stalled after two weeks. Both sides split over the types of
marketing restrictions, anti-smoking measures and other public-health
concessions the industry would make.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

McGwire Drug Affair A Bum Rap For Him ('Boston Globe' Sports Columnist
Dan Shaughnessy In 'The International Herald Tribune' Says Mark McGwire,
The St. Louis Cardinal Pursuing Baseball's Home-Run Record, Is Being
Unfairly Characterized As A Cheater And Bad Role Model Because Of His Use
Of Androstenedione)

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:28:10 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: IHT: McGwire Drug Affair A Bum Rap for Him
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
Source: International Herald Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
Website: http://www.iht.com/
Author: Dan Shaughnessy, The Boston Globe

MCGWIRE DRUG AFFAIR A BUM RAP FOR HIM

Slugger Is Not Cheating With His Steroids

BOSTON---No wonder ballplayers loathe the media. Mark McGwire is stalking
one of baseball's most cherished records---until now the feel-good story of
the baseball summer --- and suddenly he's engaged in a tabloid-driven
controversy that's painting him as a cheater and a bad role model.

It's unfair.

If you just dropped in from a two week trip to Guam, here's the background:
An Associated Press reporter noticed a jar of androstenedione in McGwire's
locker last week. He asked the slugger about the stuff, did some homework
and wrote about it.

Androstenedione, known in baseball clubhouses as "andro," is an
all-natural, over-the-counter steroid (not of the dangerous anabolic
steroid family) that is used to help an athlete train harder and recover
faster. It is banned by the National Football League, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and the International Olympic Committee,
but allowed by the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association
and Major League Baseball.

There. McGwire takes something that can be sold at any drugstore and is
permitted by his sport, and suddenly he's lumped with the Olympic swimmer
Michelle Smith-de Bruinand the sprinter Ben lohnson.

Wake up. The International Olympic Committee has limits on caffeine intake.
Juan Antonio Samaranch would strip McGwire's medal if he went to the
plate after consuming eight cups of strong coffee.

The story of McGwire' s historic home run chase is being tarnished because
folks are hearing bits of stories and reading wild headlines and concluding
that Big Mac is a pharmaceutical creation.

McGwire is not some 98-pound weakling who went on the juice and came back
as Rambo. He is a huge, muscular man, who hit 49 home runs in his first big
league season 12 years ago.

In Tuesday's Boston Globe, a doctor said that andro is part of McGwire's
success. This makes it sound as if the substance is adding 40 feet (12
meters) to McGwire's long fly balls. This is ridiculous. Andro might help
McGwire stay healthy and aid his recovery time from injuries, but the same
could be said about aspirin or any other pain reliever.

If a slugger eats Wheaties cereal (sold over the counter, not banned by
MLB) wouldn't it be true that Wheaties are part of his success? What about
steak? Is eating prime rib part of McGwire's success?

In McGwire's case, it is misleading to write that he's using a
"performanceenhancing drug." He's a baseball player, not an Olympic
sprinter. There' s nothing sold at drugstores that would help any of us hit
a home run in the big leagues (unless the store has a book on hitting
written by Ted Williams). Facing Randy Johnson and hitting a ball over the
fence requires bravery, timing, hand-eye coordination, reflexes, leverage
and strength. Most of all, it requires practice.

Meanwhile, how many other baseball players are taking the same stuff?
McGwire probably doesn't go more than a couple of days without hitting
against a pitcher who uses andro. While we're at it, what about creatine,
another dietary supplement sold over the counter, also used by McGwire?
What about METRx (endorsed on radio and in print by Mo Vaughn of the Boston
Red Sox)?

McGwire's been a good citizen, never one to disgrace the uniform. Most
recently he's dedicated his charity efforts to awareness and funding for
abused children. And now he's got to read that he's a bad example to young
athletes? Please.

Perhaps andro will be proven unsafe. That is an issue for the Food and Drug
Administration and for Major League Baseball and its Players Association.
In the meantime McGwire should be left alone on this issue.

We've all heard the stories about Roger Maris's hair falling out from
stress when he chased Babe Ruth's record in the summer of 1961. Turns out
Roger was lucky. He didn't play in 1998, when you can do something legal
and be painted as a cheater. And what about the Babe? The Bambino hit 60
homers in 1927, the seventh year of Prohibition. Think he might have had a
little bathtub gin coursing through his veins at any point during the '27
season?

Hope not. After all, it would have been a bad message for youngsters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As For Drugs, Baseball Is Full Of Beans (Illinois 'Daily Herald' Sports Columnist
Barry Rozner Comments On The Mark McGwire Controversy
With A Startling Assertion That An Unnamed 'Current Baseball Executive,
Who Happens To Have A Medical Background,' Claims 25 Percent To 30 Percent
Of All Baseball Players Use Amphetamintes - Home Runs Are All About Bat Speed
And Quickness - If You Want Something To Be Upset About, Stop Peeking
In Mark McGwire's Locker And Start Wondering Why Baseball Doesn't Have
A Drug-Testing Policy)

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:15:19 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IL: As For Drugs, Baseball Is Full Of Beans
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@worldnet.att.net)
Source: Daily Herald (IL)
Contact: fencepost@dailyherald.com
Website: http://www.dailyherald.com/
Pubdate: 27 Aug 1998
Author: Barry Rozner

AS FOR DRUGS, BASEBALL IS FULL OF BEANS

There's just one thing left to say about this Mark McGwire debate:

Beans.

That's right, beans.

As in, coffee beans.

That's what they call them in baseball. That's what they call their big,
dirty secret that you never hear a word about.

What are beans? That's an easy one.

They're uppers. Speed. Amphetamines. Players put them in their coffee and
drink up about an hour before gametime.

And it's going on in a clubhouse near you. Right now. Every day. In every
city. With every team.

One current baseball executive, who happens to have a medical background,
estimates that 25-30 percent of the players today use amphetamines, which
happen to be illegal unless prescribed by a physician. Of course, the only
thing uppers are usually prescribed for as we approach the year 2000 is
narcolepsy.

It would be a cheap shot to suggest the Cubs have been asleep for the last
90 years and probably could use the help, so we won't even mention it.

The point is, while a quarter of all players - or perhaps many more when
you include the more popular off-the field hallucinogens - are using
illegal drugs, a lot of people have been pounding Mark McGwire for
supplementing his workout regime with a perfectly legal, over-the-counter
potion.

The stuff McGwire uses, androstenedione, may not even work for all we know,
and it certainly has nothing to do with hitting home runs. He takes it an
hour before he works out, and it supposedly allows harder training of
muscles and a quicker recovery.

He doesn't take them before a game, as do the bean-counters, and even if he
did, it wouldn't matter.

Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that muscles have nothing to
do with hitting home runs. Home runs are all about bat speed and quickness.
It's about hand-eye coordination and the ability to recognize the spin on
the ball and the location of the pitch.

Meanwhile, hundreds of players are "beaning up'' before games to get a lift
with hopes of focusing better, being more alert and getting a jolt to
enhance their performance.

"For some guys, they think it helps them mentally,'' says one American
League player. "Some guys think it helps them physically. I tried it and
one day I almost went through a dugout railing chasing a foul ball. I guess
that day I had a few too many beans for breakfast.''

So if you want something to be upset about, stop peeking in Mark McGwire's
locker and start wondering why baseball doesn't have a drug-testing policy.

And wonder why everyone in baseball looks the other way while players get
addicted to illegal drugs and use them even after their careers end.

And wonder why the players association does everything in its power to
avoid a drug-testing clause in any collective-bargaining agreement, while
every other union in sports supports the idea.

And stop with the idiotic suggestion that Mark McGwire would own a tainted
record because he uses muscle-building or muscle-enhancing products.

Ernie Banks was the skinniest man in baseball when he hit 512 home runs.

Babe Ruth was the fattest man in baseball when he hit 714 of them.

And Mickey Mantle was the most hung over, probably unable to even lift a
weight, but he managed 536 home runs.

So if you want to imply that by putting chemicals in his body McGwire may
someday pay a heavy price with his own health, you are undoubtedly right.
There's no argument there.

But it's a personal and legal choice, and it's unfair to criticize McGwire
for that. And if you've noticed, players like Sammy Sosa have gone out of
their way to say "leave McGwire alone,'' because there are a lot of glass
houses out there and no one's throwing stones.

Before you jump on Mark McGwire's substantial back, you'd better know what
you're jumping into.

Know that your favorite player probably is on something, too.

"It was probably as high as 90 percent in the early '80s as far as guys on
speed,'' says the baseball exec. "It's way down from that now, but there
shouldn't be any of it. Why is there no drug testing? That's what I'd like
to know.

"But no matter what, you have no business looking in a guy's locker.
Whether he's got nude pictures or pink toilet paper or legal drugs, its
nobody's business. What they should look into is 'beans' because that's a
serious problem.''

If 25-30 percent of the players in baseball are on uppers, then do the math
for the home run hitters. Twenty players already have or are near 30
homers, so probably 5 or 6 of them are getting an illegal boost. Which ones
are having their cake, and drinking their coffee, too?

Maybe one of them is your hero. Maybe he's playing in your town.

Just before he hits a home run, he might be the one saying, "Bean me up
Scottie, I need a lift.''

And it's high time baseball did something about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

McGwire Sets Off A Sales Boom ('The San Jose Mercury News'
Says Amateur Athletes And Bodybuilders Are Responding To The Disclosure
That St. Louis Cardinals Slugger Mark McGwire Uses Androstenedione
By Boosting Sales At Health Food Stores - But So Far, The Only Proven Benefits
Are To Those Who Sell It)

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 06:08:49 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: McGwire Sets Off A Sales Boom
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Pubdate: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
Author: Lisa M. Krieger, Mercury News Staff Writer

MCGWIRE SETS OFF A SALES BOOM

Legal hormone used by Cardinals' basher has unproven value, possible risks,
experts warn

Amateur athletes and bodybuilders are responding to the disclosure that St.
Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire uses androstenedione by boosting sales
at health food stores -- when they can find it.

``We've been selling a lot. We can't keep it on the shelves,'' said Jamie
Laubacher of Great Earth Vitamin Store at the Oakridge Mall in San Jose.
``I sold 20 boxes in two days -- and would have sold more, if I had it.''

But so far, the only people it's proven to help are the ones who sell it.
Medical experts say no studies have been done to validate claims for the
legal steroid hormone -- and warn that long-term use could be dangerous.

Wary of possible harm, some stores like health-product giant General
Nutrition Centers have resisted the temptation to carry it.

``We took a close look at the product and determined that the current level
of research, we were not comfortable with it,'' according to Greg Miller, a
representative of the 3,700-store Pennsylvania-based chain.

Sold over the counter at $30 to $50 a box under names such as ``EAS
Andro-Blend'' and ``AST Andro-Plex 700,'' androstenedione is unregulated by
government authorities. It is purported to provide a natural and legal way
to build muscles and boost sex drive by raising levels of testosterone, the
male sex hormone.

The 6-foot-5-inch, 250-pound McGwire, who is in the spotlight as he chases
baseball's single-season home run record, acknowledged Sunday that he
regularly takes androstenedione (pronounced an-dro-STEEN-di-own).

Because of growing concerns over players' health, baseball commissioner Bud
Selig and players association executive director Donald Fehr have decided
to take a closer look at Major League Baseball's own policy, which allows
use of the substance.

The two called Tuesday for the joint medical representatives of the league
and the union ``to gather the relevant scientific and medical data and to
consult with other experts on the general use of nutritional supplements by
major league players.''

That could be a challenge.

Good medical data doesn't exist, said Dr. Gary Wadler, associate professor
of clinical medicine at the New York University School of Medicine and 1993
recipient of the International Olympic Committee's President's Prize.

``I've looked for research but come up short. What's out there are just
claims made by those with a vested interest in the product,'' said Wadler,
the author of ``Drugs and the Athlete'' -- the bible on
performance-enhancing drugs.

Both men and women produce androstenedione in their adrenal glands, which
sit atop the kidneys. In men, it is converted to testosterone, which floods
their bodies during early adulthood and dwindles as they age.

Studies of the hormone have been done in animals -- one of the most
credible in a small bird called the zebra finch. Researchers found that the
hormone caused female finches to abandon their delicate songs and start
singing like males.

But there have no controlled, peer-reviewed and published studies in
humans. The only available data is found in the product's East German
patent application, which claims that androstenedione almost doubled normal
testosterone levels.

But anything can be written in a patent filing without documentation, said
exercise physiologist David M. Lightsey of Bakersfield, who heads the
Ergonomic Task Force of the National Council for Reliable Health
Information, a group of medical professionals who monitor allegations of
health fraud.

Nor has the 25-year-old East German data been duplicated by other
researchers, he noted.

Even without the research, androstenedione can be sold over the counter
under terms of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994,
which permits the sale of hormones such as androstenedione and creatine,
another purported performance enhancer taken by McGwire, as long as the
substances do not make therapeutic claims. The act essentially removed the
products from oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

``We cannot disallow it,'' an FDA official said of androstenedione. ``We
don't review the product before it is put on the market. . . . The
responsibility is put on the manufacturer to ensure it is safe and labeled
properly. We take action if there are reports of illness or injuries or
complaints by the public.''

Despite the lack of federal restrictions, scientists familiar with the
hormone caution against its use in healthy people.

Androstenedione should be taken only under a doctor's supervision by men
who do not produce their own testosterone, said Peter Hornsby, associate
professor of cell biology at Baylor College of Medicine, who studies the
body's hormone-making cells.

``It is extremely dangerous . . . because a normal male doesn't need any
more testosterone. If you are a male without it, see a doctor. If you're a
female, don't take it because it will have a masculinizing effect,'' said
Hornsby.

Doctors worry that increased levels of testosterone could cause an
otherwise dormant prostate tumor to grow, or could cause prostate
enlargement. Other complications could include breast enlargement,
personality change and liver or heart problems.

Trying to isolate male hormones in the 1950s, scientists first obtained
androstenedione by distilling 25,000 liters of male police officers' urine.
Synthesis quickly followed, enabling production of larger quantities.

Androstenedione was routinely used in nasal-spray form by East German
scientists in the mid-1960s and 1970s to boost testosterone levels in both
male and female athletes, according to the online magazine Muscle Media 2000.

Androstenedione was rediscovered about a year ago when the owner of a
supplement company stumbled onto the German patent and realized it would be
a legal over-the-counter product.

Those who back the product say there's little need for regulation because
it is ``natural,'' converting to testosterone in the body.

``I think its more B.S. to write about,'' said Oakland A's first baseman
Jason Giambi, who also uses androstenedione. ``The stuff is not illegal.
It's not an anabolic steroid. . . . It's kind of sad that someone is trying
to mar someone else's (McGwire's) accomplishments.''

According to A's head trainer Larry Davis: ``If they (the players) are
going to use it, they're going to use it. It's best that we know about it.
We don't disallow you from bringing it into the clubhouse, because it's
over the counter. . . . We don't supply it, we don't endorse it, but we
don't ban it.''

But testimonials by sports heroes like McGwuire could be persuasive to
youths, who may be most at risk, said physiologist Lightsey.

``It sets a terrible example to the kids on the block. Athletes are naive.
They aren't out to scam anybody. But they don't have a formal scientific
background and buy it all, hook, line and sinker,'' said Lightsey.

Mercury News Staff Writer Howard Bryant contributed to this report.

1997 - 1998 Mercury Center.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Traffickers Move Into Yucatan Peninsula ('The Los Angeles Times'
Says The Resort Area In The Gulf Of Mexico Is Rapidly Gaining A Reputation
As Mexico's 'Cocaine Coast,' Fueled In Part By Traffickers' Switch
From Planes To Ships And Small Boats, Their Expansion
To Less Patrolled Areas, And Their Use Of Corruption To Virtually Take Over
States Such As Quintana Roo, Where Cancun Is Located)

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:32:20 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Mexico: Traffickers Move Into Yucatan Peninsula
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Pubdate: 27 August 1998
Author: MARY BETH SHERIDAN, Times Staff Writer

TRAFFICKERS MOVE INTO YUCATAN PENINSULA

Mexican tourist paradise becoming 'cocaine coast' as smugglers, aided by
extensive corruption, expand their reach, U.S. officials say.

CANCUN, Mexico--Tourists strolling down Cancun's palm-lined hotel
strip normally see nothing more scandalous than an undersized bikini.
But recently they were startled by a novel sight: scores of Mexican
soldiers and anti-drug agents roaring into a gated community of
million-dollar homes on the lagoon across from the Sheraton Hotel.

The soldiers and black-clad drug agents swarmed through Isla Dorada,
an enclave of Mediterranean-style villas with carved wooden doors and
stained-glass windows, stopping to search three homes. The target:
Ramon Alcides Magana, an alleged drug lord with a warrant out for his
arrest.

"It was the first time in our lives we've seen such a dramatic
mobilization," said Rogelio Marquez, the owner of a nearby hotel.

The soldiers, he said, arrived "like Rambo." The June raid underscored
a trend that is alarming the U.S. and Mexican governments. The Yucatan
peninsula, known in the U.S. as a holiday paradise of crystal beaches
and Maya pyramids, is rapidly gaining a new reputation--as a
drug-trafficking center.

The emergence of Mexico's "cocaine coast" in recent months has been
fueled in part by traffickers' switch in recent years from planes to
ships and small boats. But it also illustrates something more
troubling, according to U.S. officials. They say traffickers, long
notorious in northwest Mexico near the U.S. border, are expanding
their reach to less patrolled areas, and using corruption to virtually
take over states such as Quintana Roo, where Cancun is located.

"Quintana Roo has become a narco-state," said a U.S. official,
speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's corrupt from the traffic cop
to the governor." The state's governor, Mario Villanueva, denies any
links with the narcotics trade and calls such allegations politically
motivated "slander." While acknowledging that drug trafficking is a
problem, he has said it is less serious in Quintana Roo than in other
parts of Mexico.

But U.S. and Mexican government officials, most of whom spoke on
condition of anonymity, paint a picture of a region that has become a
major drug crossroads. Tons of cocaine--as many as 15 tons, according
to one U.S. official--move through the peninsula each month.

Authorities emphasize that tourists have been practically untouched by
the drug activity. But some people fear that could change.

"Obviously, we are wondering if we will see ourselves involved in
something like what happens in Colombia," where traffickers have
unleashed waves of bombings and assassinations, said Elba Capuchino, a
federal legislator from Cancun for the left-of-center Democratic
Revolution Party, or PRD.

Amid the Glitz, Evidence Abounds Amid the high-rise hotels and
palm-fringed beaches, evidence of the narcotics trade abounds in
Quintana Roo. In recent months, traffickers' boats have been seized in
such famed tourist sites as the island of Cozumel and the seaside
village of Tulum. In downtown Cancun, authorities discovered a
warehouse in June stuffed with 269 pounds of cocaine and boat
equipment, the second such seizure in a year.

The traffickers themselves are joining the wealthy Mexicans and
sunburned Americans enjoying Cancun. Last month, two Italians alleged
to be Mafia drug traffickers were arrested in the city.

Leaders of Mexico's Juarez cartel also have moved in, officials
say.

A glitzy resort whose first hotel opened only in 1974, Cancun has been
a stop for drug traffickers in the past. In the most notorious case, a

Mexican kingpin, Rafael Aguilar Guajardo, was gunned down in 1993 in
the hotel district.

But the region's importance has surged in the past few years,
officials say, as authorities cracked down on planes ferrying cocaine
from Colombia to Mexico, the main gateway to the U.S. drug market.

In response, traffickers have switched to sea routes, taking advantage
of hundreds of miles of Mexican coastline pocked with coves and
lightly patrolled by the government. Sometimes the traffickers use
small boats that pick up bundles of cocaine from big ships or
low-flying planes offshore, and zip to the coast. In other cases,
speedboats carrying a ton or more of drugs make the 600-mile trip
directly from Colombian islands such as San Andres to Mexico.

"This is the trendy route for drug traffickers," said a senior Mexican
justice official.

Tulum, a village 80 miles southwest of Cancun famed for its Maya
ruins, offers a snapshot of the thriving cocaine route. Local
fishermen say they frequently spot boats abandoned by traffickers who
have hauled their valuable cargo through the woods to inland roads.
>From there, it heads by land to the United States.

"In 1997, we began to see strange boats. I think they're from
Colombia," said Reynaldo Mas, a tanned Maya fisherman.

Local fishermen showed a reporter the hulks of two boats that were
torched on the shore after having been stripped of their equipment.
Several other drug boats have been seized by authorities, they say.
They have 200- or 400-horsepower engines, far stronger than the
sputtering 40- or 60-horsepower engines of fishermen, the locals say.

"They come at night. When it's dawn, they're abandoned," Mas
said.

Sometimes, the fishermen said, they find Coke cans and cookie wrappers
from Colombia in the water.

If Tulum offers one glimpse of the new cocaine crossroads, Cancun
offers another. With 13 million visitors a year--compared with a
permanent population of only 400,000--it is the perfect place for an
outsider to fit in. Especially an outsider who likes new cars,
$90-a-person restaurants and pulsating discos.

Far-Flung Network of Corruption Since the death last year of Amado
Carrillo Fuentes, the leader of Mexico's Juarez cartel, several of his
lieutenants have either moved to Cancun or appear to be spending more
time here, say U.S. and Mexican authorities. Alleged drug lords such as
Carrillo's
brother, Vicente, and Eduardo Gonzalez Quirarte have moved down to
join Alcides Magana, who authorities say is the Juarez cartel's man in
the region.

"It's like when the Mafia families in New York moved to Las Vegas,"
the U.S. official said. "They [the Mexicans] moved and have taken
advantage of an opportunity. The focus is not on that area as it was
in Juarez," on the U.S.-Mexican border.

The traffickers don't just benefit from the anonymity of Cancun,
however. According to U.S. and Mexican authorities, they have a
far-flung network of government protection in Quintana Roo.

Mexican authorities are now seeking the former head of the state
police in Cancun, Oscar Benjamin Garcia Davila. He was fired in April
1997 for not showing up for work, a government spokesman said. He had
already found another job, U.S. and Mexican officials say: as an aide
to Alcides Magana, the alleged drug lord.

"He's the chief of [Alcides Magana's] bodyguards," said an
intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In the past year, authorities have also captured the former commander
and subcommander of the federal police in Cancun, accusing them of
protecting cocaine shipments when they worked in the state.

In apparent response to their difficulties with police in the state,
Mexican anti-drug officials have dispatched forces from Mexico City to
conduct important raids like the one at Isla Dorada.

Governor Tainted by Allegations Meanwhile, corruption allegations
swirl around the governor. Two respected Mexican publications--the
newspaper Reforma and the weekly newsmagazine Proceso--have cited

official Mexican intelligence documents alleging that Villanueva is
tied to drug traffickers.

A similar charge came up early last year in a Mexican court, according
to confidential testimony published by the Mexican daily Universal,
which was confirmed by a knowledgeable Mexican official. According to
the testimony, a government witness, Tomas Colsa McGregor, said drug
lord Carrillo had confided that he maintained "relations" with
Villanueva and several other governors, officials say.

Colsa McGregor, a jeweler who acknowledged doing business with
Carrillo, was killed in July 1997, on the same day the drug lord died
following plastic surgery, a Mexican official said in an interview.

U.S. officials said the American government has credible information
linking Villanueva to traffickers. But one official said there was not
enough evidence for an indictment.

In a telephone interview, Villanueva denied the allegations. He said
he had never met Carrillo and had no connection to drug traffickers.
After the allegations appeared in the Mexican press, he said, he even
asked the attorney general's office to investigate him. Both that
office and Interpol said several months ago that they were not
conducting any probe of the governor.

"In all of this, there has been bad faith, and a political intention
to slander me. This has no factual basis," Villanueva said.

In addition, he noted that in Mexico, federal authorities are in
charge of the anti-narcotics fight. "Governors in Mexico don't have
jurisdiction in issues of drug trafficking," he said.

The governor said he had no information about corruption in the ranks
of state police. A former assistant state attorney general had
proposed hiring Garcia Davila, he added, saying, "These are low-level
jobs that I don't get involved in." Opposition politicians acknowledge
that they have no solid evidence the governor is involved with
traffickers. But they note that Villanueva, a member of the dominant
Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, keeps a tight rein over the
state's politics and press.

"He has such control in the state it would be impossible for him not
to know where the drug-trafficking problems are," said Marquez, the
hotel owner, who is also a Cancun city councilman for the opposition
National Action Party, or PAN.

Federal authorities have begun to crack down on the cocaine
coast.

They are prosecuting several former police officers and have seized a
Cancun hotel that they believe is owned by Alcides Magana.

Last month, authorities arrested two alleged Italian Mafiosi living in
Cancun. The Italians, Oreste Pagano and Alberto Minelli, were deported
to Canada, where they face charges of cocaine trafficking. Mexican
authorities believe that they also were laundering money with members
of the Juarez cartel.

Officials are also stepping up patrols on the coast. The increased
military presence is obvious in Tulum. One recent afternoon, the
village's Paradise Beach was peopled not just by fishermen and topless
European sunbathers, but by soldiers scanning the horizon from a jeep
parked on the sand.

"There's a lot of vigilance here--helicopters, planes," said Mas, who
was pulling in his fishing boat at the end of the day's work.

"We can't even walk on the beach anymore. The [soldiers] say, 'What
are you doing?' " Federal Authorities Outmatched, Outrun More
equipment is on the way. Federal authorities say they plan to use a
giant X-ray machine to check the interiors of cars and trucks in the
state. Another of the machines will be installed on the border with
Guatemala.

Already, nearly four tons of cocaine have been seized in Quintana Roo
this year, officials say--more than the amount recovered in all of
1997.

But few traffickers have been detained. With high-tech ships and
equipment, they appear to easily outrun anti-drug authorities.

An anecdote reported in Proceso indicates how outmatched authorities
are by traffickers.

In May, fishermen from Isla Mujeres, near Cancun, reported spotting an
abandoned boat, which turned out to have nearly a ton of cocaine on board.
Fausto Carrasco Aguirre, a federal justice official in Cancun, told Proceso
that he and six agents went to investigate. But they had only one way to
reach Isla Mujeres: the public ferry. Even then, they couldn't afford the
fare and had to haggle for a ride.

Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexico Unveils Plan To Combat Crime Wave - $380 Million To Target Corruption,
Police Training ('The Boston Globe' Says Interior Minister Francisco Labastida
And Nearly All Of The Country's 31 Governors Launched A New Eight-Point Plan
Yesterday Called 'The National Crusade Against Crime And Delinquency' -
Mexicans Expressed Skepticism)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Mexico unveils plan to combat crime wave
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:15:47 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Mexico unveils plan to combat crime wave
$380m to target corruption, police training

By Richard Chacon
Globe Staff
08/27/98

MEXICO CITY - Under growing pressure from businesses and citizens to stem a
crime wave that has swept through almost every corner of the country, Mexico
announced a bipartisan initiative yesterday to reduce criminal activity.

Interior Minister Francisco Labastida and nearly all of the country's 31
governors said the eight-point plan, called ``National Crusade Against Crime
and Delinquency,'' would help strengthen law enforcement efforts and deter
criminals.

``An outlook that shows such grave problems requires radical solutions that
attack the root of the problems,'' Labastida told an audience that included
President Ernesto Zedillo and members of the Cabinet. ``It also requires a
unified effort among political parties and with the community.''

Mexicans expressed skepticism about the plan. An average of 1.5 million
crimes occur each year in Mexico, according to the government, and although
the number of assaults and rapes is down this year from last, the statistics
are widely considered to underrepresent the actual figure. The number of
homicides during the same period has doubled.

In addition, there have been a record number of bank robberies in Mexico
City and a rash of kidnappings and muggings since a severe economic
recession hit the country four years ago.

The centerpiece of the $380 million crime-fighting plan, which has been
endorsed by Zedillo, will increase the number of federal and state police
officers. It will also seek to professionalize the country's police forces
by removing corrupt officers, coordinating inter-agency efforts,
restructuring police training curriculum, and creating five regional police
academies.

The initiative will also attempt to modernize the country's crime-fighting
technology through the use of computer databases and the introduction of a
national telephone number for reporting crimes. Another phase of the crusade
will focus on making Mexico's constitution and federal and state penal
codes tougher on criminals, officials said.

Yesterday's announcement followed the recent arrest of Daniel Arizmendi
Lopez, the country's most wanted criminal, who is believed to be responsible
for dozens of kidnappings. The arrest and continuing crime plague have
sparked new calls here for the death penalty.

The crime-fighting plan also demonstrates an unusual consensus between
federal and state officials and among the country's three main political
parties, which have been taking bitter shots at each other recently over a
controversial proposal to save a government-sponsored bank.

Josefina Recano de Nava, whose 28-year-old son who was killed by kidnappers,
made a public plea to Zedillo and government officials to fulfill their
promises.

``Why should we teach our children to be good,'' she asked, ``if at any
moment they could lose their lives because of crime?''

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Police Accused Of Marijuana Trafficking ('The Age' In Australia
Says The Melbourne Magistrates Court Was Told Wednesday
That Three Detectives From The Victoria Police Organised Crime Squad
And A City Patrol Group Sergeant Trafficked In Marijuana
Seized During A Drug Raid)

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:33:27 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Australia: Police Accused Of Marijuana Trafficking
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: Age, The (Australia)
Contact: letters@theage.fairfax.com.au
Website: http://www.theage.com.au
Pubdate: 27 Aug 1998
Author: Steve Butcher

POLICE ACCUSED OF MARIJUANA TRAFFICKING

Three detectives from the Victoria Police organised crime squad and a city
patrol group sergeant trafficked in marijuana seized during a drug raid, a
court was told yesterday.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard one detective gave part of the
nine-kilogram marijuana haul to a colleague who gave it to a drug dealer.

Detective Inspector Dennis O'Bryan, of the corruption investigation
division of the ethical standards department, alleged Sergeant Michael
George Redford gave the marijuana to the dealer.

Mr O'Bryan said the Sunshine dealer sold the marijuana for $8000 and paid
Sergeant Redford $6000, some of which was allegedly given to his three
colleagues.

Sergeant Redford, 43, of the city patrol group, Detective Sergeant Robert
John Sodomaco, 38, Detective Senior Constable Scott Poynder, 31, and
Detective Senior Constable Roger Ian Grant, 35, all of the organised crime
squad, were arrested yesterday.

They were suspended with pay and face charges of trafficking, conspiracy to
traffic, possession and theft of marijuana.

The prosecutor, Ms Luisa Di Pietrantonio, told the court bail could be set
for the men once they had shown that their further detention was not
justified.

Mr O'Bryan said the three detectives seized the marijuana and hydroponic
equipment when they executed search warrants on two houses in Airport West
on 13 March.

He said the detectives stole the marijuana the same day and gave some of it
to Sergeant Redford who gave some to the dealer.

Questioned by Mr Tony Hargreaves, for the detectives, Mr O'Bryan said there
was no concern the men would fail to appear, he was not seeking reporting
conditions and that each man had no prior convictions.

He told Mr Tony Isaacs, for Sergeant Redford, the dealer was given about 20
ounces of green, wet marijuana including heads, branches and stems.

Mr O'Bryan said the dealer sold the marijuana for $8000 and alleged
Sergeant Redford received $6000 in return.

Mr Hargreaves told the magistrate, Mr Brian Barrow, the men would not face
trial until about the end of next year and their time in custody would be
spent in isolation.

Mr Barrow, in granting bail in the men's own undertaking, said they would
contest the charges and ordered them not to contact prosecution witnesses.

They will appear again on 12 November.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]