No, I won't, I say ...

No, I won't , I say ...

I did not realize the extent of the drug abuse in the Military until I went into investigations. According to the U.C.M.J., possession of a marijuana seed was a criminal offense. There were four basic types of cases we had. There was theft, domestic violence, drugs and all others. The reason why I labeled the crimes this way is because the first three were the most popular incidents on post. As to which one we had the most cases on, I have no collected data but, it seemed that the toss up is between domestic violence and drugs. Actually marijuana was the illegal substance of choice for the American Soldier. We used the N.I.K. drug tests and the test we were always running out of was the marijuana tests.

Drug cases were usually obtained as result of a unit health and welfare inspection. A "health and welfare inspection" is a legal inspection of the unit Commanders area of responsibility, namely the barracks. When a new unit commander has been assigned, the new commander signs for the "ownership" of all the property and equipment assigned to his unit. What he signs for now comes under his control and he is responsible for maintaining the property. This allows him to conduct what I mentioned as a health and welfare inspection. What he is authorized to do on a regular basis is to search the areas under his control for items that could harm his troops and or be illegal items in the possession of his troops. In the barracks, a typical room has three living areas for three soldiers. The room is designed as a "T" where the intersection of the "T" is the common area. There are no doors separating the roommates in the barrack room. The room furniture consists of three basic items. A twin bed, desk and stand up closet locker for each soldier. The only thing that can be locked is the locker.

So this one drug case was a result of a health and welfare inspection. During the inspection approximately one ounce of Marijuana was found in “Soldier A's" desk. When illegal items are found the Military Police are notified and then the Desk Sergeant calls the “On Duty” MP Investigator and on this day I responded to the unit. At the barracks I gather all the information and evidence from the unit and took the soldier into custody. We went back to my office and took up temporary residence in an interrogation room.

The interrogation rooms we had were of three different configurations. The first we used was a square room. About 12’ x 12’.  As you walked into this room one immediately saw a grey metal desk with the front of the desk facing the door. The desk was centered in the room but up against the right wall was as you were facing the desk. There was an armless grey metal chair, the same grey as the desk, for our important guests. On the opposite side of the desk was an identical twin to the first chair for the investigator. has a The desk had the typical 3 drawers, the top catch all drawer, the top right catch all drawer and the bottom huge catch all drawer. The desks were typically stocked with nothing. You brought in everything you needed for this interview in your case folder. On the left wall was a two way mirror where we could watch the interrogation. This mirror went the whole width of the room and about half the height. The next two interrogation rooms had the same thing except for the two way mirror. The third interrogation room type was a large room that had two separate doors. The room was divided by a wall that was a two way mirror. One door allowed access into the interrogation room itself. In the center of the room was a table and two chairs. This is where the Polygraph was conducted. The second door was on the opposite side of the two way mirror. This was accessible only to observers to the polygraph.

After securing a waving of his constitutional rights I asked him his side of the story. The first thing he said was that the marijuana was not his. I asked, then whose is it. He indicated his roommate “Soldier B".  He also told me that “Soldier B" smokes the herb and that when he heard that there was a Heath and Welfare he probably wanted to quickly dispose of the marijuana and put it into “Soldier A's" desk.

I left the room and went to my desk to reflect on the information. My team leader asked how the interrogation was going. I indicated what I was told and that I felt that the marijuana was not “Soldier A's" but another soldiers. My team leader told me basically, to not waste my time investigating this further and just charge Soldier "A" and let the judicial system sort it out.  That is the general mentality of Investigators. If he looks good for it. Charge him and let the courts sort it out.  We don’t need to put much effort into it.  I told him that, that's not right and that I should get to the bottom of the matter. He again told me no and to wrap up the case with “Soldier A" as the suspect and move on. I walked out of the office a "little" upset. I didn't want to charge an innocent person. I don't believe in letting the courts sort it out. It's my job to identify the true culprit and have that person charged. That's what justice is all about. So is it about truth and justice or is it about statistical numbers. Numbers that make you look good no matter the cost, no matter who’s life is destroyed. Most guys want the numbers of “persons identified”. A name to put in the suspect box on the report. Me I want the conviction rate. I don’t want the number if there is no conviction. And if I want a conviction I am going to get that conviction through a thorough investigation.  I want the win rate not who is named in the suspect box only. I want to say, do to my investigations not one of my suspects were let loose because they were not the right person or the case was flawed.

I informed the unit of what I felt concerning this matter. That even though the marijuana was found in “Soldier A's" desk I truly believed it belonged to “Soldier B”.  I advised the unit that if they really want to find the owner of the marijuana that the Commander should "piss test" the room occupants. What a "piss test" is, it is a drug urinalysis. To test the occupants of the room would exclude the innocent and identify the users. The reason to test the whole room is so that evidence wise the Commander is not focusing his attention to one person but being a blanket test where no one is being singled as a suspect. This would eliminate a legal tangled web. The unit took my advise and they came back to me that Soldier "B" did not pass the test, he came up positive for marijuana use.

After being informed of the test results I contacted J.A.G. (Judge Advocate General or the lawyers). I explained to J.A.G. that the marijuana was found in an unlocked desk drawer. The desk drawers cannot be locked or secured in any other manner. My intention was to have J.A.G. make the determination that the marijuana was found in a "common area." A "common area" is all unsecured or unsecureable areas in a building that more than one person has access to. Once that determination has been made, the unit cannot prosecute “Soldier A" for possession and I would be free from having to charge him with possession of a controlled substance. Advising the unit to conduct the urinalysis would then determine the user(s) in the room and the case would then have a subject for the report but no owner to the marijuana. At that point it really doesn't matter who placed the marijuana in the drawer because the urinalysis identified the innocent and the guilty. I did all of this without my team leader knowing what I was doing. Sometimes it is best to keep some things in the dark.

When I closed out the case, I reported the facts of the matter. The Marijuana was located in a common area and the unit through urinalysis determined a controlled substance user in the room. I then turned in the case to my team leader for review and sign off for permanent closure. I then left the office to respond to other cases that dispatch was holding for me. I returned to the office a couple of hours later and my team leader and the other team leader called me over. Both were extremely mad. They told me that I was very close to getting a Court Martial for 1-Failure to obey a lawful order because I did not do as ordered, charge “Soldier A" with possession, 2-Dereliction of duty for not doing what I was told to do in closing the case but continuing the investigation, 3-Disrespect to a Non-Commissioned Officer by arguing about the case and basically saying "No, I won't." My saving grace is how the case turned out, and I better not do what I did again. As you can see from my actions in this matter, I would have preferred to be charged with the aforementioned than charge an innocent. Is that not what a person who pursues truth and justice not do?

Law Enforcement and Investigations have to justify positions and budget by statistics. It's all in the numbers. The more cases solved, no matter the innocence or guilt, the higher the solve stats, the more the justification of the positions. The typical statement was, it doesn't matter, let the courts sort it out just charge that person and go onto the next case. I never liked that view to solving cases and still don't. That is why I got into trouble. The thing is I would still have done it again if the case called for it. I don't want the innocent to go through the judicial system as a defendant only those who actually committed the crime.