Sometime in early 2014, I noticed a sharp rise in the number of drug arrests on or near the University of North Texas campus. The overwhelming majority of these arrests were for marijuana, and the majority (if not all) were made by officers of the University of North Texas Police Department (UNTPD.)
What further drew my attention to UNTPD drug arrests was that a great deal of them didn’t pass the “smell test.” That is to say, there was something about them that seemed “off.” So, in early 2014, I began looking into UNTPD drug arrests.
In Part I of my inquiry, I will discuss the frequently-cited “follow up investigation” justification for UNTPD officers and detectives arriving at a student’s doorstep. No warrant, of course.
The Set-Up
A UNTPD detective shows up at “123 Sesame Street” (obviously I am not using the actual address in the report, for confidentiality reasons) and knocks on the door. He tells the owner or occupant of the apartment at 123 Sesame Street that he is there to “follow up a narcotics investigation.” He then asks permission to come in, or, simply states that he smells marijuana or sees marijuana in plain view (i.e. anything to get inside the apartment.) End result is occupant is arrested for a few grams of pot found inside the apartment. Hardly the pounds of marijuana the phrase “narcotics investigation” suggests. The Detective even swears to the fact that he is there for a “follow up narcotics investigation” in his probable cause affidavit.
To “follow up” is necessarily to continue something that has already started or has already been completed. Thus, a “follow up narcotics investigation” contemplates continuing an investigation that has already begun into narcotics at a specific place, or with respect to a specific person.
So What’s the Problem?
But the real question is this: was the Detective actually at 123 Sesame Street to follow up on a narcotics investigation that had already begun? Or, do UNTPD cops and detectives frequent apartment complexes, around campus, like 123 Sesame Street, randomly knocking on doors hoping to gain consent to search?
Let’s stop there for a minute. We all know cops can lie to suspects and accused persons. So a cop can tell the occupant he is there to follow up on a narcotics investigation, even if this is not true. No problem there. Cops can, and frequently do, lie. (“You might as well let me search, because I could get a warrant for this place” is a favorite.) This is no secret. But, a cop or Detective shouldn’t lie on a sworn probable cause affidavit. Because that’s perjury.
So, if the cop includes that he was at 123 Sesame Street to follow up on a narcotics investigation, there should be some records of prior drug activity, or, at the very least an anonymous tip of drug activity, at 123 Sesame Street, or a record of prior drug activity by Bert or Ernie (the, again obviously made-up for the sake of confidentiality, occupants of 123 Sesame Street.)
I Look Into It And…
Luckily, this information is obtainable through a public information request. So, I checked it out.
I submitted a public information request to the UNTPD records division for 123 Sesame Street, and its occupants, asking for any dispatch information for 123 Sesame Street, or for any anonymous calls concerning drug activity at 123 Sesame Street, or concerning Bert or Ernie. To be absolutely thorough, I requested tips or arrests of Bert or Ernie because it is possible that Bert was arrested a few blocks away for a drug offense, and gave 123 Sesame Street as his mailing address. This would likely be a basis for a follow up investigation of 123 Sesame Street. So, if the cop is there to follow up on a narcotics investigation, there would be some prior records of narcotics—even a tip—at like 123 Sesame Street, or with Bert or Ernie.
The end result was that NO drug activity was previously reported at the address in question. Nor had Bert or Ernie ever been arrested before for drug activity. In fact, the only time in the past 6 months that the police had been to 123 Sesame Street was to issue a citation to one occupant (who no longer lived there) for the heinous offense of…throwing a beer bottle over a balcony into the hedges. Littering. A Class C misdemeanor. And that was it. One trip out to issue a ticket for littering. No drug activity. None whatsoever.
…and looked into it again…
I asked Bert and Ernie who the previous occupants of 123 Sesame Street were. They gave me some names, I ran them, and no drug arrests for the previous occupants either.
…And found NOTHING.
In short, there was no “investigation” to follow-up. What the Detective told Bert and Ernie—and what the Detective included in his sworn affidavit—was, per the (lack) of results of my public information request—totally untrue. It was a lie. And a lie under oath, no less.
So, a word to the wise, if UNTPD shows up at your door, first and foremost, do NOT open the door unless you see a search warrant for the property, or an arrest warrant for one of the occupants. Secondly, do NOT fall for the “follow up narcotics investigation” bullshit. It’s a lie, and it ends with you being arrested.