2 Durham officers charged with assault (Another DukeLax Coverup)

DURHAM -- Raleigh police have charged two Durham Police Department officers in connection with an incident that occurred July 20 outside a Glenwood Avenue sports bar.

The officers, Gary Powell Lee, 38, of 3588 Copper Creek Lane, Franklinton, and Scott Christian Tanner, 33, of 2516 Hiking Trail, Raleigh, both face counts of simple assault. Conviction on the misdemeanor carries with it, for someone with no prior offenses on their record, the possibility of a maximum 30-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.

Lee and Tanner are accused of assaulting Rene Dennis Thomas, a cook who works at Blinco's Sports Restaurant and Bar, 6711 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh. The charges stem from a parking-lot altercation that occurred late on July 20 as five current and two former Durham Police Department officers were leaving a going-away party for a departing officer.

A criminal summons issued Thursday alleged that Lee, a member of the department's Special Operations Division, tried to strike Thomas and tackled him, causing the cook to fall to the ground. A second summons alleged that Tanner, a motorcycle officer who works in the department's Traffic Services Unit, kicked Thomas in the head.

Thomas has told television reporters that as many as six men participated in the assault, which began with an exchange of racial slurs. But Raleigh Police Department spokesman Jim Sughrue said detectives in that city don't intend to charge anyone else in connection with the incident, or add later to the charges they've already filed.

"It's been extensively investigated, and we're confident that the responsible individuals have been charged," Sughrue said.

But Lee and Tanner -- and three of their colleagues -- could still face sanctions from the Durham Police Department. An internal investigation is continuing and should conclude in two to three weeks, Police Chief Steve Chalmers said at a news conference Thursday.

The Durham probe is focusing on a wider range of issues that include the alleged use of racial slurs. "The alleged conduct is something that is certainly deplorable to us, and something we don't want to be consistent in the way we operate and conduct ourselves," Chalmers said. "The entire allegation is disturbing."

Lee and Tanner had previously been restricted to administrative duties, and remain so. The other three officers in the case -- Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Officer Richard Clayton and Officer James Griffin -- had also been restricted but on Thursday were allowed to resume their normal duties.

The decision doesn't mean the three have been cleared, but does indicate that based on "the facts we've already uncovered ... there's no reason we can't put these officers back on full duty," Chalmers said.

Asked later if that meant the three had played only a minor role in the incident, Chalmers said, "At least we can say it wasn't a major role."

All of the officers have the right to a lawyer's help, and two, Gottlieb and Lee, have retained the Durham firm of Clayton Myrick McClanahan & Coulter to represent them as the internal investigation and criminal case unfold.

A lawyer there, Allen Mason, confirmed Thursday that senior partner Jerry Clayton had spoken to Gottlieb and that another of his colleagues, former Assistant District Attorney Freda Black, had spoken to Lee.

One of the two former Durham officers involved in the case, James Kennedy, has also retained Clayton's firm and has talked with Mason. Kennedy is a former motorcycle officer who left the department late last year. The other former Durham officer who was present remains unidentified.

Asked if the lawyers and their clients would speak up to offer their version of what happened, Mason said there's "not a chance in the world" of that happening outside formal channels.

"We're not Duke lacrosse lawyers," Mason said alluding to the year's most highly publicized Durham Police Department case, one that Gottlieb and Richard Clayton, who's no relation to lawyer Jerry Clayton, have both worked on. "We don't practice that way. We don't comment about pending cases, we don't do interviews, we don't make statements."

The Raleigh charges were notable for the fact that they didn't address what Thomas has said was the first act of the confrontation, a move by one of the men involved to poke him in the shoulder with a finger. The charge against Lee addressed an act Thomas alleged was committed immediately afterward by a second man, and the charge against Tanner addressed something that happened after Thomas fell to the ground.

The shoulder poke was likely a criminal act under North Carolina law, given court decisions that have held "the merest unauthorized touching of another [person] is an assault," said Barry Winston, a criminal-defense lawyer in Chapel Hill.

A judge "who strictly interprets the law would, I suspect, hold that North Carolina law requires him to convict someone who walks up to someone and in an antagonistic fashion pokes that person with his finger," although that's "not what the average person thinks of as assault," Winston said.

Raleigh detectives filed Thursday's charges after consulting prosecutors in Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby's office, a move Sughrue said is standard in officer-involved cases. The spokesman declined to say why there wasn't a charge addressing the alleged shoulder-poke.

"Based on the investigation of the case, and facts present, it was determined that these two charges were the appropriate charges to bring," Sughrue said.

Thomas was surprised Thursday to hear that the charges involved the officers they did. "Lee and Tanner? Huh. OK. Check that again and call me back," he said before cutting off a brief interview. "I don't think you have the right guys."

The cook did not elaborate, and did not return a call placed to his cell phone late Thursday afternoon.

The Raleigh department's decision to issue a criminal summons for each of the officers, rather than an arrest warrant, saved Lee and Tanner an appearance before a magistrate and possibly the need to post bail to avoid detention. Sughrue said the officers didn't receive any special treatment.

"That is very typically the way a simple assault case is handled," he said. "That's very consistent with the way we'd handle the same case if the suspects had not been law enforcement officers."

Also routine was the Raleigh department's decision to assign detectives from its own internal-affairs unit to work the case. No matter what agency they work for, when police are "suspect in a case in Raleigh, the case is investigated by internal affairs," Sughrue said.

Mayor Bill Bell said the allegations, if true, are unfortunate. "If in fact it did happen, I'd hope they'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent," he said.

City Councilman Eugene Brown agreed. "It's always problematic when you have those hired and paid for enforcing the law breaking the law," he said. "I want to withhold judgment, but so far, this is just embarrassing."

Lee has worked for the department since 1999. Tanner joined the force in 1997, and was recently the beneficiary of a department-organized fundraiser intended to help him and another officer pay for cancer treatments. He suffers from Hodgkin's

From JaMesse Mangum's Blog - Wonder if what she learned applies to White Boys ID's by a mentally challenged stripper.

JaMeese's Summer Experience

Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The Trials of Darryl Hunt

On Tuesday, July 11th, I attended the movie screening for "The Trials of Darryl Hunt" at Landmark E Street Cinema, 555 11th Street, NW. The movie screening was held by the Center for American along with Annie Sundberg. "The Trials of Darryl Hunt" documents a brutal rape and murder in North Carolina, and offers a deeply personal story of a wrongfully convicted man, Darryl Hunt, who spent twenty years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

In 1984, a young white newspaper reporter, Deborah Sykes, was raped, sodomized and stabbed to death just blocks from where she worked in Winston-Salem, NC. Based on an ID made by a former Klan member, a 19-year-old black man, Darryl Hunt, was charged. No physical evidence linked Hunt to the crime. Hunt was convicted by an all white jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1994, DNA testing cleared Hunt, yet he would spend another ten years behind bars. The film chronicles this capital case from 1984 through 2004. With personal narratives and exclusive footage from two decades, the film frames the judicial and emotional responses to this chilling crime - and the implications surrounding Hunt's conviction - against a backdrop of class and racial bias in America. This unique look at one man's loss and redemption challenges the assumption that all Americans have the right to unbiased justice.

The panel discussion that followed the movie featured Darryl Hunt; Mark Rabil, Darryl Hunt’s attorney; Nkechi Taifa, senior policy analyst at Open Society Policy Center; and Clyde Williams, Center for American Progress. The movie was very moving. At a few points in the movie, I was brought to tears. I think everyone should watch this movie when it comes out, but especially the people who have lived in the South at one point in their lives. Being a native of North Carolina, I was shocked that I had never heard of his story. This is one reason I chose to pursue a career in the legal system, to try to make a positive impact on at least one person’s life. I know that Darryl Hunt's case is not the only case like this. During the discussion Darryl was asked about his faith and how it was strengthened throughout his prison sentence. He told the audience that his grandparents instilled Christian beliefs in him at a young age, by making him attend church every Sunday. After the screening and discussion had come to an end, I had a chance to speak to the entire panel and the director of the movie. I really enjoyed this movie and I am glad I had the privilege to view the movie before it airs on HBO

The News & Observer
December 3, 1992

Sheriff to resign after 10 years Leary elusive about his plans

Author: CRAIG WHITLOCK; Staff writer

DURHAM -- In move that caught many by surprise, veteran Durham County Sheriff Roland Leary announced his resignation Wednesday, saying he wants to pursue "other interests" but promising to stay active in public life.

"I think the time is right for me to step down," said Leary, 59, who has held the job for 10 years. "I'm confident now that I'm leaving the department in capable hands."
[That certainly sounds familar]
His departure, which takes effect Jan. 1, leaves the city and county without their two top law enforcement officials. The city is still looking for a police chief to replace Trevor Hampton, who left his job in June.

During an interview Wednesday afternoon, Leary was not specific about his reasons for leaving and was just about as elusive on his plans for the future.

"I really haven't made up my mind," he said, "but I'm not going leave the public arena."

Leary, who was first elected sheriff in 1982, told his staff of his decision Wednesday morning, leaving many deputies and employees taken aback.

"Everyone was very surprised and there were a few tears," said Lt. C.W. Crabtree. "This department has had real good direction for the past few years. Now we're not sure what our direction will be. It's unsettling."

Still, others said they heard hints that Leary might be considering a change.

"I'm not totally surprised," said William Bell, chairman of the county commissioners. "There have been some indications he might do something different. He feels he's been able to accomplish much of what he set out to do."

Leary's relationship with the commissioners, who control his department's purse strings, has not always been rosy. The sheriff and the commissioners have occasionally disagreed on policy matters, including how best to manage the jail, which has suffered from a highly publicized problem with overcrowding.

An increase in inmates during Leary's tenure has strained the county's already cramped jail facilities. It's been a constant curse for the Sheriff's Department, though the situation has eased in recent months.

"The jail problem is like the jail problem in any other county in North Carolina," Leary said. "As far as the Sheriff's Department is concerned, it's your biggest headache."

Putting aside their differences, the commissioners lauded the sheriff after hearing the news of his resignation. They

particularly praised his efforts to reduce the jail population and to provide drug treatment programs for inmates.

"I certainly think he served Durham well," said Deborah Giles, the commissioners' liaison with the Sheriff's Department. "He has tremendous respect among citizens I know. I have always seen him as someone who is fairly proactive in his approach."

It will now be up to the commissioners to appoint someone to serve the remaining two years of Leary's four-year term. Bell said the board will likely take applications for the job and decide on a replacement in the next three months.

Already attention is centering on Chief Deputy Chet Dobies, Leary's second-in-command. And Dobies, who has overseen plans to build the county's new $43 million, 576-bed jail, has his boss's blessing.

"There's no one in the state of North Carolina more qualified to run the sheriff's department than Chief Dobies," Leary said.

Dobies also has impressed the commissioners.

"I've found him to be well-

prepared, highly professional and highly competent," said Commissioner Ellen Reckhow. "He may prove to be an excellent interim replacement."

Another possible contender is Al Hight, a former county commissioner and police detective. Hight, who served as a commissioner from 1984 to 1990, unsuccessfully challenged Leary in the 1990 Democratic primary.

Hight enjoys strong ties with the commissioners, stemming from his days on the board alongside Bell, Reckhow and Becky Heron.

Since then, he's generously supported the commissioners' re-election bids. According to campaign spending reports filed in late October, Hight contributed $500 each to the campaigns of Reckhow and MaryAnn Black this year and $200 each to Giles and Bell.

Hight said Wednesday he may seek the job but hasn't made up his mind.

"I may apply for it," he said. "I won't say I won't."

Hight worked as a Durham police officer and detective for 20 years before starting a real estate business in 1971. He said he often longs to return to law enforcement.

"I miss it very much," he said. "There aren't many nights that go by that I don't dream about cases I had. It never leaves you."

Chris O'Brien contributed to this report.

[nb: need to find the source, but read today the Herald-Sun (?) sued to get the names of the applicant. The court ordered the DPD to give them the names, but was overturned by State Supreme Court]

The News & Observer

December 3, 1992

Leary restored agency's image Department faced rapid growth in '80s

Author: CRAIG WHITLOCK
CHRIS O'BRIEN; Staff writers

DURHAM -- After winning his first election largely by a stroke of luck, Durham County Sheriff Roland Leary has built a political base that would be the envy of any candidate -- and that could help him land a new job.

In his last election, the 1990 Democratic primary, Leary trounced the field. He received 15,700 votes, three times more than court bailiff Vernon Brown and five times more than Al Hight, a former county commissioner.

The results were a far cry from 1982, when Leary challenged then-Sheriff William A. Allen. Leary finished a distant second in the primary and faced an uphill battle in a runoff with Allen.

But in the month preceding the runoff, a scandal erupted in the sheriff's department. First, a jailer was charged with aiding in the escape of a prisoner. Then the jailer and a magistrate were arrested on a charge of accepting sexual favors from a female defendant in a drunken driving case.

The incidents irreparably hurt Allen's campaign but proved timely for Leary, who won the runoff in a landslide. No one has mounted a competitive challenge to him since.

Moreover, the sheriff's department has shed its reputation as a badly organized operation that lacked credibility with the public.

"There were some problems in that administration," Leary said of the early days. "When you go on a call and you don't have back-up -- that's frightening."

The department has grown by leaps and bounds under Leary.

The number of employees has increased threefold. Three satellite offices have been opened across the county. And drug education and treatment programs have been established in the public schools and the jail.

"We never caused the commissioners any embarrassment," Leary said.

He is vague about where he will go next. But it may be time to cash in on some political capital he has invested over the years.

He has been a longtime Jim Hunt supporter and may be on the lookout for some sort of appointment from the governor-elect.

Before he was elected sheriff, Leary worked for the Alcoholic Beverage Control police for 21 years. A high-level state job in that field might prove attractive.

"I was active in the Hunt campaign -- that's no secret," Leary said. "That's where the rumors have started. I have not talked with anyone in the Hunt administration about a job. But I would not exclude it."

The News & Observer
November 17, 1993
Former chief of police wants to be sheriff
Author: CRAIG WHITLOCK; STAFF WRITER

DURHAM -- Former Police Chief Talmadge Lassiter announced Tuesday that he will challenge Sheriff Al Hight this spring in what might be the most competitive sheriff's race in a dozen years.

Lassiter, 58, said he wanted to return to law enforcement after a six-year hiatus. He retired as city police chief in January 1988.

"We certainly have a severe crime problem, and I just want to get back into active battle," he said. "I'm itching to get back into it."

Lassiter becomes the third candidate to declare early for the race. Hight confirmed Tuesday that he's in. And R.D. Buchanan, formerly a lieutenant in the sheriff's department, has said he will run.

All three are registered Democrats. The campaign doesn't officially begin until the candidates' filing period opens Jan. 3. The party primary is May 3, followed by the general election in November.

Others are expected to join the field. Sam Satterfield, a major who announced his resignation from the sheriff's department this week, is expected to run.

Most campaigns for sheriff have been dull in recent years. Roland Leary easily coasted to re-election twice after winning the office in 1982.

But interest in the job picked up considerably in January, when Leary retired and the county commissioners named Hight as his replacement. Since then, Hight has stayed in the news by firing or reassigning dozens of employees and shaking up the department's operations.

Lassiter poses an especially imposing threat to Hight.

He has plenty of law enforcement experience, having logged 29 years on the Durham police force, including five years as public safety director and three years as chief.

He's also been tested politically. In 1989, he ran for an at-large seat on the City Council, finishing first in the nonpartisan primary but losing in the general election.

On Tuesday, he refrained from saying anything uncomplimentary about Hight, with whom he worked in the police department from 1958 to 1971.

"I don't have any intention of criticizing Al personally," said Lassiter. "That's just not my style. I just try to let people know where I stand."

Lassiter lost out to Hight when both applied earlier this year to succeed Leary. The county commissioners appointed Hight in February to serve out Leary's elected term, which expires in December 1994.

Although Hight was granted the post, Lassiter didn't even merit an interview with the commissioners. But he said he wasn't sore at being passed over.

"There may have been some lapse in judgment on their part in not even granting me an interview," he said. "But I get along with anybody. That's my temperament, and it's just common sense. I know that to get things done you have to get along."

Hight said the news about Lassiter didn't surprise him. And although he sounded respectful of his former colleague, he said the news wouldn't change his campaign plans.

"That doesn't bother me one bit," Hight said. "In fact, I thought he would run. Tal Lassiter's a very fine person. He certainly has the credentials, no doubt about that."

Remember Leary's connection to the ABC Board:

The News & Observer
April 5, 1997
Ripple effect of ABC debacle shakes Durham's equilibrium

Author: James Eli Shiffer; STAFF WRITER

DURHAM -- In North Carolina, only those who imbibe pay for the state's system that oversees all alcohol sales. So money problems at the neighborhood ABC board normally should raise little concern for the teetotaling taxpayer.

But the mismanagement at the Durham County Alcoholic Beverage Control board runs so deep - the system is nearly bankrupt - that it has serious implications for the entire county. And the problems have served as a cautionary tale for liquor control boards throughout the state.

The financial woes of the county liquor store monopoly affect how much cash local government has to spend, whether police make sure convenience stores don't sell beer to minors and possibly even how much interest banks charge on the county's loan for a new high school.

Despite record sales, for example, the Durham ABC board has said its troubles will cost the county $540,000 in lost revenue this year and may create a shortfall next year as well.

The breakdown in tracking the system's liquor supply also could jeopardize the county's coveted triple-A credit rating, meaning higher costs to taxpayers the next time the county wants to take out a loan.

And the management of the county's $12 million liquor business - left in the hands of a board of citizen volunteers paid $100 to $125 a month - has raised questions about the the state's laissez-faire system of overseeing local alcohol sales.

"It served as a wake-up call to everyone in the system," said Joe Wall, executive director of the N.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Association.

In Durham, county commissioners are struggling to get the situation under control. On Monday, they will decide whether to allow the current ABC board to continue trying to rescue the operation. Whatever they do, county taxpayers can expect their leaders to play a larger role in the business of selling liquor in Durham.

"In a sense, our finances are tied in with theirs," Commissioner Ellen Reckhow said. "We need to take this very, very seriously."

Since January, when state ABC officials learned that the Durham system's pre-holiday liquor-buying binge essentially bankrupted the system, investigators and auditors have swarmed into the system's office on Chapel Hill Boulevard and its 12 liquor stores.

A state Alcohol Law Enforcement agent is grilling employees about allegations that they accepted NASCAR tickets and free dinners from vendors who urged them to order more liquor. A Durham County sheriff's detective wants to find out who made $1,500 in calls to phone sex lines from ABC headquarters. An ABC attorney is considering turning over evidence of a former employee's unauthorized $7,000 raise to the authorities.

Two auditors hired by the ABC board are looking into management and finances, while a state auditor has interviewed ABC staff members about the system's scrambled books.

Such intense scrutiny, a first for a large ABC board, is compensating for a lack of attention given to the 60-year-old organization over the past several years, county and state officials said.

Durham County officials said they can absorb this year's $540,000 shortfall in ABC revenues without affecting programs or tax rates, but the deficit has raised questions about whether the county and city have ever reaped the full benefits of government liquor sales.

State regulations mandate that local governments should keep any ABC earnings left after taxes, expenses and required payments for law enforcement, alcohol treatment and education.

Sales boom no boon to county: But while the system's records show that sales grew 40 percent in the past 16 years, none of that increase ever made it into the county coffers. Instead, the extra money has been swallowed up by salaries, contractors and landlords.

In September 1980, a year in which the system grossed $8.6 million, the Durham County ABC board voted to set a fixed annual payment of $80,000 to the city and $720,000 to the county. The payment has not gone up since.

"When I was auditor, I questioned why the city and county did not ask for more," said Alan Rigsbee, who worked for 12 years as the board's internal auditor and two as general manager. But the ABC board never reported to the city or county about its growing resources. Nor, apparently, did the city and county ever question their $800,000 payments.

After a record $12.1 million in sales last year, the profit was lower than in 1982, thanks in part to a payroll of $1.3 million that included $93,000 in overtime.

By comparison, the ABC board in New Hanover County did similar sales last year with 27 full-time workers who earned $924,000, with no overtime. The New Hanover board paid $1.285 million to its city and county governments.

But Durham ABC board members have long complained that even the $800,000 in county and city distributions is too much. When the ABC board faced a budget crunch in 1993, it didn't lay off store employees. Instead, the board fired two of the five ABC police officers and told the rest to ease off on policing underage drinking, because the board no longer could afford that level of enforcement.

"We had some real lean years," said Norman "Skip" Carden III, who served as Durham ABC board chairman from 1987 to 1995. "I took a lot of heat because I let go the two officers. I was trying to cut expenses and increase profit."

Missing records mourned: For all the ABC records that show fiscal shortfalls, the records that don't exist could cause the most damage, county officials said. In reviewing the 1995-96 books of the ABC board, accountant Fred Roberson said missing inventory records meant that nobody had a complete grasp of that year's finances.

Because the ABC board is considered part of county government, its finances compose part of the county books. Patricia Gravinese, Durham County's finance director, said this year's lack of accurate ABC numbers meant the county had to render a "qualified" opinion on its audit.

Unless someone reconstructs the missing ABC records, the county may have to qualify its opinion on next year's audit as well. Gravinese said two shaky audits in a row could prompt questions from the bond rating agencies, which now award the county a top-notch triple-A credit rating.

Durham's credit worthiness has saved millions for taxpayers on bonds with lower interest rates. County leaders are loath to part with their triple-A distinction, which as of October was held by only two other counties in the state.

"We've got to show to rating agencies that we take this seriously, and we're going to do something about it," Gravinese said.

"If I am an informed investor, and I see Durham County has not done anything about a serious situation, I say, 'Is there anything else out there that Durham County has control over that it's not doing anything about?' " Ronald Aycock, executive director of the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, said the top rating also brings a county other benefits.

"When industries look at an area, the fact that there is a triple-A government is a strong positive," Aycock said. "It's a smudge on a very, very good record if the effect is that triple-A will be withdrawn."

Durham's tribulations show the possible pitfalls of the state's system of overseeing its liquor sales.

The state's 158 liquor control boards operate in a bureaucratic nether world between local and state governments. Neither pays much attention to the boards' internal affairs as long as they keep the local stores stocked with liquor and make their required tax and distribution payments.

In Durham, the county commissioners appoint a three-member board whose members earn $1,200 to $1,500 each year to oversee the ABC system. Both remaining ABC board members, Betty Mushak and Ed Pope, volunteered for the positions because they were concerned about underage drinking.

But they found themselves at the helm of an $11 million business approving leases for new stores, working out personnel problems and buying computer equipment. Meeting for a few hours every month, the board had little grasp of the finances other than the monthly sales reports that showed booming business.

"We were operating under the assumption that financially, we were all right," said Pope, a retired businessman.

In January, the board learned the true status of its organization from the state officials who took it over: overdrawn bank accounts, $1.2 million in overdue bills and a computer system so dysfunctional that the board's financial officer had taken to keeping the check register on handwritten notebook pages.

In over their heads: When commissioners demanded an explanation from the ABC board, Mushak acknowledged that she and her colleagues did not know what they were getting into when they volunteered to oversee alcohol control in Durham County.

"In conclusion, no board for this or any other agency in the county should take on such serious responsibilities without sound guidance," she said.

"That can happen when there are no clear, written guidelines for your citizen volunteers, appointees or elected officials about the day-to-day operational expectations for the agency they are supposed to guide."

The troubles in the Durham ABC board have caught the attention of state officials and government experts. But no one says they represent fundamental flaws in North Carolina's liquor sales monopoly.

"It's an isolated situation," said Mike Herring, the state ABC administrator. "I don't think we'll see it happening anywhere else. Now that this Durham situation has come to light, it just puts all the local boards on guard."

Herring said the problems are no argument for privatizing liquor sales.

"When you throw it into the free market, you have advertisements in the window that are going to be drawing in people, and probably minors," he said. "That's not what we want in North Carolina."

Local officials said tipplers and teetotalers alike in Durham County can expect to see some changes in their ABC stores. The board's plan to repair the organization includes improving office procedures, hiring part-time employees and possibly shutting down unprofitable stores.

"The reason this one is so unsettling is that Durham is a large board in a relatively prosperous area of the state," said Wall, the director of the state ABC association. "I'm sure that they will get the matter straightened out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.