Posted on 08/31/2002 9:15:32 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Police watched store robbery, court files say
BY JIM BROOKS
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
North Little Rock police knew hours ahead of time that a convicted robber and kidnapper planned to hold up a convenience store Feb. 8 and watched as the robbery occurred, court records reveal.
But police never told the store clerk and waited until the armed man left the business before attempting to arrest him, the files show.
Investigators were tipped off about the robbery of the E-Z Mart at 3600 MacArthur Drive by a confidential informant who dropped the robber off a short distance from the store while police staked out the business. Police knew the informant would be driving the robber to the store, the records say.
Police confronted Willie Roy Lowery, 32, as he walked from the store, but Lowery bolted and hid for three hours in a nearby drainage ditch before he was arrested.
The clerk, Aaron Black, was not injured in the robbery. Black declined a request for an interview.
Black’s mother, who declined to give her name, said her son told her that police explained their timely presence at the convenience store by saying they were in the area investigating reports of cars being broken into at a nearby business. (Police lying to civilians!?> Say it ain't so!)
"It sounds like they [police] put my son’s life in danger," she said when told about the court filing. (No Mam, They DID put your son's life in danger.)
North Little Rock Police Chief Danny Bradley said that, after speaking with prosecutors handling the case, he would not release details or answer specific questions about the incident until a forthcoming trial is concluded. But the chief said police have to consider multiple factors in determining the safest way to apprehend a suspect.
"A lot of times, you make the decision to allow the person to leave before trying to make an apprehension," he said. "I can say that as a matter of policy... the safety of the public is our primary concern."
Efforts to reach criminal justice experts at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, as well as at the Criminal Justice Institute in Little Rock, were unsuccessful.
The circumstances surrounding the robbery emerged in court documents filed by prosecutors who were attempting to keep the identity of the informant a secret from Lowery’s defense attorney.
The informant issue surfaced during a July 24 jury trial that had to be rescheduled. Pulaski County Circuit Judge John Langston set an Aug. 12 hearing on defense attorney Herb Wright’s motion to force the state to name the informant. Four days later, Langston ruled in favor of the defense.
In a response to the defense motion, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Melanie Martin outlined the testimony expected at Lowery’s coming trial: "A confidential informant gave the officers a tip on the evening of Feb. 7 that the defendant would be robbing the store sometime that evening," Martin wrote. "This led to the store being surrounded by officers at the time of the offense.
"The facts would reveal that this confidential informant dropped the defendant off approximately fifty yards from the store and then drove off. The confidential informant was not detained by the police, nor was he arrested and charged with being an accomplice."
Lowery was on parole at the time of the robbery. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison in June 1987 after being convicted of aggravated robbery, felony theft and kidnapping, but was paroled less than 11 years later. In September 1998, he was returned to prison after his parole was revoked, but he again was released on parole in July 2001. After his arrest in the E-Z Mart robbery, Lowery was returned to prison. His trial date on aggravated-robbery and theft charges is set for Sept. 10 in Langston’s court.
A trial on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm is set for Oct. 31 in the same court.
The robbery occurred about 3:30 a.m. on Feb. 8 and was captured on the store’s video cameras.
A police report in the case said a robber entered the store wearing a hood over his head, threatened Black with a handgun and demanded money. The robber took a packing knife from Black and forced him to walk from the store at gunpoint, court records reveal.
"After exiting the store with the clerk, the defendant [Lowery ] was surrounded by officers and told to stop," Martin wrote in the court document. "He fled from the police, and during the pursuit dropped the money, cigarettes and his jacket."
North Little Rock police arrested Lowery several hours later after he emerged from a drainage culvert near the convenience store. Lowery did not have a gun when he was arrested, but he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm based on his statement to detectives.
Martin and Wright declined to speak about the impending case.
Kim Fowler, a spokesman for E-Z Mart corporate offices in Texarkana, Texas, said the company works closely with law enforcement officials in every community.
"We trust that they know what they’re doing," she said. "We have faith in their ability to serve and protect."UN FREAKING BELIVABLE!
Dale Sides, director of loss prevention for the company, said he knows of several situations in which police staked out a robbery without notifying the clerk.
"This is really not uncommon," he said. "In fact, clerks are probably better off not knowing."
Sides said if a clerk is aware of an impending robbery and knows police are watching, he might act nervously or impulsively and put himself in more danger.
"He might have false hope knowing that officers are just outside and might do something to endanger himself," Sides said. "Our No. 1 priority is the safety of our employees."
North Little Rock Alderman Tony Vestal declined to comment on the police’s handling of the robbery.
"I knew that the robbery occurred, but I didn’t know about the exact circumstances," said Vestal, who represents the ward in which the robbery occurred.
"Without having all the information, I wouldn’t want to make a judgment one way or the other on how the police handled it."
That meets the definition of a personal attack and meets the criteria of being reported as abuse on this forum...
Actually a personal attack would have been if I had said that you WERE smoking "wacky weed". A question as to whether or not you are smoking wacky weed does not constitute a personal attack. It is a rather legitimate question in your case....
? I don't follow your reasoning with that statement.
What abuse. It was a question that merely suggests that the poster considers your replies illogical. Lighten up. These kinds of questions are abundant on the threads but most people take them for what they are.
Maybe it has to do with citizens taking it upon themselves to protect themselves knowing someday there may not be sufficent time to wait for them to respond , not to mention it is the right we have to excercise .. ?
The police had NO right to place this person directly in line nor indirectly in line with harms way . I dont see how your past direct support of the police in the past changes this in the slightest way .
Uh, if they can sit outside of the store in wait for the robbery to occur, they had enough manpower to do what has been suggested and have an undercover officer in the store in place of the clerk.
If they have enough manpower to give out speeding tickets and handle ANY police work at all, they have enough manpower to handle a possible armed robbery and homicide.
What do you mean, "a tip to the contrary?" Are you saying that murder in the commision of a robbery is such a rare thing as to be negligible? Or did they receive some "tip" that guaranteed that this particular robber was harmless, and if that were the case, why didn't they nab him in the commission of the crime?
Your contention is that this was great police work, the police would have been prosecuted for murder if they had shot the perp during the course of the robbery, and that the prosecution depended on the testimony of the civilian clerk, as if a police officer had been in the store it would have somehow affected the ability to prosecute the bandit.
Yep, I'd say that those contentions are irrational.
If they felt the tip to be legitimate enough to stake out the store, they should have felt it legitimate enough to place an undercover officer in the store as well...
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.