Poor Police Perfomance Provides Possible Pot Provider Payoff

Money seized in pot case to be returned

SR man to get more than $43,000 back after court rules cash seized improperly

I only know what I read in the newspaper, but talk about accountability.

Who drafted that defective search warrant?

Who was the deputy district attorney who reviewed and approved the search warrant?

Who was the officer that went before a judge and swore that the information in the warrant was correct?

What judge signed off on a warrant that seemingly failed to link the place to be searched to any crime?

Who in the world in the District Attorney’s Office thought it would be a good idea to contest the civil forfeiture after the criminal case was dismissed?

Even a graduate from Pat Robertson’s law school should be able figure out that a person’s property shouldn’t be seized under civil forfeiture based upon a criminal case that has been dismissed for lack of probable cause.

Further, after the decision was made to take action, who in the District Attorney’s Office was responsible for the double screw up of (1) filing the incorrect motion, and (2) not filing on time?

According the the Sheriff’s May 24th 2005 press release:

“At the second residence, (Eisenhauer’s residence) Task Force agents seized a pound of marijuana, a gram of heroin, scales, packaging material, two loaded handguns, 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun. As Task Force agents continued their search, they located a safe deposit key. It was determined the safe deposit box was at a local financial institution.

Detective Andy Cash and his K9 partner, “Chiva” went to the financial institution. Upon receiving consent to enter the business, Chiva alerted to the safe deposit box which enabled Detective Cash to obtain a search warrant. When the safe deposit box was opened, Detective Cash located $42,500.00.

Back at the second residence, Michael S. Eisenhauer, 45yrs, of Santa Rosa was arrested for Possession of Marijuana with the Intent to Sell, Possession of Heroin,and Possession of a loaded firearm during the commission of a felony.”

So, it just might be that Eisenhauer isn’t exactly squeaky clean as your story suggests.

Note, also, that your story states that Eisenhauer has no criminal record in Sonoma County, which seems to suggest he might have a criminal record in another jurisdiction.

Straight possession of marijuana is one thing, but add the scales and the packaging material, and you have possession for sale. And then there’s the $40,000 of apparently drug tainted cash sitting there in a safety deposit box.

All this should add up to a pretty good possession for sale case.

Not to mention possession of a gram of heroin – a straight felony.

And the guns.

But thanks to some apparently unbelievably poor work by everybody involved, another one walked.

The people of Sonoma County deserve police officers who can put a case together, prosecutors who review the work of the police officers, and file the proper motions in a timely fashion, and finally, judges who actually read the warrants they are signing.

I’m just saying….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: