Our intuition can be a useful sense to anticipate actions but it can also lead us down errant paths. The study of logic recognizes that and labels some types of arguments as logical fallacies. The ad hominem argument is one that attacks a person's character and actions to convince the listener that something unrelated is true. It works quite often. However, it's totally invalid and proves nothing. It wouldn't work with, say, a robot but intuition allows it to sometimes work with us. (It's been a special favorite of politicians in Washington lately.) (See, I just used it.) (Actually, it's probably true in the Washington case but I've not offered any proof, just opinion.)
 
Does logic tells us which ring to watch in the three-ring circus that a pending drug trial in Dallas has become after three Garland police officers have given testimony, but not in the usual sense? The circus opened with the trial. The second ring opened when two officers testifying at the trial publicly questioned the veracity of the the third, arresting officer Dennis Morrow. As I mentioned here when I first posted on the case, I know nothing more than what has been in the news (which is only proper). An article in yesterday's Dallas Morning News reports that Officer Morrow may not have accounted for money to informants properly.
 

Garland police officer admits to questionable practice with informants

02:13 PM CDT on Friday, March 26, 2010
By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News
teiserer@dallasnews.com
 
Garland police Officer Dennis Morrow admitted during a hearing Thursday that he sometimes had informants sign pay sheets without immediately filling in the amount he paid them – a practice deemed questionable by law enforcement experts – but he denied ever stealing any money.
 
Under questioning by Dallas County prosecutor Tim Gallagher, Morrow testified that he did realize that having informants sign blank pay sheets could create an appearance problem for him.
 
"You could [infer] all kinds of different things," Morrow testified.
 
[Read more here.]
 

 
The article adequately covers the defense's assault on Officer Morrow's character. If his actions were outside department policy in any way, it will be damaging to his drug case and his career. We don't yet know that. Internal Affairs had apparently not found any improper actions. We have to be careful to not commit a logical fallacy, even if our intuition is screaming along one of those paths. No dots have not been connected.
 
The third ring opened when the Dallas Morning News sought police internal affairs documents that the Garland city attorney's office believe are protected by state law.
 

From the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog:

Garland city attorneys stirred up that newspaper obtained "confidential" records

11:01 PM Thu, Mar 25, 2010
Tanya Eiserer/Reporter
 
It's not often that my name is tossed around as much as it was today in a Dallas County courtroom.
 
By way of background, I recently wrote a story about Garland police Officer Dennis Morrow who has been accused by his fellow officers of misrepresenting what happened during a July 2009 drug bust.
 
As I explained in a prior blog post, I sought to obtain a copy of the internal affairs investigation under the state's open records law, but was blocked because of a little-known state statute that exempts certain internal affairs records from public view.
 
The three Garland city attorneys who showed up to Judge Pat McDowell's court today exhibited great consternation that I had obtained a copy of the investigation through other means.
 
Assistant City Attorney Mike Betz told Judge Pat McDowell that the legislature had made these records confidential as a way to prevent officers from being "drug publicly through the mud when an investigation has not revealed wrongdoing."
 
In asking McDowell to issue a protective order, Betz pointed to a provision of the state law that he claimed made the release of the records a crime.
 
"So let's be clear, a crime has been committed," Betz said. "I'm not saying Ms. Eiserer committed a crime. Whoever released these records to her has committed a crime under this statute and I'm just asking the court to issue a protective order to prevent a crime from being committed."
 
Betz also asked the judge to recall the documents to anybody that has them, including me. (Now, that would have been an interesting turn of events if the judge had done so, and I'm sure the newspaper's attorneys would have had a field day.)
 
In the end, Judge McDowell declined Garland's request to issue any sort of recall order, noting that the proverbial cat was already out of that bag. He also noted that he had given the same records to a number of attorneys.
 
"Ms. Eiserer is certainly a very industrious reporter," McDowell said. (Thanks, Judge. I took that as a high compliment.)
 
Incidentally, McDowell did grant the city's request that a protective order now be placed over the documents that Garland has turned over to the court.
 
Later on, I asked defense attorney Bill Wirskye, who was involved in Thursday's hearing, what he thought about what had transpired in the courtroom. Here is the scathing response he sent via email:
 
"Garland PD and their phalanx of city attorneys should be more worried about their officers committing felonies in violation of the Penal Code than someone violating an obscure and inapplicable provision of the Government Code," he said. "It never ceases to amaze me the lengths these 'public servants' will go to shield themseves from an independent and searching review of their actions. Clearly they are embarassed that they swept this misconduct under the rug."
 

 
At this point, I'm not so sure others are trying to present just the facts and not insert personal opinions. Our attorney's office would be expected to follow the law; that's what they have done and the judge agrees. I don't get the acerbic quote being included from the defense attorney. What does one expect from the defense? Capitulation? It's important to note that the judge did not see the law as an "inapplicable provision of the Government Code" and neither did the DMN since they're not planning a "field day."
 
As to not being "worried about their officers committing felonies in violation of the Penal Code," I assure everyone that we all are. If the defense attorney can connect the dots, he will. Until then, it's conjecture.
 
The reporter following this case says she could not legally obtain internal affairs documents because there was no suspension of more than a day involved. Still, she did obtain a copy, which everyone admits (except the defense attorney apparently) was a violation of the law by whoever gave it to her. In a responding comment to one of her blog posts, Ms Eiserer says, "Frankly, I could care less about investigatins [sic] regarding minor procedural violations, ie a minor car wreck, being late for roll call or the like. What I do care about are allegations of police brutality, excessive force and other types of serious police misconduct. Surely, you do not think that all police departments are as above board as you claims yours is? Unfortunately, there has been a long-standing practice of many departments to hide serious misconduct rather than deal with it head-on. Tanya"
 
There's still room for another ring in this circus. We don't know who gave Ms Eiserer a "tip" eight months ago or the motivation, or who gave her the legally-protected documents. Has she decided that our police department is hiding "serious misconduct rather than deal with it head-on?" We don't know how the defense attorney got information that just happened to take him down this path of inquiry at this particular time. We have officers arrayed against one another but we don't know the truthfulness of any of the statements, any hidden grudges, or what might be simple misunderstandings.
 
This show's not over.