A little while back there was a big to-do about a group called Kopbusters that set up a sting on the cops in Odessa, Texas. The basic gist is that former narc and now pro-pot activist Barry Cooper was approached about some allegedly corrupt cops in Odessa. Cooper and his group, called KopBusters, made a house up to look like a “grow house” where pot is grown. Nothing illegal and nothing demonstrating probable cause, but still the sort of thing that cops look for when determining whether or not drugs are being grown indoors. They got the raid on video. Since that big splash, it has been alleged that the KopBusters planted the tip that the cops used for the raid. However, since it was an anonymous tip there are still questions about whether they really had probable cause. On the other hand, if the KopBusters did plant a tip, that is illegal, though KB is denying it and it all becomes a matter of which side one chooses to believe. Google “KopBusters” and “Odessa” for all sorts of information, much of it contradictory.
This post is only tangentially related to the Odessa raid and is more concerned with KopBusters themselves and the advancing degrees of disgust I felt on reading about them. Not because they’re bad people or even that their cause isn’t worthy. If they catch corrupt cops, they’re doing the public a great service. Further, while I am not in favor of large-scale drug decriminalization, I do favor decriminalization of pot and I am skeptical of the lengths to which we go on the War on Drugs. So in many ways I am on the same page as they. In fact, it’s that more than anything that makes me irate.
It’s not easy for proponents of drug legalization to be taken seriously. Advocates are often their own worst enemy in this regard and KopBusters are exemplars of this. People are not going to listen to some kid with long, shaggy hair and Birkenstocks on law enforcement. They lack credibility because it seems obvious that they want pot legal because, well, they want to smoke pot. People that don’t want to smoke pot – and whose support you need – are not particularly likely to climb on board. As much as one might believe that the arguments should be evaluated on their own merits, who is making the argument is crucial. Potheads for Pot Legalization is a PR Loser. Likewise, people that hate authority in all its forms are not likely to carry people that… well… don’t hate authority in all its forms.
The first sign that KopBusters was not a group that I was going to be donating to any time soon was when I went on their websites and they repeatedly refuse to identify police officers as anything except “kops”. Spelling “cops” with a “k” for the group’s name for the sake of trademarkability and recognizability is one thing, but it’s different when you’re crossing the line into disrespecting the people that you disagree with (whether they deserve the respect or not). You also want a webpage to load correctly, which theirs does not uniformly do (this is only a minor quibble, however). Hawking Cannibis Culture magazine is also a bad idea. Cooper himself has long hair, pictures of himself indulging in pot, and a couple interviews where the guy looks and sounds stoned.
This is not who you want leading the cause.
You want well-spoken, clean-cut guys with short hair wearing suits. You want guys that refer to the police officers as Officer This and Lieutenant That. You want to deprive the opposition of any and every argument you can make that you are not dead serious about what you’re doing. You want people to believe that you support legalization because you believe the War on Drugs is wrong and not because you hate “kops” and want to smoke pot with impunity. That Cooper himself is a former narc could have been a godsend to the movement, but it was squandered away by Cooper’s need to express himself in his appearance.
This is exactly not to say that Cooper is wrong here. I really don’t know. He says in the video that he’s doing this for Yolanda Madden, the young woman arrested and convicted on dubious grounds for drug possession. To the extent that she was railroaded, he’s letting her down.
About the Author
26 Responses to Grow Up, You Dirty Hippie
please enter your email address on this page.
sidenote: I’m not for marijuana legalization, but that’s set aside for the purpose of this discussion.
I agree – if you want a movement like this to succeed, what you need to make it succeed is clean-cut guys in suits with short haircuts and steady jobs who can (preferably as credibly as possible) say, on-camera, “this does not impact my ability to work and be a productive member of society.”
Cooper’s status as a former narcotics officer would be a godsend to the cause, you are right, except for his appearance (not helpful) and moreover, his inability to be articulate in describing situations and the precise situations that caused him to switch sides. Some of that may be court-order related, I’m not entirely sure; you’d think someone intelligent enough to serve as a narcotics officer and provide case-winning testimony to juries would be better at speaking than this.
On the one hand, I think in the case of Yolanda Madden. The secondary problem is that the cops keep changing their story: their search warrant for the “Kopbusters Sting” says one thing:
The pastor, meanwhile, denies any knowledge of the letter. This raises the serious question: why, if it was an “anonymous” tip, does the affidavit peg the pastor? Likely it was to tip the judge’s hand and get the warrant, because according to Supreme Court precedent (Terry v. Ohio, 8-1, Florida v. J.L., 9-0), an “anonymous” tip that is verified only by confirming innocent information (suspect description, description of a house, or similar info) is insufficient to serve as probable cause for a police search.
There are any number of things that the police could have put on an affidavit to gain a search warrant, but it’s pretty clear that there is corruption among the Odessa police. Among other things, at least one officer perjured himself by telling the court Yolanda Madden confessed to him at a time when, according to Police logsheets, he and Yolanda were nowhere near each other.
Again, none of this is to say that you are incorrect. Barry Cooper, if he were to clean up his appearance and perhaps do a little less pot (especially before TV appearances!!!), would make a much more respectable face for his movement, and would probably be a lot more help to Yolanda Madden, who was finally released from jail on December 18th (but may be forced into a new trial, since the federal judge legally maneuvered to declare it a “mistrial” rather than throw out the conviction entirely).
I wish “Kopbusters” would clean up their act somewhat (especially Barry Cooper), but I also think a few more stings in other areas would be advisable. I suspect Odessa was targeted because it was Cooper’s home base before his conversion, and he knows many police officers in the area who participated in what he considers to be shady conduct. I can’t say for sure that other jurisdictions are in the same boat and if he wants to prove his case that this is an overarching problem wherein cops perjure themselves in getting warrants and use phony “tips” or illegal searches (such as FLIR camera checks) to hunt around, then he needs to demonstrate that police departments in other areas consistently fall for the same sort of trap.
I can’t say for sure that other jurisdictions are in the same boat and if he wants to prove his case that this is an overarching problem wherein cops perjure themselves in getting warrants and use phony “tips” or illegal searches (such as FLIR camera checks) to hunt around, then he needs to demonstrate that police departments in other areas consistently fall for the same sort of trap.
While I do not really have an opinion on the corruption of the Odessa Police Department, all indications are that it was the KopBusters that phoned in the anonymous tip. That doesn’t let the OPD off the hook because they did not get them enough to make a warrant, but that presents a significant legal problem because it’s a crime. I doubt we’ll be seeing any more KopBusters movies.
Other side note:
On the other hand, if the KopBusters did plant a tip, that is illegal
True, but we’ve got a small problem. Police have (after trying to hide it and refusing to produce the warrant and affidavit for some time) finally admitted what they had in the warrant and what their tip supposedly was. Even if “planted”, the tip is insufficient information (under law) to justify the warrant, and the police “confirming” information also fails to justify the warrant. In other words, even if the tip was planted, the police conduct related to it reveals some pretty systemic corruption.
Also, if you want to prove that Yolanda Madden was the victim of a tactic known as the “informant plant” (one that has been used, and discovered, before; one example would be the case of US v. Oxendine), then proving the local cops/court are in the habit of using falsified/phony information to obtain warrants helps your case.
Like I said “that doesn’t let the OPD off the hook”. However, the false tip is still a crime. Without the false tip to gauge police attention towards that particular address, the trap doesn’t really work. Since the trap requires a crime be committed and they were called on it, I don’t expect they will be doing it again.
Will,
all indications are that it was the KopBusters that phoned in the anonymous tip.
according to the documents finally released by the police (available here), no phone call was involved. It was an anonymous letter which they blamed on Pastor Terry Pierce of Odessa First Church of the Nazarene (who is also a part-time police chaplain). Later they fingered instead Pastor Terry Pugh of Odessa United Pentecostal.
The final, and unfortunate, problem of the law is that in order to have standing for some form of a lawsuit, you have to have been affected by the law. So if you want to prove the police are improperly investigating tips or using illegal search techniques, you have to set up something in a way to draw their attention.
Cooper’s claimed the police themselves could have written the letter (which would match with his claim that Yolanda Madden was a victim of an “informant plant” and also would match the police perjury claiming she had confessed).
There’s enough room to be suspicious about police behavior in Odessa here, whatever you think of Cooper (and I really, really am with you on the point that he should clean up his act if he wants to be taken seriously).
Web,
I believe Cooper (or one of his people) called the OPD or gave them a letter or whatever giving them enough information to bring attention to the house but not enough for the police to get a warrant. I believe the OPD then fabricated additional information to get the warrant. The alternative to this is that the OPD likes to spend their spare time driving up and downs streets looking through their special light. Even if the OPD does do that, the likelihood that they went down the specific street where this house was is negligible. I don’t believe the KopBusters had that kind of time, so they sped things up a little bit. The problem is that it was illegal to do so regardless of how corrupt the OPD may be. That what I believe the OPD did was illegal does not make what KopBusters did legal. They are exposing themselves to criminal liability. That’s why I believe that there will not be any further KopBusters episodes. I also believe that’s why there haven’t been any since.
The alternative to this is that the OPD likes to spend their spare time driving up and downs streets looking through their special light.
It would be fairly simple to mount the camera in a squad car, pointing off say ~20-30 degrees, have a patrol partner watching it while driving through a neighborhood on previously-scheduled patrols. In an area with high drug trafficking, high incentive to make drug busts (association with a large-scale “war on drugs” effort) and a decent number of “empty” (for-sale or for-rent) houses, it’s not that much of a leap to conceive of the cops thinking “well there’s got to be one or two in this area”, deciding to “confirm” it unofficially and then focus in on the newly-suspect houses with bogus informants/tips and other information later.
The other thing interesting with this is that the Supreme Court case ruling it an illegal search was actually pretty narrow and rests on three tests:
#1 – the device is not commonly available to the public
#2 – the device “intruded on the privacy of the home”
#3 – it was a 5-4 decision.
In reverse order, the fact that it was a 5-4 decision makes it easier to overturn later. The fact that it was ruled to “intrude on the privacy of the home” makes for an oddity; dissenting opinions point out, for instance, that the same observation could be (legally) made by police simply observing that everybody’s house but a suspected pot grower’s had unmelted snow on the roof. Justice Stevens’s quote, “Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building,” makes for an intriguing argument that could easily turn up in a reversal down the road, especially if/when technology such as ocular implants (visual eye replacement) or thermal imaging assistance (to help drivers at night) becomes common.
The final, which is somewhat accounted for but not entirely in the Kyllo v US majority opinion (penned by Scalia), is that the technology is “not commonly available to the public.” The problem here is that as the technology becomes more common, it’s easier and easier for the cops to take a legitimately done civilian item and turn it to their use (get an avante-garde art photographer to, say, photograph the neighborhood with a high-resolution IR filter, and then identify targeted houses with the resulting photo). Again the trick becomes that eventually, the technology will be “more or less” ubiquitous, at which point the SC may well rule that it’s no longer an “unreasonable” search.
It’s possible that it wasn’t KopBusters that tipped off the police, but I simply find it considerably less likely than the alternative. Even if they bought a house in a questionable neighborhood, they’d be leaving to chance how long it would take them to be strolling up that neighborhood with that equipment on patrol. They could be sitting on it for weeks or months. Odessa is not a small place.
It’s not just that the OPD would have to stumble across the place, but rather that KopBusters entire plan counted on it. Spending not-insignicant amounts of money each month hoping that the patrolman would be stopping by and would have the light on and would be paying attention. Or… they dropped the dime themselves because they believed they were (and actually were, to an extent) doing the public a service and that the ends justified the means. I suspect the latter.
There are a couple of other reasons I suspect that KB was behind the call. I’m about to leave for Arapaho, so I’ll have to jog my memory and verify it later.
It seems to me, in this case, to be a classic example of hiding behind one controversy to attack another. It seems these folks in this instance are primarily anti-police and anti-authority, and would gladly call out the police when they are involved in any situation they feel oversteps their boundaries (i.e. any and all situations, period).
But, since being anti-police and anti-authority in a location where holding such positions can be, er, (in Fat Tony voice) “hazardous to one’s health”, it’s safer to hide behind something like pot legalization. Using it as a banner and legal front compels others who favor legalization (whether they have a real opinion about the police or not) to rally to their cause. The fact that all these folks are potheads in the first place makes the legalization movement a happy little fringe benefit.
Which should give people reason #7,205 not to trust them.
If you want to go after police corruption, go ahead, but be upfront about it, go through proper channels, and don’t call all policemen “kops”. That’s the same mentality that politicians, political junkies and radio talk show hosts use when giving cutesie yet insulting nicknames to their political adverseries…
Will, I think you should maybe do a piece on decriminalization itself – I have some things to say about it, but realize too this post is not the one to say them on.
I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news. First, the good news: 10,000 marijuana smokers have signed a petition demanding immediate legalization. Now, the bad news: no one can remember where the petition is.
Q. What’s the one question that will stump every pothead?
A. What were we just talking about.
Government corruption, especially in police departments, is serious. The police have guns, clubs, and electroshock devices. They’re organized as paramilitaries, and have considerable leeway in what they can do to eff up someone’s life to enforce laws.
When the police engage in criminal activity, how are they different from any other bunch of thugs? In the Kopbusters case, it doesn’t seem like there was a bad apple. At least a few officers conspired, and coordinated their crimes. Without fairly strict adherence to legality, the only difference between a gang and a government is firepower.
Spending not-insignicant amounts of money each month hoping that the patrolman would be stopping by and would have the light on and would be paying attention…they dropped the dime themselves because they believed they were (and actually were, to an extent) doing the public a service and that the ends justified the means.
So they spent a good chunk of change on the teensy chance that the police were criminals? More likely they had really good reasons to think that the OPD was full of criminals. The way in which they exposed police criminality was illegal, but punishing people for exposing that sets an awful precedent.
So they spent a good chunk of change on the teensy chance that the police were criminals? More likely they had really good reasons to think that the OPD was full of criminals
No, they had good reason to suspect that the OPD was corrupt. What they did not have good reason to believe is that the OPD would stumble across their drug house in a reasonably timely manner. So they had to kind of help the cops along a little by bringing the house to their attention.
To respond to your last sentence, what do we do to people that commit crimes to prove that others are committing worse crimes? Do you let them off? Do you let them off only if they catch who they’re after? Only if the person they are going after works in law enforcement or the government?
As far as I know, the KopBusters have not actually been punished. The OPD can’t prove that they were the ones that filed the false report. However, the scrutiny they got in that regard probably means that they will not do any more of these.
And that, rather than the morality of what KopBusters did or the OPD did, is what Web and I are debating.
The counterargument, will, is again the fact that you have to have “standing” in order to challenge laws or police conduct in court.
Thus, to challenge red-light camera setups in any way, one needs to either (a) be a lawyer who can find someone willing to have you take on the case or (b) run the damn light yourself.
The same thing here; technically the false police report indicated on the police warrant affidavit is a crime (depending where you are, everywhere has different laws and usually multiple possible clauses hidden anywhere from family law sections to police enforcement sections, it could be either a misdemeanor or felony). So, technically, is running a red light to deliberately get a ticket.
Of course this hinges on the particular statute using language such as “files or causes to be filed” rather than simply “reports falsely to police” or “(knowingly) files a false police report.” As far as I know, lying to a priest is not a crime, though it’s probably going to get you in trouble with whatever deity you believe in.
Also, the information given to the police (see previously mentioned Supreme Court rulings) was insufficient to provide for a warrant, as was the result of the police investigation which only verified “innocent” details regarding the house. Somewhere along the way, that shows Odessa police aren’t following procedure correctly at the very least; either they used an illegal search (FLIR) which the judge was made verbally aware of off-the-record, or the judge otherwise authorized a bad warrant on their say-so, possibly because a police chaplain’s name was listed (and should not have been) on the warrant as providing information.
Web,
What you say about legal standing may morally absolve KopBusters, but it does not legally absolve them. It’s simply not a counterargument. Neither is that the Odessa Police actually did something worse. A counterargument would be if you could demonstrate that it was not illegal because of the wording of the law. That would legally absolve them. So, too, would telling someone else who then told the police.
I assume that if either of these were the case, KopBusters wouldn’t be lying about having gotten the police involved.
I’d also add that just because it was illegal does not mean that it was wrong. But that it was illegal makes it far more likely that KopBusters won’t be doing it again.
One other thing: I’m not saying that Cooper and company should be thrown in jail. For one thing, there’s nothing resembling concrete proof of them doing what (I believe) they did. And what they are accused of doing is not worth the money it would take to investigate and unearth the proof. Further, such an investigation would place OPD officers at greater risk, because it would require that the department come clean about what it may have made up to get the warrant.
The only reason I go in to the illegality at all is that it makes KopBusters unlikely to be a regular feature. The likelihood is that the more they do it, the more likely that they will get arrested and convicted. So when Web said that they needed to catch the cops a few more times, I chimed in and said that it was unlikely.
I also want to throw in there that the main point of this post was criticizing KopBusters for something else entirely (something PR-related), not for committing a crime in order to get the job done. I’m really quite sympathetic to their cause and I wish that there were some way that they could do this sort of thing that did not expose them to some sort of criminal liability. And, of course, I wish their cause had better spokesmen. 🙂
The intellectual, conservative commentator William Buckley was for drug legalization for a good while before he passed away.
Barry Cooper is a Fraud and a Liar.
I know for A FACT that he created the letter that was “delivered” to the clergyman alerting the OPD about this “growhouse”.
I know because I was a manager of the project and was the first one Barry asked to “rent the grow house in my name”.
I was also the first one who Barry asked to “be the one who informed the police”. After seeking legal counsel , I declined to perform those tasks he demanded, and I was fired for it.
Barry is such an incompetent stoner that he ” forgot to file” the necessary papaerwork required to run for the office of “Attorney General of the State of Texas”.
Furthermore he is soon gonna be taken down for “Theft” because he stole some Film equipment from some of his Film production crew. The Pflugerville Police department is investigating him as we speak.
-{This comment was modified by Trumwill. Flippant commentary about prison rape are not acceptable on Hit Coffee.}-
To respond to your last sentence, what do we do to people that commit crimes to prove that others are committing worse crimes? Do you let them off? Do you let them off only if they catch who they’re after? Only if the person they are going after works in law enforcement or the government?
As a copout, or perhaps a “kopout” answer, it depends on the institutional behavior, the minor crime required to expose/stop the crimes and whether other avenues could realistically expose the serious crimes. If the police are setting children on fire, and someone has to jaywalk to get a good photo, I think the jaywalker shouldn’t get a ticket. Certainly it’s a contrived example, but there are probably situations where you think the ends justifies the means too.
There are laws to protect internal whistleblowers from retaliation, at least federally. I dunno if the laws prohibit prosecution if the whistleblower had to steal or whatever to expose misconduct.
In the kopbuster scenario, I really can’t envision another way to do it. Prosecutors and judges tend to believe police over the people they arrest and charge. Believing suspects and defendents have as much credibility as cops is not reasonable in general. That assumption that cops are honest gives dishonest officers huge freedom to lock people up. Remember this guy? http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/07/us/the-heat-is-on-a-texas-town-after-the-arrests-of-40-blacks.html
On the original theme of the post, it isn’t just potheads who have that problem. PETA is a classic example of doing their cause more harm than good. PR is a hard for activists of all stripes. Being relatively extreme gets publicity and maybe donations. Activists tend to hangout with people who agree with them, and the echo chamber effect makes almost everyone more extreme: one can notice this at pandagon. Amanda Marcotte thinks the only reason anyone ever disagrees with her about anything is because they hate women. Any reasons they give are just lies and smokescreens obfuscating the real motives. Also, no one who isn’t pretty gungoho about the cause starts organizing around it.
I dunno if the laws prohibit prosecution if the whistleblower had to steal or whatever to expose misconduct.
I seriously doubt it. Most of the time, I suspect that a person that suspects wrongdoing goes to the authorities. They may have him commit crimes under their supervision. Alternately, the guy is caught doing something and goes after someone doing something worse to get out of trouble. In both cases, though, there is an agreement as to what will and will not be prosecuted.
This becomes a problem when it comes to law enforcement because, well, they’re the ones whose help you need. Even going to the DA’s office is risky because they tend to be on the same side as cops and well-publicized cases of bad cops make their job harder. You could go to the feds, though in the case of the drug war, they’re generally on the same side as the local authorities. So everyone whose help you need is disinclined to help you.
I agree that it’s hard to imagine another way for KopBusters to do it. That’s part of the problem. But it’s not a problem where I can see changing the law to fix. Instead you have to rely on prosecutorial discretion or jury nullification. In the case of Cooper, if what Joe says is true and they have witnesses that can attest to the fact that Cooper’s outfit broke the law, then prosecutorial discretion worked in this case.
And honestly, if I were on a jury, I would be tempted not to convict Cooper and company despite their guilt even if there were proof. But that’s a pretty big risk for Cooper and company to take. I would probably be the most liberal member of any Odessa jury.
After doing some research, “Commander Joe” seems to be a common troll that pops up under various names (one site I found had 5 different usernames posting approximately the same screed) whenever the names “Barry Cooper” or “Kopbusters” show up being discussed.
It’s virtually identical everywhere except for the new accusation of “theft.”
Not much credibility there, sad to say.
Trumwill, why do you alternate between trumwill and not trumwill?
Federal involvement, jury nullification and prosecutorial discretion do seem like the best options for dealing with kopbuster-like situations. Becqause crimes to expose bigger crimes could result in punishment, people with a grudge against various organizations are less likely to go fishing. But people who know about corruption would have a decent chance of escaping prosecution for doing something that’s on the whole, a social good.
Maybe whistleblower laws protect against civil suits? Surely going to the feds breaches nondisclosure clauses.
I’m pretty confident that you can’t sue someone for disclosing an illegal act to the authorities.
I go by Trumwill when I’m logged in or something else when I’m at a computer where I’m not logged in.
After looking at a few interviews, another thing did pop up that makes Barry Cooper non-ideal; he professes to have married his pot dealer, and to have been a severe alcoholic who switched over to using pot instead of having a drinking problem. In essence, he’s just traded one addiction for another.
I have to wonder how that’d play in the long term, and it definitely makes him less of an ideal spokesman for the movement. “Drunks for pot” plays about as well as “Potheads for pot”, really.
I would say that potheads are generally going to be less destructive to society than drunks. But yeah, it makes for a poor advocate in the land of appearances.
I agree with it.
Like the Air Jordan Force 3 , colorful Air Jordan Force 4 ,you may never miss it .Especially now Air Jordan Force 5 are released in today market.