The Northwest Herald carries an updated story today about last night's "drug bust" in Woodstock in the 300 block of South Madison Street. I know the block well.
For some reason, the NWH decided not to allow comments to the story. Why not? And in a week it will disappear into the archives, available only to those who are willing to cough up $2.95 to refer to it again.
For the record (according to the NWH) the passenger in the car was arrested. The passenger was Joshua Slaten, 33, of 15520 Kishwaukee Valley Road, Woodstock. The case is already listed in the court system. Somebody is working hard at the courthouse, even on Saturday.
The female driver of the car was not identified in the article. According to the story, she was not charged and was released at the scene. Is that what happened?
Presumably, if the police had probable cause to stop her in the first place, did they ticket her for a traffic violation? What would be the reason for withholding her name and information about a traffic charge? Why wouldn't they take her to the station for further questioning and learn what she really knew about whatever was in the car that attracted the drug dog's attention? And why was the drug dog used at all?
In case you have trouble finding the story (it's already off the homepage and buried in "More Woodstock headlines") it's at www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/04/10/r_0cy_mewfsix0qleox_ug/index.xml
For some reason the NWH has pulled its first story from the online edition.
According to the NWH article, "Woodstock Police said in a press release late Friday that Slaten was charged with unlawful participation in methamphetamine production, a Class 1 felony, possession of methamphetamine manufacturing material, a Class 2 felony, and methamphetamine possession, a Class 3 felony."
Later in the story, it reads that the State police would conduct tests on what was removed from the car. So how did the police so quickly determine that Slaten could be charged with methamphetamine production and possession?
This story represents a new high in eliciting comments from police and fire personnel about an evening's arrest. I don't remember a time in the past ten years where police commented to a reporter so quickly or where the department's press officer made a statement so quickly after a traffic stop.
A public defender was appointed for Slaten in McHenry County Circuit Court this morning.
Slaten is no stranger to the local court system. If you are curious, go to www.mchenrycircuitclerk.org and look him up by name.
And remember, no matter what his past, he is still presumed innocent until found guilty. Or is it guilty until found not guilty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
No comments are allowed because it's a "crime article". Once it becomes a "court article" then comments will be allowed -- presuming the NWH will report about any court happenings.
I, too, wondered at the non-arrest of the female driver. If she was not arrested, there's no reason the release her name to the press.
Common sense would dictate that there would be a ticket for a traffic violation, if the police had enough reason (?) to pull the car over in the first place.
Be patient, Gus, and you can comment on the NWH website once they go to court.
PS It would seem to me that the NWH is not always consistent with the commenting policy. For example, rarely are comments allowed on the "Police Reports" section, yet sometimes, I do see that the comments option has not been disabled. Just sayin'...
Once again - I know others have mentioned it.. The original story is still there. There are two articles about this "bust" For whatever reason (maybe a plot to drive you crazy?) the Herald creates a new copy of an article, leaves all the comments behind (they don't just erase them) when they update a story the next day. See it all the time. Just go to local headlines or whatever and browse down the list and you'll see them. There's no mystery about how this got into the clerk's computer so fast. Pretty obvious when you think about it and READ what is on the computer. He was in rights court Saturday morning. Court cannot be held without a clerk in attendance. The jail brings the prisoner down, along with all the paperwork and the drying ink on it, and as they read to defendant his rights, the clerk is entering the basics into the computer so they know what the judge said, like "Preliminary Hearing on April 15th in front of Judge Condon." As for the charging... There are presumptive tests available to the officer on the street that will establish probable cause that the substance is illegal. Something new in law enforcement that's only be around for about 35 years or so. How can someone so sure of himself be so out of touch with what a rookie police officer knows before he is even fitted for a uniform? As for the girl? Maybe she wasn't charged, maybe she is a juvenile, maybe it's not of your business, maybe the paper didn't think it worth the ink, maybe...
It would seem to me that the police would need the ticket for the traffic violation to justify the stop and the eventual search with the drug dog.
Thanks, Picket. I see that the first story is still there. I believe I saw both stories listed under "More Woodstock headlines" and, then, the next time I looked, only one was there. The one is still on the homepage, too.
The Chicago Tribune has an article on this story, and they are allowing comments.
The Slatens, Josh in particular, have been trouble as long as I have known them. I see time has not changed that. The parents must be so proud!
Post a Comment