Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, June 19, 1990                   TAG: 9006190378
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: DRETHA M. PHILLIPS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A CASE OF CRIME CREATION?

In the parlance of the criminal-justice profession, good, effective law enforcement is as much proactive as it is reactive. It anticipates criminal activity and stands ready to intervene at the moment of occurrence or, even better, serves as a presence that decreases the likelihood of - maybe even eliminates the opportunity for - criminal activity.

Examples of such proactive law enforcement abound: neighborhood patrols, roadside checks for intoxicated drivers, so-called speed traps, and surveillance of people whose activities have aroused suspicion regarding their lawfulness. The purpose here is either to prevent a crime from occurring altogether or, barring that, to catch the responsible party in the act of committing a crime.

Sometimes, though, law-enforcement agents become overzealous in their desire to catch people in the act of crime. They go well beyond anticipating crime to actually providing the opportunity for, virtually ensuring the commission of and participating in the criminal activity itself. Rather than inhibiting it, such law-enforcement practices create crime.

An example of this kind of questionable law enforcement is found in a current practice in Roanoke County that was described in the June 15 Roanoke Times & World-News article, "Sheriff's beer bust operation goes flat." Some cashiers/clerks for "quick-stop" or carry-out establishments have been charged with, and summoned to court for, selling alcoholic beverages to persons under 21.

The persons to whom those beverages were sold were hired by the county law-enforcement agency for the express purpose of attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages. They were indeed "underage" (typically, 20 years old) at the time of the sale, but appeared to be older than 21 - a requirement for the job, understandably, if the attempts to purchase alcoholic beverages were to be successful more often than not.

The cashiers who have been charged with selling alcoholic beverages to minors were notified of the charge by mail, not issued a citation at the time of the sale. As a result of their not being charged at the first occurrence, they were allowed, even encouraged, to repeatedly commit the crime of selling beer to these underage customers. They are now, several months later, at a distinct disadvantage in trying to recall, much less defend, a sale that they had no reason to suspect was anything other than routine and legal.

This law-enforcement operation can be criticized from several angles and raises a number of unsettling questions.

What are we to make of the fact that the underage customers possessed the "natural disguise" of looking older than their years? Having been successful in purchasing beer while underage, what was to prevent (or even discourage) these young people from continuing the practice on their own time or telling their friends about the locations of their success? What happened to the alcoholic beverages that were purchased during this operation? What special status did these underage customers possess that ruled out their being charged with illegal purchase of alcoholic beverages? What was the ultimate or real purpose of the operation?

That is the most troublesome question: What law was being enforced?

Try as I might, I cannot think of a reasonable answer. Instead, I see crimes being created, laws being broken, by those very people who are entrusted (and paid) by the public not only to act as law-enforcing agents but also to serve as a law-abiding presence in the community. Is there any sense, common or otherwise, in breaking the law to enforce it?