Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Miami Police Bust Alleged Drug Ring; No Fourth Space Walk; Civil Rights Debate Over Random Searches in New York Subways

Aired August 04, 2005 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: School bus drivers, custodians, a school cook and a doctor, just some of those rounded up by Miami-Dade County Police for allegedly trying to obtain the drug Oxycontin.
Our Susan Candiotti is on that story -- Susan.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kyra.

Not the kind of thing you want to hear as school gets under way. But yes, we got that news from both the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, this was a federal operation, along with the U.S. attorney's office. As you indicated, 29 defendants were picked up in early morning raids this day, including, as you pointed out, some bus drivers, a cook, some custodians and the like, but not only them, a doctor as well, who according to an 84-count indictment, kicked off the scheme with some of these defendants by filling medically unnecessary prescriptions that were then given to these defendants, and they, in turn, had those prescriptions filled illegally.

Now, here is how the U.S. attorney explains generally how the scheme worked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, U.S. ATTORNEY: In general terms, defendants, including public school employees, would either obtain medically unnecessary prescriptions for Oxycontin, or would forgo these prescriptions and instead forge them. They would then present these prescriptions at local pharmacies. The defendants would sell the filled prescriptions for cash to codefendants. And in addition, submit fraudulent insurance claims for the costs of the prescriptions. The indictment alleges that the scheme involved approximately 100 forged prescriptions for medically unnecessary -- or medically necessary prescriptions accounting for thousands of Oxycontin tablets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: Now, none of those pills, according to officials, has been confiscated, even though thousands of them were allegedly sold on the street. About 50 pharmacies were taken, in effect, located in both Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, before these pills were then, in turn, sold on the street. And according to one defendant, says the indictment, the mark up on these tablets was really something, selling for $34 per tablet.

Now the doctor who is allegedly involved in this scheme, is a Dr. Ronald Harris of Miami. He, however, gave up his license, according to state records, last year, because of either a medical, physical or drug or alcohol addiction problem. That much is unclear from the public Internet records. However, he no longer has his license.

Back to you, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Susan, when we look at school bus drivers, custodians, a school cook being arrested here, do we know how many kids they were dealing to, the age of those kids if this was going on -- I mean, how popular is this in the schools?

CANDIOTTI: Authorities stress there is absolutely no evidence that any of these pills were sold to children. And normally, Kyra, this drug, Oxycotin, brand name Oxycontin, is not generally popular with children that much. That's not usually their drug of choice. In any case, in this particular instance, there is no information about children being involved in the scheme.

PHILLIPS: All right, Susan Candiotti, thank you so much. Well, just what is Oxycontin? It's a legal prescription drug used for the treatment of pain. And when used illegally, its street names are hillbilly heroin, Oxy and Oxycontin. In a pharmacy, an 80-milligram tablet cost $6. On the street, a dealer can get anywhere from $65 to $80. Susan even mentioned it was being sold for about $30. Well, Oxycontin abusers either chew the tablets, snort crushed tablets or dissolve the tablets water in and inject them to get a high.

The DEA says that nearly nine percent of the U.S. population, nearly 20 million Americans, have used pain relievers like Oxycontin illegally in their lifetime.

Coming up, from mission control in Houston, Texas, why the fourth space walk for shuttle astronauts has been canceled.

Our John Zarrella is there. He's going to tell us about it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: That's our mission control. It's not Houston's mission control, but NASA engineers have decided against another space walk for the Shuttle Discovery.

Let's get right to CNN's John Zarrella at the Johnson Space Center in Texas for more.

Hi, John.

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kyra.

Well, that's certainly good news for the crew. You know, there had been some concern for the last day or two about this puffy blanket that appeared underneath commander Eileen Collins' window onboard the shuttle Discovery. They noticed that, of course, with the cameras, and they sent teams out to go into wind tunnels with samples of this blanket material, and see if there would be any problems during re- entry with the blanket material perhaps coming off and striking a portion of the vehicle and damaging it while it was returning to Earth.

Well, just a few minutes ago, in fact, the word was relayed from the ground here, from the spacecraft communicator, Julie Payett (ph), up to the crew that a fourth space walk wasn't going to be necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you know, we have good news. The MMT just got to the conclusion that the blanket underneath the CDR window is safe for return. There is no issue. We had new analysis that showed that the debris transport would be no issue, and we came to the same conclusion with the (INAUDIBLE) funnel test. So basically, no EVA four.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZARRELLA: Of course the astronauts were certainly happy about that word from Julie Payett, who is on loan from the Canadian Space Agency. She's an astronaut there.

Well, today was really a day of rest for the astronauts onboard Discovery and the International Space Station crew, a little bit of downtime. And they used that time, all of them, individually, to pay tribute to the Columbia Seven, as well as the other astronauts and cosmonauts who have died in space.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We honor our lost colleagues. We leave you with this prayer often spoken for those who sacrificed themselves for all of us. They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. With the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZARRELLA: Lasting tributes from the crews to those who have perished -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: John Zarrella, thank you so much, and we'll continue checking in with you of course throughout the hour. Appreciate it very much. Well, straight ahead, the fine line between safety and too much scrutiny. Were these just a couple of guys who loved photography and trains, or were they terrorists on a mission of death? The government checked them out thoroughly.

Appreciate it very much.

Well, straight ahead, the fine line between safety and too much scrutiny. Were these just a couple guys who loved photography and trains or were they terrorists on a mission of death? The government checked them out thoroughly, perhaps too thoroughly. It could happen to anybody, even you. Their story coming up on LIVE FROM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: A matter of security or an invasion of privacy? The day of the botched bombings in London, New York City began random searches of bags and packages carried on board its subways. While city leaders see it as an added safety measure, civil rights activists view it as unconstitutional. And today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging that policy.

Let's talk about it with former congressman and federal prosecutor, CNN contributor Bob Barr. And in Washington, Attorney David Rivkin who served in the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush. Great to have you both.

David Rivkin, what do you think? Are you for this or against this?

DAVID RIVKIN, ATTORNEY: I am for it. I think it is a reasonable measure for a couple of reasons. We know, even before London bombings, with the sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, that subways offer a target of choice for terrorists: mass civilian casualties, opportunity to disrupt free movement. We also know from a constitutional perspective -- and there's ample case law -- that in the case of demonstrable threat to public safety, reasonable measures to protect its safety can be taken.

We live in a society where random checks around Christmas time for drunk drivers have been upheld. Other measures relating to the protection of different places and facilities have been upheld. There's no profiling of any kind involved. This is purely a reasonable approach. It's a random check. I'm, frankly, surprised the ACLU felt compelled to challenge this.

PHILLIPS: Well, Bob, he brings up a number of points here. Is it reasonable? Is racial profiling involved? Is it unconstitutional, constitutional? I mean, let's talk about the fourth amendment and with regard to search and seizures. I mean, so many points here that David brings up. I'm sure you're going to counter.

BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, of course, the first one, Kyra, is he used the term a target of choice. I mean, with a terrorist, by definition, everything is a target of choice, a shopping mall. Are we going to then start searching everybody that comes into or out of a shopping mall or an amusement park? I mean, if you go by his criteria, that, well, simply because something is a target of choice, we need to start taking away people's privacy and searching them simply because they want to take advantage of a public facility that, by the way, they're paying for, then there's no end to where that leads you.

PHILLIPS: But doesn't it make sense, if we're seeing bombings in subways, if we're seeing aircraft hijacks, wouldn't it make sense that these are targets -- you know, targets, and that these type of searches should take place in those specific areas? BARR: No, because they are absolutely meaningless, Kyra, unless you have some sort of profiling. Now that profiling can be unconstitutional, racial or ethnic profiling, or it can be based on a profile of a bomber. That's one thing. But simply standing there and saying, hmm, you know, one, two, three, you're in, one, two, three, four, you're in. I mean, that is absolutely silly. You are not going to stop a terrorist in any way, shape or form by random searching...

PHILLIPS: You think it could be effective?

RIVKIN: May I respectfully..

PHILLIPS: Go ahead, David.

RIVKIN: Yes. And the reason it can be effective is very simple. We know that suicide bombers who, by definition are people who are prepared to kill themselves, to inflict those horrible casualties, care very much about being able to fulfill their mission. In a situation where, if you're going into a subway -- and all due respect to Congressman, there's is a fundamental difference in a shopping mall and facilities like subways, train stations, airports. Because this is the way, in our society, you get from place A to place B.

PHILLIPS: But David, I would think a shopping mall -- think about it, you go into a huge shopping mall, there could be more people in the shopping mall with a couple bombers than in one subway.

RIVKIN: I understand. And some day there may be special screening measures to be taken here. But Congressman made a key point. The Constitutional test is two-fold. Is there a demonstrable need? And I think that's pretty clear. Second, is it effective?

To me, if a suicide bomber knows that there is a good shot, a good chance, one in five, one in six, that before he can carry out his dastardly mission, he would be stopped before he get gets to a turnstile, that is a substantial deterrent. That cause this person to re-think, because he doesn't want to fail, he wants to succeed.

PHILLIPS: Bob, you know what's interesting? Kelli Arena was telling me that her sources were saying to her -- and we talked about this yesterday -- that, more than likely, stopping a suicide bomber or a terrorist will be because a cop on a beat notices something and has right to go for him or her and check her out. Or it will be some citizen that notices something strange, calls in, and says, hey, something's going on here. So the more people out there checking, the better; versus classified intelligence that's going on in the big buildings behind closed doors in Washington.

BARR: Well, first of all, terrorists, yes, they have a very clear plan in mind. And suicide bombers have an ultra-clear one. They want to get on whatever facility or in whatever facility it is, a shopping mall -- and shopping malls are targets of choice for these people, and I think it's probably only a matter of time before we see something along those lines.

But, other than that, they don't think rationally like was just postulated. They don't think, hmm, if I'm going to be the sixth person, I'm going to not get in that line. The only way random searches or arbitrary number searches are going to be effective is by pure luck.

You're much better, as you indicate, by training your police officers, training your transit authorities, and to some extent, training the public to watch out for reasonable suspicion. And if we do that, our chances of stopping that suicide bomber are going to be much higher than simply a random search.

PHILLIPS: That's interesting. David, final thoughts. Because there is some very interesting training that's going on around the country. I know in Seattle, the police chief is now training all his cops with regard to suicide bombers. So maybe that is a better alternative.

RIVKIN: It's not to me, it's not overall. What you do is you put a framework in place, you have police who are performing those random searches. But in the process of pulling every fourth or fifth or sixth person, they're also closely scrutinizing people. Look, a suicide bomber who's standing in line, knowing that he might be searched might be sweating more. His appearance may evidence some kind of stress.

To me, what you do is you layer one approach atop another. But my bottom line view is, it's very sad from perspective, people who just engage in knee-jerk lawsuits every time the government does something that's not good, that's not good enough.

BARR: This isn't a knee-jerk lawsuit. And I think you disparage our legal system by saying that an organization that believes that there are fundamental privacy and constitutional liberties involved and is challenging this sort of blanket, random, arbitrary search, as knee-jerk -- that's simply not the case. This is very well thought- out lawsuit. It may not win. I hope it does, but I wouldn't disparage it.

PHILLIPS: And we will follow -- we'll follow the lawsuit, gentlemen. Unfortunately, we got to leave it there. David Rivkin, I promise we'll bring you back with Bob Barr and we'll follow on the lawsuit and see what happens.

RIVKIN: My pleasure.

PHILLIPS: Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Take a quick break. More LIVE FROM right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Well, the powers of the government in the post-9/11 world, you might be surprised to see how far-reaching they really are and who they can touch.

Here's America bureau correspondent Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Paul Burgess and Randy Olson are train enthusiasts and amateur photographers. So it's no surprise that one of their favorite pastimes is taking pictures of trains.

PAUL BURGESS, AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER: That was Hiawatha service from Milwaukee.

ARENA: Which is exactly what they were doing one day about seven months ago on this very platform in suburban Chicago when they were confronted and detained by police, their car searched and their names and information checked against terrorist databases.

BURGESS: There was a crowd of people standing here staring at us. We're up against a police car. We're not handcuffed. There's two armed officers standing in front of us telling us that we could be placed in federal detention.

ARENA: While it usually doesn't go this far, police officers do have the right to question you and will if you are taking pictures of transportation systems or bridges or other infrastructure. In fact, as CNN was shooting video for this story, our cameraman was stopped and questioned by authorities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was just trying to find out who you were with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I told you who we're with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, OK.

ARENA: As attacks in both London and Madrid have made obvious, trains and subways are attractive targets for terrorists, and terrorists often conduct early surveillance by taking photos.

Burgess and Olson understand that concern, but don't think stopping photographers will help.

RANDY OLSON, AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER: Examine the passengers' baggages. Two rail fans taking pictures on a platform, no. Guys getting on, looking suspicious with, you know, oversized suitcases, maybe you should stop and look at them, you know?

ARENA: Photography isn't the only hobby that could result in a confrontation with law enforcement. Ken Kurtis owns a dive shop in Los Angeles. He received a subpoena from the government in 2002 asking for customer information going back three years.

KEN KURTIS, DIVE SHOP OWNER: It was incredibly broad. It was incredibly unfocused, and, from that standpoint, in my opinion, going to be incredibly unproductive.

ARENA: Intelligence at the time suggested terrorists might be planning an underwater attack. And agents have the right to request business records while conducting terrorism investigations. Kurtis refused to comply with the subpoena and filed suit. And officials voluntarily backed off. But many other dive businesses did provide information, deciding security trumped their customers' privacy.

Most Americans are intimately aware of post-9/11 restrictions when they travel on airplanes, for example, taking off your shoes, going through metal detectors, showing your I.D. But most are probably not as familiar with new aggressive laws and practices that law enforcement and the federal government are now using in the war on terror.

Did you know, for example, that someone accused of plotting a terrorist attack can be held indefinitely if the president says so? The president, as commander in chief, can detain people allegedly fighting for the enemy.

(on camera): Jose Padilla got off a plane here, at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. His feet barely touched the ground before he was taken into custody, the attorney general alleging that he was involved in a plot to set off a dirty bomb in the United States. But Padilla was never charged. Instead, he was declared an enemy combatant and has been in military custody for more than three years. Padilla is a U.S. citizen.

(voice-over): Most enemy combatants are held overseas and are not U.S. citizens. The government argues Padilla's capture in the United States and subsequent detention are legal because al Qaeda made the U.S. a battlefield when it attacked New York and Washington on 9/11. Padilla's lawyers filed suit, arguing the government should charge him and present its evidence in a court of law.

DONNA NEWMAN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSE PADILLA: What the government has done is not only tried Mr. Padilla in the media before the public, they have charged him and been the jury. How convenient, except that it is such a violation of our Constitution that it is egregious.

ARENA: The FBI's new mandate to prevent terror attacks has raised other constitutional questions.

Did you know, for example, that your home could be search without you ever knowing if the government thinks you are a national security risk? Well, federal agents thought Brandon Mayfield was. Armed with a court order, they took 10 DNA samples, 335 digital photographs, searched his computer hard drives and wiretapped his home.

Mayfield had no idea until almost a year later. At the time, authorities thought Mayfield's fingerprints matched those found near the scene of the Madrid bombings last year, a good enough reason for a judge to sanction the government's actions. Later, the FBI admitted the prints did not match. And Mayfield is now suing.

GERRY SPENCE, BRANDON MAYFIELD'S ATTORNEY: You don't want to have people walking into your house and violating your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. That's what it's about. ARENA: Did you know that FBI agents have the authority to not only enter your home, but can enter your church, synagogue, mosque, or political meeting to gather information? Well, they can. Because, John Ashcroft relaxed FBI guidelines after 9/11. But many agents say they won't, without a good reason.

KEVIN PERKINS, BALTIMORE FBI OFFICE DIR.: I think what the public needs to know that any type of investigative technique along those lines, there is significant oversight by either -- by a judicial body, perhaps by Congress, perhaps by the inspector general's office.

ARENA: Kevin Perkins runs the FBI's Baltimore Field Office. With a major port and its proximity to the nation's capital, he says he doesn't have the resources or the desire to spy on law-abiding citizens.

PERKINS: We have to have a real specific reason why we do things we do.

ARENA: Case in point, under the Patriot Act, the government has the power, with a court order, to demand a library hand over a list of books you've borrowed, or Web sites you visited on computers there. Well so far, it's a power officials say they have not used.

Just as the public is getting used to the new powers, Congress is considering even more changes such as giving the FBI the ability to get records from hotels, schools and other businesses in terror investigations without even going before a judge and broader authority to examine the outside of letters or packages mailed to people connected to terror investigations. It's all supposed to make us safer.

PERKINS: I have to know that stopping a terrorist attack is my number one goal. But at the same time, protecting people and their civil rights is very important to me.

ARENA: Still, some, like photographer Paul Burgess are concerned about what the future may hold.

BURGESS: It's the old argument of the slippery slope. And I know people tend to laugh things off, and say, well, that can never happen. But you know, if you look at the history of police states, most of them are incrementalists.

ARENA: Burgess says ultimately Americans have to speak up like he did if they think the government is going too far.

Kelli Arena, CNN, Chicago.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com