DA ignores some drug cases, cites costs

By THADDEUS HERRICK
Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle San Antonio Bureau

SAN ANTONIO A district attorney on the U.S.Mexico border is refusing to
prosecute suspects from smalltime federal drug busts because he says the
related costs are unfairly being passed on to local taxpayers.

The prosecutor's refusal is the latest showdown between border states and
the federal government over who should shoulder the burdens associated with
the Mexican border.

Routine busts, such as those that turn up less than 100 pounds or so of
marijuana, are usually referred to local authorities, allowing federal
officials to pursue bigger cases. But Laredo District Attorney Joe Rubio,
who represents Webb and Zapata counties, says the cost of incarcerating the
roughly 600 offenders arrested by federal officers each year is about
$600,000.

"I'm no longer going to accept them," said Rubio, who warned federal
officials of his intent last summer but took no action until Oct. 1.

He argues that the federal government should pay to prosecute and jail all
of its offenders which in his jurisdiction, it has suddenly been forced
to do. The federal caseload in Laredo is expected to double.

In a letter to state and federal officials last week, Rubio said, "I do not
understand the federal government's apparent unwillingness to reimburse
Webb and Zapata county for the expenses associated with these cases since
the federal government is responsible for them anyway."

The district attorney's cause has met with tremendous support from
prosecutors up and down the 2,000mile border, where drug trafficking has
surged in past years. Nearly all the prosecutors say their predominantly
poor, minority communities are being stretched thin by pennyante federal
cases.

"You can't blame a community like Laredo for trying to get some relief,"
said El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza. "There is a clear economic
impact from the government's policy."

Border states and communities that share the international boundary with
Mexico have long argued that they are being asked to do too much on a
variety of matters related to illegal immigration and crime.

This week the Supreme Court ruled against Arizona and California in their
claim that as victims of an "invasion" of illegal immigrants they should be
reimbursed millions of dollars. Texas argued a similar case, but after
losing chose not to appeal to the high court.

In the Laredo case, the federal government has expressed some interest in
resolving Rubio's dilemma. Gaynelle Griffin Jones, U.S. attorney for the
Southern District of Texas, which includes Rubio's district, said the
district attorney's argument is valid but problematic.

"Webb County is aggressively pursuing the issue, as it should," said Jones.
"But a huge influx of cases could create real problems for us."

The Laredo debate took little time to reach Washington, where Texas
legislators seized the issue. In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno dated Aug. 14, Rep. Henry Bonilla and Sens. Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey
Hutchison, all Republicans, admonished the federal government.

"As representatives of this region, we believe strongly that our
constituents must not be exposed to unnecessary risks and that the federal
government must meet its responsibilities," they said.

Border prosecutors fear that crackdowns such as Operation Rio Grande, which
supplies the Border Patrol with more tools and manpower between Brownsville
and Laredo, will mean more federal cases for them to prosecute. Federal
officials say this is not necessarily true.

"As they bring more resources to the border, they make more arrests," said
El Paso's Esparza. "That has a ripple effect on our system."