CAPE GIRARDEAU NEWS GUARDIAN: THE REST OF THE JOHN MARTIN-LOUIS JORDAN STORY

~Correction: Dear Editor:

Don Pritchard's Advertorial in your Dec. 9 newspaper contained a misquote of a letter I had written to the Assistant City Attorney about the Louis Jordan/John Martin dispute.

Don Pritchard quotes me as saying that I had spoken with Patrolman Louis Jordan and with John Martin and found them both "unbelievable." Actually, in my letter I said I found them both believable. Their versions of what happened are identical in almost all respects. In the few areas where they differ, I feel each man honestly believes his version is exactly what happened.

I hesitated to write this letter pointing out the misquote, because I hate to see this already over-publicized matter get any more public attention. I dislike seeing a mountain being made out of a molehill. On the other hand, I don't want anyone to have the perception that I feel Louis Jordan has told anything but the truth. He is a fine police officer and if my life were in danger I would want an officer like him protecting me. Even though, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I feel he didn't handle the John Martin leaf-burning incident perfectly, it should certainly not be considered a career-ending incident.

I don't know whether Don Pritchard or your printers put the "un" in front of my word believable, but it made a tremendous difference in the way my letter read.

Very sincerely yours,

H. Morley Swingle

Prosecuting Attorney

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The mistake was a typographical error made by the newspaper. We apologize to Mr. Swingle for the mistake. Thanks for bringing the matter to our attention.) (RAN 12-10-90, PAGE 8A)

"Oh, how I miss the News Guardian Newspaper."

I have heard that comment many times since Gary Rust bought the paper and shut it down last August. Some miss the competitive rates for advertising, others say they miss the alternative editorial viewpoint offered by the newspaper. The fact is many people miss the News Guardian.

These thoughts ran through my mind as I read the five paragraphs, a cutline and photo, which the Southeast Missourian devoted to tell the John Martin-Louis Jordan story in Thursday's edition. Something was missing. What I consider to be a very important part of the story was not to be found in Jay Eastlick's story, or in the previous stories on the October incident in which a Cape Girardeau police officer is alleged to have used unreasonable force in trying to arrest Martin for burning pine needles in the street.

Had the News Guardian been publishing you would probably have read several stories on the incident. Perhaps Tony Stephens would have written an editorial on the folly of a police officer making an arrest and then trying to find an ordinance to justify the arrest later.

While I have not the journalistic skills of Lori Berry, or Stephens' ability to make a point with a needlelike sharpness I would like to allow you to read, what I believe has been missing in the John Martin story. When you finish reading it decide for yourself whether or not it should have been part of the Southeast Missourian's coverage of the incident.

At Wednesday's council meeting, Martin displayed a letter written by Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney H. Morley Swingle. This letter was sent to Assistant Cape Girardeau City Attorney Allen Moss after Moss asked Swingle to consider the October 20 incident.

Martin made public the contents of this letter at Wednesday's council meeting, but the letter was not mentioned in the Southeast Missourian article. In fact, the only mention in the newspaper that Swingle was contacted about the incident, is a reference in an earlier article by E. J. Rotert, that Swingle had decided against filing charges against the officer involved in the incident, Louis Jordan.

In the interest of providing the readers of this newspaper with this information, I am including the entire contents of the letter in today's advertorial. The letter is dated November 13.

"Dear Allen:

"At your request, I have reviewed the 42 pages of paperwork you sent me concerning the altercation between Louis Jordan and John W. Martin on October 20, 1990, and I have questioned both Patrolman Jordan and Mr. Martin about the incident. I understand that you would like to have my thoughts concerning any charges that should be filed. I will not only give my thoughts on that question, but will also go a bit beyond that request and make a few suggestions about steps I think should be taken in this matter.

"First, I would mention that I am not interested in filing a state charge against either Louis Jordan or John Martin. I find no state statute that would prohibit burning leaves on the street. I do not believe the state littering statute, 577.070, RSMo., would be construed that broadly. Nor would I consider Louis Jordan's physical contact with John Martin significant enough to be sent over as a state charge. The touching was the type of touching that should be addressed in city court rather than state court.

"Obviously, whether either Louis Jordan or John Martin should be prosecuted in city court will be up to you. In my opinion, neither should be prosecuted in city court for any offense. Rather, I feel Louis Jordan should be reprimanded by the department for his role in the matter, steps should be taken to be sure that in the future an adequately indexed list of all offenses is available to the desk sergeant so that any crime may be located within seconds, and some type of additional training should be given in locating offenses. I would also recommend that John Martin be notified of any sanctions Louis Jordan receives.

"I feel the whole incident unnecessarily evolved into a hostile encounter mainly because Patrolman Jordan did not have the specific offense at his fingertips at the time he told John Martin that Martin was violating a city ordinance. In hindsight, Louis should have checked with the desk sergeant before he began the confrontation, just to confirm that an ordinance existed making the burning of leaves on the streets unlawful. If he had known in advance that it would take hours to find an arguably applicable offense, he would probably not have proceeded as he did. Likewise, if the desk sergeant would have been able to provide him with the citation in advance, or quickly when asked, Louis could simply have written out a summons and departed before the situation got ugly. As it turned out, both men ended up behaving in a stubborn and rude manner to each other. While no law prohibits a private citizen from being rude, I'm sure the Cape Girardeau Police Department never wants an officer to behave in a manner that could be considered anything less than courteous.

"I feel Patrolman Jordan acted inappropriately in grabbing John Martin to turn him around to place handcuffs on him. I understand that legally, under the law, Jordan had the right to arrest a person he reasonably believed had committed an ordinance violation, and the arrest could include physically taking him to the station. I further understand that the policy of the department is to frisk and handcuff all people being arrested, for the safety of the arresting officer. I further understand that in a situation where a summons normally would have been issued, but the subject is refusing to give his name, it will often become necessary to arrest the person to be sure he will be properly identified. In this case, though, the underlying offense was burning leaves on the street. I don't think a full custody arrest should have been attempted, or even considered, even though the subject was being belligerent. Rather, a summons should have been issued at that time, or the officer should simply have left and had a charge issued later once he had adequately identified the offender.

"I do not think Louis Jordan should be prosecuted for his touching of John Martin because it was done in the course of making an arrest. The fact that no charge was ultimately filed against Mr. Martin would not affect the validity of the force used in making the arrest. I feel Patrolman Jordan used bad judgment in even considering a full custody arrest in a leaf burning case, even though Mr. Martin would not provide identification. Jordan could be reasonably sure the person he was dealing with was John W. Martin, based on the information already in his possession.

"There are really two alleged assaults involved here. In addition to the force used in making the arrest, John Martin also maintains that Louis Jordan bumped shoulders with him as Jordan walked past him. Patrolman Jordan adamantly denies this allegation. Mr. Martin insists that it happened, and that it could not have been accidental. Frankly, I find both of them unbelievable. I feel the touching took place, but that Jordan may not have realized it. I feel a prosecution of Jordan on that touching would be fruitless, because I don't think a judge or jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jordan intended the touching to take place.

"I would recommend that the department look closely at improving the ability of the desk sergeant to provide the officer on the street with the exact citations to ordinances and statutes. I well realize the tremendous number of laws currently on the books. I also realize that the city ordinances and state laws are not always well indexed. I think the department, if it has not done so already, should have their own extremely well-indexed reference to all possible crimes at the front desk at the fingertips of the desk sergeant. Obviously, whatever system is now in effect does not adequately index leaf burning.

"I feel Louis Jordan should have promptly told John Martin his name when asked. He should not have given the ultimatum that he would arrest Martin if he had to move the leaves himself. He should not have resorted to a physical arrest when Martin cursed him and refused to give his name. In short, he should have exercised more patience and better judgment.

"I am not aware of the parameters of what sanctions are available at the Cape Girardeau Police Department to discipline Patrolman Jordan in these circumstances. I feel some type of sanction is appropriate, so the other officers will know that the department does not condone the judgment calls made by Louis Jordan in these circumstances. Unless Louis Jordan has complaints of a similar nature on his record already, though, I would consider termination of his employment far too extreme. I have seen the work of Louis Jordan in other cases and have always been favorably impressed with his performance as a police officer.

"Finally, I would recommend that John Martin be notified of all the decisions the department makes in his case. As the victim of an alleged assault, he is entitled, just as any other victim would be, to be notified of your decision whether to prosecute Louis Jordan. Further, even though there may be rules saying internal investigations will not be made public, I suspect those rules can be waived with the consent of the officer. I would think Louis Jordan would consent to letting John Martin know whatever internal sanctions are imposed on Jordan. If the department doesn't let John Martin know what became of his complaint, he could reasonably conclude that nothing had been done, and the whole investigation would look like a cover-up even if it weren't.

"I am sending both Louis Jordan and John Martin a copy of this letter, but I am not releasing any of the reports you sent me. I hope this letter is of some help to the Cape Girardeau Police Department and the City Attorney's Office in determining how to proceed."

Very sincerely yours,

/s/ H. Morley Single

Prosecuting Attorney

cc: Chief Howard Boyd

Patrolman Jordan

Mr. John W. Martin

The foregoing needs little, if any, additional comment. It, in my mind, at least, lends a great deal to the understanding of the incident, and the role played in it by Patrolman Jordan.

John Martin will be a guest on the Don Pritchard show Thursday morning at 10 on KAPE AM 1550. You will have a chance to call 335-5517 and ask him any questions about the incident which you may have. I also invited Police Chief Howard Boyd and Patrolman Louis Jordan, but Chief Boyd declined the invitation, and said he did not feel it advisable for Jordan to appear either.

I would like to hear from Jordan, since so far, we have only heard from one side of the incident. There are at least two sides to this incident, and I would like to hear both of them.