Royal flush

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Nov 23, 2005

You've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em, according to the old Kenny Rogers song. And District Attorney John Newsome's office last week finally had sense enough to fold 'em -- even if belatedly -- in the embarrassing saga of the Palmer Lake poker bust. The district attorney offered two of those facing the most serious charges stemming from April's guns-drawn raid on Guadala's Restaurant -- owner Jeff Hulsmann and his wife, Peggy Jardon -- a deal that will allow them to avoid trial if they agree to stay out of legal trouble for a year and meet a few other minor stipulations. It seems another acknowledgment that the bust was a blunder -- a clear-cut case of overzealous law enforcement.

This more or less brings closure to an episode that could have been avoided had law enforcers used a little less brute force and a little more common sense. A warning would have been enough to end the poker games (assuming they are illegal). But for reasons that remain unclear, the police took another tack, acting as if they were raiding the Cali Cartel instead of the Elephant Rock Texas Hold 'Em Poker Club.

Most of those busted had their charges dropped in exchange for a $50 "donation" to a charity of their choice. This was the first admission that the criminal case against them was weak or that Newsome's office had higher crime-fighting priorities. Last week's deal only compounds that impression.

The story would be over, except that four of those charged have refused to make the $50 donation. They seem inclined to call Newsome's bluff, demonstrating the difficulty of trying to stare down a poker player. We admire them for standing on principle, even if it makes Newsome's staff squirm.

"My principles are telling me to go to trial, but practicality kind of says follow everybody else's lead," said Trish Flake, who sits on the Palmer Lake Town Board. "I'm glad it's turning out OK for everybody, but part of me says we should go to trial (because) we are law-abiding citizens and didn't believe we were doing anything incorrect."

We'd like to see these cases go to trial because we think this might help clarify a gray area in the law concerning the legality of such activities. "The (poker) tournaments are legal as long as they don't charge entry fees, according to the Colorado Division of Gaming," a recent Gazette story indicated. "But according to the Colorado attorney general's office, the tournaments violate the law because businesses profit from food and beverage sales generated by unlicensed games of chance."

A spokesman for Attorney General John Suthers further muddled the issue by indicating that "local law enforcement officials can choose whether to prosecute businesses for holding poker tournaments," even though none have. If state law was crystal clear on this question, would Suthers leave enforcement to local discretion? Probably not.

Were we writing the laws, such games would be legal. It seems absurd and self-serving that the state would legalize gambling on one hand while coming down hard with the other on mom-and-pop poker games. But this is what happens when the government begins regulating personal vices and victimless crimes, legitimizing some while prohibiting others. It's idiotic sending SWAT teams to raid small-stakes poker games while the state is running a legal lottery.

Deputy District Attorney Amy Mullaney told The Gazette that "the system in this case worked exactly as it should. What it is our job to do is act in the best interest of the community and justice." But we can't see that the interests of community or justice were served in this case.

Hulsmann says he'll accept the deal. But he, like we, would like to see state law clarified on this question. "Let's get something in black and white," he told The Gazette. "Maybe we'll make lemonade out of lemons and get some legislation passed."

Maybe. But we wouldn't bet the house on it.

Talking turkey on the Patriot Act

Renewal of the USA Patriot Act, passed hastily in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to give the government broad new police powers to investigate security threats, ran into trouble in the House and Senate last week. The Bush administration's own hard- nosed attitudes also share blame.

Sixteen provisions in the original Patriot Act were set to "sunset," or expire, after four years so Congress could consider them anew in light of changed circumstances. The expiration date is the end of this year.

The House and Senate bills passed this year make 14 of the provisions permanent and leave a sunset on two of them. The Senate version contained a few added protections for civil liberties and set the sunset for three years, while the House version further expanded government powers and had a 10-year sunset. So the bill was sent to a conference committee to work out a compromise.

Two weeks ago it looked as if a compromise would lean toward the Senate's version. On Nov. 16, however, it became clear the administration was playing hardball with conferees and insisting that the Senate safeguards be watered down. It looked as if the conference committee would approve something closer to the House version.