Drug cases have been thrown out against a Garland couple and more cases could be called into question because a Garland police officer falsified legal documents.
The taint on the drug case Garland narcotics detective Nicholas Kubiak built against Andrew West and his co-defendant began with information he put in the affidavit to secure a search warrant. He wrote he received information from an ‘anonymous tipster,’ but at a hearing last Friday admitted that was not true.
“I received third party information from an officer who received that information from an officer,” Kubiak confessed.
“If it was an anonymous tip, then it was an anonymous tip,” said attorney Heath Harris. “But if that source came from law enforcement, then that should have been written in that report.”
Heath Harris is in private practice now and headed up the public integrity unit in the Craig Watkins administration.
“When you wear the white hat, you got to do everything by the book,” said Harris. “And it doesn't appear this officer did that.”
In the same affidavit to get the search warrant for 5522 Jester Road in Garland, Kubiak wrote West could possibly be receiving large quantities of marijuana from Colorado.
On the witness stand, Kubiak admitted that was speculation because West had an outstanding felony warrant from Colorado for cultivation of marijuana.
Former police officer and retired federal judge Joe Kendall says the inconsistences from Kubiak are glaring.
“I see so many problems with the story that I have learned about that I really don’t know where to start,” Kendall said. “One of the statements, either to the magistrate judge or Judge McDowell, in court is obviously not true, both under oath. That’s what’s called perjury and a lot of citizens would be charged under such circumstances.”
The drug cases have now been dropped against West and the woman arrested with West.
Kubiak is no longer working cases and the district attorney and Garland police have opened an investigation into other cases he has made, hoping to reassure the public.
“What the general public says is, ‘If you lied about that, what else did you lie about? If you lied on that case, what other cases did you lie on,'” said Harris. “So again, that’s what causes the domino effect that could bring down a whole department.”