Thai Sweatshop

Your recent coverage of the Thai garment workers case ignores or misstates crucial facts. First, federal prosecutors’ determination in 1992 that there was insufficient evidence of criminal activity to support the issuance of a federal search warrant was correct. No amount of hindsight can alter the fact that an uncorroborated tip of an anonymous informant, without independent evidence of criminal activity, cannot justify a federal search warrant.

Second, when the INS was unable to gain independent evidence of criminal activity, it referred the matter to local authorities, who visited the premises three times and found no evidence of criminal conduct.

Third, when the INS received new information in 1995, it promptly pursued those leads and cooperated fully with the state through the time of the raid. Far from pulling out of the investigation, the INS made the arrests.

Fourth, as to the U.S. attorney’s office, contrary to Robert Scheer’s Column Left (Aug. 11), federal prosecutors first learned of the 1995 leads three days--not two months--before the Aug. 2 arrests. This hardly constitutes “indifference to slavery.”

Finally, the U.S. attorney’s office makes no apologies for observing the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. If The Times truly believes an “explanation” for observing basic constitutional guarantees is necessary, it is this: We seek federal search warrants only where there is probable cause to do so.

NORA M. MANELLA, U.S. Attorney

Los Angeles