Ruling: Trooper did not have cause to search woman in 2004 North Pole case
Published Friday, April 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!The Alaska Court of Appeals issued a decision Friday agreeing with a woman who said an Alaska State Trooper did not have probable cause to search her when he found a crack pipe in her possession.
The incident occurred the early morning hours of Nov. 24, 2004. Susan Brown was driving in North Pole when a trooper pulled her over because her rear license plate was not properly illuminated. The trooper took her license to confirm that she didn’t have any warrants for her arrest, but did not tell her why she was stopped.
The trooper decided to let Brown go with a warning, but before he left, he asked to search her and her vehicle. That search turned up a crack pipe and a small amount of cocaine in her purse, according to court records.
In the 25-page decision released Friday, Judge David Mannheimer ruled that the trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct such a search in the course of a traffic stop.
“The facts of this case present an example of an apparently ongoing and unjustified infringement of the privacy rights of Alaska citizens,” he wrote.
However, the judge declined to identify what suspicious activity would allow an officer of the law to perform a search after pulling a vehicle over. He called the Brown case “a particularly egregious example” because the woman had not been told what she was being pulled over for, and thus could not have known if she had the right to refuse the search request.
“She believed it was the wrong decision and the court said she was correct,” said Sharon Barr, the assistant public defender who represented Brown. “He had no reason to think she was doing anything wrong.”
The State of Alaska, represented by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth M. Rosenstein argued that the search was acceptable because it did not dramatically increase the length of the traffic stop. Courts have ruled that such stops are not to last longer than necessary to accomplish their goal. The North Pole search took place only about two minutes after the woman was stopped.
However the court ruled that because the trooper did not have probable cause for the search, it didn’t matter how much time it added.
Rosenstein said Friday he did not yet know if he would appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. He has 15 days to do so.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Way to go Judge!! Finally someone in the "justice" system who sees what is going on. I can't hardly believe it! Vehicles are getting stopped for piddily things just so some cops can see if they can catch someone committing a crime or they know the vehicle certain people that have reputations drive. Ummm.. an improperly illuminated license plate in Novemeber, reckon it was packed with snow? Be aware those of you with a vanity plate instead of a license plate on the front bumber! I see lots of them everyday and it will be a reason for a cop to pull you over. Yep, 'show me your papers'. Sounds like what our fellow American's fought against and died for in WWI.
One step forward for our rights to privacy...Thanks Judge.
So this woman got off with a crack pipe and cocaine? Wow.
Alright, Ms. Brown can keep driving down the road smoking crack. Way to go judge. You rock. I love playing Russian Roulette with oncoming drivers.
Seriously, MissKitty, that machine that you're driving down OUR road can be dangerous. The law allows the trooper to pull over the driver for a vehicle infraction. If that's going to be a problem, I'd suggest changing your driving habits. Shape up your vehicle, learn what laws (front and back plates at all times) are on the books, stay straight, drive proper, and stay off the phone (ok, that's not a law, but it should be).
It wasn't the privacy of a home invaded, it was the privacy of a doper on a public road.
Shame on that judge.
A favorite tactic of LEOs here, over the past several years, has been to stop vehicles during or after a powdery snow fall, particularly when the license plates of those vehicles are obscured by snow. It's a 'gimme,'in that the 'vacuum effect' created behind a moving vehicle, deposits snow natually onto the flat surfaces behind that vehicle. So it's nearly guaranteed that the plates of many/most vehicles in those conditions will be obscured. At that point it becomes a matter of 'pick and choose' which ones they want to stop.
I haven't seen this in a while now in the blotter, but should it surface again as a routine strategy on their part, someone needs to take a digital camera into town in similar weather conditions, and photograph all of the police cruisers, both marked and unmarked, that have snow built up on the areas around the license plates; specifically those police vehicles that have obscured plate numbers out on the public roadways.
The old 'goose and gander' thing meets the 4th amendment.
Re. the writer's comment concerning the Judge not defining when a police officer has the right to conduct such a search, I think that the fairly clear definition of 'probable cause' is taught at the various police academies, the law schools, and for those slow on the up-take, the court precedents at the law library.
In light of that, does the judge really -NEED- to repeat it again??
If so, the problem may not rest in any 'vagueness' associated with the law, but rather in the minds of those who -routinely- and sometimes -purposefully- push the envelope where the Bill of Rights is concerned, yet repeatedly expect to walk away on grounds of overly-applied and abused concepts like 'good faith,' and 'qualified immunity.'
Ironically, those same persons swore an oath to the very concepts that some of them work so dilligently to find ways around, over or under.
A improperly illuminated license plate would have been the rear one, now if that was barreling down the road at you it would have been a problem. If you want to give up all of your rights, why don't you get a law passed that allows troopers to randomly pull over and search vehicles?
Note: There was no mention of any kind in that article referring to any driving performance or physical appearance of the driver, that would indicate that she was impaired, or currently using what was in her purse, but many here have assumed that she was smoking crack while she was driving.
The search was illegal. And the 4th Amendment didn't get written yesterday. It's been here a while.
Silly me. Assuming that just because Brown was driving down a public road, with illegal drugs and paraphenalia in the vehicle, that she was stoned. I'm sure that there is another good reason for these circumstances. She just found them on the side of the road, and was being a good citizen and trying to dispose of them. Right...
Does it violate the 4th Ammendment if I violate the law at your house, the police show up, find a crack pipe in my pocket, and arrest me for both home invasion and possession. Public roads are exactly that, roads owned and used by the public. Your search and seizure rights should be less than at your own property.
Private. Public. Yep, there is a difference.
Ummmm....he asked her if he could search her car, she said yes, you can, he does and finds drugs n such. What is wrong with this? How is it illegal if he got consent? I think this judge is smoking more than the lady was...
Glacierles: I was just waiting for someone to write exactly what your comment states. I in no way believe that people smoking crack or taking prescribed legal drugs that impare judgement and reflexes should be driving, that was not my point. The trooper broke the law and was called on it. So,do you think that was right? Do you think it is OK for a trooper to take precription narcotic pain medications and drive a patrol vehicle? Are cops above the law as long as they catch the criminal? You have made a whole lot of assumptions about me (that machine that YOU'RE driving, change YOUR driving habits, shape up YOUR vehicle, stay off the phone). I obey the laws, I wear my seatbelt even though I believe there shouldn't be a law to protect me from myself, I NEVER talk on the cell phone while driving and I do not even drink or take drugs, legal or illegal.I have never been stopped for a traffic violation in my life (that's 40+ years). There are real crimes going on besides not having a front plate. The troopers and city cops complain of inadequate numbers of officers to cover crime yet they have time to stop vehicles for snow covered plate lights? Maybe you would like to join the force??
I respect your opinion and you certainly have the right to voice it. Please don't acccuse me of disregaurding safety on our roads. I am mearly suprised by the judges fairness in following the law.
"persons, homes, and affects," is what the Bill of Rights says in the 4th Amendment. Not merely houses/homes.
'Probable cause' means that there is reason (some sort of tangible or circumstantial evidence) to believe that a crime PROBABLY was committed.
If there's a problem with that barrier against undue government intrusiveness, one should take it up with Mr. Hancock, Mr. Henry, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Washington, Mr. Paine, Mr. Adams, Mr. Madison, and their rather respectably large group of friends..
I carry a pocket knife in my truck console, yet there have been maybe a couple of times that I've cut something with it in a year's time, and I've -NEVER- stabbed anyone with it. With the possible exception of my own palm, in trying to open a stubborn celophane wrapper containing food or gum.
On occasion I carry emergency food rations in there too, but it in no way guarantees that I'm eating while I'm driving. And I -LIKE- food!!
Sometimes I carry a 6-pack of beer home from the store for my 1-per-day-average beer, (when I have them), but that doesn't mean that I'm drinking them while I'm driving down the road.
When I hunt moose, I frequently have at least 10 extra bullets in my pack, as well as the three in the rifle. But that neither means that I'm shooting right then, or that I will return home having fired all of the cartridges.. Or even one.
Yes, other assumptions might indeed be "silly." Though 'presumptuous' was really the word that I'd apply in technical description of this circumstance. As in a sentence like, "It was rather presumptuous (or "silly") that in a country that relies on the concept of maintaining innocense until being proven guilty, and incriminating evidence being present before being searched, that I would assume that a person was actively smoking crack cocaine at the time, simply because she was possessing it."
First of all an improperly illuminated plate means that there was no lights illuminating it! If you look at the AK statutes its an equipment violation and a perfectly legitimate reason to pull an individual over. as for the reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle.. An oficer's discretion is based upon what a REASONABLE person would do. If you pull a crack user over, you're going to know they use drugs its not hard to tell.. It's not the Trooper's fault she doesn't know her rights. If she was so concearned about what she was being pulled over for, she should have told him, no you need a warrant to search my vehicle. Fairbanks has the HIGHEST rate of case dismissals in the State and Nation.. its 50-60 percent dismissal. the state average is 20%!. This makes me sick that judge Mannheimer gives the crack user a break. god forbid she should break the law and get away with it. Good Search bad ruling
The old 'goose and gander' thing meets the 4th amendment.
Dirk, I agree with you once again. This is an illegal search and the judge found totally correctly. We need to be ever vigilant about exercising our rights, and this is no exception. The Alaska Supreme Court got it right once again.
This is probably not the exact right place to put this, but Joe Vogler was a true patriot and Alaskan and felt this was the correct stance to take in regards to our rights. We should all heed this even today.
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
Hi YukonJohn. I hope that you're well.
--------------------------------
Well, I believe that there is also the concept of implicit coercion. I can't say whether or not that occured in this case.
That's also a matter of precedent. I recall some interesting cases on the Kenai Penninsula re. that subject. Much different than this, however.
There's also a matter of recent thought in the State's judiciary about persons being subjected to requests for searches as a form of intrusiveness, too.
Re. the obvious and identifiable appearance of crack users, I'd suspect that would depend on how recently they'd used, how long they'd been using, and a number of other factors.
According to cases I vaguely remember, the stop was legitimate, but the search was not. Not in Alaska.
Again; see your local law library (where you may find that similar/(maybe not the same) precedents have already been established in cases from other areas of the State (like possibly Homer, if my rusting memory recalls correctly.)
On that note, I'm needing to do some chores.
Glad I could improve your day MissKitty.
I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, legal or illegal. I really did mean "you" in the general sense, not specifically. My mistake and I am sorry for that confusion.
However, at which point did the trooper break the law? I missed the part of the story where the trooper was on drugs.
Dirk---
How about if you crack one of those beers on the way home? Does that make a difference?
Dirk,
I agree. We have enjoyed more rights, or at least the protection of our rights here in Alaska than have many of our fellow Americans. I tell my friends from America that we are free more like the states used to be. We have fought and beat "sobriety checkpoints" and warantless searches. We have to be ever vigilant about the protection of our rights, even in the face of possibly letting a criminal go. We are Alaskans.
Freedom.
Citizenship.
Anarchy.
2 of the 3 are good things,IMHO. Can you guess which 2?
In the current time period in Alaska, yes, it's different if I open that bottle of beer, and moreso if I'm actually drinking it while I'm driving. However I doubt that crack cocaine frequently comes in a commercially sealed container.
Not too many years ago, open alcohol containers had different statuses or restrictions in this State, and in the Yukon Territory even the driver could have an open container, providing that they weren't impaired, until somewhere near 1978-1980..
The interesting part about their approach was three-fold; The limit there was already .08 BAC, (long before Alaska was) -AND- if they caught persons driving over that specific BAC limit back then, they hammered them pretty hard, (long before they got serious here... Perhaps decades). Thirdly, was the concept of 'we're going to put the responsibility on -you- to behave like an adult (of course, they had a rather European attitude toward beer, too), but if you abuse it, the consequences wil be comparatively stiff.
That ended for many reasons; not all of which had to do with safety issues and accidents.
You know Dirk, you were here when they still would follow you home...would give you a stiff warning and did not try to pull you over for the least thing. And I remember, if you got caught over in the Yukon, you were in TROUBLE, but the limits were different then.
John, I believe that there's a truth to the 'camel's nose' analogy where government authority is concerned.
The camel slips its nose under and into the tent.
That's alright; its nose was probably cold.
Then there's half the head. Again, perhaps it's a chilly night, and even colder than we thought!!.
Then the ears are in, the neck, the front shoulders, the belly, and somewhere down the road, perhaps not even very far, I realize that I'm sleeping with a bloody camel!! ;^>)
------------------------
Daniel Webster said this, and it's one of my all-time favorites;
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
yukonjohn
Since you mention Joe, I thought I'd pass to you a book im reading called "A land gone lonesome" by Dan O'neill.
It is about the homesteaders, trappers, and folk who lived on the yukon river between Circle, Eagle, and Dawson.
The author has mention of Joe Vogler.
The only thing I have to say about the subject is: because a person is not aware of their rights does not give the police the authority to trample them.
Boys, I was here back then also. Used to wave open containers at cops driving by. Go through drive-through liquor stores. But, that's not the point. Or maybe it is. Are you saying that our laws today should legalize driving while drinking? I guess that is libertarian, to the extreme. How about having sex while driving down the road? Reading a book? Playing a game of cribbage? Smoking crack? Let's make stoplights optional.
These are all fine activities at home (except the stoplight thing and the crack thing). Not on a public road. I'm sorry, but your freedom ends at my bumper.
The trooper broke, in my opinion, the 4th amenedment (one of many our country and goverment is supposed to follow).
I didn't say that trooper was on drugs, it was mearly an example and I do know a few that are and driving patrol cars.
BTW- does not having an illuminated plate light impose a hazard to the road and other drivers? I bet not having a front plate doesn't either. Most states do not even require it.
Dirk and YukonJohn.... very good points.
One is capable of the greatest evil only when one believes one is acting for higher purposes."
--Mathematician James M. Henle
with that, I am going to bed...have to work early...goodnight all.
>>>You know Dirk, you were here when they still would follow you home...would give you a stiff warning<<<
Aye, I was. Though I have mixed feelings about it.
I do know that in the early 80s I was stopped on College Rd., driving my ancient Ford pick-up, with a revolver on the dash. The Trooper, when asked why I was pulled over, remained polite, and explained that I had a flickering tail light.
Then he 'fessed up (having different social boundaries then, as well as it being a unique officer), and he told me that to tell the truth, it was a (some sort of high priority week-end, or something), and they'd been instructed to actively look for any reason to pull vehicles over, and perform what amounted to spot checks, more or less.
He asked me to see my revolver, which was on the dash, loaded, and in a shoulder rig, but laying in plain view, as the law then required. I responded that I was ALLOWING him to 'run' the serial numbers on my gun, but that this was different than him having any explicit right to do so. He indicated that he respected that, and I handed him that weapon with my thumb and forefinger, pinching the base of the butt, just as he'd asked me to do. He 'ran' the numbers, and I was on my way.
It was a polite and respectful stop, and I had a window decal, long-ish hair tied back, and a full beard then. And I was treated like a 'citizen' of my Borough/State/Country, etc..
Yes, not in all cases, but more often now than then, times have changed some.
No, glacierles, I was demonstrating that there have been various approaches to these safety issues, and the approaches to the taking of responsibility, over various time periods in the North.
I was not, and am not, advocating for the ability to drink alcohol while driving, or driving while engaging in conjugal relations. As indicated earlier, I don't even desire the alcohol 'high' very much. There are LOTS of aspects to it that are undesirable.
And the older I get, the more susceptible to pain I am. Sometimes getting up in the morning hurts. I can't even imagine how resilient I -wouldn't- be in hitting another vehicle, or smashing into a light pole or wall.
I don't bounce much anymore.
So, you DO accept that there are rules of the road?
Now, as reasonable adults, can we decide what they are and how they are enforced? Just in the interest of avoiding anarchy on the road.
I propose that smoking crack, driving down the road, be illegal.
You know if you are so disatisfied with the Troopers, the laws and everything else then quit complaining and do something about it as in vote for people that will do something instead of telling everyone who votes for them they will either do this or that and never do.
THe laws and criminal justice system we have now are going to change by wishing or complaining if you don't like it do something about it if your not going to do something about it quit complaining. If your disatisfied with the Judge vote him out.
Accept? It's a plain reality in my opinion.
I've travelled well over 1,000,000 road miles, have three kids spanning a fairly wide time-line, and a wife, as well as the previously mentioned sometimes-aching body, all to consider.
I know the difference too, between a political revenuing statute, or law based on fantasy or rhetoric, vs. where my control over my own body ends, and potenaially endangers another's.
I've seen enough graphic accidents involving fatalities that my temper is one of the hottest and fastest rising when I observe adults driving like a 16-year-old who's just borrowed mommy's and daddy's Alfa Romeo. And -ESPECIALLY- in anything remotely resembling a residential area!! (**Seeth and simmer**).
None of that changes the standards for a legitimate search, however. And if she'd been obviously impaired, I seriously doubt that a.) the Trooper wouldn't have verified or made note of that somehow, and b.) that Judge Mannheim would've ruled in the same way.
But my chores are still unfinished, my HRV core is still (now) soaking in cold soapy water, (instead of what was warm soapy water), and it's getting ridiculously late for me to be cleaning the filters and reassembling it. So I'm now off to do that... No, really... This time I mean it...
“The facts of this case present an example of an apparently ongoing and unjustified infringement of the privacy rights of Alaska citizens,”
That's awesome. I believe I was saying something very similar not to long ago on this forum!
Way to go MissKitty, Dirk, YukonJohn!
glacierles -- Way to make assumptions there buddy! Of all the crack heads I've ever hung with (there has been a few), I've only met 1 that actually lit up whilst on the road. Most prefer to wait until they get home!
Well, that blows my arguement out of the water. Free crack for every driver!
Sheeesh glacierles!! And we thought that the -PFD checks- might bring a lot of people to Alaska???!! This is gonna' be bad, isn't it?? :^(
I'm confused (I know, it doesn't take much.) The trooper asked her if he could search her car, and she said yes. How is that unconstitutional? And cops can't search a car on the side of the road just because they feel they have probable cause. They still need to go through a judge to get a warrant, which at o'dark thirty, can be a little hard to do.
Chelly, There have been examples in the past where specific wording has been used in asking for permission to search, such that what might be the obvious likely response ends up sounding the opposite of what's intended, especially if the person is cut off mid-sentence. Again, I don't know if that happened in this case, or not
i.e.
Officer: "You don't mind of I search your vehicle, do you."
Driver: "Why yes, I.. "
Officer: "Thank you."
Was cosent given? Did the individual feel intimidated in any way in re. to the decision that they made, if they did consent? I think that these have all come into question over the years.
Dirk---
That is pretty funny...
Chelly,
I dont know what the particulars of the law are in regards to searching a person, vehicle or house, but as an Alaskan, I think I have the right to tell the police, no, I want to see my attorney, and they have no right to proceed.
Also, Was there any cause to request to search?
AKLEO, 50 to 60 percent? It sounds like the Fairbanks area law enforcement sends a lot of weak cases to the Judges. I'm sure that Mannheimer didn't sit in front of that many cases and there were not that many bad decisions from the Judges.
Oh, please.
Cop pulls over suspicious vehicle.
"Do you mind if I search your vehicle?"
"Dude, man, that's cool. Just dont look in the ashtray, ok? Do you like Hendrix?"
Just as likely, if not more so, than your scenario.
That's my point, there are a lot of assumptions being made here on not much information. Does this mean that cops can no longer request searches at all? I would hope not. If there is evidence that this person was coerced, then absolutely, throw the search out, but that doesn't seem to be the nature of the argument against the search, so that's why I'm confused about what basis it was thrown out on. I guess I'll have to read the decision. I'm also confused by the judge's statement that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. If the person consents to the search, how is reasonable suspicion an issue?
YukonJohn, you and I agree completely, if the police are looking for consent, you have the right to say no. But in this case, it sounds like she said yes, so that brings me back to square one (assuming no coercion). How was this search illegal?
well she does need help cause of the type of drug she is using. its sad to see a life get destroyed on this type of drug.
the troopers love to pull you over during certain hours (busting drunk drivers).
i work graves and make sure im doing the right thing as not to be a target.
its funny to see a trooper or north pole cop breaking the law by parking wrong or speeding.
the other morning a fairbanks city cop in a SUV(K-9 on his door)was driving 55 in the passing lane kicking up snow on the cars behind him. for no reason that i could see why. all the way to N.P. once in a while he would move from lane to lane. i call it power tripping.
you can drive all day long with a broken whatever and they wont mess with you.
bottom line though is the lady has a serious issue with a serious drug and needs to seek help.
Danzop, judges don't dismiss cases, DA's and Asst. DA's do. And they have as many attorney's in their office now as they did in the 70's. So is it that the LEO's are sending over "weak" cases, or that the DA's office is dumping stuff to keep up?
>>Oh, please.<<
Don't take my scenario as fact, glacierles. Ask some criminal defense attorneys about these tactics. I didn't make it up, though I may not have captured a proper example of the verbage.
But please, by all means, research it for yourself.
So this bimbo got pulled over and the only reason why she got off was because the trooper didn't tell her why, plain and simple. Had he done that, everything else he did was correct. He asked for consent to search and she gave it. I'm sure she was acting strangely and that in itself is, if I am correct, enough to make a LEO think you are hiding something, giving him probable cause. If you get pulled over and they ask to search your car, say NO. If they really think you are hiding something they will keep you there until they get higher approval. Better yet, don't give them any reason to pull you over..............................Now that took some serious brain pressure to figure that out.
I'd be interested to see what Dirk, chelly, and others have to say about what I posted on the subway robbers article...
Glacierles said: "Alright, Ms. Brown can keep driving down the road smoking crack. Way to go judge. You rock. I love playing Russian Roulette with oncoming drivers.
Seriously, MissKitty, that machine that you're driving down OUR road can be dangerous. The law allows the trooper to pull over the driver for a vehicle infraction. If that's going to be a problem, I'd suggest changing your driving habits. Shape up your vehicle, learn what laws (front and back plates at all times) are on the books, stay straight, drive proper, and stay off the phone (ok, that's not a law, but it should be).
It wasn't the privacy of a home invaded, it was the privacy of a doper on a public road."
...
And I say...what if that crack pipe was a beer bong, and the cocaine was a case of beer (or a keg) for use later in your own private life?
There is nothing wrong with driving your keg home (we'd all rather you drink it there), but if an officer can stop you, ask for a search (without explaining the reason for stop or reason for search), and finds both the means of imbibing and the alcohol, should that be reasonable reason for a DUI stop?
NO.
If LEOs are given slack in their pursuit of criminals, ALL of us are at risk.
I don't do drugs, I don't drive after a glass of wine, and I wouldn't know a crack pipe from a hole in the ground. But I do believe my own rights as a citizen of the United STates of America are being protected by not allowing this case to go forward.
Dirk
Our justice system isnt serious about DWI, we dont hammer people
Hell I know a guy who got his 3rd DWI (In less than 5 yrs) which is a felony. Instead of normal court they put him in therapy court and he doesnt have a felony. He still drinks, he still drives, he still drinks and drives. After his second they put him on house arrest. Some deternt, his buddies had to come to his house to get slammed.
All told 3 DWIs and he has spent less than 30 hours total in jail
Doesnt sound very tough to me
Well this only proves again the differance between god and a trooper again! GOD DOES NOT WAKE UP THINKING HE IS A TROOPER!!!!!!!!!!!!
hambone: "the other morning a fairbanks city cop in a SUV(K-9 on his door)was driving 55 in the passing lane kicking up snow on the cars behind him. for no reason that i could see why. all the way to N.P. once in a while he would move from lane to lane. i call it power tripping."
...
...
...
The rest of us know that police, troopers, and fire department personell don't always respond to emergency situations with lights and sirens.
Sometimes, in situations where driving is bad enough already, they choose to respond without the flashing lights because often times drivers are spooked by EMS/LEO vehicles and cause crashes because of that.
But you must be right, eh? All law enforcement officers went into a job that pays crap for a wage, is physically demanding and dangerous, and might leave their families spouseless, orphaned, and bereaved.
Yeah.
Or a combination of both? Don't get me wrong I have respect for most(there's always a bad apple or two) LEO and Judges. I have seen too many weak arrests get dismissed due to improper arrest procedures. Which is very unfortunate for us all.
Danzop, the judge isn't dismissing the 50-60% of the cases, thats a statewide figure. The DAO dismisses the cases because there isn't sufficient jail space and theres far too many cases to keep up with. Believe me when i say the jail has NO ROOM. there are currently 65+ beds in the gym of FCC. not exactly safe or efficient.
Newsreader, I have only perused them so far, but one thing certainly jumps out at me. You say that in order to get their trust, whoever is trying to climb to the top of the crack ladder would probably have to smoke some crack and lay with some hookers, and I agree that that would be the most effective technique. That right there is the problem. Cops have families too, and I'm pretty sure that most of their wives wouldn't be too keen on their hubbies doing that kind of stuff and writing it off as "another day at the office." And the state can't consent to letting others (i.e. non cop informants) use drugs in order to catch bigger drug users. Admittedly, it would be effective, but would get into some very, very sticky ethical situations. Certainly these informants are already buying drugs with the state's consent, but those drugs are then used as evidence and then destroyed, not consumed.
AKLEO Of the 50 to 60 percent of cases that are dismissed from the DA's office(my mistake of wording on the previous comment) what are the crimes? I agree we have a major problem with the over crowding in FCC. What can be done?
Danzop, I kind of figured thats what you meant. The crimes I'm not exactly certain about, but i would imagine they range from violations of DVPO ( Domestic Violence Protective Orders) to burglary and theft. Admittedly its sometimes the poor report on the officers part, but thats very rare now-a-days. As for FCC, The best thing would be to have less criminals! Fairbanks has alot of issues and a rather high crime rate, the best quick fix would be to at least add on to the jail to at least accomodate the existing prisoners. As for the future, in cooperation with a larger jail, i think its possible to boost the whole "crime stoppers' side of fairbanks. There are alot of bad people here, but thankfully the number of good and contributing members of society are higher. People can make a difference, i think they choose to let Law Enforcement handle the trouble and pass the problems on.
>>>Dirk
Our justice system isnt serious about DWI, we dont hammer people
Hell I know a guy who got his 3rd DWI (In less than 5 yrs) which is a felony.<<<
--------------------------------
Which country are you refering to?
Comparatively speaking, Canada's drunk driving laws aren't necessarily more stiff than here these days.
But back then, they were tighter than Alaska's, in terms of penalties and BAC limits, while being more permissive in terms of open containers, etc..
A Canadian friend in Whitehorse was hit head-on a few years ago by a drunk driver, while riding as a passenger, with her daughter who was driving via a learner's permit, & the daughter's friend in the back seat. The mom received a hair-line fracture to the neck, and wore a halo for a long time, followed by a lengthy period of rehab to regain motion in the neck muscles.
There were multiple options in the sentencing and/or hearing format. and they chose to sit in a First Nations community talking circle, with each person addressing the person who'd been driving intoxicated. It was a pretty intense thing, and included my other friend, the woman's husband, addressing the driver (a fellow with many past DUIs, who'd been driving without a license when the accident occurred).
I don't know if the new approach and laws there are as effective; time will tell that.
What I do know is that there was a greater emphasis, in the process that they sometimes use now, on community interaction. Accountability to the victim, victim's family, their own family, neighbors, village, Native band, etc.
But that wasn't an available option in the later 70s in the Yukon Territory, either.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
About a week ago I was driving home from work, again at 3am....There were two cars on the road, me and one other.
The car behind me had a trooper turn in behind him. He slowed way down and then turned off the road - approximately 1/4 mile behiind me
I guess the officer was bored with him and figured I would be just as good to pull over...the officer speed up and closed the distance between me and him in the span of a breath...then - as others on this board have said - he drove so close to my vehicle all I could see was the grill.
I know he was trying to intimidate me into making an error but I kept my cool even though if I would have tapped my brakes he would have probably hit my car. Is this proper? Isn't there a law for having enough space between vehicles?
Anyway - wee stopped at a light and someone turned left in front of us - - the officer gunned it past me to within a few feet of the next guys tailgate - the individual moved to the outside lane apparently to let the officer by - and then he pulled him over.
When I saw the Police Report it stated the guy was pulled over for an improper lane change - - which is totally bogus - he was clearly just trying to get out of the way of the officer.
Situations like these really shake my faith - - and I, for one, am so glad the courts ruled in this fashion
Nice to know some judges still beleive the ends don't justify the means....the police just cant pull everyone over just because a small percentage are bad -
I have to agree with the judge, it is not wether she said okay or not; if she would have said no to his request for a search, THAT would have been probable cause. The trooper did not have the right to even ask to search! Illegal search and seizure is there to stop people from unreasonable searches that infringe upon there rights to privacy. IF it happens for any reason it sets precedence and that is what causes the lose of that right on one level and that always carries to others, the officer would have followed procedure no one would have had the biased opinion that he was justified because they would not have even found the pipe and crack.
I am in no advocating the drug use, in fact I stand against drug searching behavior and the criminal element that brings into our communities; but I am not into letting the police having a free reign over stopping and searching anyone just because there taillight was not iluminated properly! IF it is not fair to stop the clean cut rich looking person in the newer expensive car then the same treatment should be expected for the 1978 GMC Gremlin with a young person behind the wheel. Its called equal treatment for all!
JB -
interesting point - - I have always wondered what would happen if you say 'no' to the search...
Do the police then have cause? Do they get dogs to come sniff your car? How about the fabled DRE - maybe they call them in to see if your eyes are bloodshot....
I think that just asking if they can search without other reasoning is improper - and I don't think you can say no
Kind of a catch 22, no? Damned if you do - damned if you don't
One thing we all need to do is to say NO, I have always found it easier and faster to get away from them if I just give up this right so they will leave me alone and I can get away.
One thing they like to say is "if you got nothing to hide, why would you not allow the search" We have to remember its our right to refuse a search.
I will no longer roll over and give up this right for expedience.
65 beds in the gym, I have seen it over a hundred, put some more in the there...stop spending money on camera systems to bust officers and use the moneyto get some atco units in the yard for additional housing.
Hopefully the gal quit doing crack as a result....
Saying "no" is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause is defined as reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime is likely to be discovered."
If the officer can define probable cause, s/he most likely won't ask. S/he'll just conduct the search.
If an officer is asking for permission it is probably because s/he has not yet developed the necessary probably cause.
The only way to preserve our civil rights is to exercise them. Just as this young lady should have done the first time she was offered drugs, and probably should have done while the officer was fishing - "Just say no".
Sherry29- I don't think she will ever get it.
At the time in 2004 when she was pulled over and charge with the crack/pipe, she had two prior DUI's, and numerous traffic violations. This is probably why the officer wanted to give her more attention. In 2005 she was able to pick up her 3rd (felony) DUI. She really aint getting it.
I dont agree with officers tricking or coersing people to allow a search, however when they punch a name in the computer and up pops the priors that she had more, attention is warranted.
I also think because she has been through the legal system before she should have been aware of her rights and exercised them.
She woulda had a 50/50 chance of getting away.
Seems to be alot of people are missing the whole point that should worry us all.
The government and it's entities are narrowing all of our GOD given constitutional rights.
Good for the judge throwing this out, he should have since he obviously knows the Constitution & Bill of Rights!!!
According to the Center for Disease Control, Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003). Alaska law does not allow a blood draw for controlled substances tests of drivers found with drugs, they have to have a motor vehicle accident involving injury or death before involuntary draws can be done. As an Alaskan, I am ashamed of the way we protect the rights of the accused with more vigilance than we do those of victims.
What would you say to what is happening in DC right now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Three man teams of police are going door to door in low-income neighborhoods to carry out voluntary searches for guns. Do you think that is is "Ma'am we would like to ask permission to look around your home for guns." or "Police, open up, we need to search your house!"
The fact is that police are often intimidating to anyone and they often do not make it clear what your rights are.
It seems like there are 2 sides here. One side believes that the cops are out to get you. It's all part of a conspiracy to rob you of your Constitutional rights, and you are being patriotic in holding fast. No compromise in the interest of safe roads. Armchair and keyboard lawyers, looking for a loophole.
And then there is the other side. Privacy in the Constution is sacrosanct, unless you're trying to kill me. Driving a vehicle is not a Constitutional right. You need to apply for a license, which requires passing a test. You then submit to the rules of the roadway. And one of those rules is "no getting loaded" while you're driving. Some of us figure this out. Some of us are touched by roadway death that could have, should have been avoided. Yea, I lost someone I truly loved to a drug addled driver. That pain will never go away.
If you will let take my gun and shoot any driver that I think is stoned, drunk, or stupid, then to heck with the laws. Otherwise, carry on troopers and police, pull suspicious vehicles over. Bust them if you should.
Good search, bad ruling. The article clealy states that the Trooper asked the driver for consent, which was given, resulting in the Trooper finding the drugs and paraphernalia. If the driver did not give consent, then the onus would have been on the Trooper to articulate to judge why a search warrant is needed to search the driver & the vehicle. But the Trooper asked & permission was given to conduct a search.
A police officer should need "reasonable suspicion" to ask a question or ask for consent. If someone does not want to be searched without a warrant, then all they have to do is say is "no" when asked. The ruling should be appealed. I think it would be overturned.
Fairbanksgas---
Apples and oranges.
These are called fishing expeditions elsewhere.
There are a lot of people jumping to conclusion that she was high at the time that she was pulled over. There is nothing in the story that even suggests this. If she appeared to be under the influence she would have been charged for DUI and the cop would have had probable cause. The issue here is whether a petty infraction such as no seatbelt or snow covered license plate is reason enough to suspend our right to unreasonable search and seizure. If I have a gun under the seat of my truck it does not mean that I just shot someone does it?
What if your spouse left some prescription drugs in your glove box. You could be cited for misdemeanor possession if your name was not on the prescription. I don't think much at all of any drug user, but I would fight a war to preserve the rights that were guaranteed by our founding fathers. If you want to live in a police state go back to California but don't infringe on my rights.
PolarCOP
your stats given in your comment have nothing to do with the substance of this article -
I assume since your name has COP in it, that you are an officer of the law - which means you have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, etc etc
When did you begin believing that the end result justifies the means to which you reach it - - - -
What if you started searching everyone's homes...I'll bet you could turn up all kinds of interesting things....and you could say you were doing it 'for the children'
Many will say that a search of homes is different than a search of vehicles, but I disagree....both are personal property and neither should be searched unless there is tangible evidence to do so...
One of the kids that works for me was pulled over late at night for a bumper violation - to which he didn't get a ticket....prior to the police officer letting him continue on his way, he asked if he could search his car....there was NO reason for this request...and my employee said he didn't think that was necessary...the officer let him go after that...
Do you think the officer asked just because it was a kid and he figured he could get away with it? If the officer had something, he wouldn't have let my employee go. From many of the people's perspectives on here I guess it is OK for the police to go fishing with your rights....and if you are not smart enough to say no you get searched...for no reason mind you....
In 2007 there were 84 alaska highway deaths - 25 of which were alcohol related....thats a very low number, is it not???
I am sure you could say we are lucky the police are pulling over everybody at night to get these numbers down...that it's great we have this new DUI enforcement team helping out etc etc etc...but if you look at the site below - overall the total number of deaths on the highway has not changed significantly for 5 years or so....Seems to me all the meaningless stops at night, which have increased significantly over the last five years, have really done nothing to reduce the number significantly....It has just given people an emotional hot-button issue to argue over and it's silly.
25 Deaths in a population of 600k is a statistical variance - it is sad these people died, but this number doesnt even come close to the number of crabbers that die each year...maybe the AST should concentrate on crabbers instead...
It also shows that a larger percentage of fatalities do not wear seat belts and are killed...so now maybe wee do roadblocks to check seatbelt usage?
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/hwys...
I am sorry but it doesn't matter if she allowed the search or not, what they found, or what they arrested her for! She felt that her rights were violated. So, she got herself a lawyer and went before a Judge. The Judge and Jury of her peers are the one's that said that she was right, and that her rights were violated.
AKLEO- You said "It's not the Trooper's fault she doesn't know her rights. If she was so concearned about what she was being pulled over for, she should have told him, no you need a warrant to search my vehicle."
Is that what you are going to say to our children and the young adults in our state when an Officer, Church Official, or Parent takes advantage of them? "Well, if you had known your rights!"
That is why we have Lawyers, Judges, and a Jury. to ensure that our rights are not violated, and to make sure that we do not violate someone else's right's!
I should not have to go to Law school just to drive to the store. It doesn't matter what my habits are, or what I have in my purse.
Dirk- Thank You for using logic and tact in your comments here. I may not always agree with you, but I do feel that no matter what your opinion is you try to give an educated arguement.
People like Swanny and some others are missing the point and making up their own facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Just because an officer develops (in their mind) probable cause that there is evidence of a crime in a car does not mean that they can automatically start searching. They first need to get a warrant, which, as I've said, is pretty difficult to do at 2 in the morning. Criminal Justice 101. As far as the DRE, as has been explained before, they can only be used AFTER a person has been arrested for DUI and the arresting officer believes there are impairing drugs on board.
As far as needed reasonable suspicion to ask for consent to search, I think that is a self regulating problem. I think any cop with more than 6 minutes experience should be able to figure out that asking each person they pull over or consent to search their car becomes a complete waste of time, and they learn to be selective in their asking, which is very much a form of reasonable suspicion. Let's face it, people who have allowed their lives to be screwed up by drugs are not the ones who are going to be driving nice, clean, well maintained cars. The time and money needed to maintain that type of vehicle go away in an effort to get more drugs. That certainly doesn't mean everyone driving an older car with a burned out tail light, littered six inches inside deep with fast food wrappers and empty beer cans is a drug user, but that doesn't mean the cops should ignore those facts either.
AK guy, not sure where you get your facts that over 25 crabbers die each year, but I'm not sure that is a verifiable number (though I am willing to accept that I might be wrong). And even if it were, they weren't innocent victims of another's recklessness, they were victims of a dangerous but lucrative profession that they chose; big difference.
Also, in the scenario you gave about your employee, you seem to be equating reasonable suspicion to probable cause. If an officer has reasonable suspicion (but not probable cause) and chooses to ask a person for consent to search and the person says no, then the officer does not have a reason to detain them further, but that doesn't mean that there was no reason to ask in the first place.
Shy, this decision had nothing to do with a jury of her peers, it was decided by a single judge. It wasn't a trial (which looks for guilt or innocence of the defendant, not errors on the part of the police), so there was no jury present.
chelly says -- "Let's face it, people who have allowed their lives to be screwed up by drugs are not the ones who are going to be driving nice, clean, well maintained cars".
In my research (watching Cops - lol) I learned a long time ago to make sure you have a fully legal late model vehicle if you don't want to be harassed by the police.
Thanks for re-iterating that for us chelly.
Dear Chelly,
I am so sorry that I was not as exact as I should have been. I forgot that there are people like you on this site and in order to get the point across, you have to be exact or people like you will pick it apart and miss the point entirely! I will do better in the future so that you can understand. here is my correction- The Judge is the one's that said that she was right, and that her rights were violated. Oh yes and you are right! now can you reread and try to figure out the point of the comment!
Hmmmm "Alaska, the Last Police State" Has a kinda ring to it!
akguy,
Six years ago (+/-), a Palmer-based State Trooper K-9 unit did the same thing. I was taking some meat south. It was mid-morning, sunny and day-light..
I was going through Cantwell, doing 45 mph. He stopped at the intersection on the east side of the Denali Hwy. so abruptly, on loose gravel on the pavement, that he nearly slid into the intersection.
He pulled out on my tail, tail-gating closely for several miles south of there, in what seemed a clear effort to intimidate and force an error.
And persons question the assertions of "out to get you"? It's not all Troopers, but there are definitely some, and the tactics are similar enough to not be coincidence.
I passed a Colorado Jeep CJ as I was coming up to a curve out in the alpine plateau, before the double yellow. Problem solved. I was 2 vehicles ahead, maintaining hwy speed, and the Jeep trailing slowly further and further behind. The AST stuck behind him, due to curves.
Approx. 30-40 miles down the road, the Trooper came out of nowhere, and began the same ploy all over again. I considered stopping at a phone down the road, calling his shift commander, & inquiring if this was the newest version of 'serving and protecting.'
Instead I stoppped at a pull-off and threw in one of several jugs of fuel I was carrying, took a coffee break, & left the rude fellow to find some other person to intimidate.
A couple of months ago, bringing a trailer back from the Mat-Su, I was again tail-gated over the plateau south of Cantwell by a Trooper pick-up truck, this time heading north, sometime in the pre-dusk evening. I was doing 5 miles under the speed limit due to watching the trailer, & maintaining my lane. He tail-gated me for a while, and then backed off to a legal distance.
Eventually we separated somehow.
About 5 miles north of Nenana, I saw head-lights behind me, which again came up fast. I was doing 64 mph in a 65 zone. He again rode my bumper for a short distance. In the dark I couldn't see what it was, other than too close.
As I was preparing to gesture my opinion of those who tail-gate, he passed, doing over 75 mph, cutting in quickly.
Was there an emergency north of there? Nope. This guy was coming back from parts way south of the Fbks and Nenana patrol turf, in an official vehicle, driving questionably, and speeding.
In either case, if I were observed by a LEO doing the same, I'd be stopped. 'Equal protection' promise?
Another case ended in a formal order re. an off-duty Trooper who reportedly exhibited road rage, and then tried to retaliate when the other driver pursued a complaint. That's not my case to speak about, but I know the ex-Trooper's name, & the other persons involved. The Trooper retired not long after his antics, and his word might not be viewed as 'solid' in any court room where that history's aired.
Watch out there Dirk!
If we keep publicly saying our personal (truthful) experiences with the cops like this, they might entirely take away our ability to comments on articles.
Look at what already happened to the public safety report.
They say it was because people were assuming guilt. I personally have a different suspicion as to what (who?) motivated them.
*chuckle*
FIRST OFF!
Crack is bad.
BUT:
Our private citizen rights are GOOD!
Way to go Appeals court-Finally our rights are exercised.
I thing that Intimidation 101 is the first class at the academy. I too have been tailgated by troopers as they attempt to make me nervous. Let's face it, being a trooper is a boring job and it is no longer about public safety, but generating revenue and writing citations.
I'm a safe driver, newsreader. There are no acccidents on my record, other than a solid moose 'hit' in the darkness of night, out on the open road, in the middle of the night. (In which case the AST -I- called, only 'cause I was required to, examined the road-side next to my totalled truck, in a brief and apparent effort to find contraband or evidence of some other sort, resulting in a meeting with the detachment commander and myself shortly there-after).
I have a clean criminal record.
During political actions over the last three decades, I've been photographed, surveilled, etc., however infrequently, by a variety of jurisdictions, simply 'cause someone didn't like our message or agenda. (1st Amendment anyone??)
Sometimes I've returned the favor by shooting pics of them too. Like when we marched in Idaho against Butler's Aryans. ;^>)
In one of the local cases, in the early 80s, I IDed the UC, went to Pegger Rd, told them that I had 'made' their guy, described him right down to the hair-cut and clothing, as well as the Cannon camera, and told them that if he had any extra 8"x10" glossies, that it'd been years since my mother had received a nice picture from me, and that she'd appreciate one if at all possible. (Humor can be an excellent starting point for dialogue..... or not...)
The UC -denied- that he had been shooting film at our petition booth at the Wood Center, despite me SEEING him shooting pics, followed by his leaving the campus in an unmarked vehicle with a cage in the back. That was 1980-1982 some time.
I even knew who had asked him to engage in this questionable conduct.
I know 'questionable police conduct' when I see it, as often as not. I have no respect for it. I've known good cops. And I've known some that I've no reason to trust at all.
BTW, The Wood Center event was about two decades before the USA PATRIOT ACT might've given the wink & nod to such behavior.
Respect begets respect. Abuse begets strong efforts toward removing those who shouldn't be in such positions of authority, providing they're not white-washed by the DoJ, or protected by brotherss and sisters on the force.
And the effective and productive cops I've known who respect the Constitution, and who have level heads, are often glad to see such folks leave the various police forces, because it reults in their own job becoming easier, and an opportunity to regain any lost respect for their departments, too..
Boy, you got that right newsreader.
And today there is a real sensitive editor on board. Very vigilent.
In fact, because I said that, this will probably get the ax, as did my last one saying the same thing, only on another thread.
Chelly: "self-regulating problem"
Well, perhaps that's part of the problem.
As far as the DRE needing an arrest first... and some of your other remarks made with great authority, will you please provide Alaska statute of at least AAC regulation to back yourself up for once.
Just because you always say so doesn't necessarily make it so.
OMG, Fairbanksgas, you're going to subject us to more of Chelly's mantra of the cops don't generate any revenue for themselves.
And, lets not forget lying 101...
Example #1:
-----------
trooper : "We've already got you on multilpe felonies. You might as well tell us who you are working with."
suspect : "You tell me that you've got me on multiple felonies, and now you want me to confess to more? What am I stupid?"
trooper : "Where do you work?"
suspect : "At ************"
trooper : "You mean you USED to work there - they are gonna fire you when we tell them about this."
suspect : "Whatever"
End result - suspect never charged with anything and still has a job...
Example #2:
-----------
Police (to teens) : "They have a security camera and I'm going to review the tapes, so you might as well confess."
When no security cameras even existed!
Example #3:
-----------
trooper : "I pulled you over for mud flap violation, let me see your drivers license"
trooper runs license, finds priors, comes back to car.
trooper : "I need to search your vehicle."
driver : "Why, for mud flaps?"
trooper : "I smell marijuana, I need you to step out of the vehicle and let me search it"
20 minutes of intimidation and harassment follow.
End result - no search was allowed by the driver, no citation was issued.
All three of these incidents happened in Fairbanks in recent years.
Valdez P.D.: "We pulled you over because your tail-light is dim. Why's your son driving your truck and you're riding as passenger?"
Adult male: "I had a couple of drinks at a friend's house, and didn't want to risk getting in trouble for driving after that."
Valdez P.D.: "Whose house were you drinking at?"
Adult male: "Pardon me officer, but what, exactly, does that have to do with a dim head-light?? Are we free to go now?"
Valdez P.D.: "Yes, but check that head-light."
Police officers are trained in the art of interrogation. What this means is that they have the ability to get the answers from you that they seek. Take note the next time you are in a traffic stop; the officer will ask leading questions, even in answer to a question from you.
Heres an example from personal experience:
Officer: Do you have any guns, or drugs I should be worried about?
Me: Just my pistol, officer.
Suddenly, I was no longer in possession of my handgun. While he ran the numbers, I realized how he had worded his question to dupe me ("...I should be worried about"). I got the gun back; I was never worried about that; what worries me is the techniques police today use to twist rights and freedoms to their own ends. Had I paused to consider the implications of his question in order to truthfully answer 'No, you have nothing to worry about', would I have then found myself standing on the side of the road taking a sobriety test? After all, why would a sober individual pause to think before answering a simple yes/no question?
The point is this: The judge (who had all the facts of the case) determined the officer out of bounds. It doesnt matter if it is an opinion based in law or because the judge shares a drug dealer with the defendant, if the state decides this ruling incorrect, they can appeal to the next level. Meanwhile, the rights of citizens at large have been reaffirmed, and an overzealous authority has been told to "back off".
On that note, let me say that it never ceases to amaze me, while reading these threads, the number of folks living in 'The Last Frontier' who believe rights and freedoms should be individually determined on a case by case basis. This causes me much more concern than the thought that someone, somewhere, may carry illegal paraphernalia in a public place.
>>>the number of folks living in 'The Last Frontier' who believe rights and freedoms should be individually determined on a case by case basis. This causes me much more concern than the thought that someone, somewhere, may carry illegal paraphernalia in a public place<<<
Precisely, DenaliGuy. It amounts to ,"Protect my rights, but -THOSE- guys' rights aren't as sacred.
It's the whole point of the old poem, that begins, "First they came for the....." and ends with, "But when they came for me, there was no one left to stand ....."
Inevitably, my rights are only as sacred as yours, and visa versa.
Without mutual support for each others' rights, including persons or arrangements that we may not agree with, then it's a down-hill spiral from there, that simply relies on a moment-to-moment reality, defined by who ever happens to be in power at that time, or who has the biggest stick, and lacking in any guarantees of 'freedom and liberty for all' what-so-ever.
Corrine, I absolutely agree, just because I (or anyone) says something on this or any site doesn't make it true. That is why I try to spend so much of my time educating people when they say things that are factually incorrect. If a falsehood, whether intentionally or not, get repeated often enough, it becomes the truth, and that is what I am trying to avoid. In that light, I have no problem whatsoever in you calling me out and asking me to verify my facts, as I have done the same to others. After a few moments of searching, I have found this on DRE's:
http://decp.org/experts/12steps.htm
If I have made any other assertions of fact that you want verified, please let me know. I like people to form their own opinions, I just want them formed based on facts we can all agree on.
On another note, I find it interesting that when the cops do something right and get 16 POUNDS of coke off the streets, it generates 1 comment, but when the courts determine that a cop did something wrong, it generates 90+ comments. And it's not even that the cop knew or should have known it was wrong. If it was clearly wrong, the DA never would have argued the case in front of the judge, they simply would have dismissed it. Obviously the DA thought the cop's actions had some merit as well. Just an interesting observation.
Chelly,
Some of us haven't had our privacy violated, been tail-gated, harassed, intimidated, or questionably photographed by a coke dealer -or- his 16 lbs..
When there's a mosquito buzzing by my ear, I don't decide to go looking for that gopher hole I've been meaning to fill. I swat the mosquito.
In the case of the dealer and his 16 lbs., what would you wager that there's another shipment of the same, coming almost immediately behind that one, and the effort will amount to little more than some over-time, paperwork, and kudos for those who busted it, who literally operate under the auspices of employment security made real.
(*Other than perhaps a brief bump in the market until the next load comes in.)
That's the reality of drug seizures here for the last 38 years. Someone keeps busting them, and they keep coming, like that dime-store coffe pot that we had as kids, that never runs dry of liquid.
It's a lot like cheering for the hamster that keeps running in the circular wheel in his cage. At what point has he won the race??
Dirk, I certainly see your point, and on the grand scale, I can't say I disagree with it. Which leaves me with two questions. 1) What's the solution? (and no, I don't think more law enforcement will ever stem the tide, but it might make more than a few people think twice about trying it in the first place or "just selling a little to my friends.) 2) Are we better off without the police than with them? If someone says yes, then if we follow their logic to it's conclusion, what they are really asking for is anarchy and no government, for with government comes rules, and rules without ability to enforce them are really no rules at all.
I would certainly hate to see what would happen to this community if there were no police. But i think for alot of people thats what it would take for them to realize society isn't "mature" enough to function without some type of boundries, guidelines or enforcement.
OK, that's it. No laws on the road. It's every driver for themself. Let's just fire all the road cops. Evidently, most of them are just blood sucking, lying, parasites anyhow. We'll go to road rage rules. If you get in an accident, get a gun and/or call a lawyer.
Fairbanksgas---
Dont tell me where to live. I've lived here longer than most, and my opinions are every bit as valid, free, and allowed as you and the mob's.
DenaliGuy---
As you are concerned about my belief in basic rights, try out this very complex thought. Rights mean nothing in an uncivil, lawless, chaotic society. Nothing.
Dirk---
You have a right to all the corn pone you can spin. And Lord knows you can spin it.
Glacierles- As a part of this community dont you think thats not the right approach? Shouldn't we all start accepting some of the blame, rather than passing it off to someone else. as for the blood sucking comment, I don't have fangs last time i checked. Lord knows, the majority of fairbanksans and Alaskans for that matter are carrying guns, the whole vigilanty thing would probably get a little out of control, just a thought. I know someone is going to read your first paragraph and think "holy crap, my dreams come true!"
OK, I admit, I got a little carried away with the whole vigilante thing. And the fangs thing. Am I under arrest?
I think that what we're talking about is;
1.) Respect
2.) Prioritization (not a political priority, but real priority)
3.) Reasonable pragmatic strategy
4.) Ballancing of responsibility
We already have laws for theft, assault, child neglect, etc.
For years, folks said, "Hey, I was drunk." For a while, in one way or another, some gave credence to that. I don't think they should've. Nor do I think that criminalizing alcohol is/was the answer.
I'm responsible for what I do, whether straight, drunk or high. Those -personal- vices are technically separate from the fact that I violated someone's boundaries, or failed to make good on an obligation.
If they weren't, everyone, across the board, who uses oneof those vices, would be engaging in the same behaviors; they're not. In fact, I believe I can safely assert, based on a lot of research and experience, that MOST of them aren't. (*I have family members who work with drug treatment programs, and I've worked in a related field for a while myself, though not in a long time now..)
In re. to the cocaine, crack, heroin, and similar drugs, please see the 'Liverpool Project,' in which the Brits synthesized or produced these drugs in pure form for roughly $4.00/gram, and prescriptions were obtained by 'addicts' (an overly-used term if ever there was) through the clinic, and many continued on 'maintenance dosing,' raising families, working, etc. Not all, but many.
Street crime in that neighborhood dropped by approx. 65%, lending credibility to the assertions that much of the violence and property crime around this issue is generated by the same dynamics that generated similar features in the earlier experiment with Prohibition.
Likewise, sterile apparati and pharmaceutical-grade drugs led to a marked decrease in the spread of serious disease and death.
But as the leading psychiatrist commented during the interviewing of persons associated with the Project said, you have to separate moralism and politics from pragamatism and medicine in order to get there.
The mortality rates associated with these drugs, even the most harsh substances, don't justify their being handled the way that they are, or the dangers posed by repeated precedents that often chip away at the Bill of Rights.
It's beocme a political war, and one in which EVERYONE loses, where each persons' guarantees are weaker.
I remember a time when there was significantly less rift between the public and (the authorities). There was less of an air of suspicion; less 'us & them' and militance.
Maybe I'm remembering through nostalgic eyes, but I have fond memories of a particular Trooper, with whom I felt comfortable stopping on the street, and just being "people, talkin' about the day at hand."
The increased tension hasn't led to people feeling like closer neighbors. I think it's led to greater division.
That's my $2.00 worth on the issue. ;^>)
>>>>Dirk---
You have a right to all the corn pone you can spin. And Lord knows you can spin it.<<<
The insult and what I perceive to be insinuations or allegations of dishonesty are quaint, glacierles, but did it ever occur to you that your skepticism is about YOU, and not the other person.
Just a thought.
There was no insinuation or allegation of dishonesty. Just folksy charm.
Anyhow, I fail to see what the previous posting about the Liverpool project has to do with driving down the road. I'm also opposed to the war on drugs. It's a waste of lives and money, and it corrupts governments wholesale. But I'm still opposed to operating a vehicle on drugs. And I dont believe that Brown had any legitimate reason to have it in her vehicle. No need to rehash, the judge decided that the trooper misbehaved. Accepted as fact. Just disagree.
Glacierless, I disagree that the judge decided this trooper misbehaved. The way I interpret it is that the judge changed the rules (as happens quite regularly as case law develops), not that the trooper broke the rules. Let me explain. Something we all take for granted now, having an arrested person be advised of their Miranda rights, didn't exist before about 1967. At that time, the courts ruled that before cops could ask an arrestee certain questions, they had to advise the person of certain rights that they had. The rights had existed all along, but the cops, until that court ruling came down, didn't have to advise the arrestee of them. Once that ruling came down, the rules changed. It's not that the cops in that case broke the rule by not advising the arrestee (Mr. Miranda in this case) of his rights, it's that the rule didn't exist before then. After that ruling came down, any cops who arrested and questioned people about their crimes without advising them of their Miranda rights could be said to have misbehaved.
I think that is what happened in this case. It has long been held that there is an exception to the warrant requirement if a person grants consent to a search. This ruling apparently changes the rules about when cops can ask for that consent. Until I can read the entire ruling (it hasn't been put on the court's website yet, so I don't know how the DNM knew about it), I can only base my interpretations on the story in the paper.
Then I apologize for the mis-read, and ask your acceptance of that apology, for my defensiveness and misinterpretation, glacierles.
What it has to do with this case, in my opinion, is ballancing the reality of these drug issues (not the political realities, but the earthly realities), with unalienable rights, and what has become a somewhat militant and mostly fruitless pursuit of all things 'substance.'
If she wasn't using when she was driving down the road, then I don't have any significant internal reaction to her having the entirety of McNeil lab's benzedrine collection in her car, as her actively using at that time, or not using at that time, is the barrier between my family being safe, and not being safe.
As a side note, I remember a drug bust amidst rush hour traffic in Los Anchorage one day; me with my kids, in from the rural Alaska, sitting in traffic, and all at once there's guns flying out, and everyone's in plain clothes, thus little indication of whose muzzle to duck from, and which kid to cover up first. To me, that was way more threatening than the fact that someone had likely just made a buy or a sale. I didn't need a coffee for several hours after that.. When I sense that my kids are immediately threatend, my pulse rate and other life signs aren't right for HOURS!!
To me, the folks who drive through my residential area at 40-50 mph, on loose gravel or slick ice, without regard to the fact that kids, families, dogs, bicycles, etc, use these places daily, and that cars are entering the roadway from driveways, is a far greater threat to my tangible reality than the fact that a crack head had a crack pipe and some coke in her purse..
That's what the comments on the Liverpool Project had to do with, in regard to this article.
That there are ways to shift our enforcement and government back toward workable strategies and real priorities that address things that matter in the here and now, and have greater chances of success, instead of discarding or continuously arm-wrestling over the speed at which we injure (or don't injure) the Bill of Rights, respect, safety, fiscal resources, and everything else that seems to be occuring as a result of what many, including myself, see as just some of the issues represented in this case..
chelly---
What you say then, if you are correct, is that the real importance of this case is the precedent law that this judge could "legislate" from the bench. This is more troublesome than I previously thought. I was looking at this as an isolated incident. I appreciate your thoughtful interpretation, and will keep my eyes on the news for further developments.
Dirk---
Apology easily accepted. I imagine that you would be pleased if the precedent discussed by chelly came to be. Whereas, AKLEO would have one more set of hurdles to do his job.
>>>What you say then, if you are correct, is that the real importance of this case is the precedent law that this judge could "legislate" from the bench<<<
We don't yet know if Judge Mannheimer was relying on pre-existing precedence or not. He may have simply been applying case law that already exists.
Neither legislatures -or- enforcement agencies are beyond crossing lines of constitutional protection. Not by a long shot.
While the judiciary -and- the legislature are both prone to being politicized, one has far more narrow guidelines in the expression of that political leaning or sentiment than the other.
I trust a horse with a tighter rein, and a firmly-fitted saddle, more than one that I've got to ride bare-back, with no bridle.
This license plate illumination business is being totally abused as an excuse for police to go on baseless fishing expeditions. Who seriously even notices if their own plate-light is out? I checked mine after reading about this EXCELLENT DECISION by the judge, and sure enough, it's out. Police are only a good thing if they are kept under ABSOLUTE CONTROL by the people. This means complete enforcement of the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution, and immediate summary dismissal of police who violate it.
I realize that the idea of 'freedom' and 'rights' can be hazy compared to how graphic and tragic criminal acts can be, which is why I think they are being eroded. This woman's case is a good example. To me there are far to many posts here judging her, and dismissing violation of her rights because it turned out she had a crack pipe. Such commentators totally miss the point the judge made.
And, for my part, I don't appreciate paying a single tax dollar for license-plate-light policing. Police already have far, far to many ways to trump-up an excuse to demand one's "papers" (as some have put it). This needs to be put on a leash, and the judge's decision is a GREAT first step.
I must also say that the founders of this country can't possibly have intended that 'the law' would grow into something where you have to be a lawyer or a cop to know your own rights. And where they exploit this to incarcerate a higher percent of our population than ANY country in the world.
"This means complete enforcement of the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution, and immediate summary dismissal of police who violate it."
If policemen were Constitutional scholars, they wouldn't be policemen. Taking someone's job is a serious thing, and I hate to hear people talk about it lightly. He made a mistake. We all make mistakes. The search was thrown out, and hopefully the troopers will adapt their procedures accordingly.
I'd like to offer some perspective. When I was in the Peace Corps, one of my friend's adult sons was murdered by the police. They broke into his house while he slept, dragged him outside, made him kneel in the yard, and then shot him as he begged for his life. After, they carried his body back inside, put it in his bedroom, and shot up the house to make it look like he had resisted. They knew that there would never be any kind of a forensic examination, and they knew they could intimidate the witnesses, which they did. Desmond's mother exhausted every avenue, governmental and non-governmental, to bring about an investigation. I did what I could to help, but it didn't do any good. There was absolutely no way to hold the police accountable or even to find out why they'd done it. To this day she doesn't know why.
I know that there are bad policemen in America. I've been tear gassed by some of them. But what we have here is a cop trying to act in the public interest, erring in his method, and being corrected by a judge. Hopefully this will make him a better cop. Comparisons to fascist regimes are not warranted. Not for this, anyway.
you go Dirk. good stories and i could tell a few too. my negitive run in's were from N.P. cops years ago but i think they have moved on.
the cantwell troopers can be rough, bored i would guess. ive been followed pulling a snowmachine trailer.
about 3 months ago coming into town a car was right on me for a while then slowly ran beside me by me rear tire for a few miles then sped on guess who? Mr. Trooper.
this winter my wife ran out of gas, along comes a trooper and did he ask to help? no he wanted ID and proof of insurance then went on his merry way
however i must say most of the troopers ive encountered were professional. it seems like it all depends on who they are as a person
theres a few of the troopers today i went to school with and wrestled with, but something was different about them after becoming a trooper.
what ever happen to go ole Sheriff Andy types.
Babylon---
Were you just walking down the street, minding your own business, when bam,out of nowhere a cop tear gases you? Wow, that's some bad luck. Or maybe were you at a demonstration that turned into a riot?
I'm curious as to where your murder story took place. And I dont think that is a fair comparison, a cop in a 3rd world dictatorship (I'm guessing) and a traffic stop in the US. But otherwise, it's a poignant story.
glacierles:
On the second day of the WTO demonstrations, many downtown businesses closed early, essentially forcing thousands of office workers, including me, out into the middle of the confrontation. So, no, I was not at a demonstration, at least not willingly. I was trying to catch a bus. Some of the cops (by no means all or even most) were completely out of control that week, and a lot of people were mistreated, including little old ladies that I worked with.
"I dont think that is a fair comparison, a cop in a 3rd world dictatorship (I'm guessing) and a traffic stop in the US. "
If you'll read my comment with an open mind, you'll see that that is exactly my point. A number of people have used this news story to draw comparisons to Stalinist Russia, etc. I'm calling that an unfair comparison. In fact, it's a ridiculous comparison. We agree, glacierles, for the first and possibly only time.
The murder did not happen in a third world dictatorship. It was a third world parliamentary democracy. It happened in Jamaica, in 2002.
Having just re-read this thread, I think we are all agreeing with each other in different ways. The point of almost all these posts is that police are granted a position of authority which in a civil society admits we hold them to be above common prejudice. While we accept that their word holds more weight than an ordinary citizen, we also expect fair, unbiased treatment during those occasions when we are personally involved.
Police officers, judges, teachers, lawmakers, doctors; all hold positions requiring our trust and cooperation. This trust is pre-assumed in order for them to effectively do their job, unfortunately, (as anyone who followed the recent VECO scandal knows), often this trust is ill-founded and misplaced. We are fortunate to live in a country where the common man still has redress for these incedents, and no one is considered above the law.
The foundation of our nation is that all men are created equal; each time someone in authority steps over that boundary, another chip falls from our foundation. This is not a case of druggie vs cop, it is simply a judge repairing our foundation, so that all of us can live better lives.
Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely. None of us want to see that.
As for the appeal, Ms Brown was in the right.
You assume that Ms. Brown was high, and convict her, so I guess when you get stopped by the police after leaving the liquor store on your way home and buy a six pack, you are a alcoholic and drunk at the same time.
I mean ,sure, what she had was illegal but the trooper was in the wrong by doing what he did.
Seems what some people are saying is that law enforcement are above the law and can do what the wish.
So the people that stop and have one drink at the local watering hole, and leave about an hour sober, are they wrong for driving??
Yes they are under the influnce and against the law to drive, but I guess you people that convicted Ms. Brown, are also above the law.
You all don't know the whole story, and it is not right to say or blame the person until you know the whole story.
Also look at the date in question!!!
Now I am very sure that everyone of you that give Ms. Brown a black mark, also have done something against the law, but are too ashamed to admit it.
As the Bible says, "For he that commited no sin, let them cast the first stone"!!
Just as I thought, can not do it.
OK, now that I have had a chance to read the decision (yes, all 25 pages), it is much as I suspected. It is not that the three judge panel is saying that the Trooper made a mistake that he should have known about. (again, if this was the case, why would the DA even take the case to court if they knew the trooper had made a mistake?) Instead, the panel is clarifying for this and all future cases under what circumstances an officer may ask for consent to search a vehicle. In this case, they did not feel that it was freely given consent because the trooper had not gone to enough lengths to let her draw that conclusion for herself. In other words, what the trooper did wasn't "wrong," but it would be if he did the same thing again now that they have given some new (albeit still very vague) guidelines.
Thanks, chelly.
Thanks Chelly, but I have to disagree. Just the act of the trooper asking after a routine 'fix it' stop is, in my mind, VERY wrong. I for one am tired of super-trooper nazi attitudes. These particular officers do not consider us (the public at large) friends...again, VERY WRONG. We shouldn't have to run scared of authority; instead we need authority that treats people as human beings, not animals to be led to the slaughter.
I would like to read that decision; do you have the link by chance?
DenaliGuy, I am going to make a statement that may anger many, but please let me explain. It doesn't really matter legally what any of us (including me) THINK our rights are. Police departments all across the country are guided both by laws passed by the legislative bodies, and by court decisions handed down on a case by case basis. These court decisions make up case law, and it is this case law that sets legal precedent which requires cops to act in certain ways. For example, if a person is arrested for DUI and they THINK they have the right to talk to an attorney before they give a breath sample, they are wrong. They can try and talk to an attorney but if they can't reach one because it's 3 in the morning, that does not give them the right to refuse to give a breath sample, no matter what they THINK. It has already been decided by the courts, so precedent has been set, and that's what matters. So that is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters that courts have said that cops can ask these questions. This case just clarifies that when the cop asks for consent, it has to be given freely, and in this case, the courts weren't convinced, based on the circumstances, that it was.
On another note, cops don't give up their first amendment rights just because they wear a badge. They can ask what color your underwear is. I certainly think it would be rude, unprofessional, in violation of department policy, etc, but I don't think it should be illegal, which is what many people on this sight are trying to say that even asking the question should be. Cops are still citizens, and still have rights.
The link is http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/ap-215.... Hope this helped.
Thanks Chelly.
Haven't read it yet, but I will and that makes it easy to get.
In addition to what you've said, there are also regulations intended to implement the statutory law that have the force of law.
Then there are the ever-present department 'policies.'
Understand, that I'm not necessarily talking about cops here, but I can say with personal knowledge that DOC (and other agencies/departments I could mention) can and do use so-called policy and even regulation to circumvent law and/or duty/responsibility.
Often, the policies aren't even written (and they can be hard to get if they are), but are just "the way [they] do things." Even when the 'policy' affords the ability to enforce the law--or not. 'Policy' is also used to "create" law, in that the impression is given that if it policy, then it is inflexible and must be "done that way."
Sometimes, (probably more often than I'm aware), regs are written so poorly, (and sometimes deliberately because the bureaucrats don't like the law), that they actually contradict or allow huge loopholes allowing those responsible for enforcement to not have to enforce it.
And when the executive doesn't do its job, (ie enforce the law) (bureaucrats not cops here), they may 'not' do it with impunity.
Yeah, there is the right to appeal an administrative decision or whatever, but the same agency one is appealing to is the, well, same agency/department.
It is not a good thing.
And try to get a lawyer (for free) to try to hold the state accountable. Immunity and all sorts of things then come into play.
And if one has the money and will, well, good on ya I say.
I recommend, when confronted with the "it's our policy" edict, that people ask to see the policy. (Which, if written, can take years and a legislator's help, and even then the 'policy' may not say what one was told; or the 'policy' might not exist on paper).
Even so, policies are not supposed to have the force of law.
Also, ask to see statute and regulation in whatever situation.
Not a handy little book "for dummies" that the agency/department publishes to explain to the public--law and regs please.
Just the facts ma'am.
Excellent ruling! Important precedent!
Everybody--on both sides--should read this ruling.
Yes, it is 25 pages, but 25 very clear, easy pages. Quick and painless.
It is among the easiest to read rulings that I have ever read--and I've read lots.
Plain language, and cites to many cases and analyses of interest here.
The policeman was following his own personal policy here. (Unless it is actually an unwritten policy of the NPPD--we'll likely never know for sure).
Wow I dont' have time to read every one of the post, but one thing everybody needs to remember is that this article was written by someone not involved in the court system. A Law enforcement officer does not need reasonable suspcion to ask someone to search their car. This officer did everything correct with the exception of telling her why he pulled her over therefore in the courst eyes creating a lack of probable cause for the stop. I have not read the whole decision, but if it implies that you need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to ask someone to search their car, then the judge needs to go back to law school. You need probable cause to obtain a search warrant, not to ask a person for consent.
Then read the whole thing.
Are you capable? Of understanding it?
I'm too tired ( I not too long ago got home from a class), to explain what the court said, but it's pretty clear and obvious.
BTW, you're right, the article was written by someone "not involved in the court system."
The article was written by a FDNM journalist. And it does have its flaws.
The ruling, however, was written by a judge, (actually two, but agreed to by three), who are very much involved in the court system.
Well I read the majority of the ruling and it is primarly based on their interpretation of the state constitution and goes against federal case law that LEO's have been abiding by for several years now. One judge focused on the consent issue as well. From what I have read this is the first time this issue has been interpreted this way in the state and I hope the high water that state appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court and gets this issue overturned.
It doesn't go against fed case law.
States must minimally provide the liberties of the US Constitution, as defined there and in case law, but they may further refine expressed liberties by going beyond the minimal protections.
Further, Alaska's constitution, unlike the US, provides an express right to privacy.
In fact, the judges pointed out that many states have ruled similarly re this point of the 4th amendment.
They said they ruled narrowly (usually do), but I have to go back and reread it...can't remember how narrowly...
I don't believe that the states or the feds faithfully abide by the US Constution. I have a lot of problems with that, for example, as Dirk points out, the 10th amendment is pretty much ignored or interpreted to mean other than what it I believe it does.
But all that's another issue.
Government, like many, abuses law. And I have long understood that just because something is law doesn't necessarily make it right. (Or wrong, hence my discussion above on regs/policies to try to get the state to enforce some of their own laws).
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.