Public Safety Report - March 25
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Assault
• Ivan Lee Cofey, 45, of Fairbanks, was charged with fourth-degree assault after allegedly hitting and choking a woman early Friday morning at his residence.
• Esteban Rodriguez, 30, of Fairbanks, was charged with fourth-degree assault after a woman said he pushed her through a wall on Friday night, breaking much of the drywall.
• Randall Lee McCoy, 34, of Fairbanks, was charged with fourth-degree assault after a woman said he grabbed her and wouldn’t let her answer the door because it could be the police. The incident occurred while the two were arguing at her residence, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. McCoy also allegedly spat on the woman and her 6-year-old daughter, and took her cell phone from her when she tried to call for help.
McCoy was also charged with two counts of first-degree harassment and interfering with the report of a crime involving domestic violence.
• Floyd Kevin Verney, 33, of Fairbanks, was charged with fourth-degree assault after allegedly punching a fellow inmate at the Fairbanks Correctional Center on Thursday afternoon. The two men were playing cards when Verney let someone else play his hand. The victim became upset, saying that it “wasn’t right.” and Verney punched him twice, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. Verney claimed he acted in self defense.
Burglary
• Alaska State Troopers are searching for a man suspected of breaking into a Tanana residence with a gun on Saturday. Troopers suspect a 43-year-old Tanana man, but are not releasing his name at this time. The man was last seen leaving Tanana on a snowmachine, and troopers were unable to locate him. Authorities are now seeking an arrest warrant.
DUI
• Reece Wade Burke, 53, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers received a report of a man sleeping in his car and parked mostly in the northbound lane of the Richardson Highway. The incident occurred March 17 near Mile 322. Troopers were able to contact Burke farther down the road. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.232, nearly three times the legal limit of 0.08 to operate a motor vehicle.
• Sean Michael Burke, 19, of Tok, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers pulled him over for numerous violations Friday on Geist Road. Burke’s vehicle was missing a mirror, one headlight and a tail light. In addition, there was no front license plate, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.094.
A search of his person also turned up about 2 grams of marijuana. Burke was also charged with sixth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance and minor consumption.
• Tommy Gregory Esmailka, 45, of Ruby, was charged with driving under the influence after waving down a trooper who was investigating another matter in Ruby on Wednesday. The trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol on his person and noticed that Esmailka was swaying from side to side. Esmailka refused field sobriety tests, but admitted to drinking a six-pack of beer before operating his snowmachine.
• Victor J. Kubany, 47, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after authorities spotted him making an illegal turn Friday on University Avenue near the Johansen Expressway. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.124.
• Kathleen Elizabeth Lutz, 43, of North Pole, was charged with driving under the influence after North Pole police observed that she smelled of alcohol while she was picking up paperwork at the department on Wednesday. Lutz told officers that she didn’t drink and it was the odor from the jacket, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. A chemical test found her breath-alcohol content to be 0.215.
• Richard Shafer, 50, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers received a report that he was on Cleary Summit threatening to hurt himself. When a trooper approached his vehicle, which contained several empty beer cans, Shafer appeared to slide his hand toward his side, and the trooper put him in handcuffs, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. The trooper noted that Shafer had bloodshot watery eyes and a strong odor of alcohol, but he refused any official test.
After refusing a Datamaster test, Shafter declared, “I’m wasted,” according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
A search of his person also turned up a small bag of methamphetamine. Shafer was also charged with fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance, refusal to submit to a chemical test and driving while his license was revoked.
• Shane Quincy Youngblood, 33, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers observed him fail to signal a turn Thursday on the Johansen Expressway near University Avenue. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.059.
Failure to register
• Michael Davis Frank, 61, of Fairbanks, was charged with second-degree failure to register as a sex offender or child kidnapper after a January search of the state’s registry found he was out of compliance. When contacted by troopers, Frank said he was told he didn’t have to register when he was released from prison in 2002, and he had tried to register last year but a trooper he could not identify told him he didn’t have to, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
Forgery
• Maria C. Gendron, 23, of Fairbanks, was charged with second-degree forgery for allegedly cashing a check that a woman reported stolen last August. The victim to troopers that her purse containing checks and credit cards was stolen from Fred Meyer west, and she discovered the unauthorized check for $495 made out to Gendron a few days later. Security camera footage from a local bank showed Gendron cashing the check, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
Comments
Shane Quincy Youngblood, 33...
I've always been kinda curious as to how someone can be charged with a DUI when their BAC is under the legal limit. Can anyone answer this for me?
If your driving indicates that you are impaired, even though your BAC is below the legal limit, you can receive a ticket for 'driving impaired,' or other similar offenses. Rarely is it reported as a DUI, though, which is, or was, technically reserved for exceeding the legal BAC limit of .08.
That's the way that it used to be, anyway.
Alcohol in excess is a nasty drug.
Re. the Cleary Summit issue; It's likely not a good idea to be holding a felony substance, and announce to a LEO, "I'm wasted." One might assume that this points toward a self-defeating personality issue, and a complete lack of awareness of both the Miranda case, and the 5th Amendment... Or just an unbelievably silly level of self-disclosure and honesty at the wrong moment... Or somethin' like that.. ;^>)
Freeze,
there are two different laws about drinking and driving Driving while Intoxicated (DWI) or Driving under the influence (DUI). The line is drawn by the arresting officers impression of how you handle yourself (motor skills, eye movement, speech, or if you are beligerant)
Just to point it out, neither of these can be used (correction, should be used) when determining drunk in public (or a bar, they threw me into the public at closing), two totally different sets of rules all together.
Right-O, JB.
And just because he blows under a .08 doesn't mean he isn't also under the influcence of something else besides alcohol. People mix alcohol with legally obtained narcotics or other illegal drugs. If they don't have the common sense to not mix drugs and alcohol, they also don't know enough to stay off of the roads.
Those are your legal rights that are set by the state for the enforcement. this could be contested in the court of law. Because it is your right.
Commercial drivers can get arrested on .02 . Maybe he is a trucker.
Contest it all you want to. If you present a public safety hazard because you are too impaired, the police have a duty to get you off the road. Once they catch you, I hope they beat you with the book too.
There's no excuse anymore for driving drunk. Too many people have died, too much money spent over this. Maybe they should just get rid of the DUI prosecution altogether and call it for what it is, attempted murder. If they prosecute it like that, maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.
Everyone knows someone who can't handle their drink, the lightweight, cheap drunks, etc. If you are one of those people, be ready to call a cab, a friend, or do your drinking at home. Quit trying to kill someone by driving after you drink.
Uhh, Children, you shouldn't drink - cause drinkin's bad, mkay?
Well how can one honestly determine if a person is impaired when their bac is below the legal limit. What if the person is just naturally off a little. I have encountered numerous people that I could swear are drunk and yet they are completely sober. I think that we focus too hard on the drunk driving thing. It is a problem yes. It shouldnt happen I agree but the plain truth is that it has become less social accepted than it ever was and you are also implying that a persn has already done harm when they drink and drive. Its like convicted someone for what could happen and not what has happened. The answer to laws is not increase the charges of the offenses. We are already overwhelmed in the prison system as it is. So I would say that it should be cut and dry. .08 and over drunk. under that sober. Because if a person blew .05 and was considered impaired then the same can for a person who blows.10 and not impaired. But you never see that do you.
Not that I condone drunk driving, but I can easily put away 3 to 6 drinks and drive better than a lot of the idiots out there!
With this, as with many things, their is a tendency to over correct and vilify in the extreme. And, I too feel that we are leaning toward guilty (without proof) for touching the stuff. If you doubt that, look at what was already said here - "Maybe they should just get rid of the DUI prosecution altogether and call it for what it is, attempted murder."
Last I checked, attempted murder actual requires a real life victim, not just statistics that say you might end up with a victim.
I don't know - I'm conflicted about this. Mostly, I think that we need to be cautious that we don't end up with some new fascist laws - we've already had enough of those pass since 9/11.
I should be more careful about what I say...
For all you LEO's out there - just because I say that I COULD drive better, doesn't mean that I would - that would be illegal, after all...
Hey folk's,booze is alot cheaper in the liquer store.Buy it and go home.Take off your shoe's and pop a few.Listen to music of your choice,do what you want,have fun with your ole lady.Nobody will argue with you.Your ole lady won't get mad at you for staying out too late.You won't get a DUI or get in a wreck.Yougot a nice place to crash.Plus a nice woman that'll love you to no end for staying home and spending some time with her.Think before you drink.
Not that I am agreeing with any kind of drinking and driving even a beer or wine cooler...but how is failing to use a turn signal any indication of crazy behavior or driving? It seems a bit of a stretch of the law enforcement's discretion. What is the legal limit for? I thought legal limit meant it's legal to drive with it. Guess I need to read the statutes, on a later day because those things are CONFUSING to navigate. Maybe someone else can post it here :) I would get if he was pulled over for reckless driving.
Oh and I have yet to read about one person dying (of exposure or snowmachinging or whatever the case), asaulting, or reckless driving while strictly under the influence of POT. There sure are a lot of alcohol ones though, but we found a way to regulate and legalize that. I'm just saying.
I've gotta chime in on this . . . I've always understood a .08 bac to be the legal limit, yet time and again I've noticed that folks below that have been charged with dui's.
What's up with that?
Thanks, Arctic_amy, for pointing out that a different standard exists for folks with a commercial license.
In all fairness, what we *don't* see in these police blotters are the names of those who have been pulled over for some reason, who blow less than a .08, and who are subsequently released. Does that ever happen at all? Does that happen all the time? My only source of info is what I get from the police report, which only names those who are charged with something.
In all fairness, we don't have complete enough information to form an informed decision as to the fairness, or lack of it, in our LEO's.
I can wholeheartedly agree with ACman and call *any* kind of impaired driving as attempted murder. Really, it is. In the worst-case scenario, that's always what it boils down to, doesn't it?
I can also agree with newsreader - my own life is replete with examples of people who most certainly had a bac above .08, but who drove perfectly fine . . . because a bac above .08 was so often the norm for their lives. I'm not condoning this at all. Simply stating an observation.
I can also agree with woodster . . . impaired driving can and does occur without any inebriating substances in the bloodstream whatsoever. Some of the worst driving I've seen in the last few years is a result of drivers talking on their cell phones. The lights are on, but nobody's home, baby, when they've got that dumb gadget attached to their ears. Some of the worst driving I personally have ever done was because my mind/emotional state was so distressed, and so focused on the mental/emotional issue that, in truth, what was going on the road was kind of a minor concern at that particular moment. And this, with no substances in my system of any kind.
Finally, though, I agree with woliff11. Just stay the heck at home if you know you're going to inbibe or partake of anything that could put you in conflict with other life-loving motorists or pedestrians. Just avoid the whole drama to begin with. Really, the choice can be that simple. Just stay home where you can't get yourself, or anyone else, into trouble. In my life, I've most certainly inbibed, and have partaken. And I have yet to get, or will ever get, a dui simply because it's ingrained in me to do this in the comfort and safety of my own home. I have yet to master the art of not getting behind the wheel when I'm emotionally distraught, but I am getting better at recognizing the signs as to when it's just in everyone's better interests for me to take a taxi home.
DUIs, and the injuries/deaths caused by them, are completely avoidable. Hey, radical concept . . . let's just avoid them.
To really understand thing issue, you have to look as if you are the police officer. Do I let him/her go with a .05 or do I arrest with a .05 Most officers are going to side with the public's safety and make the arrest. The officer understands the charge will likely (and usually will) be dropped by the DA for lack of evidence.
In the end the indivdual is removed from the street for the night and our safety is secured.
Also if you havent noticed there looks to be a new group of police officers being trained and they make more arrests.
Forget this DUI stuff--what about that Verney guy punching that other guy for letting someone else play his hand? Totally justified, right?
Law enforcement is just that - enforcement. It's the legislature that makes the rules. Police are usually villified because they have the power to tell you what to do (to a point). They are also usually the first on the scene. A person driving intoxicated doesn't see the lawmakers when he's arrested he sees the uniform. What people tend to forget is it's not the police that say you're over the legal limit - its Alaska Statute. Even when you're stopped, the police have to prove that you're over the limit by having the person perform certain tests - if you fail - you go to jail.
Yes, it's complicated, but if you read the statutes you'll see how hard it is for police to make black & white decisions. The next time you read about someone being arrested, think about who exactly made those rules in the first place.
Here's the statute:
AS 28.35.030. Operating a Vehicle, Aircraft or Watercraft While Under the Influence of An Alcoholic Beverage, Inhalant, or Controlled Substance.
(a) A person commits the crime of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance if the person operates or drives a motor vehicle or operates an aircraft or a watercraft
(1) while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, intoxicating liquor, inhalant, or any controlled substance, singly or in combination; or
(2) and if, as determined by a chemical test taken within four hours after the alleged operating or driving, there is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood or 80 milligrams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, or if there is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of the person's breath.
You can be charged and convicted under either theory one or two. By the time you are put on the breathalyzer back at the station to determine your alcohol content, you have already been arrested, so they can't (and shouldn't) just "unarrest" you when you blow over. Your arrest is decided on how you perform on the tests, combined with what ever else the cop notices (smell of alcohol, blood shot eyes slurred speech, you know the drill.)
And as far as failing to use a turn signal (or any other innocuous violation), it's not a sign of crazy driving, but it does give the officer a reason to pull you over and see if you are under the influence. What we don't know is how many people are pulled over and not even asked to do tests because the officer doesn't notice any alcohol indicators, or how many people are asked to do tests and then cut loose right there when they pass.
Another thing worth mentioning is that you cannot be arrested for refusing to submit to a chemical breath test - as is the common misconception. It would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination). The same goes for the field sobriety test - you don't have to do it. You can, however, be charged with a Class A misdemeanor if you refuse the test AFTER you've been arrested. If the cop has reason to believe your driving while intoxicated, you will be arrested. But you're under no legal obligation to hop out of the car and prove it to them. I say make them work for it.
But you can get a ticket for refusing a breath test at the scene.
Wait a minute... I thought that refusal to take the breath test carried the same punishment as a DUI? Isn't that correct? Have I been horribly misinformed? Tell me more, please... References?
What happened to the concept that police officers are public servants and should not be just out arresting people for everything? Back in the day, most officers would have given the person a ride home or let him call someone to pick him up, these days it is arrest and sort it out later. There is also more to it than, oh, the DA will dismiss the charge anyway. With the public court case web site, that charge will appear under the person's name forever even if the charge was dismissed or the person was aquitted in trial. If that person ever got arrested again, believe me, the DA will drag it back up and slap him around with it even though he was not found guilty. The charge will also cost the person a lot of money and time in court which also cost the tax payers money and bogs down an already overwhelmed court and prison system. The law is 0.08 and I feel that this person was under that and if the officer felt that he was too impaired to be driving dispite his bac, the officer should have just gotten the person home. It would have saved a whole lot of time and money and hopefully would have given the police more respect and thought of more kindly.
Well, sure he was impaired. After all, he failed to signal a turn. *rolls eyes* I am among the minority who actually DO signal turns. Impaired indeed. Hahaha.
Miss Kitty, that is called enabling. If the cops do that, the person has no reason (deterrent) to not drive impaired again in the future, and the next time, they might be stopped by a car they T-bone at an intersection, not by the police. The reason that police all over the country have been arresting people for YEARS, is that they are trying to cut the epidemic of DUIs. And while they will never stop it entirely, their efforts have made a huge impact, as DUI death rates per miles driven have fallen heavily in the last decades. And despite what you think, their are two parts to the law as I mentioned above, being over the limit, and/or being impaired to the point that you are a danger to others on the road, no matter what your actual BAC. Take for example a young, petite woman who has never consumed alcohol (say for example a high schooler at her first "party"). She drinks one or two beers, and is clearly intoxicated, but her BAC might be well under the limit. Does that make her less of a danger to those on the road? Of course not. The point is, you can be impaired (and by things other than alcohol) and still be under .08.
Newsreader, refusing the breath test at the police station does carry the same penalty as a DUI, including counting towards a felony DUI if you're convicted (of DUI or refusal) three or more times in the last 10 years. Refusing the preliminary breath test at the scene is a violation, however. Two different things. Oh, and by the way, we all have rights, and you certainly have the right to exercise yours, but having the attitude of "make them work for it" is certainly not in the interest of public safety, something for which we are all responsible. If it was only about you, then fine, but we as good citizens are supposed to be looking out for the greater good.
Newsreader - Refusal does carry a sentence similar to DUI, but in my experience, the prosecution usually offers to drop the refusal charge for a plea of no contest or guilty on the DUI.
Wes - I saw a bumper sticker once that expressed my feelings perfectly: "Using my turn signal would reveal my plans to the enemy."
Chelly - In the interest of the greater good, I would say making them work for it is imperative. By repeatedly giving in to the requests of authority we are reaffirming their authority over us and compromising our rights as a society. As Ben Franklin put it "It is the duty of every American to question authority". Certainly our rights as a people are more significant than the police asking us to surrender those rights for the sake of their convenience. If you are ever arrested, chances are pretty good that the arresting officer has more experience in this situation than you do. He is well aware of the process because this is what he does for a living. He knows that he can avoid testifying in court(and practically guarantee a guilty verdict) by asking you to hop out of the car and prove his case for him. Even if your not the type to fight tenaciously for your rights, you should not just hand them over.
Freezee, you have some valid points, and I agree that it is our duty at the appropriate time and place and in the appropriate manner to question our government. My point was that in this case, the cops seem to be genuinely interested in protecting public safety by getting as many impaired drivers off the road as possible. By resisting that effort, we appear to be impeding what is best for public safety. If you do indeed hop out of the car and prove his case for him, what you are proving is that you are guilty (otherwise there would be no case to prove). If that is the the case, shame on you for putting your need to drive drunk over the needs of society to be safe, and you should stand up and take your lumps like a man (or woman), not hide behind your rights and say "prove it" like a little kid trying to avoid punishment. In other words, there is a fine line between exercising your rights and hiding behind them out of selfishness.
Please do not take my comments as a direct attack on you, and I am not meaning to imply you've ever been on the wrong side of the law. Just providing a counter point.
If he wasnt embarrased over this whole situation before I would bet Mr. Youngblood is now...He opened a can of worms for sure...Bet he will think twice before he does anything that might land his name on the "social page" again...I was and EMT for many years and have seen first hand the devastation that driving impaired causes...Not a good idea in any circumstance be it alcohol..pot..or cell phones which impair a persons ability to react as they are otherwise focused...how in the world did we get by all those years without phones in our vehicles...
Freezee,
FYI the legal limit for BAC in the state of Alaska is .08, that translates to roughly 1 or 2 shots or 1 beer currently in one's system. It takes most of us about 1-1.5 hr. to metabolize the average alcoholic beverage. So the average 125-150 lb woman would be over the limit after her first or second drink and the average man would be over the limit after his second or third, depending on how fast their system can metabolize.
Yes It's a racket. In a state with no income taxes, law enforcement has to be a money generating entity. Still, BOOZE sux. Don't drink and drive/
Alaskanshielah, the problem with your statement is that, as I have said before, neither law enforcement nor any part of the criminal justice system receive any direct benefit from the fines from these crimes (except the jails; you have to pay them for the privilege of using their beds.) The money goes into the general fund, NOT directly to the agency that made the arrest. It would actually cost the department less money (in the form of overtime, gas, etc.) if they DIDN'T go out and arrest anyone.
"FYI the legal limit for BAC in the state of Alaska is .08, that translates to roughly 1 or 2 shots or 1 beer currently in one's system."
i don't know where you get your information from... but unless you are a 5 year old there is no way a single beer is 0.08. try 0.03 for 120-150lb person.
and... you loose 0.01 per 40 minutes or so. certainly not a full drink in an hour... especially not one of your magical "1 beer = 0.08" drinks.
I believe that everyone has the right to voice there concerns, but at the end of the day these laws were created because of all the damage and deaths that occured. It is difficult to say how much is too much, each body has a different tolerance based on ther body chemistry. The infinent wisdom of our leaders has been led to believe that these laws will minimize the risk of death and destruction in our lives. So happy safe clean driving:-)
"Law enforcment has to be a money generating entity"
Law enforcement will never, ever be a money generating entity. That's why it's grudgingly tolerated by politicians. They're all for more public safety when they're trying to get elected, but then they see how much it costs to hire, train, & equip cops, hire and provide offices for DA's, house inmates, etc. and they see that law enforcement is one big alligator. All it does is eat, and returns very little (relative to cost) in direct financial income. Instead the only way to measure your return on investment is through quality of life issues, which are hard to put a number one.
CHELLY what happens to the $2500.00 to $4500.00 that dui`s cost?
Nowdays the crimanals have to pay for their own incarceration,officers time,their own brethalizers,EVERYTHING!
Next the police will start stealing cars just like they do in anchorage.I bet I know who gets the first bid in the auction-the police.
I have had one "failure to submit". It was in 1990. I expect to never have another! My ex used to work at FASAP. (where you get your alcohol screening) You take a test...question 3 or 4 ask: Have you ever had a DUI? My answer was NO. The VERY NEXT question is: What was your BAC?? This is vital in determining whether or not you need counselling. If your BAC is above .20, you go straight to the counsellor!!! This is to the tune of hundreds of dollars until you are done. These questions are weighted. Some mean more than others. It behooves one to NOT have a DUI. A failure to submit, while carries the same penalty as DUI, it does NOT carry the same weight on that test. My attorney said I should have taken the breathalyzer, but I still think I made the right choice. I was given the same sentence as anyone that is getting sentenced for their first DUI, but avoided counselling. (which I did not need anyway)
Average_Joe, the money from fines, citations, etc. all goes into the state general fund if you are cited or convicted for violating state law. If you are cited under a municipal ordinance (which usually have MUCH higher fines than the state, so it is more of a revenue generator), the money goes into the city's general fund, but in either case, it does NOT go directly into the department's coffers or budget. Offenders do not have to pay for their breathayzers, or the officer's time (unless they cause a crash with injuries, then they do have to pay the department (not the state) an additional $78 fee. Not a huge difference.) While these convictions do generate some revenue for the state (not the department) in the form of fines, it costs way more to arrest, process, house, and prosecute these crimes than the state gets in return. As I've said before, it would be cheaper for the department (in terms of gas, overtime, etc.) to do nothing than to arrest people. It's not a money making enterprise, despite what many believe.
And under state law (each muni has its own set of rules), the DUI offender's car can be impounded and forfeited only if they are convicted of a felony (or third) offense. If the department goes through with forfeiture and sells the vehicle, the money again goes into the general fund. See http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Stat...
If the department would calibrate their field equipment, then false arrests wouldn't take place wasting time and money when there are other more important issues to exert energy on.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.