Public Safety Report -- April 2
Published Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Assault
• Marques D. Johnson, 28, of Fairbanks, was charged with fourth-degree assault after allegedly punching and kicking a woman Saturday night. When the woman attempted to call police, Johnson allegedly pulled the phone cord out of the wall, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. He also was charged with interfering with the report of a crime involving domestic violence.
• Corey Paul Nyberg, 31, of Wasilla, was charged with fourth-degree assault after he allegedly hit a man in the head several times after the pair had been drinking Thursday at the Totem Hotel in Healy.
• Vincent J. Perdue, 25, of Fairbanks, was charged with third-degree assault after a woman said he choked her and stabbed her in the ear with a pen early Friday morning at the Golden Nugget Hotel.
• Nicholas Shiflet, 20, of Moose Creek, was charged with fourth-degree assault after a woman said he kicked her in the leg Sunday.
• Edwina R. Starr, 22, of Tanana, was charged with fourth-degree assault after her mother said Starr hit her in the head Saturday. Her mother was picking her up from a neighbor’s house because Starr was intoxicated when she became angry and struck her, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
• A man told Fairbanks police that three men beat him up Monday afternoon in the parking lot of the Noel Wien Library. The man was treated for his injuries at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital.
Burglary
• Alaska State Troopers are investigating a report of a burglary and vandalism in an apartment complex off Amherst Road.
Troopers believe the suspects tore the tops off three coin-operated dryers, broke the tops off three washing machines and stole several items from the main office. The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information about the case is asked to call troopers at 451-5100.
DUI
• Jeremiah David Brown, 27, of North Pole, was charged with driving under the influence after authorities observed him fail to stop at a posted sign early Thursday morning on the Mitchell Expressway near Peger Road. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.124.
• Jarnell Davis, 21, of Fort Wainwright, was charged with driving under the influence after Fairbanks police spotted him driving with no headlights early Sunday morning on Airport Way near Cushman Street. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.08.
• Kevin D. Davis, 42, of Fairbanks, was charged with felony driving under the influence after authorities received a report Saturday night from someone who was concerned that Davis was driving intoxicated with a child in the car.
Fairbanks police located Davis’ vehicle on 23rd Avenue. The vehicle came right at the officer’s car, but swerved at the last minute, avoiding an accident, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. Davis’ minor son was in the vehicle with him.
A chemical test found Davis’ breath-alcohol content to be 0.316, nearly four times the legal limit of 0.08 to operate a motor vehicle. He also was charged with reckless endangerment.
Davis has two previous convictions for driving under the influence in the past 10 years, once in September 1999, and again in August 2004, according to court records.
• Thomas Samuel Davis, 28, of Wasilla, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers noticed him turn without signaling late Saturday night on Old Airport Way. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.199.
In addition, a search of his vehicle turned up a small amount of marijuana and a loaded pistol. Davis also was charged with fourth-degree weapons misconduct and sixth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance.
• Jesus Galindo, 35, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers became suspicious of his vehicle Sunday night as it was parked in front of the Showboat Club. Troopers observed three men get out of the vehicle and enter the establishment, but one would peek his head out of the front door every few minutes while the others were inside, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
After about 15 minutes, the men emerged from the building with a woman who worked there who said she had been threatened and wanted them removed. When a trooper confronted Galindo, he became belligerent, but was taken into custody without incident, according to the complaint.
He also was charged with driving while his license was suspended and drunken persons on licensed premises.
Galindo has two prior convictions for driving under the influence within the past 10 years, both in Colorado, according to court records.
• Larry Alan Hall, 45, of Two Rivers, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers noticed him turn without signaling early Friday morning on Smallwood Road near Chena Hot Springs Road. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.162. He also was charged with driving while his license was revoked.
• Segred J. Hust, 51, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after a Fairbanks police officer became suspicious of her actions late Friday night.
The officer observed Hust kneeling in the front seat of her truck and throwing items around while it was parked on Rickert Street near 23rd Avenue. When he asked her what she was doing, Hust said she was looking for her keys, even though the truck was running and she had another set of keys in her hand. The officer noted that Hust was “animated,” and could not stop moving, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
She told the officer that she took methadone every day, but she failed field sobriety tests. A drug recognition expert determined that Hust was under the influence of a stimulant and a narcotic and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. In addition, a search of the truck turned up a glass pipe that tested positive for the presence of cocaine. She also was charged with fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance.
• Jeff W. Lowery, 24, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers noticed his rear license plate light was out early Saturday morning on University Avenue. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.16.
• Ryan Andrew Masson, 23, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers received a report of a possible drunken driver Friday in the area of Chena Pump Road. A trooper located a vehicle matching the description of the one reported and observed it nearly slamming into a vehicle stopped in front of it before swerving into oncoming traffic to avoid an accident, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.
A chemical test found Masson’s breath-alcohol content to be 0.185. In addition, a search of the vehicle turned up a handgun under the front seat. He also was charged with fourth-degree weapons misconduct.
• Robert Francis Parker, Jr., 43, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after Fairbanks police noticed him speeding Sunday night on the Richardson Highway. Police observed an odor of alcohol on Parker’s person, and that he had bloodshot, watery eyes and his speech was slurred, but Parker refused a breath test. He also was charged with refusal to submit to a chemical test.
• Jose R. Rodriguez, 34, of Fort Wainwright, was charged with driving under the influence after Fort Wainwright police smelled alcohol on him while doing an identification check Sunday at main gate. Rodriguez refused an official breath test at the Fairbanks Police Department. He also was charged with refusal to submit to a chemical test.
• Barbara Joan Saenz, 47, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after Fairbanks police witnessed her driving 15 mph in a 40 mph zone late Thursday night on Phillips Field Road. Saenz also was weaving in and out of her lane, according to a criminal complaint filed in court. A chemical test found her breath-alcohol content to be 0.263.
• Gary Daniel Scheid, 21, was charged with driving under the influence after troopers observed him crossing the center line of Badger Road on Sunday. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.131.
• Christopher Llewellyn Vanreenan, 23, of Fairbanks, was charged with driving under the influence after Fairbanks police spotted his vehicle parked sideways early Friday morning on the Johansen Expressway off-ramp near Peger Road. A chemical test found his breath-alcohol content to be 0.225.
When contacted by police, Vanreenan first gave them the name of another man. He also was charged with making a false report and driving with a revoked license.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Hmmm...maybe you all have been right....
Only 14 DUIs reported this time - the Police Report is clearly acting as a deterrent...looks like it is working for assault also...at this rate we should be able to get rid of crime all together if we publish more names.
wonder how many motorists were stopped for minor infractions, etc to get this group into custody.
Mr. Kevin D. Davis, I hope you do NOT regain custody of your child. As you have proven three times in the last 10 years, you are not a responsible parent; you should've learned from the first incident. WAIT....... I take that back. The first incident should have never happened. I sincerely hope that you get the worst punishment of all D.U.I's listed. If I were that child's mother, I would do my DAMNEST to keep you away.
As for the assault's and burglaries........ COME ON!! WOMEN, step up and leave! You deserve better than being treated like an animal. THIEVES..... Get a fricken JOB!! DRUG ADDICTS, I have no words for you.
For all you reading this....I hope you have a nice day!
"A drug recognition expert determined that Hust was under the influence of a stimulant and a narcotic and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. In addition, a search of the truck turned up a glass pipe which tested positive for the presence of cocaine."
Hmm, that's very interesting the DRE decided she was on a stimulant and a narcotic. Did they find narcotics? Stimulants? Apparently not. She was a crack head - she was "carpet crawling" in her truck - it's a common enough crack head behavior.
I'm sorry, but it really makes me wonder about these DRE's. Sounds more like some kind of witch hunter than actual expertise.
The other day, a friend of mine got into an accident. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and they went off the road. They were sober. However, the cops showed up and brought one of these "omniscient" DREs who decided that the driver was stoned, citing "red eyes" as the proof. [I might add that the guy is a tattoed freak, I wonder if that influenced the DRE at all?]
The guy was tired, that's why he fell asleep and had an accident. Of course, he can't prove his innocence considering pot can stay in your system for weeks - so if you smoked last week you'll still have it in your blood.
Nice racket these guys have going, when drivers now have to "prove their innocence" instead of the other way around. I wonder if these DREs actually have any weight in court. I sure hope not because I don't see how it can be anything other than inexact pseudo-science.
Way to go DNM. Reporting crime in the community is part of what I read the paper for. Keep up the good work.
Newsminer -
DREs do NOT practice pseudo-science - - it is properly defined as witchcraft.
When three (3) officers were convinced I was drunk while driving a while ago - I first had light shined in my eyes...had to count from one to 10 and touch my nose - and then had to walk in a straight line.
After my masterful acrobatic performance they were most assuredly convinced I was blasted. I then got the honor of blowing in the tube of infinite sadness....funny - it must've been broken because it registered a 0.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if any of the 3 officers was a DRE. The training really paid off in that case. Oh - but the main officer did say...'sorry for the inconvenience' and called me 'sir' once all was said and done and I questioned why I was pulled over...again.
What qualifies one for this DRE badge of honor - I have a feeling it is a 3-day seminar in some tropical location. Hopefully it is at least much more than that...like a college degree in pharmacology or something similar.
After my rant on DREs, I should point out that anyone who drives at .2 to .3 is an idiot and should be locked up. Especially those that are repeat offenders... Driving at .316 with two previous convictions? Obivously, this guy is not going to be deterred by having his name in the paper!
newsreader, DREs are a way to get people driving high off the streets. When someone gets pulled over driving drunk, it easy enough to have them blow and then arrest them or let them go accordingly. Unfortunately we don't have breathalizers for LSD, PCP, pot and the various other illegal or other poorly controlled substances out there available to drivers. DREs allow law enforcement to pull drivers off the road if they appear to be under the influence of something. I feel bad for your friend, I had a similar accident years ago and didn't have a problem because was sober and polite to the trooper that showed up. It is a bummer when the system doesn't work, but then again if your friend is smoking and illegal substance, that was his/her choice.
I guess if it wasn't you and they got rid of all the DREs, it would be some poor mother complaining when a coked up junky got turned loose after a clean breathalizer and ran down her kid. I guess maybe it's ok and I'd rather listen to you.
Chris - my problem is the step from "they appear to be under the influence of something" to ticketing, fines, and possible jail time based up that appearance by a (at least sometimes) biased observer.
Last time I checked, we needed solid, certifiable, "beyond a reasonable doubt" type evidence to prove guilt in this country. I didn't think that apperances were enough.
Newsreader, I too have been curious lately about the qualifications and intent of these DRE's. It disturbs me very much that someone can assume Im under the influence and I can be arrested without any actual irrefutable proof.
Sounds like DRE sold out. What about the Chronic?
I dont understand the crime of "drunken persons on licensed premises". I know personally, that I like to DRINK AND GET DRUNK on licensed premises! Confusing.
Frezee - My point exactly... It makes me really nervous.
I'm afraid that we are going to get to the point where if you don't look, dress, and act like an "upstanding citizen", you can be accused by an "expert" of doing bad things.
Kind of like they used to be able to burn you at the stake for having odd mannerism, odd birthmarks, or, just plain being odd. I'm not saying we are there yet, but...
Newsreader, you are innocent until proven guilty here. Just because you are arrested dosen't mean you'll be convicted, or even charged. The disclaimer at the head of all these public safety reports indicates such. It's your right to go to court and get a speedy trial (with a jury of your peers!). They can administer blood/urine tests once you've been pulled from your vehicle to prove innocence/guilt.
I don't see any current evidence that these tools are being abused by our law enforcement, so it irks me off when people make unfounded arguements for taking these tools away from our law enforcement community to make their job that much more difficult and our roadways that much less safe.
Why do they even have breath alcohol content levels. Drinking and driving, with any amount of alcohol in your system is going to impair your judgement.
Chris - how can I prove my innocence? If I smoked pot last week and I was pulled over last night, I was NOT under the influence, but it will still be in my system. Are we now saying that you can't drive for up to a month after taking a hit of a legal substance (I say legal, because the superior court has already overturned the recriminalization law - we are just waiting for the supreme court to uphold that decision).
Does that seem reasonable to you? Just?
So, please, you tell me, how can I prove my innocence?
I don't even understand why the News Miner stopped posting names for a few days just because a few people whined about it.
"...how can I prove my innocence? If I smoked pot last week and I was pulled over last night, I was NOT under the influence, but it will still be in my system."
It's illegal! Stop doing it and you won't have to worry.
It seems to me that the DRE was made up by someone to give the cops yet another useful 'tool' to encroach on citizen's rights and ransack our trunks and pockets. Since the guy is 'certified' he can tell if you are acting funny and give the police a free hand at going through your belongings. What used to take significant probable cause or a search warrant now only requires a nod from this expert - an expert who is not concerned about individual rights.
I would still like to see actual numbers on how many people are pulled over and checked before one evildoer is found. Help me to put it into perspective - are these numbers even collected....and what are the requirements for becoming an expert? Seems like an up-and-coming industry that I may like to explore! I do hold CWP from 2 states :)
I would rather have a checkpoint and have everyone pulled over - that would be a deterrent (at least to find a different route home). It would be much more fair than pulling me over time and again for nada. It should also be done in the day - since criminals are not all vampires. Maybe a nice checkpoint in the Fred Meyer's Parking lot at 5pm. Now that would be fair. Maybe combine it with a car wash and the city can make some money in the process.
Just an idea. Good for one...good for all.
kp -
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!
Taken from the newsminer:
"The latest round in a decades-old battle over the drug revolves around a two-year-old state law that would make illegal the personal at-home use of small amounts of marijuana in Alaska.
A lower court struck down part of the law two years ago saying it conflicts with past Supreme Court decisions. The state Department of Law appealed the case."
THE LAW HAS ALREADY BEEN STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPERIOR COURT!!!
CATCH UP, WILL YA!
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL!
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA HAS UPHELD ITS LEGALITY EVERYTIME FOR THE LAST 30+ YEARS.
So, one more time...
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!
heh....nice
but its clearly bad and wrong and even smells funny - we should ban it 'for the children'
Ok, newsreader, you're right. Possesion of small amounts of pot for use in your own home is not currently technichally illegal. My question is since it is illegal to buy it, sell it, and/or grow it, how do you get it in your possesion in your home without commiting a crime??
Look, I called in recently to the Police to report a crime I walked into and was scared for my life. It took me three days to get the nerve to call and report b/c these guys had seen my face. After 20 minutes speaking with some woman at the Drug Enforcement whatever, she stated that there were 3 (or 4) Officers in the drug force and that they covered a large area. I asked how large and she reported that they covered down to Denali, Fairbanks, and all territory up to the Border. It is truly too large an area to patrol. We need help in this battle against drugs and alcohol and we need to make the help available and free. Recovery these days are for the rich... whose to help those that don't have cash, or a house, or a job,....it is easy to point blame, but this is a societal problem, not an individual problem and it is obvious that most that use and abuse are just not equipped with the tools necessary for coping. We need to address that! Incarceration should not be when people get clean...it should be before that! Stop sending your monies to aid your "special" cause and look at the need in your own back yard! If I have one beef with the local churches in this town it's with this issue...i see more monies, clothes, tools, etc...going to Burma, Peru, Argentina, Louisiana, etc...to help their struggles, what about one of the above mentioned names? Think one of them come benefit from a mentor? A positive word? Financial Help? Help rebuilding their destructive lives. U think those individuals you help in those other places are better, that they don't use or abuse or beat their kids, etc...they're human too! You just don't see their name in your paper! I am sorry for the tanget I went down but I am fed up with all these people and agencies that want to HELP and they don't!It's all just lip service or politics, or altruism.......i'm off my soap box now; good day!
Akangel - With possession comes the right to grow small amounts in your home. It always has. Right now, I can't quote you the statute (because they don't want you to know it is legal, so I can't find it online), however previously the law read that you can have up to 4 plants in your home for personal use. It doesn't require a pot fairy, only a grow light and a seed.
Something I always wondered since I am not part of the subculture.
Where do you get the seed?
also - if i liked the shape and fullness of my plant - could i set it in my living room window without fear of government reprisals (not counting the neighbors gankin it)
thanks!
Actually newsreader I would direct you to the DEAs website, where you will find that marijauna is indeed a Schedule I drug.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling...
It is not legal. Federal Drug law is designed to supercede state drug law. The state can "decriminalize" all they want. Until the DEA changes the scheduling, it is still illegal. You don't have any rights to grow or for personal use. The feds could choose to arrest (and probably convict) you any time they wanted. While their practice may not currently be that because personal use doesn't present a public risk in many people's eyes, that doesn't mean it is legal.
As soon as Alaska succeeds from the union, I'll agree, it's legal. Until then, you are just wrong.
...secedes from the Union. One day Alaska might succeed at seceding from the Union. (Sorry, it drives me nuts)
Chris Bollinger-
I think newsreader is correct in that the state has legalized the use of small quantities of marijuana in the home. I would refer you to the 10th amendment. The federal government has no legal standing to harrass or arrest citizens when they are conducting themselves in a legal manner under state law. I dont see anywhere in the constitution where the federal government has the authority to intercede in states rights or laws. So unless a person commits an act which exceeds the borders of the state ie. mail fraud or interstate transactions the feds are oversteping their powers to make an arrest under your position.
Chris Bollinger is scary:o !!
Boy is he/she plugged in!
Might be a cop or relative...!
Very well said bikebuilder...very well said
Chris --
Playing the Uncle Sam trump card now, huh? Interesting. Nice way to side-step the issue.
Since no one is going to be prosecuted under federal law for having less than 100 plants or ridiculous quantities of cash, federal law does not apply. It certainly does not apply to a DRE related traffic stop.
However, as long as we are picking-nits, I didn't see any federal regulations outlawing having THC in the bloodstream - only possession, distribution, production, etc. So, having THC in the bloodstream doesn't seem to be illegal under Alaska law or Federal law. Therefore, having THC in the blood stream after a traffic stop is not illegal. And, since it stays in the blood stream for up to a month, it proves absolutely nothing regarding the exact time frame of "being under the influence".
So, once again, I ask, how can an Alaskan resident protect themselves against an improper DRE assessment?
[Does it bother anyone else that I am even having to ask how one can prove themselves innocent???]
By that logic the state could decriminalize murder, child abuse or really anything and it would be legal as long as it took place in your home. Also by this logic anything that a state didn't have a law for would be unprosecuteable if it took place in a home (hacking, anyone?).
Also thanks for the grammar correction, I forgot to cut and paste from Word. :)
newsreader-
It bothers me a great deal. I understand that law enforcement officers need to keep impaired drivers off the road. I've been hit by a drunk driver myself. You are right on the money... We cant have the enforcement branch of our government (police) making an arrest which makes you guilty based on the officers opinion not fact.
The police are human just like us. They make mistakes and decisions based on emotion, fear, anger and reprisal too. We cant have laws or actions brought against us which cant be refuted in a court. It's their word against ours and we all know how that works.
Chris-
By that lodic you are correct... The state could decriminalize murder, and crimes against children... However when you say state you are implying the legislature. How long do you think you would last as a legislature if you voted to decriminalize murder or crimes against children.
Also you use hacking as a crime in the home.. If you use a phone line to commit the hacking you are no longer are conducting acts in your home.
Under what circumstances would the police search your bloodstream (or urine) for THC? I can only think of two:
1.) You're on probation.
2.) You've been involved in a fatal accident.
Imusuallyright -
Chris suggested "They can administer blood/urine tests once you've been pulled from your vehicle to prove innocence/guilt."
I was pointing out that this is incorrect. A blood/urine test that results positive for marijuana proves nothing.
Honestly, I don't know if they would force a blood/urine test on some one who was charged with a marijuana DUI. If they did, it would be pointless.
Overall, my recent posts here have been to dispute Chris's statement "it irks me off when people make unfounded arguements for taking these tools away from our law enforcement community". I think that I have made my point that this "tool" is unreliable, potentially unfair, and goes against the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty. It has already been used unfairly (if you believe what I was told by my friend). In addition, this police report shows an inconsistency.
I'm still waiting for Chris (or anyone else) to intelligently contradict my stance that a DRE can falsely accuse someone, while the falsely accused has no recourse for defense against this accusation.
Newsreader--
Just because a person smoked marijuana a week ago, doesn't mean they are impaired at the time of the stop. It's no different than consuming alcohol. You can consume alcohol and not be impaired. The person fails field sobriety tests and after ruling out alcohol a DRE performs an evaluation to determine what category of drug is likely causing the impairment. They are also responsible for determining if it could be a medical problem, or if there is no indication of impairment from one of the categories. In a DUI-Drug case the evaluation of a blood sample determines the presence and quantity of drugs that are in the system at the time of the contact. In an alcohol DUI the instrument determines the quantity of alcohol. Both confirm, or refute, the failing of the sobriety tests.
Less than 1% of the officers across the nation are certified DRE's, and the DRE program has been in place nationwide for over 30 years. The class is very time intensive and certification and re-certification take a great amount of time and effort.
It would be extremely difficult for a DRE to falsely accuse someone. The subject is already placed under arrest by the arresting officer. It is the role of the DRE to determine what category of drug is causing the impairment which is confirmed by analysis of the blood. The defendant can challenge the arrest in court just as they can if it was an alcohol-based DUI. Their training, experience, credibility, and the scientific analysis of the evidence will be brought into play and the case proceeds like normal.
As far as "forcing" a sample of blood, the officer can apply for a search warrant, requiring them to provide sufficient evidence to a judge or magistrate that the blood may provide further evidence of the arrest.
Hmmm -
The DRE program is very intensive....lets see....
1. Drug Recognition Expert Pre-School (16 hours)
2. Drug Recognition Expert DRE School (56 hours)
3. Drug Recognition Expert Field Certification (Approximately 40 – 60 hrs)
(as per http://decp.org/training/)
So that adds up to 2-3 weeks. But I am sure that 2-3 weeks fully qualifies someone to be an 'expert'. Please spare me. A subject matter expert is much more than that IMO.
The term EXPERT is overused now in our society...for instance...
I learned how to fall out of planes in the Army and it was a 3 week course...to learn how to fall out of a plane....
I also was an 'expert' marksman, an 'expert' infantryman and a 'ranger' - the silly ranger training took me something like 68days...to learn how to walk through the woods....
I would think that an 'expert' in drug recognition would take a little more than the time it spent for me to fall out of a plane or walk through the woods....
then again...maybe not.
seems like just another way to again violate my individual rights....
expert...bah - I am a pretty dumb guy - but to me the following says it best(as per ezine on the web)
Now then with that said what is an expert? In my opinion an expert is someone who you can ask any question about something in their domain, field or industry and they can go into a 30 minute speech at 160 words per minute without taking a breath and fully answer your question in laymen terms or using the industry buzz words, depending on who they are talking too.
Think these DRE fellas can do this....
oops - the site i referenced also says that before you can become an expert you...
must complete a minimum of 12 drug evaluations under the supervision of a trained DRE instructor. Of those 12 evaluations, the officer must identify an individual under the influence of at least three of the seven drug categories and obtain a minimum 75% toxicological corroboration rate. The office must then pass a final knowledge examination and be approved by two DRE instructors before being certified as a certified DRE
wowowowow - you must do 12 whole evaluations in a school room setting and score a 75%
I was wrong - it does sound tough....
akguy--It is up to each individual court to determine whether the officer can testify as an expert. The term DRE is a generic term. The formal name of the course is the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program. Again, the DRE is confirming, or refuting, the decision by the officer, who has already placed them under arrest.
If it is generic - why call them 'experts' - to lend them credibility of course....
The DEC Program trains police officers and other approved public safety officials as drug recognition experts (DREs)
so the course...trains police officers...as DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERTS - as per their website (listed in my post above)
also - as per their site...Question...Is there a difference between the DEC Program and the DRE Program?
Answer - NO. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP) is the official name for the program, but it is now frequently referred to as the Drug Recognition Expert Program.
also..."In some cases, the person evaluated will be a driver the DRE personally arrested."
you bore me with your semantics, man - to me they seem as qualified as I was after high school health class....
This is a perfect example of emotion taking over is it not akguy? What will you guys start talking about next? Religion? Politics?
Very true CC...very true...
but realize that these EXPERTS with a few weeks training are condemning people in our community. It hasnt happened to me - but it does make me sad. Just another 'tool' in the arsenal of the police ma'am.
what exactly would it take to rile you up - maybe a loved one being treated like the young lady who tells her story elsewhere on this site...accosted by a trooper while dropping her child off at school?
it only happens when you break the law, right.....sadly...with programs like the one above i fear that the era of right and wrong is gone - replaced by the police and his shades of gray 'tools'
have a great day and enjoy the beginnings of the breakup, ma'am - as will I
akguy - How is the DRE condemning people in our community? Absent the DRE, the person is still under arrest, for failing the sobriety tests and the observations of the officers. And believe it or not, sometimes parents drop their kids off at school while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. What if you or someone in your family was involved in an accident, and the other driver was impaired by something other than alcohol? Would you prefer that the officer investigate to determine what might have caused the impairment, or just release them? The program has been around for over 30 years, developed in California. The reason we're seeing it up here is because we now have officers trained in the program. It's really no different than a DUI. Someone may be highly impaired, for them, and blow under a .08. The fact is they are still under arrest. A DRE officers an opinion as to the source of the impairment, which is confirmed by a blood sample that is analyzed.
Wow - always room for 'what ifs'
as many before have implied - does a blood test confirm that at the time of the stop the individual was impaired? I think not.
Guess that leaves it up to the 'expert' testimony of the DRE in a court of law? If all they offer is an opinion - then why call them experts? A 75% on your final doesn't seem like an 'expert' grade to me - make it a 90% or more and we can talk.
Does that 75% grade at DRE school mean they get 3 of 4 people they analyze correct? Good enough for government work? I guess so 'if it protects the children'
Gee, akguy.
Kinda makes me wonder why I spent so much time and money on college, when I could just spend a few hours and get a cushy gov job as a DRE.
Really. College changed my world. Although I spent--and pay --a fortune for it, I didn't do it to simply be a money-making worker bee.
I agree with your comments on experts. Ofttimes, a regular Joe with thoughtful and reflective experience are excellent experts on a their "things."
Problem is, they don't work for the right non-profit or gov agency or whatever.
So they don't get aplace at the table.
Newsreader, you say (and I agree), that the courts have struck down the illegality of small amounts of marijuana in the home as an invasion of the privacy of the citizens of Alaska. However, those same courts have said that police stopping people for traffic violations, no matter how insignificant, is legal and does not violate their rights, even if it is a pretense to check on something more serious. While I certainly agree that this can be taken too far by police, the point is if we are going to rely on our courts to determine what is a violation of privacy and what is not, we need to apply that evenly, otherwise it becomes a double standard.
On another note, you will not find a statute showing that it is legal to have pot in your home. When the court struck down the statute, the legislature did not rescind or rewrite the law. The law is still on the books. And when you say "because they don't want you to know it is legal, so I can't find it online" who are you talking about? If you are using touch n' go to find the statute (they are the only site I know of that lists AK's statutes), it is a private company, not the government, so why would they try to cover it up? You are generally to reasonable to be supporting such conspiracy theories.
And finally, of the incidents in the police blotter about people being caught/charged with the possession of marijuana, I don't recall a single one about someone caught with it in their home. That being the case, you seem to be admitting that when these people are caught with pot, they are indeed breaking the law. And I'd like to ask you a legitimate question. A young adult is caught with pot in his car and he is in possession of a handgun. Does that change your view on his behavior? Does it matter how much pot? I'm just trying to clarify your position in my mind.
Chris B. - catch up on the current events before you post, please. And by the way, you are not "innocent" until proven guilty. If you commit a crime you are not innocent. You may be PRESUMED innocent, but likely you are not treated that way prior to your conviction. I assume you have never actually been involved with the justice system, due to the fact that your comments are infantile and naive. Therefore I would suggest that you do not offer opinion on a subject which you have absolutely no experience in. Your comparison of smoking weed to committing murder is asinine, but I'm sure that is blatantly obvious to almost everyone but you. Guess what? I SMOKE POT. Call the feds and let them know. In fact, if you PM me, I will give you everything you need to tell them where to find me.
Bikebuilder - I couldn't have said it better myself.
Imusuallyright - WRONG, as usual. You obviously know how to work the internet thingy, use it.
akguy - thanks for the info. I was quite curious as to the training these DREs were required to obtain. If I scored a 75% in school I got a C. Definitely not smart enough in regards to the subject matter to be an "expert".
What about the drivers who are impaired by their cell phones? or the poodle on their lap, or the kids screaming in the backseat or the eyeliner they are trying to get straight? How, exactly, do we define "impaired" driving. If I sprain my ankle and it hurts to apply the brake, am I impaired? The line needs to be drawn somewhere. And a guy who is 75% good at his job should not have the right to permanently taint my record on the basis of his "expertise". In my job, if I make 2 mistakes in 10 years I am charged with a felony. People take that seriously, but are we assuming that DUI is frivolous enough to leave this much of a discrepancy? I disagree.
Yippie for names!
Curious. In what kind of job is it a felony to make two mistakes in ten years? Are these cut-off-the-wrong-leg kinds of mistakes or typos?
Chelly -
I agree with some laws, other's I don't. It really comes down to that. I think that some of the traffic laws are just plain silly.
As far as the double standard goes - the trooper that posted here stated that they don't even have a personal property unit which I took to mean that, basically, theft and robbery in their district are seldom pursued! So, beyond my problem with the laws themselves, I see that they are already being enforced unequally. I think that I do have the right to have a problem with that.
As far as the statutes go, I suppose I stand corrected. I made an incorrect assumption - your explanation makes a lot of sense. The fact that I USED to be able to find those statutes, but could no longer, struck me as odd. However, I still do think that the police do NOT particularly want the public to know that its legal. The court case stiking down the law was not nearly as widely publicized as the passing of the unconstitutional law in the first place (IMO).
"A young adult is caught with pot in his car and he is in possession of a handgun. Does that change your view on his behavior? Does it matter how much pot?"
As far as your last question goes, I really think that pot should be entirely legal. However, that is not what you were asking...
If a young man is caught with a hand gun (legal) and a small amount of pot (should be legal) then I have no problems. I don't relate the two things at all, why should I?
Pot doesn't cause violence (like meth, coke, crack, heroin, and alcohol). It causes peace and harmony.
Now, if they have assault rifles, are jacked up on meth, and have pounds of pot, that's another story...
i see jesus got a dui good job AST
Peace and harmony, huh? Why, dear newsreader, are you the center of so many un-peaceful and unharmonious discussions here? (Answer: Because not everyone is smoking.)
Not to diverge-- I'm following the actual discussion-- that made me laugh, though.
hello, i find this hilarious....
Yeah, that part (peace & harmony) was supposed to make you laugh!
Glad to know it did...
Imusuallyright, haha you make me laugh.
Uh-oh, here we go again.
I have an idea for akguy and newsreader: why don't you guys become DRE's since you apparently know so much about illegal substances? That way you could contribute something meaningful to our community.
Chris, you have some really good points here. Don't let some of these unreasonable posters deter you.
akguy- thanks for all the interesting facts and statistics.
well, that goes for everyone. really enjoy reading the comments and discussion. definitely more interesting than the actual articles on here!
Just a shot out of the blue....The group is centered on cat one drugs what about that vicoden or methadone for your back ache. More people abuse prescription drugs than illegal ones. I support the DRE's, usually if someone looks doped up they are. Oh and if your loopy enough to fail sober maybe you shouldnt be driving period.
WildAlaskan - [you know, I wanted to leave you alone, but...]
I think you should become a cop - you obviously have the personality for it.
And, I do contribute meaningfully to our society.
When was the last time you took in a meth addicted teenager [who had dropped out in the 8th, was abandoned and abused by her mother, locked up in the barracks and beaten by a soldier], put her on the right path and got her to graduate from High School?
How about providing the support and shelter to another teen girl who was being abused by her boyfriend, allowing her to escape that abuse and get her life back on track?
So, I ask you, who's making the assumptions now?
Hey!
Who was making them all along?!
And he may be a cop...
First he said he was... then he said he wasn't...Who knows?
Anyhow, I think you guys contribute meaningfully without having to answer to WildAlaskan, (who likes the drama of mystique as to what his own "meaningful contributions" are).
You two (and lots others) make me laugh, and I appreciate your wit. In my world, that's a good thing.
Newsreader,
“"A drug recognition expert determined that Hust was under the influence of a stimulant and a narcotic and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. In addition, a search of the truck turned up a glass pipe which tested positive for the presence of cocaine."
Hmm, that's very interesting the DRE decided she was on a stimulant and a narcotic. Did they find narcotics? Stimulants? Apparently not. She was a crack head - she was "carpet crawling" in her truck - it's a common enough crack head behavior.
I'm sorry, but it really makes me wonder about these DRE's. Sounds more like some kind of witch hunter than actual expertise.”
I’ve been sitting on the sidelines reading these blogs for awhile and decided to put in my $.02. I believe the article stated Hust admitted to taking methadone everyday and the Officer discovered a glass pipe with cocaine in it. I’d say these are what you would call clues. It is my understanding that methadone is a narcotic and cocaine is a stimulant, but I could be wrong.
In my experience the DRE is not usually the arresting Officer, but is called to the police station after the arrest and Datmaster procedure, and then asked to perform a DRE exam. The DRE then collects all the evidence and performs an exam, which is used to make a determination of what substance the person is impaired by. The DRE is not the person who makes the arrest or determines that the person is in fact too impaired to be driving. The job of the DRE is to determine what is causing the impairment. A blood test is only a verification of the DRE’s findings.
“The guy was tired, that's why he fell asleep and had an accident. Of course, he can't prove his innocence considering pot can stay in your system for weeks - so if you smoked last week you'll still have it in your blood.”
It is true that Marijuana, or THC, stays in your system for up to five weeks. But, it is possible to determine when and how much marijuana a person has smoked by measuring the breakdown of the metabolites in the blood. The blood draw must be done within a short period of time, usually about four hours. I do not claim to be an expert and a chemist could probably explain it better. I would be happy to find the answers to any questions you have about the DUI process. I also appreciate most of your views, and agree on a lot of what you have written, except for the police bashing.
Shamus - thanks for the response. I also thank mt2ak for his input.
If mt2ak is correct, the person is already under arrest for a DUI before the DRE is involved.
As soon as I heard that, the issue was pretty much resolved - at least for me. You see, I am quite confident that I will never be stoned enough to fail a basic impairment test. Thus, this will never be an issue for me, now will it?
If someone else is so stoned that they can't pass a basic impairment test, then they shouldn't be on the road.
Thus, my personal objection to DRE's (as long as mt2ak is correct), stands resolved.
Imagine that, I actually listened to my fellow citizens, thought about things for a while, and CHANGED MY MIND!!!
I hope I'm being a good example by doing so.
"Pot doesn't cause violence (like meth, coke, crack, heroin, and alcohol). It causes peace and harmony."
That is one big load of crap!!! My ex was mean, abusive, and destructive when he smoked the stuff. Not to mention the fact that he ate over $400 worth of groceries every week when he was smoking. There was definitely no peace or harmony in our house caused by pot!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.