News-Miner Editorial
Assessing the conflict
Careful steps required as Monegan situation progresses
Published Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Was Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan pressured by the governor’s family and administration to fire an Alaska State Trooper or wasn’t he?
He says yes. Gov. Sarah Palin says no.
Did his failure to fire that trooper cost him his job as commissioner or not?
He says he doesn’t know why the governor fired him; the governor says he was removed in favor of a new direction for the department.
Former commissioner vs. current governor.
Should Alaskans just let this high-level dispute fade of its own accord without resolution?
No. It is a distraction in need of open, transparent and believable termination.
Maybe there is nothing amiss here at all. Or maybe there is.
One indisputable fact in this episode is this: Both central participants — the governor and the former commissioner — are well-regarded. The governor, by the polls. Mr. Monegan, by the law enforcement community. And that’s a big part of the problem. This isn’t coming across as a saint against a sinner, thereby making the account of one party immediately suspect. These are two leaders with large numbers of people behind them.
But despite their support, their accounts of the commissioner’s firing don’t match. Some details in these types of situations never will — each party will tend to focus on some things rather than others. But to be so opposite on the question of whether pressure was applied to the commissioner to fire a state trooper who was in a contentious divorce with the governor’s sister — that’s not a small detail.
Logic says someone’s story isn’t quite right.
There’s some talk that the Legislature might want to inquire into the conflicting stories, perhaps through the Judiciary Committee in the House and in the Senate. Another percolating thought is for an outside investigator to take a look. Undertaking either of those actions would take this dispute to a much more serious level.
A decision to proceed with either of those methods risks damage to the governor’s credibility and to the credibility of those in the Legislature who would carry out an inquiry. That’s one reason the talk shouldn’t be undertaken lightly; there needs to be a real belief that something isn’t right.
This is where things seems to stand at the moment — in the assessment phase.
If there really is nothing amiss in the firing of Mr. Monegan, if this is all some sort of a misunderstanding, perhaps we will soon see Gov. Palin and her former commissioner at a news conference to say so and to explain why it was just a mix-up. Until then, however, the talk about legislative involvement should be allowed to continue.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Who cares! There are more pressing matters facing the state and its citizens than this. People are fired everyday, and actually lose their job. All Mr. Monegan lost was a position. He is still employed and drawing a paycheck. The commissioner serves at the will and pleasure of the Governor. He knew that going in. When she decided it was time for a change, it was time for a change. End of story. The legislature needs to be focusing on the important issues facing Alaska. Energy costs, Energy costs, and Energy costs.
I'd like to know why that trooper was not fired long before she became governor. Will the News Minus give us that story. Was that trooper retained because he was a threat/thorn to the Palin family? Anyone taking a moose illegally is bad enough but when a law enforcement officer commits a violation of that nature, there is an attitude of arrogance that demonstrates the person is unsuitable for the field of law enforcement.
News Minus give us details of how an Alaska State Trooper goes about tasering an 11 year old child (not even in high school) and not only is not arrested for child abuse but keeps his job and presumably his taser. What are the standards for the troopers? It seems there must be a good story here, "Join the AST. We don't care what you do."
Last I heard just threatening someone is against the law. Somehow I would have thought doing that to a major public official is taken more seriously, especially someone who is mentioned as a vice-presidential candidate. Isn't it a felony if a threat is issued by someone with a firearm even if the weapon is not drawn? Maybe the News minus could enlighten us with the facts on these threats.
wow - another editorial on this!
enough....
kelly getting his last swipes in?
This is sure getting old The decision was made and she stated her reason. Drop it already and go on with life. This is not the only problem the governor has right now.
People get fired from jobs everyday without reasons given And does their story make the paper?
People get shot every day too, does that make it right? Our governor was on a very short list of people who could have been names as running mate to Obama. That is based on her performance as our governor who has received a lot of public respect due to the way she has handled the ethical nightmare that was brought about by VECO and our illustrious legislature. If it turns out that she was preaching ethics while hiding her own agenda and using her position of authority to right some wrongs in her own life (much like in the movie Bruce Almighty) she is absolutely no different from any of these other politicians and needs to be held accountable for her actions as well.
JB I don't think Obama was considering her, maybe you meant McCain.
The DNM must have the worst editorial board in the country. They are so out of touch with issues that are imortant to the community. All they seem to focus on is an agenda of continuously taking shots at Palin. Don't you realize that you have alienated the majority of your readership?
BigMike
Haven't you realized that the editorial board knows better than you? The editorial is their way of cramming their agenda down your throat - over and over...
Mike, Drink their kool-aid and it will all be better...
On another note - I wholeheartedly agree with you - and so do most of the readers I think
ENOUGH ALREADY !!! As Mike started this,, write your soap operas for TV and get on with the real issues. No surprise the DNM is loving this, they are here for one reason, just like the refinery, to make money... public service HA HA
Guys, this story is all over the statewide media, the DNM is covering it far less than their peers.
If you have a corrupt Governor, people want to know. This one looks dirty as they come...
Amazing how she'll fire Monegan at the drop of a hat when his department is doing well and the employees respect him but, she won't even consider that Joe Schmidt (Commissioner of Corrections) might need replaced. (95% "no confidence" vote by his employees) She definatley appears to play favorites.
The governor can fire a commissioner with or without cause. End of story.
What all of many of you seem to be for getting or not understanding is that it would have been ILLEGAL for Monegan to fire Wooten IF Palin had asked him to. Wooten's poor judgment issues had all occurred before Palin and Monegan were in their positions. The issues had been investigated, and Wooten had been punished for them. Please do not take this to mean that I am defending Wooten or that I think he received appropriate punishment for what he did. I'm just saying that just because a new governor and commissioner come on board doesn't mean that they can go back and review all past disciplinary actions, decide if the punishment was appropriate, and "posthumously" increase any punishments that they didn't like. To do so would open the state up to a huge lawsuit for firing an employee for actions that he had already been disciplined for. So for those of you who believe that whether Palin asked Monegan to fire Wooten or not, he should have done what the boss asked, remember that what the boss may have asked him to do was illegal, so that is not valid justification for firing him. So if that wasn't the reason, then why DID he get fired?
Wrong, Andora. Read the executive ethics act. Story hasn't ended, nor is it likely to any time soon.
KTVA is reporting that Palin wrote a wonderful letter praising Wooten's great character in 2000 when she was Mayor and was trying to get him hired with the Troopers.
So does she have bad judgment, or was she lying in 2000, or is she lying now? Either answer makes me think we elected the wrong person for Governor.
If the governor had an issue with Wooten's actions why did she wait YEARS to report them, after her sister was embroiled in a divorce and custody battle???? That is my big issue. It seems like she just held off until it was convenient to her family and then flung all the mud possible to see what would stick.
thank you Mike. I agree totally.
Piercing the blue wall is never easy. Being a Trooper, doesn't make them perfect. Time and time again we have read headlines of police officers, troopers included, that have been charged with various heinous crimes such as murder, conspiracy, child abuse, child pornography.
Let's say they're both right. Lets say Walt Monegan got a call suggesting a trooper be looked at because of some very bad decisions the trooper has made. Walt Monegan considered that pressure, the caller considered it a subtle suggestion.
Let's also say for argument, the allegations came about from the soon to be ex, and are true, but only surface now because how do you whistle blow on a trooper who is your husband, father of your children and man you live with? (Kind of a scary man at that.)
And finally, let's say that the Public Safety Commissioner, the one person in charge of overseeing our prestigious law enforcement, ignored the whisper in his ear, washed his hands of the matter, and choose to turn a blind eye.
If I was gov, and those were the facts as I knew them.. then he'd be gone. It wasn't that he didn't concede to my whims. It's that a serious concern with the integrity of our law enforcement exists, and the one person I'd appointed to change the perceptions of law enforcement, and clean house, is not doing his job. The one person I should be able to trust, who would earnestly check into concerns of this nature, when brought to their attention, dropped the ball.
Ah, but won't there be people who will just love to say "see, they aren't so perfect" and twist the circumstances and make it look like an abuse of power?
I'm just speculating. The one thing I know for sure, is that to this point, Palin has stood behind her values. She hasn't made a single move that makes me think she has compromised the trust we've placed in her. She has a heavy burden to bare, and although people in power should be monitored, we shouldn't be so quick to break out the torches and nooses, until the facts and circumstances are clear.
The editorial board seems to be doing a good job in getting people to respond to their editorials. Isn't that the object of the exercise. They state their opinion, you state yours.
Wasn't Monegan offered a position with the Alcohol & Drug division which he declined? Wasn't it believed that he had much to bring to that position by the Governor? What happened to that part of the reporting? Did he think he wasn't good enough for that position to bring it to the level that apparently he has brought the AST? Why did he decline? Maybe he should give his reason as well instead of wondering why he was 'fired'.
You ask "WHO CARES"?
"I" Care! Just beacuse there are "other pressing issues", Doesn't mean Sarah Palin shouldn't be held accountable for her abuse of power!
aksunshine, GOOD POINT. I recall reading that very early on, but it hasn't been mentioned since. I believe the governor provided another position to Monegan, the one you mentioned. He was provided an opportunity to move to another position and he refused. He was released from his appointment, not 'fired'.
Well stated MatthewErickson, and I agree jeepgurl she sould be held accountable for abuses of power if and when she abuses her power, but it hasn't happened yet.
All you whiners who can't accept the fact that the governor can hire whomever she chooses is a right of that office. Get over it. We need energy relief big time. Let's get on with that.
Another perspective... Maybe the issues regarding Trooper Wooten weren't addressed criminally or highly publicized or made common knowledge because (according to some reports) members of the Palin family, including the governor herself, would then be investigated and found accomplices themselves etc.... I am not sure what the "facts" are and not sure anyone ever will be .... but maybe it is another perspective to look at.
On another note.... I do not believe, as has been stated repeatedly in many of the posts related to this issue, that all Troopers are in on a conspiracy to cover-up for Trooper Wooten. I know several Troopers who had never met nor heard of him until this issue and do not agree with his choices.
Bigmike, akguy, Matthewerickson, Corrine, and others who have such strong feelings against troopers, I have an honest question for you. What would make you happy? Seriously, when it comes to law enforcement, specifically troopers here in Fairbanks, what would make you happy? Keep in mind that most troopers on the street have never met Trooper Wooten, had no control whatsoever over how his case was handled, and have no power to change the situation at hand. What we have faced instead is the loss of our leader without having been given a cause, and having a new leader put in place (who still hasn't communicated with us at all, much less to tell us what this "new direction" is supposed to be). In addition, (besides the ever present manpower shortage and demands that we do more with less) we now have decreased moral because we are constantly being slammed by the public for things we have no control over.
So again, in all sincerity, what would you offer as constructive advice as to what would make you happy when it comes to the trooper on the street?
Things aren't always what they seem. I remember a few years back when Alaska was considering concealed carry laws that one of the most adamant opponents was Anchorage Chief of Police, Walter Monegan. He believed that only police officers should be allowed to carry guns in pubic. His opposition was one of the reasons the legislature actually passed a bill that provided that no municipality could establish carry laws any more stringent than state law on this matter. There were many who went through that battle that didn't understand why the Governor appointed Monegan to Commissioner in the first place.
As to hearings in the legislature, it doesn't surprise anyone who knows Judiciary Chairman, Senator French (D-Anchorage), that he would suggest such an action. The good Senator is a former prosecuter and a died-in-the-wool Democrat who would like nothing more than putting egg on the Republican Governor's face. The trouble is, he isn't sure it wouldn't backfire and the egg would be on his face. But, hey, sometimes just the suggestion of a Judiciary Committee hearing does the trick a crafty politician is looking for. After all, a lot of folks seem to still live by the "where there's smoke there's fire" addage.
The Governor may have or may not have had a good reason to dismiss the Commissioner. But, she always had the right to do so. If, in the course of her conduct, she violated any state statute, the Commissioner had the affirmative responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer for the state to bring the matter to the proper authorities - just as the Governor felt she had to in the Randy Ruedrich matter. If she did and he didn't, he is complicit in the crime.
What cracks me up is that worst case scenario, this was really a big scheme, then okay. People are acting like she is the worst governor we ever had! Hilarious & not even close to true.
Besides, anyone who blindly believes any politician is a doofus.
Mrs. P is still a fair sight better than others we have had, warts & all. Just try putting it into perspective a little.
On the illegality issue? Maybe it is, but why don't we table it & deal with it in February or something. You know, AFTER we have finished chewing on the energy & heating problems facing our state. Definitely AFTER we deal with GVEA. We are losing focus on a much worse issue that is fast approaching. I really don't care about the soap opera right now, save it for later, maybe when we are all warm!
Keep up the good work Trooper.....As for the commissioner...well they come and go but I'm sure there is depth of leadership in the public safety dept. which is not subject to the shifting whims of politics.
darkhorse--I can't resist. I would go for carrying guns in pubics either!!! :)
I couldn't even make fun of you correctly!:) I meant to say I wouldn't go for carrying guns in pubic either!
I'm thinking that you're still wrong lagirl. Check you spelling of public. It gives it a whole new meaning.
Well, that's odd, I clearly wrote your and it came through as you. Perhaps you spelled public correctly all along.
justatrooper-
To begin with, what would start to make me happy was posted on another thread; I think on the 20th. I'll retrieve it later.
Attitude adjustments.
Equal weight in word/accounts of situations before a court.
Cops not speaking "for the recorder."
No gaps in recordings.
Recordings provided immediately before the cops have an opportunity to alter them.
Outside investigation and non-police/political citizen review of all complaints. (I'll volunteer).
No unionized police.
Police required to agree their personnel files be made public in the event of an outside review.
Drug testing for all police. (I am against this in any capacity, but since it has become "accepted," the Number 1 job that it should be required of is being a cop).
That's a start. Wishful thinking, I know.
Oh yeah, how about an outside committee for making complaints so that the cops don't have an opportunity to squelch them from the get-go.
Yeah. How about all contacts videoed. You know, so that pull-overs based on a lie(s) have true evidence beyond the 11th Commandment of a cop's word (is chiseled in stone)? Related to equal weight in word.
Get rid of paying people for calling cops on people they "think" might be drunk.
Get rid of this notion that cops are primarily for cruising around in fancy cars, and put more into investigating serious crimes.
Just a Trooper- Accountability
When you go through a trial and the law enforcement officiers (yes not one in this paticular instance but three) are told to produce evidence in the form of any intervieews with the witness for the defense and tell the Judge there is no such thing and then by a simple mistake of thier own in a trial three years later they slip and make the comment "let me refer to my notes" and then are once again based on thier own words ordered to produce the interview with the witness all of the sudden "find" said evidence they should be held accountable.
Accountable, that is what everyone is saying.
lalaleelou--that was the point. Read Darkhorse's comment above. I just screwed it up by writing the wrong sentence.
corinne and wendee
both well stated and i agree fully
justatrooper - I work nights and in the last year I have been pulled over in excess of 5 times, around the times the bars closed, for nothing. Never got a ticket, never cited for an infraction.
To me this fishing for drunks violates my rights and upsets me greatly - and the only answer I can get as to why is
'look at all the bad people we get because we pull people over' or 'if you care about this you must be doing something wrong' etc
to me the ends DOES NOT justify the means. If it did - you might as well begin house to house searches...just think of all the 'bad' things you may turn up then!
And I am not down on troopers - read my comments - I have made positive comments on the Trooper that has the column 'ask a trooper' several times - in his dialog he seems to be one trooper I could trust
The rest of you - EARN my trust - hold yourselves to a higher standard - and be impartial..until then the mistrust will continue
Corrine and Wendee, thanks for taking the time to comment, at least it gives a place to begin. First, some things that are factually incorrect or impossible:
We do not pay anyone for calling in suspected drunk drivers.
All contacts video recorded. Unfortunately, putting modern video recorders in all vehicles is extremely expensive. We are moving in that direction, but when the public continually pushes for less money for government, we have to rely on grants, and that can take years. And then of course you are having to pay a trooper to research and request grants instead of being on the street.
We would love to put more resources into investigating crimes, but that involves having more troopers (something Monegan was trying to do). We have to keep a minimum number of troopers on patrol in Fairbanks 24/7 to respond to emergencies. The rest have to be split between the rural unit to respond to the villages, the drug unit, the DUI team (which, even though it is federally funded and costs AK nothing, we still can't fill completely due to lack of manpower) and of course investigations. We are so short right now that we have had to disband our property crimes unit. I know some are upset that there are people out on patrol at night instead of investigating serious crimes, but we HAVE to have people on patrol 24/7.
Things we as an agency have no control over:
Equal weight in court-judges and juries decide how much weight to give EACH witness' statements, including the troopers. There is no default that we are automatically more credible.
Citizen review boards: this would be something created by the legislature.
No unionized police: when you join AST, you are automatically put into the union and required to pay dues. We have no say in the matter.
Things I don't understand:cops not speaking for the recorder? Recordings provided immediately? To who? When? Not clear, although I admit I am somewhat offended at your inference that I or anyone I know has tampered with evidence. I would not stand for that. Also, no gaps in recordings? Again, not clear on what you mean.
I'd write more, but I suspect there is a limit. Bottom line, I respect what you've said, but I don't see anything in there besides attitude adjustments that the individual trooper on the street can do anything about, yet we are the ones suffering the abuse of the outraged public.
LA Girl
If you don't agree with being able to legally carry a gun in public, don't do it. However, I'll fight to the end to protect your right to do so. An armed public is a safer pubic. A disarmed public is immediately in danger.
akguy, I question being pulled over at least 5 times for "no reason." Not trying to start an argument, just looking for clarification. By no reason, do you mean that they didn't tell you why you were pulled over, or that you feel the reason they pulled you over was not appropriate. For example, did they pull you over for having a burned out tail light? Many people would consider that too piddly to be dealt with by the police (not pointing fingers, just giving an example). If they truly did not give you a reason (all five times) did you ask? I firmly believe that people have a right to know why they are stopped. However, those same people have to realize that just because they think the reason is stupid, if the offense is against the law, the police are doing their job by making the stop. (I personally have been involved in a stop for having no license plate light that subsequently led to a confession about being involved in a murder.) I am not saying that to show that the end justifies the means, because if police are truly pulling people over for something that is not against the law, that is a serious issue and needs to be reported and dealt with. If however, the reason they pulled you over is truly illegal, no matter how trivial, it is still legal to make the stop, and the courts have ruled so.
To put it another way, for each complaint I receive about how (insert least favorite law here, such as illegal tint) is enforced too strictly, I receive an about equal number of complaints that say something to the effect of "why don't you enforce that law more? What's the point of having the law on the books if you don't enforce it?" In other words, the troopers are stuck in the middle and can't win.
Two other points. I'm a little perplexed that you say you didn't receive citations when you were stopped. Most people are grateful when they only get a warning.
Second, you say that all others must earn your respect. Does that mean that if I met you in the course of my duties, you would automatically start with no respect for me until I've done something to earn it? I hope not, because that tends to start things off on the wrong foot. I start by assuming everyone deserves my respect when I meet them until they have proven otherwise. Again, not trying to start a fight, just trying for clarification.
Finally thank you for having a generally open mind, and saying the kind things about the Ask A Trooper column.
Just a Trooper- It speaks a lot about you that you would respond. I understand what you are saying about how do you fix an attitude? I wish I knew how to and besides you being personally accountable for your interactions with each and every person you come in contact with (which is something we all have to do, you never know who you are dealing with) Before my brother got in trouble I had on a pair of rose colored glasses when it came to law enforcement and our court system. I had NO IDEA what actually went on. It isn't about the truth, it is about who has the best story. It isn't about playing by the rules it is about you (law enforcement) against us (criminals or perceived criminals by association) I had no idea that cops lied because they aren't SUPPOSED to. I had no idea how once you become identified as a person of interest or what ever you call them how you become a target.
Who they would not produce to was the judge. They were ordered by the court to produce any interviews or recordings that they had taken during the course of their investigation and although this would be way to painful and long to share the details lets just say that as I understand it now even though you claim that a Trooper/Law Enforcement does not have the privilege of being given the respect of belief I would have to tell you that you are wrong.
Attitude.. It is very difficult to get rid of once you have been mistreated.
If Law Enforcement was held accountable in a public manner that would go a long way to us believing again.... maybe... it is difficult to come up with what might solve this dislike for cops that the general public professes too.
I do think that the beginning to it though is exactly this.. You or someone as nice as you come a crossed as talking to people. It is EXTREMELY difficult to dislike a person if you have met them or spoken to them, they are no longer a "stereotype" but an individual.
On July 3, at about 8:30 PM, I was heading to Chena Lakes. Between Mitchell/Richardson and Chena Lakes, we saw 6 trooper vehicles.
Three had people pulled over at the time.
A few days ago I was (unfortunately) headed to North Pole. Between Mitchell/Richardson and 12 mile I saw four trooper cars. No lights.
They're all over the place all the time!
What is this alleged shortage in which I don't believe?!
I believe fewer troopers cruisin' 'round would allow for more to investigate burglaries etc.
I will continue to advocate for NO MORE $$ for "public safety" until the bad cop attitude is dealt with--and for a while.
As Wendee said, equal weight is absolutely not given to civilians' word. I have had cops (two were troopers) laugh and tell me "the judge ALWAYS believes the cops." Verbatim. Traffic court. No video. No audio.
They were always correct. My word (or whoever's) against the cops'. Cops, just like they said, always win.
Don't tell me there are things you guys have no control over. At the very least, you cops could advocate for them; THAT would hold a lot of sway.
Honesty, for example. Not covering for eachother. I had a recent situation that was flat out, blatant cop lying that caused my family some headache and fear. Brought in another agency. Fortunately, the person from that agency didn't have to believe the troopers, and after her investigation, rightly declared that she believed us and that the troopers were wrong. Thank God for once.
The liuetenant was patronizing, "investigated," and although there was no recording, (trooper called me from personal cell and lied; only one phone call, one cop), agreed that the only record was with dispatch,(but that, unfortunately, was erased), but because one cop said, and the other cops (I have names of course) say he's a good ol' boy, no wrong was done.
The guy was a first rate jerk; rude, arrogant, and liar. I am not surprised there was no tape, and the short one fron dispatch had convienently and hastily been dispatched.
Not an isolated incident.
Jim McCann tried to suggest some good changes years ago. Look where it got him.
Unions: Sound like the teachers here. Advocate to get out of it if you feel so helpless.
Look. I have to finish cooking supper. I don't feel sorry for you, as you claim troopers are "suffering the abuse."
Unfortunately you will be trying to overcome the knowledge that cops lie. So what ever you say is suspect. I understand your predicament and can relate to it since that is EXACTLY how we are treated when dealing with law enforcement. Even though we were brought up to respect each other and be truthful, once bitten twice shy as the saying goes.
I am pretty sure they will delete this but I am glad to hear you are offended at the inference that someone in your field would hide evidence, that speaks to your honesty. Since it is so difficult to see someone else performing an act you are not typically capable of. Ask Sgt. (rhymes with Ball) how it is ok to lie to a court of law. Ask him how he came to the conclusion that the ends justify the means. This may help you understand what we (the people in your community) deal with.
Justatrooper -
Thanks for your response - I appreciate the dialog.
Out of the multiple times stopped, each reason that was given did not 'seem' to me to be valid - though I could be wrong.
One time I was stopped on college on a Friday night at 3am. The officer was driving in the opposite direction and I was the only car on the road. He whipped a U-turn and pulled me over. When questioning me he leaned into my window - presumably to get a wiff of my breath. When questioned about the stop he said I was exceeding the speed limit - but could not give me an exact number as to the speed I was doing. Seemed fishy to me but maybe not.
Another time I turned on Geist - again at 2-3am on a Friday. This officer informed me that I didn't have my turn signal on. I am certain that I did. Afterward I walked to the back of my car to ensure the light was not burnt out and it was working.
A final time that I remember an officer drove up almost on to my tailgate. I was eventually pulled over for 'tinted side windows' after being tailed for a couple miles. I was not given a citation and was not told to get them fixed. I removed the tint anyway.
All those instances 'seem' like fishing to me. I appreciate that you troopers and other officers have a tough job to do - I really do - as a matter of fact my father, aunt and uncle were all cops in a metro area. I am NOT down on law enforcement - just on poor enforcement. Less random traffic stops - more investigation? Also - would love to see the number of stops conducted versus the number of criminals caught. Am I crazy to think that way more of these 'random' stops are conducted between the hours of midnight and 4am? Wouldn't this be a prime time to be driving some of the bad areas of town instead of farmer's loop or geist?
I appreciate you taking the time for your response - and I can tell you that no matter my personal feelings I am always respectful to the officer when confronted.
Dialog like this help me appreciate the people we have in government who do care - and I thank you for it. Just please realize - as in any profession there are some bad apples...and it seems to me that I always encounter them. I am not the only person in these forums that report what we consider to be questionable circumstances - so I believe it is not isolated...but again, I could be wrong and try to keep an open mind...
but I, too, am only human
akguy, I too appreciate the dialog. Yes, there is no doubt that troopers that work the night shift have more time to go out and work traffic. Not many people call to report barking dogs, custody order violations, or burglaries at 2:00 a.m., so the troopers have more time to get out. The alternative is for them to sit in the office and wait for calls. But they have to be there, because when the calls do come in, they need to be on duty. Regarding patrolling the seedier parts of town at night, most (certainly not all) of those are within city limits, so we generally leave those to FPD. As far as results, last year we had (doing this from memory, so my numbers could be off a little) 23 alcohol related deaths, whereas we have had only 3 this year after aggressive DUI enforcement. (One trooper alone made over 120 DUI arrests last year) That end does NOT justify the means of stops without cause, but it does offer support for doing aggressive, legal DUI enforcement. And I don't deny that in any group our size there are going to be bad apples. We too are only human. But if you sincerely believe that something illegal was done, we don't know about it and can't fix the problem if you don't let us know. And I encourage you and anyone who is curious to contact us and set up a ride along.
Wendee, thank you for understanding. I just hope that you believe as I do that the number of troopers who outright lie is very, very small. Having investigated hundreds of crimes against people in my career, I certainly know that "lies" are most often simply a difference in perception. As far as the incident you refer to, again, if you believe a trooper lied, under oath or not, please report it so we can establish the truth.
Corrinne, your enthusiastic distrust and dislike for law enforcement is so strong that I'm not sure I can say or do anything to change that, so trying is only going to frustrate me. However, I will comment on a few things you said. Regarding the number of troopers on the road on the holiday, we frequently receive federal dollars to put extra troopers (who would normally be off duty) on the road during holidays, in construction zones, etc. Studies have shown that visibility of police is a strong deterrent to inappropriate driving behavior, so the federal government is using funds to increase visibility to cut down on crashes. (and regarding the number you saw on the non holiday, depending on the time of day, it is entirely possible that one or more of them were going to or coming from work, which makes it seem like there are more on the road. As far as how much weight the judge gives to the trooper's testimony, we have no control over that. I have lost in traffic court more than once.
And thank you to all for your comments. If I can enlighten and improve the perception of troopers for just one person, it is worth it.
Justatrooper
Law enforcement should not lie in court and most of the people that have ever dealt with courts know they do. As stated previously, the ends does not justify the means. If the end is accomplished by lies then it is probably the wrong outcome. I understand the difficult job that comes with being a law enforcement officer, but they still should not lie in a court of law. And yes there are frequently missing portions of recordings. Commissioners do come and go and life goes on. The Governor has the right to hire, fire or reassign. I won't make the ridiculous 'end of story' statement and I don't have any strong for or against feelings about our current Governor.
It is interesting that the Legislature apparently is initiating an investigation of the Governor-- while at the same time, apparently nothing appears to be happening within the established parameters of the Executive Branch Ethics Act.
If any Alaskan is concerned about the Governor's ethics, they may file a complaint with the Attorney General. If the AG feels the complaint is credible, he may forward the complaint to an ethics committee. The ethics committee has the power to compel testimony under oath. If the committee finds that criminal misconduct may have occurred, they may report their findings to Alaska's law enforcement. But instead, apparently Alaska's legislature has initiated an alternate investigation while the Department of Law has done nothing.
I think it is unfortunate that our State apparently can't use our own established executive branch ethics guidelines to conduct an investigation of an elected executive branch official. What is the Executive Branch Ethics Act worth if we can't use it now?
Where is the Attorney General? Is he afraid of scrutinizing his boss and initiating an investigation?
If you look back on the history of corruption of Alaska's elected officials, one thing you see over and over again is the absence of Alaska's Department of Law. And to this day, they may still be absent. Will they ever learn? Will they ever serve anyone other than their bosses?
akusa, I absolutely agree, and I hope that you didn't read anything into my previous statements leading you to believe otherwise. I have never, ever lied in court. Based on your statement, one could read into it that you believe that all cops lie in court. I certainly hope that isn't what you meant. If I knew of a trooper who lied in court, I would report it immediately. If we loose credibility, we loose the ability to do our jobs. And by the way, without a doubt, the number one reason troopers are fired, is for lying, meaning our department takes it very seriously.
justatrooper -
remember - wars are won and lost based on perception. It should be the duty of every officer to ensure the perception of their conduct is above reproach. Is that fair...definitely not - but you all have been given your authority over the population by the population.
I would love to see a little more policing of your own in the department. Does the Trooper Detachment have an internal affairs department as metro areas do?
I have been in professions where the people in them rally around each other. Sometimes we did it in circumstances that were questionable because we were 'protecting our own'. Have you seen this happen in your profession? Have you or another officer or trooper ever spoken out about it?
Sadly, most people will not speak out about the treatment they receive because they fear reprisals. Show us you guys police your own and I will be on board with you for the duration.
Although it is old news - what is your opinion of a trooper that uses a taser on an 11 year old? My opinion is that in doing so he showed bad judgment and should be dismissed. Harsh - yes - but the authority and the trust you receive from the citizens affords you little room for missteps!
If you guys step up with transparency the population will be with you - of that I promise.
And I, for one, appreciate your dedication. This is not an indictment of all of you - only a sorry few. Help us to help you get rid of them.
Just a Trooper- Who are you going to call? When I first was dragged against into this situation I called the "person in charge" I asked him some questions like what he had taken from the house and why he had left it open after disabling the thermostat in November and let the house freeze, and what had he taken and who did I talk to and how did I find out what I needed to do now? He told me to call 411 and hung up on me. That was ground zero to a decent into the "Justice System" From then on it got worse. Why don't I report it? LOL! It is in the court records and I hear and understand "perception" Perception is not the case when he stated "it was a he when it was a she" perception is not saying I didn't let the mother and her two young children who were freaked out after a raid with a noise detonator (that was thrown at the feet of the 4 year old who was sitting on the couch as his mother dished him and his sister up an ice-cream or what ever you call them) sit together in the back seat of a car even though the 4 and 8 year old were screaming for their mother and she for them even though she had done nothing wrong (and according to Ball (name changed to protect the post) in court was NOT under arrest) because the back seat of a Ford Taurus (three seat belts mind you) would not hold all of them (one 40 lbs one 70 and one 110 at the most) He stated to the court that he did not let them sit together because the seat was not big enough. So he seperated them and tried to question the mother using her children as leverage. If that is the case the "Perception" of the automakers and the law enforcement need to be altered because they say you can seat three.. I applaud your attempt to make things right and I am not trying to make you feel that is a waste of time I am only telling you since you asked what you are dealing with. As for reporting the lies? It is in an appeal that, as you know takes years and a lot of money. You guys that I have dealt with do not care who you finger as long as you get someone; the cost to the families in financial and emotional damage is beyond belief. The only thing I can say that came out of it was the Judge who through the whole trial sided with the prosecutor even stepped back and looked chastised when it all came out. Too little to late.. Unless you have the means to fight the system and they do not make it easy. Even the receptionist when I called and told her what had happened with the 411 comment and I desperately needed someone to point me in the right direction, whispered into the phone how sorry she was and that she could not help. Abuse? Attitude? Arrogance? Lies? Cover up? Yes.
As for the Governor? I have no reason to believe everything she said is not true. When she is proven to be a liar (which I do not believe she will be) then she will have earned the same level of esteem the troopers have earned from me.
“It is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong . . . It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means.” Lord Chancellor Sankey
nice comment, Born
truer words were never spoken
justatrooper-
RE your response to akguy about 2:00 AM calls and alternatives of "sitting around waiting for a call":
One of the suggestions Jim McCann (ex detective) had made--according to a conversation I had with him--was to have two troopers on each case.
A case is assigned to a trooper on the shift in which it is called in. One trooper. If the call comes in between 8 PM and 4 AM, then that's the only time your case gets worked.
When "your" trooper gets his two days off, or travels for whatever meeting (pretty common in my experience), forget it. Nothing'll get done, stolen goods get dispursed, and nobody else has ANY familiarity with your case--nobody'll even talk to you about it, except to say there's nothing to be done until "your" trooper gets back.
Period.
So, folks, time your calls carefully.
Now, the troopers claim they just don't have the manpower to have two cops familiar with/working a case.
Yet you say you must be cruisin' around rather than be "sit[ting] in the office and wait for calls."
How about sitting in the office and doing some work? Actually putting pieces together in some of these burglaries?
Having two cops assigned needn't take extra anything--the workload is shared. It will, however, provide extra public service.
Thanks for the tip on barking dogs. I live next to the most obnoxious wanna-be "musher" ever; and those dogs are on a 3 AM schedule (and more, but always 3 AM), and animal control won't do anything.
So are you proud that "one trooper alone made over 120 DUI arrests" last year? I wonder what the circumstances of each of those pull-overs was? I wonder if some of the people should have been allowed to just go home? I wonder if every single one of them actually posed a danger to anyone or anything?
Like in the old days, when cops weren't so power trippy, sometimes a cop would follow someone home, or give 'em a ride, or whatever.
That created a better public perception of the cops.
I wonder how mwny of those arrests were based on lies?
I remember an article several months ago about the trooper with the most DUI arrests per capita or something (around Big Lake) being ballyhooed by his trooper buddies, with comments like "I'm gonna try to beat him next year!"
The troopers seem to be primarily made-up of a bunch of baby boys who have very bad manners and a chip on their shoulder.
That's just the way it is.
You say you would report a cop you knew to be lying. Problem is, you would believe your buddies "perception," as you say, before the rest of ours'.
Lying is not perception. Do you teach kids that?
And give me a very good reason that troopers get to drive cop cars home please. Nice perk.
Oh yeah. It is my understanding that "citizen reports" of suspected drinking drivers are paid $100.00
I don't know if the money is paid based on an arrest or what.
But I do know of clerks in a few late-night businesses who brag about the extra cash they make doing it.
At least one of which is outside city limits.
Darkhorse and everyone else--I was not commenting at all either way on the public carrying guns.
I was trying to make fun of the fact that you keep mispelling public. You keep spelling pubic. If you read your post you mispelled it again in the second post. But forget it--the joke passed when everyone thought I mispelled it.
Art Chance, former commissioner of the department of administration has posted a very insightful review on the current state of discipline on ADN.
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127560...
Akguy, I agree, perception is reality, but only in the mind of the perceiver. For example, we regularly get statements from the public such as "the trooper had a machine gun," "my house was robbed while I was at work," "my relative threatened me on the phone. That's assault and he needs to be arrested." None of these statements is correct, but the person perceives them to be correct. Or take for example Wendee's previous comment that two children and a mother were separated into two different patrol cars. The trooper then "lied" to her about why by saying that there wasn't enough room in the back seat for all three of them when everyone knows you can easily fit three people into the back seat of a sedan that big. I am totally empathetic with Wendee's frustration over feeling like she was lied to about that, but if anyone were to look into the back seat of one of our patrol cars, they would see that they are plastic seats, molded to hold only two people, with large, stiff seatbelt connectors in the middle, and a partition between the front and rear seats that limits space in the back seat. You cannot fit three people in the back seat without all of them being extremely uncomfortable. So by her perception, she was lied to, but in reality, she was not. (referring only to her statement about putting all 3 people in the back seat, I have no knowledge of the rest of her statement) Unfortunately, this is just one of many, many examples we get because people do not understand the details of the job. That's OK, they're not expected to, but my point is that yes, perception means a lot, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
We do not have a unit specifically dedicated to internal affairs, but we do have a number of troopers (I am one) who have been trained to do Administrative Investigations when a complaint is brought against a trooper. The list is rotated through, and as long as there is no obvious conflict of interest (i.e. he's my best friend), when your number is up, you are called upon to do the investigation. AI investigators are usually (but not always) called from a different detachment so there is more impartiality. The laws and guidelines that must be followed are very strict and complicated. The last one I did, the trooper resigned before I completed the investigation. Most people didn't pick up on former Commissioner Monegan's statement that in his 18 month tenure, 6 troopers were dismissed or resigned while under investigation. That stuff isn't made public for obvious privacy reasons, so the public understandably gets the idea that it doesn't happen.
No, I have never personally seen a trooper cover up for another trooper. Not saying it hasn't happened, I'm not that naive, but I've not personally seen it.
Corrine, am I correct in understanding that you want us to give drunk drivers rides home instead of arresting them? That is called enabling, and makes them think what they did was OK, so they'll do it again, only next time, they might kill someone before they get pulled over. I really try to be empathetic to the ideas and opinions of others, but I absolutely, positively cannot agree with you on this one. And if that means that you will forever not respect the troopers, that is unfortunate. Yes, I do think troopers should be proud when they have done so much to protect the public by arresting so many drunk drivers. That is exactly what we are paid to do, protect the public.
Sorry, we as the troopers aren't going to be able to do anything about your neighbor's barking dogs either, there is no crime involved, so there is no way we can "force" him to make his dogs stop barking.
And I can say with absolute certainty that we do not pay people for reporting drunk drivers. Check your sources.
This is neither here nor there at this point but the car was not moving, they were not taking this mother and her small children anywhere. They were simply placing them out of the way. To state that they would have been uncomfortable, and that was his concern is delusional. Compared to the mental state they were currently in it is unbelievable to put it mildly, the man either has no children, no heart, or just plain lied and was trying to do exactly what he did. No excuses. He split them up so he could hold the disposition of her children against her until he had decided whether or not she was being helpful or hurtful to his investigation.
I can see this is just going to continue as us telling you situations and you excusing/explaining them away. I wish you luck in your persuasion of the general public. It could only benefit all of us. We could believe again and you would earn the respect your chosen profession used to deserve.
These conversations are too difficult to type and get all the details into in the proper way. Suffice it to say I go back to my first statement, since your question was what can you an individual Trooper do? Hold yourself and your buddies accountable.
I also have to back Corrine, yes what is wrong with being human once in awhile? DUI is the buzz word these days. How many of those 120 people that Mr. Friendly pulled over and arrested got off? How many weren’t drunk? How many refused to play the game and THEN were charged with not playing nice and blowing in the tube? Because correct me if I am wrong but you don’t have to step out of your car and walk the walk or touch your nose do you? So when a person makes that decesiion what then? They are charged with refusal?
JAT: I would like a little clarification on your partial response to Wendee's comment on the seating. Are you stating that "all" police vehicles have a molded plastic, two person, back seat, or were you speaking specifically about the marked police cruisers? What about the unmarked sedans (taurus, crown vic, impala) and the SUVs used?
With respect to Corrine's comment, she was not stating that all dui offender be given a ride. More to the point I believe it to be an effort to show how in the past there was a greater public service done by showing a bit more tolerance than what is displayed today. This is not to infer that the police force should become a taxi service, nor is it fair to claim a blanket statement that you would be "enabling".
In the past, people who were an obvious danger to the public were taken in, while those who weren't were directed home. In the current day and age however, we have a lynch mob mentality when it comes to drunk driving. You notice how you immediately jumped to the argument that "they might kill someone", a rather fatalistic yet typical reply from a proponent of strong dui enforcement.
There is published research that shows, and I would wager you are aware, that a .08 bac does not affect any two people the same. It is also widely known that the field sobriety test is equally inadequate--though never admitted to by law enforcement, in providing a true level of a person's impairment (defense attorney's will tell you that it is more so a means of guaranteeing an arrest). So the practice of using this "box" to gauge the publics' level of intoxication is fundamentally flawed. This would be where training and tolerance comes into play in the pursuit of the best public service.
I believe you would agree that equivalent amounts of alcohol affect a 90lb woman to a different degree than it would a 250lb man. And to further address your remark concerning enabling, most of the public would be "scared straight" after a stop where they were sent home, you'll note I did not say they all would. With Fairbanks being the small town that it is, and the low number of troopers you claim, those on the dui task force would quickly recognize a repeat offender and could in good conscience take them in.
However I believe that most governments view duis as more of a cash cow and public "hot button" than a public service which is not conducive to displaying tolerance.
Wendee and Bornbred-
Thank you. I am tired. Maybe tomorrow, for whatever it's worth.
But you help explain well. I appreciate that.
justatrooper, is that all you can respond to? The Holy Grail of DUI's?
It is as I said on another thread: you come off as Mr. Nice Guy, but nothing matters, as Wendee points out.
You will excuse and rationalize arbitrarily and anything we propose is a problem...all the while claiming--as any cop would and apparently does--to be innocent of any participation in or knowledge of policemen wrongdoing.
God, where's my old Bob Marley albums?
How about not selectively addressing my suggestions of the past few days? Propaganda enabled by the so-called "public safety" thugs I call it.
Forget it anyway...as I said, all you got (literary license there; can you understand that?), is same ol', same ol'.
I have not heard you admit to any real problems, nor have I heard you suggest or concur that any of our various suggestions have an iota of merit.
Police Propaganda and excuse and your "perception" that makes your justifications.
Crap.
How old are you? Do you remember the old days...when cops had some sense of community and personability? Before the seemingly ever-present power trippy bunch? When people didn't fear or blow off calling cops because they know that they'd be blown off themselves?
Barney Fife looks real good to me, compared to the current crops.
Do you know the old, retired cops from back in the day? Do you know that people I've talked to that have moved or visited the lower 48 say Alaska cops are particularly anal?
Yeah, boy, ther's problems.
I support my gov and her family even more after listening to your typical tropper/cop absolutions.
You can bet your two bits I am on this, and first and foremost, I want protection from the "protectors."
Criminals are far easier if confronted; I have my gun.
From the cops, there is no protection from the disingenuousness which you so clearly--to anyone who has experienced the trooper/cops loving embrace--display.
Also.
lagirl I got it the first time, and it was pretty funny. I don't feel too comfortable carrying a piece in my 'pubic' either. Although I admit, I have tucked one down the back of my jeans' waistline a time or two...
It is so sad to see these posts written as if there are no law enforcement members in Alaska (Trooper or otherwise) that are regular people working hard to do the best they can to make our state safe. I know for a fact that there are amazing, caring and honest Troopers out there... and not just one or two as a lot of these posts would indicate. All you haters, pick yourselves up off the floor, yes there are good Troopers out there! :) I understand what JAT is trying to say about perception and am sorry it was taken as him trying to excuse behavior and choices by another law enforcement officer. I don't think that was what he was doing but just trying to point out that misperception sometimes happens. I would say to continue to report abuse and if you don't get a professional response call and talk to that persons supervisor and so on, until you get a professional response. I guess then the problem... as may have been the issue with Ms.Palin, is that we don't always like the resolution and outcome, but does that mean it is wrong? Which, is another post for another time.
Corinne -
Clearly from what I have learned during this discussion, if you are a citizen your 'perceptions' must be wrong because the trooper has personal experiences that tell him citizen's complaints are mostly wrong, as evidenced from his examples.
Whatever...what I can't quite stomach is that while my perceptions of harassment are unfounded, the trooper's perceptions of our 'stories' is that we just don't see things clearly.
You are right to say he will not concede any points on how they could regain our trust. Thank you for sharing parts of your story - you are NOT alone. Hopefully you never feel that way.
I also agree that I would rather face a criminal in a dark alley than a trooper during a pull over - cause I also have a concealed permit..in two seperate states mind you...and at least with the criminal I know exactly where I stand. Sad to say that with the wide variance of troopers I have encountered...I am never really sure what to expect - sucks because I wish it wasn't this way
Have a nice weekend, all - try to get out and enjoy what's left of the nice weather!
Corrine, I cannot possibly respond to everything you have listed, as there simply isn't space. If there are some specific things you have brought up that you would like me to address, please specify. And there have been many things you have brought up that I have no knowledge of other than what you say, and I agree, based on what you have said, they sound wrong. But I think you and I and everyone who reads this would agree that it would be unfair to condemn anyone based entirely on one side of the story, be it yours, a trooper's, or anyone else's.
In no way do I believe that our department is without fault, or that we don't have a few troopers who shouldn't be troopers. I have never denied that or said otherwise. And I have concurred that some of your ideas have merit, trooper's individual attitudes being at the top of the list.
Many, if not most, of the complaints we receive against troopers boil down to this argument: I don't like the way this particular law is being enforced (i.e. arresting all impaired drivers instead of giving them rides home.) Think of the the public's perception of how laws are enforced as a bell curve. On the one side, we have people such as yourself, who feel that there should be a lot more leniency and discretion in the interest of community mindedness. On the other end of the curve are the people who feel that troopers should cite every violator of every law every time they are seen. After all, why have the laws on the books if they're not going to be enforced? These are the people that want us to cite every ATV rider on the trails, and every bike rider that doesn't signal their turns. Both ends of the spectrum exist, and no one can say that any of the opinions are "wrong." But the troopers are stuck in the middle, because no matter what they do, people aren't going to be happy. It's the nature of our job. So how do we decide how to proceed? We prioritize, with the highest priority being the preservation of life, and go from there. The illegal activity that causes the most loss of life gets the most attention. I know that many people won't like that approach, and I respect your right to disagree. But the majority of the people seem to agree with us. If they didn't, I would hope that they would be contacting our legislators and asking them to change the law. But as it stands, the way for troopers to please the largest number of people is to enforce the laws that our elected legislature put in place.
Bornnbred, you gave a lot of points so I'll try and hit the high points. All marked crown vics have hard plastic back seats, and some marked SUV's. None of the unmarkd's do that I'm aware of.
Field Sobriety Tests were never designed, nor should they be used, as a tool to determine a person's specific Blood Alcohol Content. They are designed to be used as a tool, in conjunction with other relevant observations, to help the officer determine, yes or no, is this persons BAC PROBABLY over .08. They have been determined through multiple scientific field studies that they are valid in helping to determine that yes or no question (I can cite references if you want them.) That is different than using them to determine a specific BAC, which is not what they are for. And remember, an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest, not absolute certaint