New trooper bureau formed
Published Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — The state is giving its Alaska State Trooper DUI enforcement teams a new name and a broader mandate.
The enforcement teams will become the Bureau of Highway Patrol under a five-year federal grant, according to a Department of Public Safety official.
The bureau opens Monday with offices in Fairbanks and Palmer, but won’t be at full-strength until next year, said Lt. Jeff Laughlin, deputy commander of the new agency.
The grant provides $4.8 million the first year and varies thereafter, Laughlin said.
Responsibilities for the highway patrol bureau will include traffic patrols, crash investigations and commercial vehicle enforcement, according to a Department of Public Safety memorandum.
“We want the public to buy into this and see the benefit of slowing down and obeying the laws as opposed to just hammering them with tickets,” Laughlin said. “Reduction of crashes. That’s one of our big goals.”
Almost 60 people have died so far this year in crashes on Alaska’s highways, according to the Alaska Highway Safety Office, which will work with the new highway patrol bureau.
About a third of the crashes involved alcohol, according to a chart posted on the Department of Transportation Web site at www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/hwysafety/index.shtml.
Nine troopers, including three in Fairbanks, will initially work for the new highway patrol bureau, and more will be hired next year, Laughlin said.
The state must fill an estimated 40 ordinary trooper vacancies before it can begin hiring highway patrol troopers, according to Laughlin, who is troopers’ recruitment supervisor.
Highway safety is a core mission of Alaska State Troopers.
“We’re just trying to go back to our roots,” Laughlin said. “We’ve already got a lot of troopers interested in doing this. It gets to the bread and butter of what a lot of troopers hired on to do.”
Uniform-wise, highway patrol troopers will look much like ordinary troopers, Laughlin said. Their vehicles, however, will eventually look somewhat different. The grant allows the agency to purchase new vehicles, and some of the highway patrol vehicles will be unmarked or subtly marked, Laughlin said.
The highway patrol troopers will still be expected to help with routine trooper business, such as responding to a shooting or securing a perimeter at the scene of a bank robbery, but their main objective will be keeping the highways safe.
The highway patrol troopers also will be on call to respond to fatal crashes.
“Fatal car crashes take an awful lot of time, not only at the scene but the follow-up,” Laughlin said. “If they are off-duty, we will have them come out and respond and take over the case.”
Contact staff writer Amanda Bohman at 459-7544.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What a terrible idea.
Troopers are not doing enough to solve the important crimes- like burglaries- and to expend scarce resources on speed traps is wrong.
It figures the Federal Government would be involved with wasting money like this.
tonto12, you are pretty well saying what I was thinking all the time I was reading the article.
I for one regard DUIs in this day and age; (Attempted) MURDER ONE. By now, people should know better!! Can't think of any other crime more worthy of preventing! As for speed traps, we need more of them! SPEED KILLS CHEECHAKOES! GOOOOOOOOO TROOPERS!
This sounds like a huge waste of money. This new "bureau" of troopers would only be doing what the current troopers are already supposed to be doing. Giving it a new name and spending millions on it is just like putting a dress on a pig (no pun intended).
Yes, DUI's are a big problem, but aren't the current troopers already supposed to be trying to catch DUI drivers?
"Responsibilities for the highway patrol bureau will include traffic patrols, crash investigations and commercial vehicle enforcement, according to a Department of Public Safety memorandum."
Tonto, hairbrain, and wtwlly (all fitting names, by the way), a lot of crime (yes, including burglaries, as you have suggested) are stopped, prevented, and/or investigated with a simple traffic stop. (For example, stopping a vehicle, observing burglary tools, asking questions, searching a vehicle, finding stolen goods...etc). This also includes the drunk drivers who are out there as well, as well as the folks who carry prohibited weapons and drugs. It would be easy if cars were marked with a big sign that said “Pull me over! I have dope, guns, and I am drunk!”
The Federal government has granted the state this money to save lives. The number is in the article, 60 deaths. Increased traffic enforcement, including DUI enforcement and commercial vehicle enforcement (this means getting the unsafe clunkers off the road, you know, the ones with no brakes, unsafe equipment, unsecured loads) saves lives. Burglaries are a problem, yes, I do agree, but if the Federal government handed you money to hire and tackle another aspect, which in some ways is just as, or more important, wouldn't you jump on it?
It is easy to sit there at your computer and complain like you do, but your public safety officials actually have your best interests in mind.
RS, Everything covered in this article is supposed to be the responsibility of the current troopers. Why not just hire more troopers to do the job, instead of making a new department at inflated costs?
..and by the way, thanks for berating our screen names when yours shows so much more imagination.
RS: it sounds as though you feel most comfortable living in a "police state" I would just bet that you feel a nice warm glow inside, knowing that they have our "best interests in mind."
A change of name a new office and new cars to do their job? Why not just change the schedule around or say, 'Trooper A' you are doing highway patrol today. I wounder if they are going to get new Dodge Chargers like the Fairbanks cops or maybe something a little faster like a corvette or ferrari. We need to make sure that they have the fastest vehicles money can buy for all those high speed chases.
Anyone bother to notice this is under a Federal grant, thank Ted Stevens for it. It probably won't be renewed after the five years.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. And certainly no one has the right to drink & drive, putting my life & the lives of my family at risk. DWI is a serious problem nationally, not just in Alaska. I applaud AST for being more proactive in trying to catch DWI drivers.
If you drive, don’t drink. If you drink, don’t drive. Have a designated driver. Get a taxi, it’s not like they’re in short supply in Fairbanks. Walk for all I care. Just don’t drink & drive. It’s that simple. DWI is the easiest crime not to commit.
RS which agency do you work for?
WtWlly
Good question, why not hire more troopers? Answer because you can't. Alaska has been short troopers and can not fill those positions through recruiting. One big reason, they screwed the retirement benifits. Alaska has 415,000 adults aged between 18-65. Out of those it can't hire 50 people?why not? i was selected to attend the 2006 trooper academy and turned it down because of the retirement change. others on this forum have posted the troopers are so highly paid and don't need such a good retirement. my question is this, once again if it's such great pay and benefits why can't the state hire 50 more people? answer because the state is too cheap. good luck getting your burglaries investigated when they are the trooper are way undermanned
"About a third of the crashes involved alcohol."
Wonder what was "involved" in the rest? Wonder what the breakdown of injuries is? Wonder if "involved" means the reason?
Oyegi, driving too fast for conditions is just as easy to not commit.
Take a look at Saturdays DNM. Local gets 30 years in prison(elegible for parole in 20)for shooting and killing a neighbor.DUI in Anchorage (Homicide also)a terrible crime also mind you,receives 66 years? Didn't seem quite right.
As many have already stated, the article is about creating another level of bureaucracy for duties that are already being performed.
Similar arguments concerning staffing have been raised before, if they are unable to hire enough troopers now, how can they expect to fill the positions they need for the new bureau.
I am most interested in hearing someone expound on this comment, “We want the public to buy into this and see the benefit of slowing down and obeying the laws as opposed to just hammering them with tickets,” as it implies that will not be handing out tickets. If they want to get the public to buy into something, try proffering something that makes sense.
Oyegi_Thamu:
There are multiple supreme court decisions stating that driving a private vehicle on public roads IS a right and NOT a privilege.
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
I took these from an article writen by a retired Phoenix, AZ police officer.
what a joke, theres more accidents caused by cell phone users and slippery roads.just harder to prove in court.quit selling booze, jails would empty and then nobody would have a job.dui's stimulate the economy.
What find disturbing is the creation of a new bureaucracy with "broad powers", funded by the feds. AND they are doing it in the early stages of a massive depression. The feds are not looking out for your liberty and never have. In other states, such as Texas, federal funds are being used to set up unconstitutional checkpoints where police can either take a blood sample from you or haul you into a hospital where a nurse is ordered to do it. However, some hospitals are refusing to comply and the police are being told to do it.
This is going in the wrong direction and it is not by accident, this is training the public to accept tyranny, step by step. There should be stiff penalties for drunk driving, but drunk driving is a catch all phrase for justifying broad police powers and constitutional violations.
We do not need something more to pay for at the Trooper office!! We do have a fundamental right to be able to travel unimpeeded by the state. I do not support drunk driving, but I do not support harrassment of the traveling public either. Many will say, "Oh, if you are not guilty, then don't worry about it" Well, I, for one think that is flawed logic. All of us are presumed to be innocent of all crimes, until something alerts the authorities otherwise. They do not possess the "right" to go on search parties looking for reasons to arrest the traveling public. Joe Vogler said it best about government, and we should be ever mindful about it:
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
bornnbred:
Agreed, I found the statement "we want the public to buy into this...." is very telling of how they want us further conditioned into accepting more bureaucracies. But I think the majority of Americans have become so weak and cowardly that they would even gladly accept a STAsI like secret police force investigating them "for their protection".
How many here knew that DHS contracted the former head of the East German STASI police force, Markus Wolf, to help them with federal policing programs, like "Real ID"? look it up for yourself. Fortunately Markus Wolf went to hell a year and a half ago. They probably hired someone new though.
orion700...I could not agree with you more!! Broad powers...and funded by the feds, this should be HUGE RED FLAGS!!! We all need to be writing our legislators, and our Governor (if she has the time to read our letters now) about this. We should just tell the feds..."Thanks, but no thanks!!"
By "buying into this", you might as well just let them come into your house at random to see if you're doing anything they don't approve of. I don't buy into this.
Good idea. there's way too many idiots driving on the roads.
np79: So now you're advocating that we cite people for lack of intelligence? Will you be the first in line to take this road-side IQ test? What standard would you suggest be used? Why would you even post such an poorly conceived statement?
Corinne- good point.
Orion- the cases you cited were not cases decided by the US Supreme Court, and thus, have no effect in Alaska.
Also, if you check Alaska's Drivers Manual, on page 7, under the section "DRIVER’S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS", the first sentance states "Driving is a privilege, not a right."
http://www.state.ak.us/dmv/dlmanual/dlma...
"We’ve already got a lot of troopers interested in doing this."
-- Is this due to the overtime they will collect in the process, sometimes used to inflate the retirement pension of a near-retirement trooper? Once the federal grants run out, we will be left holding the tab for wages as well as retirement packages. $120/bbl oil was apparently a temporary phenomenon.
Oyegi_Thamu: It doesn't matter if they were state or US supreme court decisions, I am showing precedence. Driving your property on public roads, you paid for is a RIGHT, not a privilege, period.
The ak drivers manual is not my measure of Constitutionally protected liberty, the Constitution is. If you are a cop and you have given a ticket for no licence to a private driver, you have violated your oath to the Constitution, if you took one. Live with it and don't do it anymore.
Read about how Patric Henry came up with his "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" speach. It was over "licensing".
I do not need your permission to use my car on our roads that I pay for. I just need to act responsibly and I do. I have a perfect driving record.
By the way, due to the feds forcing REAL ID on us through the DMV's, against the people's will, I will not be renewing my drivers license. Real ID is exactly why licenses cannot be required to practice a RIGHT.
To clarify, the cases I gave proving that driving is a RIGHT, cite the US Constitution, so yes, it does affect Alaska. The author of the DMV book is a liar.
Following is what Alaska state law says about driving being a privilege. This is one of many places that the law refers to driving as a privilege, and these laws have been upheld by the supreme court.
AS 28.15.011. Drivers Must Be Licensed.
(a) A person may not be denied the privilege to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state, except as prescribed by law.
For what it's worth.
Oyegi: Cases from other districts are often looked to for guidance when there are no similar cases in the district in question. They do not have to have been decided in the Supreme Court to have an effect in Alaska.
Justatrooper:
Statutes that are in violation of the Constitution are null and void, I'm sure you know this. Rights are often taken by replacing the word "right" with "privilage". Driving a PRIVATE vehicle on PUBLIC roads is a RIGHT under the US Constitution amendments 5 and 9.
I made the point that the feds are pushing policies through the DMV that the people don't want (a federal ID card) in reality we already have that. This was one of the policies that Markus wolf, former head of the East German STASI police, assisted DHS with. This is where tyranny starts, the state claiming authority over granting rights as if they were privilages.
From your screenname, I assume you are a trooper, Please do not violate your oath to the Constitution, research this subject. I assume troopers take the oath, is that true? As I posted earlier, the cases I cited, I first read in an article written by the most decorated police officer in Pheonix history, Jack McLamb.
orion700 not sure if you know when the constitution was written. i don't recall anything in there about motor vehicle licensing rights. i think there are things called "amendments" since a few things have changed in 200 plus years. i have lived in 6 different states and germany and as i recall all of them had this thing called a drivers license. right now i live in CO and a lot of people don't have licenses, guess what they're called illegal immigrants. since they don't have a license they don't have insurance. when they run into your car and injure you and destroy your vehicle guess who pays for it you do. they do "pay" for the roads with gas tax do they have a right to drive on the roads?
JAT- The statute you printed is pretty vague but makes me question how DMV has the right to suspend your license even if the Law does not?
I don't have all the details but have heard that people have had cases dismissed in court and yet they still had their licenses suspended by DMV?
Wendee: It is because the DMV sanctions against a driver are considered an "administrative" action and are separate and distinct from "judicial" actions. It also the same logic used to circumvent the "double jeopardy" clause in the constitution, most commonly seen in dui cases.
HAAT research how the driver's license came about. The 5th amendment protects a persons right to life and liberty, the 9th protects all rights assumed by the people at the time, not specifically stated in the rest of the bill of rights. One of the most important of these was the right to travel.
As far as "illegals" go, in some places, the cops are told to let them go if they have no license.
There's always a good reason for tyranny, isn't there?
I already posted the court decisions, that should be enough to get you researching.
"The state must fill an estimated 40 ORDINARY trooper vacancies before it can begin hiring highway patrol troopers, according to Laughlin, who is troopers’ recruitment supervisor."
So Capt Laugh-in considers his troopers to be ordinary and he wants to hire exceptional troopers?
Damn soo much for getting that Corvette this summer!! I get hassled too much as it is with my second tier sports car.
I support the DUI patrol, but when they use 4-10 mph tickets as an excuse to stop you for a DUI check it's a pain the a*s.
Bornbred- I don't understand. That seems to me to be exactly that-double jeopardy. If double jeopardy is illegal in the court how is it legal in out state office practice. I thought laws dictated the rules that we live by i.e. how we treat our employees, how we pay OT, how fast we drive to work, how does it not apply to DMV?
I agree with YukonJohn write your Governor.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/govmail.php
If you read Statue for driver license renewal; I think it says, you can renew it within a one period from time of expiration. It doesn't say before or after it expires.
The Statue is ambiguous and confusing. A grace period would serve the citizens better.
I've always argued there should be a one year grace period; after expiration, they usually let you go anyway. I tried to argue this point with a trooper, he wasn't impressed, but he did admit in traffic court to the Judge, that the law was 'ambiguous'.
Oyegi_Thamu whines about DUI's...
Did you read the article? 60 deaths. Only 1/3 involved alcohol. And, that doesn't read "1/3 were CAUSED BY alcohol", just that it was INVOLVED. [This is probably much like the ridiculously inflated death toll from smoking - die of ANY natural cause and, if you smoked, they will include that on the cause of death list.]
So, although I would agree DUI is a serious crime that can easily be avoided, obviously it is not the cause of the majority of crashes.
I'm tired of being harassed by troopers. Now, I hear that the Feds have given our state another $4.8M specifically and intentionally so we'll have more troopers to harass me when I'm driving.
No sir, I don't like it!
Orion700 you've brought up an interesting point that I'd like to get further information about. Where are these "As far as "illegals" go, in some places, the cops are told to let them go if they have no license" Where do they just let anyone 'go' if they're stopped without a license? I don't think this applies to Alaska does it?
And the AST being low on troopers by 40 people sounds sort of alarming doesn't it? I wonder how much overtime that causes. I hardly think it advisable to over work police officers. Being human, I don't think they're capable of doing their best thinking which is required by their jobs under the influence of fatigue.
I think those few here citing rights, priveleges, laws and how our money is being wasted, ought to step up to the plate and go apply for a job down at the AST recruitment office. Learning more about it first hand might well change a few opinions. Yep, just might.
Bornbred, do you have the citation for that? I'm pretty sure it was a decision by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Years ago, this issue was discussed in the legislature. As usual, it didn't go anywhere. We need to bug our legislators to pass a statute (and to make sure the regulations implementing it uphold the intent) stopping this crap. I mean, Christ, if one doesn't even end up having to pay a ticket or go to court for anything, the DMV still revokes/suspends a license.
It is, quite literally, a racket.
And what with too many dishonest, power-trippin' cops, one doesn't even have to have actually done anything wrong to have a police "contact." It's so easy for them to lie and get away with it.
And they do.
As someone else mentioned, this is not directed soley at DUIs. I was nearly taken out (VERY nearly) this summer on my bike by an idiot on his cell phone. What about the fools having a shoot out down College Road (I was in the vicinity)? What about the guy with the unsecured load whos extention ladder fell off directly infront of my car going down the Johansen? What about the guy I witnessed riding his kids around in the open bed of a pickup? What about all those complaints on this board in the past regarding slow response to burglaries, domestic issues, etc.? How many people, myself included, who decided it wasn't worth calling the cops (I made a statement in person at the Troopers office) because we know they are stretched thin and we would be a low priority (or possibly detract from a more serious issue)? Just maybe, this grant could free up a couple of cops to return to a walking beat downtown? Oh, and let's not forget the sled heads and ATVs blasting down the highway.
I did not see anywhere in this article where randon stops are a part of this grant. I believe that would require a change in the laws. THAT is where I would draw the line...random stops or road blocks.
Jeez louise people the money is coming the program is coming, work together to make it work.
MrsS
alaskansheilah was that you BS'ing on the cell phone that almost ran over me the other day?
Why do you people throw a fit about this? Amidst griping was a four year old boy that got killed because the troopers were to busy and understaffed to be on the roads. How about I put you in a pasture the size of Delaware with 20,000 sheep spread evenly in it and tell you to go round them up.
All this does is guarantee that there will be troopers on the roads where they belong and not down 60-100 cases and pitching a tent in the courthouse. Since when do cops not belong on the roads?
The only reason I can think you really don't want this is because, you don't like getting pulled over/tickets, or you think that drinking and driving is ok. You might just HAVE to slow down and stop texting your legislator while driving.
Oh and in case you didn't realize, ALOT of Departments across the U.S. get federal funding for this and many other reasons.
Also, who made the roads? Who takes care of them? Though it be by our money WE charged DOT with the task of making and maintaining them. That is in the statutes and codes. By maintaining them that means that they can restrict who, how and what kind of vehicle can be driven on it. Do you want a 160,000 lbs. semi putting potholes on Airport Way? Why do you think you never see them there? Read 13 AAC and the Authority for it Alaska Statue 28 and stop blaming the troopers for doing their job. Blame yourself for voting for people who enact the laws that they are REQUIRED to enforce.
Orion700,
If it really is a right, then why aren't you involved with a class action lawsuit against the State of Alaska for violating civil amendment rights? I think because these and most ALL statutes have stood up in Alaska's and the U.S. supreme courts. To tip the iceberg try Honeycutt vs. Comm. of Kentucky. There is a specific reason behind every law. And as long as you are physically present here in the state or under maritime law you WILL abide by them, OR reap the consequences. Don't like it? Vote differently or leave. I happen to think we have a very efficient and effective system. Just a shortage of cops to enforce them. Our system is relatively new (statehood) and actually was made with the downfalls of other states in mind. Technically we are state of the art.
"Buying into this"? You are taxpayers. You already bought into it! "Baaaaaadd SHEEPLES"...You know you are suppose to do as the government says...not as they do. They are already in control....of you!
Get ready for a police state & martial law...its coming folks. Joe Vogler...We miss you.
and alaskansheilah-
It's a tiresome and fallacious proposal which many of you continue to try to justify valid, existing, and personally experienced problems within the AST by always dismissing us with:
"go be a trooper" or whatever.
That's just dumb. Go be one yourself.
We aren't all the accepting, conditioned robots some of you wish us to be.
But, we are losing the battle against the police state advocated by the likes of you.
Hopefully they don't hire a bunch of narrow minded, neo-nazi's like they already have working for them. I'm just day dreaming...
RS Often it seems the only thing AST's have in mind is making an arrest, they don't have any answers, and if no ones brandishiung a gun you probably won't get any help at all.
As far as burglaries go... Thanks for the right to bare arms!
I'll be the one 2 cars behind the speeding troopers on the Rich! Thanks for being above the law!!
The feds should pull this money to pay for all the BS bailouts!!
Bornnbred, for cases in other states to have effect in Alaska (or any other state) they must be decided & upheld upon by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court. Otherwise, State Supreme Courts decisions carry weight only in their own state.
Orion, under Alaska law, driving is a privilege, not a right. The 5th or 9th Amendments do guarantee or protect a right to drive a PRIVATE vehicle on PUBLIC roads. As justatrooper pointed out, Alaska Statute 28.15.011. states quite clearly "Drivers must be licensed".
28.15.011
(a) A person may not be denied the privilege to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state, except as prescribed by law.
(b) Every person exercising the person's privilege to drive, or exercising any degree of physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway, vehicular way or area, or other public property in this state, is required to have in the possession of the person a valid Alaska driver's license issued under the provisions of this chapter for the type or class of vehicle driven, unless expressly exempted by law from this requirement.
(c) A person licensed under the provisions of this chapter may exercise in this state the privilege to drive a motor vehicle and is subject to the restrictions prescribed by this chapter. A municipality may not require a person to obtain any other driver's license to drive or operate a motor vehicle in this state.
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/default.htm...
You are correct in that you do not need my permission, but you do need authorization by the State government to legally drive on state roads. If you drive responsibly, then I can believe that since I have no proof to the contrary. You also state that you have a perfect driving record, which also may be true, but that does not mean you have been driving legally & in compliance with Alaskan law.
If you have any other cases upheld by the 9th Curcuit and/ or US Supreme Court that a drivers license is not required, please cite it.
Real ID, that has nothing to do with driving legally, it has to do with ensuring that a state issued drivers license meet certain standards.
As for Patrick Henry, his Give me death or give me liberty" speech was not over licencing, it was a call to arms so that Virginia would send troops to aid the revolution.
N2AK: I don't have the money, would you like to lend it to me? This nation was founded by people who were sick of "maritime law" if you like it, then you leave, you sheep. Freedom lovers have no place else to go, your ilk has stolen every land on this planet, except Antarctica. I don't want your tyranny, So you get out!
We still have a Constitution that the Feds and the State don't obey and I will do what little I can to make them obey it. The Constitution is the law of the land and I don't have to obey any "law" that violates it.
By the way, there was a specific reason behind eugenics laws in the US, as well. Do you favor such laws? sheep.
Oyegi_Thamu you seem very intelligent... What am I thinking now?
Oyegi_Thamu:
Are you saying that Alaska is not under the US Constitution. Quit quoting null and void statuetes that violate the Constitution. You probably work at the DMV, huh? do you make your money through tyranny? It's already established that driving is a RIGHT.
Patrick Henry's speech was first conceived when he witnessed a man being beaten for preaching without a license. He later gave it as a call to arms as a response for what he witnessed.
As far as real ID, State DMV's have been implementing real ID requirements all over the country.
I don't need your license, bureaucrat! Oh, I ground your barcode off my current license. Are you going to fine me?
"About a third of the crashes involved alcohol, according to a chart posted on the Department of Transportation Web site at www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/hwysafety/i...
this is exactly what we need to be spending more money on. not speed traps. not tickets for burned out headlights. preventing DUI's.
You might want to listen what this lady has to say. Especially the last statement she makes on the video to the legisators of her state. I think its very relevant here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Q...
Frozen, I'm guessing... Sure is nice when the tempature goes above 0.
Orion, wishful thinking does not make things so. If you say that that the statute is null & void and violates the Constitution, show me what Supreme Court decision agrees with you. I don't work for the state, so like I said, you do not need my permission to drive, but you do need authorization by the State government to legally drive on state roads.
A little paranoid about bar codes are you?
daltongangdriver-
Wow. She's mad because she chose to obey a bad law, and it likely cost her parents their lives. She's mad at the legislators who crafted and passed the law. She's right.
Bad law. There's a lot of that going around. And a lot of people who are so lost that they think just because something is a law, it should be unquestionably followed, or one is a bad guy.
And those of us who try to get bad laws changed--or even point them out--well, we're just a bunch of law-breakin', ticket-gettin', radicals...
“We want the public to buy into this and see the benefit of slowing down and obeying the laws as opposed to just hammering them with tickets,” Laughlin said. “Reduction of crashes. That’s one of our big goals.”
Can anybody tell me what exactly this means? So if I am driving over the speed limit or violating some rule of the road I am going to receive something OTHER than a ticket??? I would definitely like some clarification on this statement at the very least!
Don't the overwhelming majority of crashes happen IN towns? What is the percentage of "crashes" that occur on the highway vs. town? This is a HIGHWAY PATROL...they will not be in town. So, other than hassling 18 wheelers running between here and Upper Seattle and here and the border, and ticketing tourists in the summer, what exactly is this waste of money being spent on??? Thanks but no thanks Gov. Ask them if we can use the money to help the Department we already have instead of starting up something new that is unnecessary.
My ancestors were a little paranoid about SSN's being used to track every aspect of their life. Guess they were right.
It's very hard to prevent the advance of the totalitarian police state that has enveloped all of America and especially the Retarded-people's Republic of Florida (where I live).
Your best bet is the investment in a good radar detector and prudent driving. And by prudent, I of course mean situational awareness and all around understanding of conditions and risks. That is all...
Corinne: I believe the first case where this was brought up was State v. Zerkel, 900 P.2d 744 (Alaska App.1995) as well as Garcia v. State 947 P.2d 1363(Alaska App.1997). There are other cases that address this same issue of administrative vs judicial "punishment" and the double jeopardy clause.
"this is exactly what we need to be spending more money on. not speed traps. not tickets for burned out headlights. preventing DUI's."
Unfortunately the police only get involved after the fact. The police can take you off the road once you're already drunk, but they can't sit in the bar with you and make sure you're good to drive or order you a cab. Ultimately it's up to you if you get the behind the wheel, or your DD.
We can put as many millions of dollars into drinking and driving programs but the bottom line is if you're already wasted and decide to drive and don't have any friends to stop you, you're going to drive.
So, why couldn't they use the money for a sponsored cab ride home for people leaving the bars or parties?
YukonJohn, I agree with tha vast majority of your statements above. I think that the policing in America has become far too focused on a militarized approach involving an overwhelming presence of force; in numbers, tactics, and weaponry.
On the other hand, for example, I hit a calf moose a couple of nights ago. I made the proper contacts to 911/authorities as required by the law, though calling Troopers goes against my 'religion.'
A passer-by and I were eventually able to drag the calf from the roadway whole, thus decreasing the hazzard of a moose carcasse laying in a poorly lighted lane in a high-speed roadway.
But before we could drag her from the road, with three long-burning and clearly visible flares laid out (by me) over a 450-600 ft distance, and my truck, battered and bvruised, parked next to the carcasse on the shoulder, with all my flashers on, and scattered debris from my vehicle literally hither and thither, various passing vehicles actually SPED UP while entering a clearly marked accident scene.
One driver in a 3/4-ton white truck with a home-built white canopy (yes, I've seen you before, and we -will- be speaking the next time I see you; guaranteed) not only accellerated to (what I would guess was) close to 65-70 mph in a 55 mph zone on its approach to the scene, with truck debris still in the road, and with on-coming traffic in the opposing lane; he jammed his brakes at the last moment, apparently finally seeing the moose, swerved into the opposite lane, despite on-coming traffic, and proceeded to speed onward.
I don't just want folks like that stopped; I want their licenses revoked, a straight-jacket put on 'em, and a comfy jail cell for 72 hours, where they can sit and think for a while, possibly for the first time in what may be decades.
Alaska has FAR too many drivers in need of having their licenses revoked, and the persons they kill next might be your or my family.... In which case I'd be obliged to go hunting, if it were my family..
From running red lights, to speeding up into accident or construction areas, to who-knows-what, they are a clear threat to the public, and should be removed from the roadway.
I don't want the cops making up reasons to pull persons over, and these federal grants, from Clinton to Bush II have largely advocated for that. But I -DO- want them to take the drivers' I.D.s away from persons who are CLEARLY a threat to the rest of us.
"So, why couldn't they use the money for a sponsored cab ride home for people leaving the bars or parties?"
Because the police really aren't there to hold your hand. Police are not a substitute for common sense. Also, it's not in their budget to pay for cab rides for everyone that goes to bars on the weekends, everyone that goes out to party, all the kids at UAF.
Like I said, how about you just be smart when you go out. If you know you're going to get s**t faced arrange for a friend or someone to call a cab, if you're not planning for that then know your limits.
It's really not hard to not get a DUI or kill someone.
Valkyrie: The money referenced in this article is "not in their budget" either, it was a federal grant. I think what Etteloca was suggesting was that the grant be used to sponsor a program that would more directly affect the community in a positive manner, not that the police should "hold your hand".
I have noticed that people are often fallacious when advocating for more police or stricter laws. Arguments that project everything in a fatalistic light seldom do more than sway the weak minded.
I know, I'm just saying if we're talking about how to spend that money to better help the community, I don't think some sort of anti-drunk driving program would help because that's noone's decision but your own.
Holy cow! I agree with Valkyrie. Say it isn't so lol.
The Government is infringing on our individual rights and responsibilities far too much already. Sponsoring cab rides for bar patrons is far from the answer. Want to do that. Fine...every bar adds .50, a dollar, whatever would be reasonable to each drink for a breathalyzer test and mandatory cab ride for anyone who blows over as they leave the bar. Problem solved, and those that choose to drink pay for it..no one else.
orion700, i guess your logic is you don't need a license to drive a motor vehicle because some preacher 200 plus years ago was being harassed about a license to preach? good luck when you go to get your colonscopy by that unlicensed doctor who decided he didn't want to abide by the big bad tyrannical government. after all he should be able to cut people because it makes him happy and thats in the constitution that he has a right to happiness. he doesn't need to be trained or licensed. go drive in kuwait sometime, they don't have licenses. they manage to run into each other out in the middle of a 10 mile wide stretch of desert
Haats69, it seams to be the same type of Saudi Arabia, where it seams that drivers get their license from a box of Cracker Jacks. They gotta be the worst drivers on the planet, far worse than the Parisians or Italians.
Dirk, I just read your last post and I agree 200%. Coming from the lower 48 recently, I was really taken back by the kinds of driving up here. I guess common sense would lead you to believe that in a place with icey roads over half the year people would tend to be much more careful drivers. However, the opposite seems to be true.
My story happened about a month ago at the intersection of Old Steese and College. I'm behind a car on College waiting for the light to turn. The light turns green and thank God the car in front of me didn't decide to go at that moment because if he had he would be dead now. Maybe about a second after the light turns green for us a car comes speeding through the intersection going about 40-50mph. This car didn't even *try* to slow down. Like I said, if the car in front of me had gone when he was supposed to, he would be dead.
The moral of this story is, even when the light is green take a second to make sure that another car isn't speeding through or that they aren't sliding through on ice.
POLICE STATE IS COMEING! GET YOUR TATOOS AND FOLLOW........OR DIE! believe it or not your choice.
Valkyrie, learn the golden rule of driving in Fairbanks. Let the light turn, then count to 3 or better yet 5 then look again and go. Some people in this town think yellow means you still have plenty of time to make it and red means if I'm the next in line it's ok to go. People are just asking for those little cameras located on the poles to be turned on and the tickets by mail to begin.
Valkyrie,
In reality, few here drive in such a way as to be conscious of conditions.
A trucker years ago taught me to check for type of ice, wet pavement, etc., by using the drive-train in a controlled or safe setting and manner.
I've logued well over a million miles. Maybe two. I don't consider myself faint-of-heart by any stretch. But I do worry for my family daily. I've witnessed a number of dead bodies on the highways. Many who were doing exactly what they were supposed to, yet their (day/life/lives of loved ones) were ruined in a split second by a poor decision by another.
Me and mine aren't completely innocent in making mistakes either.
Between neighbors who drive too fast in residential areas, and folks who think that turn-signals, red lights, etc., are optional or advisory in nature, and many other threats in this world to my loved ones' safety, I'm not being exagerative when I say that nearly every time my family leaves the house, I'm concerned.
I've been in Alaska over three decades, and was in the Yukon Territory for a while before that. Persons here drive like they did in Anchorage 15-20 years ago. Persons in Anchorage now drive like folks in L.A. did 10 years ago.
I don't like the cops using b.s. as excuses for doing road-side shake-downs; I don't care WHAT their reported success rates are in catching perpetrators of vice. In reality, that makes little to no difference re. my family's tangible level of safety.
A violation of the 4th, simply because a cop made up a plausible story, is still a violation of the 4th; even if the court doesn't rule that way.
I know that property crimes often go unprosecuted, I know that domestic violence issues get severely blurred by the many different biases that intertwine within those crimes, and I also know that any time I go into town there will probably be no fewer than 12 citable traffic violations committed within close proximity of my truck.
Persons frequently don't make legal turns, don't signal turns/lane-changes, engage in illegal lane changes, often don't have functional safety equipment, don't check their safety equipment, etc., ad nauseum.
I don't appreciate the increase in gestapo mentality, but at the same time, the cops who ARE doing traffic duty are literally overwhelmed. There are SO MANY BAD DRIVERS, that there are times I've considered questionable action in addressing them.
And yes, a green light here doesn't mean 'go.' It simply means a minor decrease to the likelihood of getting hit/killed -IF- you go.
I encourage my wife and kids to "drive carefully" every time they leave the house. I tell them there's nothing more dangerous in their life that they'll do on a daily basis than driving a motor vehicle. I tell them that even when they're on a highway, approaching an intersection, to make a point of looking BOTH ways to the sides, even if the light's been green for a while.
Bad drivers endanger everyone. JAIL 'em!!
Are you people seriously this ignorant? Read the article...drunk driving kills people! It's easy to say "oh, we can't enforce this law, we have more important ways to spend money"...but a law is completely void if it's not enforced. Do you honestly think people should be given a free pass to drive on the roads while intoxicated? A friend of my brother's died at age 13 because of this crime, and countless others have died as well; we MUST make an effort to put a stop to it. Your comments make me worry about whether it's safe to have you on the roads.
Amen. It's not my driving that I'm concerned about. Granted, I haven't been driving nearly as long as you have, but I'm fairly confident in myself.
It's the other guy I'm worried about. It's the person talking on their phone, not paying attention, etc. etc. It's the bicyclist being IN THE ROAD, and yes, I know it's their right to be there. But why can't you realize that on icey roads your chances of being hit are so much higher? We get it. You're cool, because you're on a bike. Now why can't you use the sidewalk before you get hit or cause an accident? Sorry, got sidetracked.
I've taken the waiting at the green light lesson to heart. (Wow, I've actually learned something useful here!) This is the sort of thing I would suggest the police use this money for. Putting out public service announcements reminding drivers about things like that, that they might have forgotten. Or for new drivers up here, like me.
" Do you honestly think people should be given a free pass to drive on the roads while intoxicated?"
Where did anyone say that? If you're talking about my comment. I said that spending money on those types of programs is pointless because no matter what, it's ultimatley up to the individual if they get behind the wheel.
Reread my first post where I said:
"Unfortunately the police only get involved after the fact. The police can take you off the road once you're already drunk, but they can't sit in the bar with you and make sure you're good to drive or order you a cab."
I clearly said that the police will arrest you if you're drunk driving. My entire point was that the police can't sit with you in the bar and make sure you're being responsible.
No one ever said we should be letting drunk drivers off the hook.
Dirk, I am confused. I am not being critical, I just do not understand your statement, so please clarify if you can. You say on the one hand that "any time I go into town there will probably be no fewer than 12 citable traffic violations committed within close proximity of my truck", and say on the other hand you don't like "cops using b.s. as excuses (for making stops I presume) for doing road-side shake-downs." First, I have said before, and I will say again, I absolutely abhor the thought of a cop using a made up reason for making a stop. But you said yourself, you see many, many violations as you drive about. What would make it any different for a cop? While many people see no tail light, or no front plate as B.S. excuses for a stop, the reality is, those things have been made illegal by the legislators that were elected by the majority of their constituents (read, we the people). So I guess my point is that I don't think cops need to be making up reasons to stop people when there are so many legitimate reasons to stop people.
And Orion, I have a question for you as well. If the courts have ruled that licenses aren't necessary in the places where those decisions were handed down (Chicago, for example), why do those states still require or even issue driver's licenses? I suspect it is because the rational person realizes that given the inherent danger of vehicles on