By TOM ANDERSON, G. SCOTT CAMPBELL, TOM CLEMONS, JOHN MURPHY, AND JOHN TIDWELL, JR.

Susan Carney has served on the Alaska Supreme Court for just four years. But during that brief time, she has handed down two controversial rulings that should concern all Alaskans who care about our state’s shocking rates of sexual assault and domestic violence.

In both cases, Justice Carney was part of a narrow majority. The court was divided by a vote of 3 to 2.

This means that Susan Carney’s vote was decisive, and had a different justice occupied her seat, the outcome could have been different.

The first case involved a family in Utqiagvik (Barrow) who sued two police officers and the North Slope Borough, alleging that the police entered their home unlawfully. However, the officers had been sent to the home to investigate a potential domestic violence emergency.

The police dispatcher had received a phone call from a friend of the couple in question. The friend reported the couple were having a fight, and that the woman had suffered bruises and a cut on her head.

The trial court judge, Michael Jeffery, ruled in favor of the police and the North Slope Borough, arguing that the officers acted responsibly. But Justice Susan Carney, joined by two others, overturned the judge’s decision.

The best summary of the impact of Justice Carney’s ruling comes from the dissenting opinion of Justices Joel Bolger and Craig Stowers. They wrote:

“The court’s opinion complicates the police response to domestic violence situations by limiting a court’s consideration of a victim’s report conveyed to a police dispatcher. Ignoring this information endangers some of the most vulnerable victims: those whose pleas are silenced by threats or violence. The court offers no persuasive reason to restrict the use of this information when assessing whether the police have acted lawfully in responding to a domestic violence emergency.”

Yet this is not the only case where Justice Susan Carney seems tone-deaf to Alaska’s crisis of domestic violence and sexual assault. In John Doe vs. State of Alaska, Department of Public Safety (2019), Justice Carney joined an opinion declaring that Alaska’s public sex offender registry violated the constitutional rights of persons convicted of sex crimes.

The “John Doe” of this case was convicted in the state of Virginia of aggravated sexual battery. He later moved to Alaska. The Department of Public Safety determined that John Doe’s offense in Virginia had the same elements of first-degree sexual assault under Alaska law. This would carry a presumptive sentence of 20 to 30 years for a first-time offender, and probation supervision for 15 years. In other words, this was a very serious crime.

Nevertheless, Justice Carney and two other justices concluded that John Doe and all other sex offenders could be exempted from the public registry, provided the offender requests a hearing and proves, to the satisfaction of one judge, that “he does not pose a risk to the public sufficient to require continued registration.”

Alaskans should ponder these words carefully. The court majority just seized the power, in defiance of the provisions of the law, to exempt any sex offender from having to register. Are you entitled to know if a convicted child molester lives 100 feet away from where your children play? Justice Carney thinks the court is best equipped to make the decision about whether the risk to your children is “sufficient” to warrant registration of the offender. How will the all-wise judges, who don’t live in your neighborhood, decide what level of risk is acceptable to your family?

In this case, Justices Joel Bolger and Craig Stowers once again dissented, noting: “…most courts that have considered the question have agreed that sex offender registration is reasonably related to the legitimate state goal of protecting the public from sex offenders.”

Yes, most courts do—but not Alaska’s. Our court is different. It sides with criminals, and against the police and public safety. Susan Carney is not the only Supreme Court justice who hands down these dangerous rulings, but she’s the only one on the 2020 ballot. Alaskans should hold her accountable by voting no on her retention. 

Colonel Tom Anderson is a Alaska State Trooper (Retired) who earned the Lifetime Achievement Award for 50 years of Public Safety Service

G. Scott Campbell is a Alaska State Trooper (Retired) and former Director of Public Safety & Chief of Police for the North Slope Borough Police Department. He is a retired U.S. Marine.

Tom Clemons is the former Seward Chief of Police and former Alaska State Trooper.

Colonel John Murphy is a former U.S. Marshal, former director of the Alaska State Troopers and Navy veteran

SGT John Tidwell, Jr. is a 25 year veteran of the Alaska Department of Corrections – (Retired)

By DAN FAGAN

Suzanne LaFrance sits on the Anchorage Assembly. She leans hard-left and enabled disgraced former Mayor Ethan Berkowitz and his unprecedented tyrannical assault on the city’s private sector.

Berkowitz, LaFrance, and several other power-drunk Assembly members left behind a wake of economic destruction with their unreasonable and punitive lockdown mandates.

The pain and hardship they caused are so deep and wide, they are difficult to measure.

Now, LaFrance wants to take her dismal record as an Assembly member and move on up to the Alaska Legislature. She’s running as a Democrat challenging James Kaufman, who beat the incumbent Jennifer Johnson in the Republican primary for District 28.    

LaFrance obviously can’t run on her record of economic carnage as an Assembly member, so she’s attempting to reinvent herself as a conservative. Big Labor is sending out a mailer featuring LaFrance sandwiched between Congressman Don Young and U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. The goal of the flyer is to trick the voter into believing LaFrance is ideologically aligned to the conservative Young and Sullivan. Nothing could be more untrue.

The flyer is an obvious attempt to deceive voters. LaFrance is playing her constituents for the fool.

Some may argue, “That’s politics. All politicians lie.” But do they?

If one were to encapsulate the strength and formidability of President Donald Trump, it would be this: He tells the truth.  

Trump may very well be the most straight-shooting man, next to honest Abe Lincoln and “I cannot tell a lie” George Washington, to ever hold the office of the presidency.

It’s true the media consistently labels Trump a liar. But most of what the media says is the opposite of what’s real and true.

LaFrance blatantly lying to voters about her political leanings may work in the short term, but it’s far from a solid play long term.

We know many Leftists like LaFrance don’t believe in the concept of truth or absolutes. You often hear people of her persuasion say things like speak “your” truth. But there is no “your” truth or “my” truth. There’s only the truth and it does not bend to anyone’s opinion or perspective.   

Renowned clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson writes a lot on the concept of telling the truth. In his book, “12 Rules for Life,” the 8^th rule is “always tell the truth or at least never lie.”

Peterson argues you have reality on your side when you tell the truth.  

“If reality is against you, you’re not going to win, you’re going to get flattened,” writes Peterson.  

Peterson’s philosophy can be summed up this way: Do what is meaningful, not what is expedient.

“Telling the truth is hard because you have to know the truth,” writes Peterson. “But you can know when you are lying. Lying makes you weak. You can feel it. You put yourself in disharmony with reality. If you act in truth, then the order you produce is good.”

Peterson points out no parent is ever pleased when they catch their children in a lie. He says “when you go into a situation, if you tell the truth as carefully as you can, then, whatever happens, is the best that could have happened in that situation no matter how it looks.”

“Don’t underestimate the power of truth. There is nothing more powerful,” writes Peterson. “I’m going to state what I think as clearly as I can and I’m going to live with the consequences no matter what they may be.”

We’ve learned a lot from Trump but nothing more important than freely and confidently speak your mind.

Unfortunately, for Leftists like LaFrance, telling the truth is not an option. LaFrance knows her radical ideology is not palatable with most voters. If she would run on what she wants to do as a legislator, she wouldn’t stand a chance of getting elected.  

Former Senate President Cathy Giessel understood this. It’s why four years ago she lied when she promised to work with Gov. Mike Dunleavy to provide a full Permanent Fund dividend check. Instead, she did the opposite. The lie that got her elected is also what caused voters to reject her four years later.

LaFrance’s blatant attempt to fool voters may work for her in the short term and fool enough voters into believing she’s a conservative. But when she runs again, she’ll have to bank on voters having a short memory.

In many ways, we should feel sorry for LaFrance and other lying politicians. Imagine knowing the only way to get where you want to go in life is to fool as many people as you can. That’s hardly a meaningful existence.

“Truth is like surgery. It hurts but it cures. A lie is like a pain killer. It gives instant relief but has side effects.” – Unknown philosopher.  

Dan Fagan hosts the number one rated morning drive radio show on Newsradio 650 KENI. He splits his time between Anchorage and New Orleans.