Bismarck, North Dakota News

" Lawman. You give me a bit of trepidation when you say that you will enforce every law no matter what that law says. What if you are ordered to go out and murder a house full of people under the guise of "They have weapons, and therefore we will have to use deadly force" or how about under marshal law, are you going to follow orders and go door to door confiscating all weapons? Or will you be shooting down innocent women and children because you have been ordered to? For your sake I surely hope you have enough sense to recognize lawlessness no matter who commits it or orders it. If you are incapable of understanding that, you are not suitable for serving the people, but would make a good gunman for any stupid aspiring dictator. Those who do not respect the people have no respect for themselves and are their own worst enemy. Big stud cops worry me. If it seems that I overreact, it is because I do tend to "read too much" into peoples comments. I saw that once before, and I lost far too many of my family to people who were just following orders. What ever you do, don't get caught up in the action. It is a big power trip, but the price is not worth it. "

" I just have one thing to say. Get over it. It has been about 2 and a half months. Let it go, there is no different treatment no matter who you are. I agree with Mike R on that point. "

" Lawman: Let's back up here and take a look at this whole scenario. I never claimed to be all knowing. I did claim that I know more about law enforcement than 95% of the general population and I do. You do as well. If you didn't know more about your job than 95% of the people that are not in your job then you would be an idiot. I honestly do believe that you know more about law enforcement than most people - but I do as well. That is a fact only because we both work/worked in the field for a long time. We had better know the law better then the general public or we are in trouble. I assumed from the start that you knew about officer discretion (thanks for the spelling lesson). I was only responding to your comments that you had no choice what laws to enforce or how to enforce them and it was up to the prosecutor and judge to sort it all out. Officer discretion also plays into that. Thank you for helping me make my point. The Mark Furman comment was only because you are condemning me to no end because I refferred to some people as idiots, when I know for a fact that you have done the same at one time or another. You cannot tell me that you have never walked away from a situation shaking your head in disgust and muttering it under your breath. You have to admit that cops don't always deal with the most intellectual people on the planet and sometimes we see things that are plain outright stupid. As far as jumping all over anyone, I will say it again - I was trying to bring FACTS to the false conclusions that many people were drawing on this case. You on the other hand did jump all over me and made the attack personal. Now since you keep asking me to read my own comments, I am hoping that you will follow your own advice and read your comments also. Could it be that you are not exactly practicing what you are preaching? "

" Mike R, There you go making your assumptions. Maybe you should read what you say. I don't know who died and annoited you the all knowing. But you refuse to even listen to what someone else has to say, much less consider it. Maybe that is why you consider some of your clients idiots. That shows a lot of class there. No I am not a small town cop and never have been one, but every justidiction has it's own problems and certain sets of circumstances that you have to work with. You have no idea of what it is to work for a larger department and the stuff that goes along with that. I know all about discretion (see that is how it is spelled) and I know about the intent and all of the other aspects of the law and enforcement thereof. So don't assume that I am some dunderhead who can't tell my left hand from my right, but then again you run on assumptions and make your decisions based on those assumptions. Give this whole thing a break you have run it into the ground. There is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it, it is done and over. let it lie. Go out and find some other cause to jump on. I am sure that you can. And thanks for the compliment of calling me a bigger liar than Mark Furhman. I am sure that in your 15 years of experience you became the formost expert on anything involving law enforcement. Why didn't you go to another agency? Why did you quit? There are plenty of law enforcement jobs for experts like you. I am sure that agencies are just waiting for you to apply. You don't like people to challenge you or disagree with you. Get used to it. "

" Lawman: Wow, talk about someone on a power trip who really shouldn't be out amongst the public - go back and read your own comments. I say again - WOW. first off, as a cop you do not NEED to enforce every law to the absolute letter. Ever hear of something called officer discression? It is when an officer uses common sense to determine if the intent of the law was actually violated or not and REAL cops use it every day on the job. Unfortunately some forget how to use it and I think that is your case. Also, I will point out that I have never attacked anyone's right to voice thier own opinion. I have gotten very frustrated with several people who purposely and repeatedly give false information. I also have gotten frustrated with some people who insist that no matter what the facts are, Captain Wicks got some sort of special treatment that no one else in this state would ever get. That is wrong. That is false. That is an outright lie and we both know it. That is not someone voicing thier opinion. That is false information and you know it. That is what bothers me - people who refuse to even look at the facts because they have already made up thier minds on pure gut feeling. That is ludicrous. I also get upset when people who have no idea what-so-ever what the law is or how it is applied try to tell me the way things are in law enforcement. You cannot tell me you haven't noticed the tendancy of people to do that! As far as your comment that casts doubt on what small town councils do or do not order officers to do. If you even question it for a half second, I can say for certain that you have NEVER been a cop in a small town. It happens. Get out there and talk to some cops who work there. As far as me being a cop, you are right. I am an ex-cop. But I still know more about the law than 95 percent of the population that has never been a cop, so what's your point (was there ever really one?)? As far as me being a bad guy because I call some people that cops deal with idiots, let me say this. You have called some people idiots as well. If you claim otherwise, then you are a bigger liar than Mark Furman. "

" Oh Mike R, would you do every law enforcement officer a favor and quit classiying yourself as a cop. You are no longer one therefore you should not call yourself a cop, you are an ex-cop so quit telling everyone how cops feel and think. Your opinion on that subject is completely different than the ones that I see from the people that I work with in this area and this state. "

" Mike R, I did not say that I agreed with the statute. You asked to have proof that it was a concealed weapon and I provided that proof and then you say that I read into the law what I want to read. Did you read the statute? I did not read anything into the statute I merely stated what the statute says and you who states that he was a cop should know how to read the statute. it is on the books therefore it is the law and you were sworn to uphold that law and other laws that you did not agree with. Are there laws that I disagree with? Yes there are plenty that I have problems with, but it is not my job to pick and choose what laws that I will enforce. If and myself and every other law enforcement officer were to do that then there would be very few laws to be enforced. And who are we to decide what laws are to be enforced and which ones are to be ignored. We were hired by the communities, counties and the state to enforce the laws, we were not elected to make decisions on the law. We are to enforce them, the prosecutors decide which ones are to be prosecuted and the judges are the ones to decide which ones are constitional or not and to decide what penalities are to levied. If you disagree with a law then do what every citizen has the right to do, contact your representative and have it changed just like they did with the cohabitation law this year. You are good at making assumptions on people who do not agree with you. You pick apart little parts of what they say and you do not listen to what they say. Mom of 2 said it very eleoquently when she said that everyone has their opinion and she was voicing hers. She has that right just as you do, but you take exception with those you disagree with you opinion. You seem to be slighted if you are not hailed as the wise seer who knows everything that there is to know about the law. I have been in the profession longer than you were and I don't have the audacity to think that I know how everything about the law or how the judicial system works. I will say that I know a lot about it, but I learn more things everyday. And perhaps the law enforcement profession is to be grateful that you are no longer a cop if you think that the people that you dealt with were idiots. Did they disagree with you? And then to blame the city or county commissions because they, so you say, told you who you could arrest and couldn't and what ordinances that you could enforce and which ones you couldn't. Sounds a lot like the stuff the you were espousing when you were attacking me and categorizing me as some non thinking hyper technical person who follows the law to the letter and does not use common sense and does not understand intent. You could not be further from the truth, but then again it was you who asked for proof and when it is provided then you are off in another direction doing as you always do disregard what people say and twist things around so you are poking fun at people because they don't agree with you. Perhaps you should chill a little and try to see someone else's view point and put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You might actually learn something. Oh by the way Lisa Wicks pled guilty to Reckless Driving which is a Class B Misdemeanor just the same as DUI. So other than the administrative sanctions that the state imposes for DUI she would have recieved the same sentence under law other than the drivers license stuff. Do I agree with what happened, no! I believe that we are held to a higher standard and that we should be. We enforce the law and in order for people to agree with the law they should know that we are held to stricter standards than they are. I think that any law enforcement officer who is convicted of DUI should be fired. But Mike that is my opinion and I have that right to have one and to voice it in peaceful and orderly manner, you don't have to agree with it and you probably don't. I don't care! But don't be so bold to make characterizations of me or make assumptions of me when you have no idea of who I am or how I think, nor make assumptions of how I do my job. I have been doing it for a very long time and I believe that I am very good at it and so do a lot of other officers, prosecutors, judges etc. in this community. So please consider others points of view and quit being so judgemental. There are two sides to every story and your side is not always right. Did you ever read the report? I think not. "

" Retired Mike. It was Sheriff Sparky Hensrud who got me started. Principally criminal investigations especially in drug interdiction. Saw far more than I ever wanted to see. Just can't seem to get it out of the blood. If the "numbers won't add up", I can't help but snoop around. A little Indian gal is one of the most unbelievable investigators I have ever seen. She remembers details about who did what, who knows whom etc. etc. Got to admire someone who can store all that. She seems to "smell" out things before anyone else has a clue. One of the investigators was run down and killed and her partner leapt to the side but was severely crippled. Our FBI contact was murdered. Drug money buys so many and kills its adversaries. I Carried a 22 Jet Magnum as a "backup". It was police chief Anderson I worked with. Smart, tough old bird. When he was ordered to burn his files by the "States Attorney", he burned volumes of junk "files" and secreted away the real ones. I sat in on an interesting meeting with him and the RCMP and numerous officials from a number of the upper Midwest State agencies. Those files he kept proved to be the key to the problem and shut that whole operation down. Nice when you win a big one. Nuff said. "

" Mom of 2: Thanks for clearing that up. I did not realize that I was referring to 2 different people at the same time. GL: Cops don't think all people are idiots but by the nature of the work, we deal with a lot of idiots. We get to see the "cream of the crop" of the idiot world and after a while, it does give us a cynical outlook on life. That is why the burnout rate is so high. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the job is that city councils and county commissions listen to and try to please the idiots. Ever here the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Well, a lot of the idiots squeak non-stop and to shut them up, somtimes the people in charge give into them and tie the hands of law enforcement. Sometimes the idiots work from the inside because being elected to a governing board does not automatically make you smarter or give you any inside knowlege of how things work. Unfortunately, when an idiot gets elected to a city council or county commission, they assume that all thier idiot friends are right and the cops are always wrong. It is a very frustrating job in the first place without having to deal with all that on top of it. NoDak John: It sounds to me like you might be somene who understands where I am coming from. Did you ever work in law enforcement? "

" To Mike R, it was not my comments that I had added about my families BAC, I believe you are getting me mixed up with the blog name of just "mom". We are not the same people. I have had no family member's that have had that situation. That is why I have not answered. Yes I do have the mentality that anyone that receives their 1st, 2nd or 10th DUI should be treated the same (with the exception that the penalties, fines and jail time get more every time) and understand by your blogs that is not the way that the system works which is very unfortunate. I will not test my knowledge of law enforcement to yours because I have never been in that field. I am just stating the way that I believe it should be handled. Freedom of speech but until this freedom gives all of us the opportunity to change the laws I guess I am on here just to post my opinion. I don't agree with it and don't have to but that doesn't mean I will change anything either. "

" Is it any wonder that the police feel that the only people they can trust is other police officers? Even that is a problem to the honest law enforcement officer in that they know that some of their fellow officers are doing things outside the law. Nasty position to be in. Thankfully there are those who can see and know the difference and are willing to help. As far as the suicides is concerned, that is in part caused by seeing far too much grief and seeing just "what fools these mortals be". It is difficult to work an accident scene and see an adult maimed for life or dead, and you just know what a horrible impact that will have on their family and friends. Then there is the time you see a lovely little child slaughtered by a pedophile and you just want to die. As far as court cases is concerned, IF every case is to be treated the same, then throw away all the judges and juries and replace them with a computer. Each side enters the data and the computer decides the case. Much cheaper and faster. Hello George. Mike, thanks for the fool school system report. A perfect example of foolishness gone to seed. "

" I think most cops think that we are idiots, and most of us think that cops are idiots. This is why we dont get along. "

" What I find interesting is that curious is not a cop. He knows cops and that evidently qualifies him as the expert over me? If he was discussing something with an electrician, he would not be telling the electrician how things should be done. He would not be taking cheap shots at the electrician because of his career choice. No matter how many electrician friends he had, curious would not try to debate an electrician on the new wiring codes. But when it comes to law enforcement, everyone is an expert. If you know a cop, have ever talked to a cop, or even seen a cop on TV, you are now the expert and should feel free to tell all the real cops how to do thier jobs. That is one thing I never understood about the job and the main reason I left. Yes I do act like I know more about law enforcement than 95 percent of the people. 95 percent of the population are not cops. They do not have the training. They do not work with the law every day. They don't see what cops see. They don't deal with what cops deal with. They are not cops. I was a cop for 15 years. That gives a perspective that 95 percent of the population does not have. I find it interesting that I do not think that I am bitter in any way, but read curious' comments that he has made. Does that sound bitter to anyone other than me? Does it sound like there is some underlying motive there? Perhaps curious and I were on opposite sides of a law enforcement situation at one time? All I know is that he knows who I am and I don't know who he is. He is not a cop but evidently knows more that a 15 year veteran? It sure does seem to me that he is someone with an ax to grind now doesn't it? "

" Curious: Your comments prove just how uneducated you are about law enforcement. Retirement package? Yes, there was a retirement package - one that I took with me when I left. Law enforcement (not in ND anyway) does not have a pension plan like the military. As far as the low turnover - wrong again. Police work has a very high turnover rate. Police officers also have one of the highest rates of suicide, depression, divorce, alcoholism, etc. of any job out there. I don't care who you know - I lived it. You want to question my expertise, lets have a contest - your law enforcement knowlege against mine and the bet will be any amount you are willing to wager. You see, it is easy to take cheap shots while hiding behind a screen name. I am willing to prove my knowlege, are you? If not, then don't be so quick to question my knowlege. As far as staying home to blog on the computer - you should take note of the times that I blog. I play on the computer AFTER WORK and I would be willing to bet that I work more hours in a week than you do. So unless you are getting paid to to belittle people just because they might know more about a topic than you do, why don't you get a life? "

" Enough, while I enjoy the entertainment of this blog, with a self-proclaimned expert in law enforcement, Mike R, we should wonder, what his qualifications REALLY are, why would you quit a job after just 15 years, with a retirement package, and benefits, to stay home and post on the computer. ALL the officers I know, (which includes ALL the BPD and BCSO) stay, or leave for better pay, turnover in law enforcement is low. Regardless, the experts don't usually have time to "contribute" to blogs, the frenzy is giving him a platform, a reason to be bitter and crucify people. Yes, I can chose NOT to read it, everyone has an issue, and there are 2 sides to every story. Unless Mike R is getting paid for his input, I think he should get a life. "

" Mom of 2: You just insist that EVERY case has to be treated the same no matter what. I cannot agree with that - not even a little bit. Every case is different and every contributing factor should be looked at before passing judgement. I asked many times (and you have never answered) "how high was the BAC in your families cases"? If it was high, then there was no room to plea the cases down. The fact is that you have NO idea what-so-ever if those cases have anything at all in common with Captain Wicks' case. They could be completely different facts, therefore different levels of punishment are warranted. You also insist that she got special treatment. You want everyone treated the same, but I would bet a large sum that if everyone else (with the same set of circumstances) got the exact same reduction in sentence, you would still feel that somehow she got special treatment. There are a lot of people in this world (Mom of 2 included) who seem to think that every case involving a cop must have involved special treatment if the punishment is anything less than the death penalty, even if the crime was a parking ticket. I guess I just don't understand that. NoDak John: Yeah, I get very frustrated with the large number of over-reactions to things these days. I know of a case where a kindergarten kid brought a slingshot to school for show and tell. He never shot at anything with it - just put it in his backpack for show and tell. He got expelled from kindergarten for bringing a dangerous weapon to school. The father went to the school board meeting and was told the school had no choice under the new zero tolerance policy. They must expell anyone who brings a dangerous weapon to school. One of the definitions of a dangerous weapon (as used in the school zero tolerance policy) was any device used to propel any type of projectile that could possibly injure another person. The father then asked if the school allows kids to play baseball at recess (of course the answer was yes). The father then held up a baseball bat and pointed out that it was in fact a device that was designed to propel a projectile (baseball) and that getting hit with that baseball could cause a lot more damage than the little slingshot. He then asked for volunteers to be struck with the baseball if there was any doubt about the potential danger of getting hit with the ball. He then demanded that every teacher in the school be fired for contributing to the violation of the zero tolerance policy by allowing this to go on right under thier noses. The school board was able to see the logical argument being made and the kid was allowed to return to class. "

" To Mike R. In your last post you have stated "in my eyes" do you realize those 3 little words are why everyone has such an opinion on the matter. Whether it be just an opinion or an actual fact that that person has gone through or another family has gone through that is the cold hard facts. You seem to condemn everyone on here that we don't know the facts and everyone needs to see it your way for it to be the right way. That is not always the case and every case (as you have pointed out) is not going to be given the same treatment. Now even someone who has served 10 more years in law enforcement doesn't know as much as you do either. I just don't get where you are coming from. If people are not given the same treatment every case then why is it so hard to believe most people on here. "

" Mike. I see that the hyper active reactions of some grieve you also. Try this scenario.(True story) I could not lock the doors of my pickup because they were frozen, so I unloaded my 38 and put it in my belt and went into the school.. The principal was leaning on the stair rail from second floor. He spotted the revolver and said "Is that loaded" I answered "No". and showed him the cartridges. "Good" he said "put it in your locker and lock it up". Can you imagine that in today's day and age? They would have to call in the US army, the BATF, FBI strike force and the local swat team with their armed assault vehicle. (I exaggerate slightly). After everything had settled down the hazmat crew would have to be brought in to mop up what was left of me. The school would have to be shut down for a week or two as they hosed down the ceilings, walls and floors which the knee jerk reactionaries sprayed with feces and urine when they heard the word G U N. As I said, I exaggerate slightly, but I do not exaggerate my disgust with those programmed robots. They are a danger to themselves and anyone who has the misfortune of coming in contact with them. "

" To "to lawman" I see you get the point. Common sense is lacking in Many parts of our society today. This is just another example. Lawman wants to read something into the law to criminalize something that common sense dictates should not be criminal. He is so wrapped up in the "letter of the law" that he fails to see the intent. I would even have a hard time considering a BB gun a concealed weapon under most circumstances, even though it is considered a dangerous weapon. If someone is wearing a BB gun in thier belt under thier shirt and walk into a store - yeah I would consider that a concealed weapon. Concealing a BB gun while on your way to settle a score with someone - yeah that would be a concealed weapon. A 12 year old kid walking down the alley in a small town with his BB gun on his way out of town to shoot some cans, he doesn't want everyone in town to freak out when they see a 12 year old carrying a gun, so he hides it from view - that would not be a concealed weapons violation in my eyes. Maybe if you wanted to get hyper-technical about it, you could stretch the law to make it fit. I would rather use some common sense and determine if the alleged "crime" fits the difinition of what the intent of the law is before making an arrest. Some people get it, most don't. "

" I agree it may fall into the definition, but come on. That is a little overzelous is it not. I may not have 25 years on the job but im close. Sometimes common sense out weights a definition. Next thing you know they will be charging kids for carrying a squirt gun????????????????????// "

" Mike R; Look in the century code under 62.1, which if you forgot is the statute on weapons and you will see what the definition of a dangerous weapon is and near the bottom you will read about bb guns, pellet guns etc and they are classified as dangerous weapons and if they are classified as that then there are restrictions on them such as how they are carried, where they are carried etc. I believe that an airsoft pellet gun falls under that definition therefore if it is being carried concealed then it is a concealed weapon and if you don't have a permit then you are violating the law! I will go back to my original statement do some research first. If you don't know where to find the century code, go to the state website and under government you will find a link to the century code, use it. Oh by the way I have over 25 years of experience and am still working in the profession. Is that enough for you to qualify me. You might want to read the reports as well before popping off. "

" I wish Wicks well and hope that this incident does not cause her any more problems with her employment. I find the lack of forgiveness of some to be so absolute that I would have to conclude that they have never done anything which was either stupid or wrong. Though I have the right to hold myself to a very high standard, I do not have the right to condemn myself or others when we fail to meet all of my expectations. Do well there Lisa, and hopefully we can all put this incident into our forgetfulness. "None is so blind as he who will not see nor so deaf as he who will not hear". "

" Mom: I guess your 2 family members had the worst attornies ND has to offer then. They felt they HAD to plead guilty? They were not informed of the option for a lesser sentence? Sure sounds like thier attornies did a bang up job on those 2 cases now doesn't it? I am not sure why you insiste that she got special treatment. There are literally hundreds of sentence reductions every year in ND for first time DUI's. If it is so common, how can it be that only one person out of several hundred (the cop) be the one that got special treatment? By the way, what was the BAC (blood alcohol content) in your family's cases? That alone might explain why they never got a reduction. Lawman: I am not sure what your problem seems to be - maybe my comment about the Bismarck officers and the concealed weapons case (airsoft gun)? You can call me ignorant if you want to, but PLEASE show me anywhere in the law it says that a child's toy (airsoft gun) is considered a concealed weapon. How many years of law enforcement experience do you have? I have 15 and in 15 years, it never once occured to me what-so-ever that an airsoft gun could be a concealed weapon. What makes you the definitive expert? "

" HEy Mr. Editor..I made a comment this morning but something other then what I wrote was posted with my name. My comment related to there was no coverup and if thier was she would not have been arrested at all. Most Police look after thier own. In fact ND police are some of the most impartial I have seen and I have worked in three states "

" ld have got a ride home. "

" Mike R whoever you are my two family members DID HAVE AN ATTORNEY. You sound like a person who works in the court systems so you SHOULD KNOW THAT YES, INDEED THIS OFFICER DID GET SPECIAL TREATMENT. You can come back and say she didn't but I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!! "

" Mike R, It is very comforting to know that Bismarck has someone such as you to run around and pick things apart. Perhaps you should do a little research before popping off about how the police acted in certain situations. All it shows is your ignorance. "

" Online Editor: I wasn't accusing you of any sort of cover-up. I find it suspicious that the 2 departments involved in this case have not released the blood alcohol level, not the tribune. I remember the story where it was addressed. The story stated that nowhere in any of the reports was the BAC listed. I know that it would not be listed in the preliminary report - if in fact it was a blood test. The copies containing the blood test results however should be in the file by now. If it was a breath test that was taken, the results would have been available immediately and the results should have already been in the file along with being mentioned in the preliminary report. "

" To Mike R.: Jenny Michael addressed the BAC issue another time, maybe it was on the previous story, I can't remember the reason that it wasn't available. I will check with her tomorrow. If you would like to call and get the info, then call it in to me, we can post it. Jason Lueder - 250-8291. "

" By the way, there is one thing about this case that I do find very suspicious. Captain Wicks blood alcohol level has never been released. When asked about the case, Sheriff Heinert stated that he did not know what the blood alcohol content was, and that is possible. If blood was drawn (instead of a breath test), test results typically take about 7 to 10 days to get back. Maybe that would explain why the Tribune reporter didn't find any mention of it in the police report either. The results just hadn't came back yet. But now the results are obviously back, and those results are public record just like the rest of the police report. I find it interesting that we haven't read anything at all about what those results were. I am sure the results were available at the time this story was printed. Where are they? Why the shroud of secrecy? That just adds fuel to the conspiricy theory fire. I think the results should be printed or at least reported on this comment board. How about it Online Editor? "

" Mandan: I don't think I am a sue happy person at all, but if I were wrongly denied of my rights, I would seriously consider doing something to make sure that it never happened again - lawsuit. I have dealt with literally hundreds of people that had gotten work permits. I have never heard of one person ever having been denied (unless he didn't have a license to begin with or there were other circumstances surrounding the DUI arrest). I am not saying that mistakes can't happen - they can. I am not saying that some government employees could not try to play God with the rules at times - it happens. I just find it amazing that you know a couple of people that were denied and I have never ran across even one, especially since I have personal knowlege of many more people who have applied. Your whole story just seems to have this smell of barroom rumor to it. "

" Curious: No I was not a cop in Bismarck, but I did work in a few other towns and I have cop friends in a lot of towns - Bismarck included. some procedural things are different, but for the most part things are much the same. General policy, arrest procedure, court procedures, etc. are pretty much the same. There are a few exceptions (Fargo) but otherwise things are not that different. I think the main point that many people seem to be missing is that not every DUI is exactly like every other DUI. You cannot compare a DUI with a blood alcohol of .08 to another DUI where the blood alcohol was .20. The .08 would most likely get a reduction in sentence. The .20 most likely would not reduced for any reason. Also there may be other factors that a judge might look at to see if the person deserves a reduction or not - things like: if the person was cooperative or not, how many other driving offenses were there?, Was the person creating a hazardous situation? These things all make a difference. You cannot say one DUI got reduced and the next one didn't so it must be special treatment. Everything about the 2 cases could be totally different. How could you compare them, especially without knowing any of the details of either case? It just seems that so many people want to crucify Captain wicks because she is a cop. Cops make mistakes too. It happens. I don't think she needs any different treatment than anyone else getting a DUI (personal opinion). She gets her punishment like everyone else - end of story. Now if she was a DUI enforcement officer who had a reputation for being overly hardcore on DUI arrests, then I would say hold her to the higher standard and make an example out of her. Her primary duty is in the jail. She is not a DUI enforcement officer. Giver her a break. I am not condoning what she did. I just don't think she needs to be thrown to the wolves because of it. "

" Mom: It is NOT the prosecutors job to offer any options. The offer is only made when requested and in most cases, people don't know that they can request it unless they have an attorney. Like I said before, the worst thing you can do is go in and plead guilty. Those are the people that get the shaft and take the full penalties. The ones with attornies know about the breaks and the attornies know how to get them. Captain Wicks is familiar with the system and knows full well the benefit of having an attorney in court. She hired an attorney and got the same breaks that ANYONE would have gotten if they had similar circumstances and had hired an attorney. That is NOT special treatment. That is just the way the system works. Personally I don't agree with the system at all. The good honest people who own up to thier mistakes get shafted and the ones who hire the most expensive attornies get the most breaks. Money talks in the form of attornies. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and I can't blame Captain Wicks for using the system to her advantage. She has probably seen this same scenario play out 5 thousand times or more, so when she found herself in that same situation, she used the system to her advantage just like everyone else in the country. Had I been in her shoes, I would have done the same thing. The system is not perfect, but it is the only one we have at this time. I understand the frustration with the system (probably better than most), but I stand by my original statement that "it was not special treatment". "

" Mike R, were you a Bismarck cop? Every department is different, size, administration, locale, I'm curious about your experience. "

" All I know is that two family members of mine thought they had no choice but to please guilty to their FIRST DUI. I think this officer got special treatment JUST BECAUSE SHE IS AN OFFICER. Did the prosecuter offer my two family members that option, NO. "

" to Mike R right simple solution for too many people that are sue happy. They have their license back now and have not had any other problems with the law so what is done is done. I was pointing out the fact that what is said and what is actually done are two different things at times. And I still believe this officer should have been made an example of and the fact is she was not. She still has her job and no reduction in rank that is reported but probably didn't happen since she still has the same position. If someone who drives for a living i.e. truckdriver,delivery driver, etc. gets a DUI no matter if it gets reduced or not they lose their job. A law officer or maker breaks the law they too should lose their job. "

" One more thing I would like to point out to several people on this thread. Several have accused me of standing behind all cops no matter what. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have stood behind some, but I am VERY critical of some of the Boneheaded things I have seen cops do. If I see a case of an officer acting stupidly, I will be the first to point it out. Take for example the story several months ago about a couple of teen-ages that were arrested in Bismarck for having a concealed weapon in their vehicle (an airsoft gun). Anyone who read my comments on that story would know that I BLASTED the Bismarck police officers for that idiotic move. Trying to classify an airsoft gun as a concealed weapon is like trying to classify a slingshot as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. In no way was the law ever intended to be used for toys, which is what an airsoft gun actually is. The story did not make the top ten because not many commented on it. I was very critical of the police actions in that case and a few others also that never seemed to make the top ten. If it is a clear case of officer misconduct or a lack of common sense, not many seem to care. If it is something that sounds like it might be a conspiracy theory (even if it is not), it stays on the top ten for weeks. That is when most people read the comments, and those are the cases where my comments supporting officers have been read. Another thing is several people have commented about why I think the general public doesn't know much about the law. First off a definite lack of understanding of the law is apparent from reading these comments. It also just happens to be a fact that not many of the general public know or understand many of the principles of law and definitely not the procedures used by police. Of course, everyone THINKS they know a lot more about the law then they actually do. You will never see someone from the general public pull off to the side of the road near a construction site to offer the electricians tips on how to properly wire a building. Most people realize that electricians know their own job better than most people and leave it at that. Law enforcement is just the opposite - EVERYONE thinks they know your job better than you do. I cannot count the number of times someone would pull up to the scene where I was making an arrest to offer me "advice" on what my duties were and how I should handle the situation. That is why I got out of law enforcement. Since everyone knows how to do my job so well, I figured there would be a thousand people there to take my place when I left. After all, since it is such an easy job and since we get all the perks, you would think there would more people signing up for the job, now wouldn't you? "

" Mandan: If what you say is correct, then your friends have grounds to sue the Drivers license division. If I were one of them, I would be all over it. Mom of 2: You would be amazed how much we actually agree on this matter. I agree with you totally that the fines need to be higher. I don't like plea bargains any more that you do, and I would bet even less. I agree that DUIs can lead to death and they should not be taken so lightly (my niece was killed by a drunk driver not that long ago). The ONLY thing you have said that I don't agree with is that Captain Wicks got special treatment that no one else would have received. The truth of the matter is that she got exactly the same treatment as most people. It has nothing to do with special treatment. That is the only thing we disagree on, but you seem so intent on arguing that you cannot see how much we actually agree. Maybe she should have had the book thrown at her. Maybe every DUI driver should have the book thrown at them. I am not going to argue with that. All I am saying is that the FACTS do not point to special treatment what-so-ever. N8tive babe: I do not doubt that your friend got nailed with the full DUI for her first offense. You have to ask for the reduction in order to get it. It helps a great deal if you have an attorney ask for the reduction for you instead of representing yourself. Also the reduction will only be granted if your Blood Alcohol level is fairly low. If your Blood Alcohol level is really high, the sentencing reduction is not an option - no matter what. If you have a clean record and your Blood Alcohol is not that high, you most likely will get the benefit of the doubt. You cannot say that one person got the reduction and another one didn't so it is special treatment. You have to compare all the facts of the case and then compare. Are there instances when special treatment is given - Yes there is. But those instances are rare, and they really tick me off. I just don't think that every time a cop is involved it is right to automatically assume that is the case. The truth: Yeah, it is amazing how many people complain when we assume that most people do not know the workings of the law enforcement system, but when they come on here it is very obvious how clueless they really are. "

" MikeR-This is a hopeless case with some of these people. There are so many people who don't understand the law, plea bargains, first offenses with no criminal background etc, etc. This horse has been beaten to death over and over and over again. No one knows what her BAC was. This is not a person that will likely repeat offend. People make mistakes and fortunatly this one didn't cost anyone their life. See, "normal people" can wake up and correct things like this when they make a mistake and they have a lot to loose. Those things are taken into consideration when a case is heard by a judge. It happens everyday, everywhere but it never makes the papers. People get second chances, reduced sentences with "conditions" in courtrooms every single day. It probably doesn't happen to people who are posting in this blog because more than likely, the people you know, are repeat offenders who will never come clean, no matter how many chances they were given and will never stop committing crimes. There are a lot of "first time offenders" who have a rap sheet of other crimes and NO, they are not treated the same and they shouldn't be. This is this person's first conviction ever for any crime in 38 years! The horse is dead people! Get over it! "

" Thank you N8ive babe, my point exactly.... Why are some getting the DUI charge and others don't? Anything over the legal limit should be a DUI charge period and can not and should not be reduced to reckless driving NOT MATTER WHAT. Everyone should be charged and treated the same!!! Everyone that doesn't including this story is getting "special treatment"!!!! The Blood alcohol level over the legal limit the higher it is the higher the fees and jail time should be. Make it so people can't afford a 2nd or a 3rd one that will certainly make people think about doing something so illegal before they get behind the wheel of a car once intoxicated. "

" Usually first time dui are not just a fine and a reduced charged . My friend just went to court for a dui and you know what she got. DUI, DRUG AND ALCOHOL EVAL AND A 375.00 FINE and a dui on her record with so many days but were suspended im sure she would have gladly pled guilty to" A LESSER CHARGE OF RECKLESS DRIVEING" SO Pathetic what our sherriffs Dept did. WHAT A SHAME THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE AN EXAMPLE OF HER > SO MY QUESTION IS THIS?? IF THIS HAPPENS TO ANYONE ELSES IN THERE DEPT WILL THEY "TO" GET A LESSER CHARGE?? "

" You are a helpless case! What you say is right and that is final, well apparently that badge that you "use" to wear makes you think that you are god or somewhere's close. Whatever!!! At any rate and not that I feel that I need to let someone like you in on any details of my life but I have never had a DUI and never will because I do not drive drunk. It's stupid, selfish and deadly. If people can't get a grip on that then there is absolutely no help for them. I think it is you that is having quite a time getting anyone's point here.....What I am saying is I don't care if it's her, you,joe schmo or the President of the U.S noone should get their sentence reduced to reckless driving. If she was caught for a DUI whether it be her 1st offense of 20th offense it should be the same punishment. After each and every offense the fines will be higher and so will the jail time but noone should be let off on "special treatment" because it's their 1st offense. Someone's 1st offense might lead to an innocent person's last day on earth. Make those fools that decide they want to drive drunk really think about if it's worth jail time and fines that most can not pay. If they can't think that far than they deserve every fine or consequence that can be thrown at them. I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else that is my thoughts on the matter whether that should happen someday or not is another story but you can not change my mind on how these criminals should be treated so in what you are saying is going in 1 ear and out the other. "

" to Mike R then I guess your friends up there messed up because there was nothing else, no other charges and only one had had a speeding ticket about 4 years earlier. I have called up there and they say the same thing all the time but their actions speak louder than words. "

" Mandan: The only way a person can be denied for a work permit is if they had several other violations along with the DUI or if their license was already suspended. That is a FACT. ARgue if you want to or call the drivers license division and get it straight from them. The state CANNOT deny the application for a work permit if you have a valid license to begin with. Mom of 2: I am not sure if you really know what it is that you are arguing about. How many times do I have to say it - I AM NOT CONDONING HER ACTIONS. I AM JUST POINTING OUT THE FACTS THAT SHE RECEIVED THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT AS ANY OTHER FIRST TIME OFFENDER. THAT IS NOT DEFENDING HER. It is also very obvious that you do not care at all about the facts. You say that she should have had the book thrown at her like every other Burger King worker. But the FACT is that hundreds upon hundreds of Burger King workers get the exact same reduction in sentence that she got. Please explain to me how that is special treatment. Do me a favor and call the courthouse. Ask how many DUI's get reduced to reckless driving in a month. Then you will here it first hand how common this actually is. Unless you believe that all of the reductions in sentence every month must be cops. Maybe you do believe that. At any rate, it sure seems to me that you have an ax to grind with cops and you are going to grind it no matter what the FACTS are in the case. Maybe you got a DUI sometime in your life and you are still bitter about it? I am not sure what your reasons are, but I know one thing for sure - You wouldn't recognize a FACT if it bit you in the face. "

" ITs done..she was treated like any other 1st offender. A stiff fine and other sanctions including some by her employer. That moer than happens to most..so get over it. She wasn't burned at the cross. I dont know her but I think this was reasonable given the way other people are treated "

" So long as this kind of news is published for everyone to see that is when I can stick my nose into peoples business. If the community doesn't want to know any of these details then it shouldn't be posted on the news, Tribune for all to read. I am concerned with any Burger King or any other human being that drives drunk just because everytime you decide to do that an innocent person's life it at stake, but all of those don't make the news so until they do I will post on the ones that do. You may be stating facts but they are sad facts and I don't agree with them nor do I have to. You can sit on here and complain all day about how you are right and we are wrong well of course you are going to see things that way, defending one of your own that is what you do. Well regardless of your FACTS....the fact of the matter is that she was driving while drunk and they should have thrown the book at her (just like every other Burker King worker) and they didn't so therefore she was given special treatment. That Mike R. is the FACTS!!!!!! "

" to Mike R I know a few people who did not get approved for their work permit and had applied appropriately after their first offense. Also your attitude that the public have no clue about an officers job is inaccurate. The fact is I have gone on several ride alongs in several different states. If law enforcement and law makers would follow the laws they are sworn to uphold then their would not be as many people making some of the comments they have. The fact is law enforcement and makers know the law first hand and know how to avoid making what you call a mistake. It is amazing to me that a civilian breaks the law but a law officer makes a mistake. That is a double standard. To crazy Eddie she also worked in the field when needed so she wasn't just a jailer and the fact is if you have a DUI you cannot even work in the kitchen at the jail so why would they keep someone who is in charge after a DUI? Again another double standard. She is lucky she wasn't working for someone in my family especially my uncle who is a chief of police because she would not have a job. "

" Does anyone know what her blood alcohol content was? Many people who are very close to the legal limit can get their charge reduced, but if she was higher than 1 or 2 hundreths, that is unfair. "

" Mr. Smith: Actually if you care to actually read my comment, you would EASILY see that I am not excusing her actions. In fact, I have no problem holding her to a higher standard and I have no problem if you hold her to a higher standard yourself. I do however get quite tired of hearing comments like "She only got a work permit because she was a cop" or "She got the charges reduced only because she was a cop". Those are FALSE statements and we both know it. EVERYONE is entitled to a work permit. Reduced charges happen every single day so this is not a case of special treatment of a cop. That is all I am saying. Hold her to a higher standard if you want to. Just don't invent a bunch of half-truths to make it sound like something it wasn't. Is that really to much to ask? Apparently it must be. As to why think the public doesn't know the facts - If everyone know the facts, then why do several keep coming on here over and over and over and over saying things that are not facts? If everyone knows the facts, then everyone must know that plea bargains are common, every day occurances. If everyone knows the facts, then everyone must know that no one gets turned down for a work permit on a first time DUI. So now let me ask you, what makes you so sure that you have a monopoly on the facts? You are an expert on how the system works because of what training? I happen to know the system very well inside and out. Do you? Or are you just another armchair attorney? "

" Mike R., why do you always insist that we the public do not know the facts. It's the point that she or any other law enforcing badge wearer broke, TRUST. Trust in that she or Mike R. uphold laws and not break them their selves. I suppose that when any law enforcer, or maker break these laws your right at there back porch to defend them from the public. So i suppose that you defend South Dakotas former gov.(Jankalow) when he killed a bike rider from MN, and did he get a slap on the hand. 100 days in jail. Why is it that cops always stick up for cops, even when there are in the wrong? Well we will never know till we enter there community. Mandan is right, practice what u preach. And NO I do not have any thing against the cops, jailers, and judges so take a chill pill Mike. "

" Simply amazing is all I can say to all the people on this site who IGNORE the facts. I have posted the FACTS numerous times how Captain Wicks got the standard first time treatment. It is a FACT that many, many first time DUI's are reduced. It is EVERYDAY ROUTINE that first time DUI's get a work permit to drive. If you don't believe me, you can check at your local courthouse and you would find out for yourself that about 60% of first time DUIs get reduced (more or less depending upon jurisdiction). You could call the state Drivers License Division and find out for yourself that ANYONE can get a work permit after a first time DUI. But yet we have people like Mom of 2, Billy, and Mandan who choose to ignore every single fact. They don't even comment on them, just ignore them like they are invisible. The refuse to check any sources to find out that my FACTS are correct. They do not want to know the facts. They ignore the facts. The facts scare them. They would much prefer to remain ignorant of the facts and continue to crucify Captain Wicks. If they accepted the facts, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so they choose to ignore them instead. I say that you don't have to agree with the sentence. If you think the rules should be stricter for her because of her law enforcement status, then you have the right to that opinion. Just Please accept the facts and debate them in an intelligent manor. Parroting the same phrase over and over again while ignoring the facts is NOT an intelligent argument. "

" I am not sure why so many people are getting involved in what happened with this lady. Would any of you care if she was a burger king worker. NO! She made a mistake and it is over with. Yes she is in the Law Enforcement field but she is a human being and is also intitled to make mistakes. Leave her alone and worry about yourselves "

" I am 100% against what happened in this case but it is sadly exactly what I thought was going to happen to her. NOTHING!!!! "

" To To all w ho insult the online editor: Thanks. "

" I think the DUI law should be alot sticter there to much favortism going on "

" You people are pathetic. This blog thing is a FREE service, and someone has to take the time to read them, and post them. There are ethical and legal issues involved, I would assume, that make some of the comments unprintable, however, once they reach this page that means the editors approved them for print. Why would they take them off? Think about it. Has nothing aggravating ever happened with your own computer? Does your software always work perfectly and is it always reliable? Appreciate this service for what it is, appreciate all the time the editors spend reading and posting the comments, and leave it at that. If they disappear, consider that without this FREE service, they wouldn't be there anyway. You people amaze me with your insults and accusations, while failing to realize the Trib does NOT have to offer this. And if people keep harping at the editors, they have every right to stop doing it, as far as I am concerned. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. A few apologies here wouldn't hurt, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen with the caliber of these people who are acting so assinine. If the process upsets you so much, stop using it. "

" Thanks. That is why I put the disclaimer in the first post. Have no idea about the case other than what is written in this story. I thought jailers were patrols on special assignment. What do I know... "

" Wicks did not patrol, she manages the jail. There is a big difference between the two. If she would have been a street cop she more than likely would have lost her job. I just wanted you to know incase you had bad info. Thanks. "

" Crazy Eddie: Walking inot court, admitting that you messed up and accepting your punishment for your crime is the worst thing you could do. The people who do that are the ONLY ones who get the full sentence in most cases. I know that is messed up. It has been a sore spot of mine for a very long time. Instead of rewarding the people who have the guts to admit when they did something wrong, the system punishes them. The ones who get rewarded the most are the ones who cost the tax payers the most money filing frivilous motions and demanding jury trial for what they know are slam dunk cases. Mandan: I treate people how they deserve to be treated. I never treated anyone like and idiot unless they started screaming and yelling and acting like an idiot - then I treated them like an idiot. As far as the many people who never got a work permit for thier first offense - I call BS. It is written into state law that you have to go for 30 days under suspension and then you have a RIGHT under ND law to have a work permit. It is automatic (if you request it) and guaranteed. If you insist that it is not, would you like to place a bet on it? "

" Maybe she should not lose her job, and most DUI offenders don't, but do you have any idea what happens to a trucker if he gets a DUI? Yes, he does lose his license (and probably job) if he is stopped on or off duty. Ya, they drive big loads down our roads and need to be safe, but have you ever seen a cop blazin down the road on the wrong side with lighs a flashin? Is there not some risk there too? Maybe I am stupid, but when I messed up 20 some years back, I didn't take advantage of the free lawyer at my disposal. I walked in, said I messed up, and give me what I deserve. I don't know if they were laughing at my stupidity or impressed with my honesty, but the case got dropped. And I never did it again. "

" To those of you who are or were police officers do you realize that your perception of the public being idiots shows when doing your job? People who are drunk or high react to your attitude. I have been on ride alongs in several places and have family that are law officers in serveral different states. One uncle is a Chief of Police and he has made it clear to his officers that if they break the law the will no longer have a job. The fact is that yeah people make mistakes but when that person is in law enforcement they know the law better than anyone else, you should practice what you preach, she knew she should not drive after drinking but chose to and that is a fact. If you believe we should respect the badge than you should be able to respect our belief that if she was guilty she should lose her job. Many people who drive for their jobs, automatically lose their jobs because it affects their job. Being a law officer and breaking the law is also affecting their job. This officer had paid leave during christmas and then unpaid for 30 days and even easily gets a work permit which I know quite a few people that didn't even though it was their first offense. "

" GL did you come up with those theories all by yourself? They are completely assinine, but there is no reasoning with someone who is as ignorant as you are. You have formed your opinions and it appears as if nothing is going to change them and that is what they are, OPINIONS. They are not fact nor do they have any resemblance to fact. Perhaps you should do a little research before popping off, but I forgot you seem to know everything that there is to know about the criminal justice system. Like I said before it may not be perfect but it is the best in the world and it protects people like you. "

" I defend Captain Wicks because she is under attack. I come to the aid of anyone who I think is wrongly under attack, unlike many of you here who are quick to jump and in and help attack them (the pack dog mentallity). Do officers think that many people are idiots? Yes, we do. You go on a few ride alongs with your local police force some time. I would promise that if you saw what we had to deal with, you would feel the same way. There are some people that are idiots. That is a fact. Trying to close your mind to that fact does not make you a better person. As far as Police officers getting medals for shooting the guy in Minot - I have no personal knowlege of that case, but I do know one thing for sure. Every officer involved shooting in ND is investigated by the BCI. They do a very complete background investigation and the whole nine yards. If the officers were given medals, then they deserved them - NO QUESTIONS ASKED. It seems that you definitely DO have an axe to grind against law enforcement. I hope someday that if you ever find yourself in the situation where you need a police officer to defend your life with deadly force, that you remember you are against officers using deadly force. I wonder if in that case you would change your mind? "

" No, I have no axe i would like to grind, nor do i have more then one DUI conviction. Nor do I give legal advice in any bar, but the barroom attorney sounds crazy. Mike R. really defends Wicks. Why,? I would not know. 15 years of law enforecment, and you got of us idiots! Nice to know how police officers think of the public. Well it may be good you left the force, seems alot of stress was building up in you. We really don't need to here future cases of police brutality, jus cause the officer was tired of idiots, but if it did happen they would probably get a paid vacation and a slap on the hand, jus like the police officers who shot that guy in Minot for trying to kill himself, and they got medals. HHHmm "

" GL: Your ignorance is becoming more obvious every comment you make. You say she suffered no real repurcussions, but you evidently don't understand that she paid a fine, money for an attorney, loss of 30 days of work, higher insurance premiums for a long time to come, and probably a few other things I left out. I would say that this little misjudgement cost her well over $5,000. I would say that is a repurcussion now, wouldn't you? Oh yeah right, she is a cop so that means she should have lost her job, been fined $10,000 and her car should have been sent to the crushers - right? As far as your attorney telling you that 90% of the cops screw something up - hire a different attorney because yours is an idiot. I worked in law enforcement and I can tell you for sure that way over 90% of the DUI cases are rock solid slam dunks in court - no screw ups. You seem amazed that now cops don't even need training to carry a gun. This is nothing new. The law ALWAYS has read that way. I agree that it is stupid but don't make it sound like this is something brand new - it isn't. I don't think I know everything but I know one thing for sure. When it comes to the subject of law enforcement I know tons more that you do and that is obvious by your ignorant posts. Why am I not a cop anymore? I got tired of dealing with idiots that thought they knew everything there was to know about law enforcement when they actually knew nothing at all. "

" Its great to know that there are no actual repercussions for your actions. pay the fine go back to work.. awesome. I bet she had a good attorney. Good for her. I will have to bring this one up to the judge if it ever happens to me. oh yeah It did.. And I got out of it too. Gotta love America, and our local law enforcment officers. My attorney told me that 90% of them always screw up. you just have to have an attorney to find what they did wrong. Now they dont even have to have training to carry a gun and arrest people. It just keeps getting better. they are to busy fighting among each other to do there jobs.. just listen to Mike R. he knows everything. wonder why he isnt a cop anymore? "

" There is no such policy. And yes my commander does know. It's called discretion and it is used daily in our profession. I have never "let anyone off freely". You can arrest for careless driving or other offenses. I have never not cited anyone for some offense if I know they have been drinking. I have towed numerous cars and cited. People are going to make their own choices. That is what is wrong with the world today. Everyone expects the Police to be responsible for everyone's behavior. People are going to drink and drive. I have arrested dozens for DUI that have had prior DUI offenses. I say again. Drive to Minneapolis and ride along with me. You will get first hand knowledge of how unappreciated the Police really are. Better yet if if I stopped you for drinking and driving would you demand that I arrest you for DUI? Please...walk a mile in others shoes. I have had so many people sobbing begging me not to arrest them. I can say that directly after my contact with people no one has ever been "hurt by me good deeds". If they decide to offend again. Guess what...not my problem. I am not someones babysitter or parent. If they make crappy decisions it is on them. If I had arrested would they drink and drive again? Odds are yes. Think of the cop that never gives a break and how he or she is perceived. You must use discretion in police work. You must not arrest 100% of the time for many different reasons. Odds are you are not in the Law enforcement field or you would know these things. "

" What does your department policy say about letting DUI drivers go, does your commander know about this? Yes some peopele make mistakes but if we allow them to get off freely, they will do it again. Just hope none of your good deeds have led to other people's pain. "

" I am also a police officer. I am from North Dakota but am now living in the Minneapolis area. For those that are quick to jump on the "I can't believe the injustice" bandwagon, take a few months and track the legal system. Cases are regularly pled down on all levels. This is not preferential treatment. Most people who get arrested for a DUI will not retain an attorney. For this matter alone they will generally eat the charges and that will be the end. Do I think it is right to drink and drive? Absolutely not. However, this lady is being crucified because she exercised her right to an attorney which is one of her rights under Miranda. Cops in general are under a microscope in the media. We are held to a higher standard because of the job we do. News Flash folks IT"S A JOB!!!! Don't forget that the people you are judging may be the same people who you need to call in a crisis or the same people who pull you over for a traffic offense or maybe, dare I say, a DUI. I'm sure 100% of the critics will say, "You know what officer, I am driving drunk...please arrest me!" I have personally let far more people off than I have arrested for the simple fact that I know people are not perfect. I have driven people home and left it at that. Give this lady a break. If you disagree please drive to Minneapolis and go on a ride along with me. Maybe you will get the idea of the job we do for the public. Believe me I have helped scores more people than I have harmed. "

" By the way, GL. I NEVER saw anywhere that she admitted to drunk driving. And even if she did, that has nothing to do with her pleading guilty or not guilty. Why do cops issue DUI's if they can get pled down? Cops issue the tickets for the offense as they see it. Judges and Prosecuting attornies plea them down to save time and save the expense of the trial. It is not just DUI's either. Plea agreements are common in drug cases, burglary charges, assaults, you name it. Very few cases go through the system without being reduced to some extent. That is just how the system works. You don't have to like it, but that is how it is. No need to get your knickers in a twist over it. It is not a conspiracy of any sort. "

" Mr. Smith: Yeah, I kind of do think I know how the system works. I was a cop for 15 years. I'll bet ANY amount you want that says I know 100 times more about the system than you ever will. You sound like what cops refer to as a "barroom attorney". You got a couple DUI's so now you are the self proclaimed DUI expert and know everything there is to know about the system - except of course how to get off on the charge apparently. "

" Dear Mr. Smith, You sound as you have an ax to grind. First offenders do get that type of sentence if they get a plea bargain. Perhaps you should find a new attorney. And it sounds as if you might have a problem with alcohol, standing tall in front of the man many times. DUI is a serious problem in this nation, state and city and if you happen to get slapped pretty hard for driving under the influence then you deserved it. How many times have you driven under the influence before you were stopped and arrested? Be honest. Have you driven since then under the influence. I would wager that you have. Today there are so many other options to take other than getting behind the wheel and driving after you have been drinking. Use them, use your head and perhaps you won't be standing tall in front of the man trying to explain why you were driving. As far as the judges and attorneys protecting their own, do you realize how ridiculous that statement sounds? Is it another conspiracy just to stick it to the working man? Are they above the law, no. The judges in this community are very honorable people who try to do the best that they can but when they see people time after time after time they tend to quit giving them breaks. They would rather have someone learn from their mistakes the first time and not come back. They feel that it is not their job to punish people but to try and get them back to being contributing members of society and yes they accept plea bargains but usually these plea bargains are mutually acceptable to both sides. Is it right? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But if you think for one instance that any of these judges are looking out for their friends and associates then you are dead wrong. They bend over backward to ensure that the defendants rights are rigorously upheld even perhaps bending the rules in their favor if there is a question. This is Bismarck, North Dakota, not New York, we don't have those types of judges that accept bribes etc. here. I know that for a fact. And if you think that Wicks got a vacation at the expense of the tax payers then again you are mistaken. If she was suspended for a month then it was without pay. Can you afford to sit at home for a month without pay? This is a dead issue, she has pled guilty to an offense and the state accepted that plea and she was sentenced. Over and done with so it is time to quit the teeth knashing and quit with the I got poor poor me, I am a victim of the judge/attorney conspiracy scenario because I am just a meager peon. If you don't want to "stand tall" then change your behavior and start acting like a responsible adult and you won't be standing there. "

" Wicks should of have gotten fired from her job as well as served 3 days of jail time. This case just shows how the Justice system works, saving there own "KIND." That's just what happened here. Mike R. thinks he knows how this biased justice system works. So this "plea agreement" is so common, why do first offeneders never get dealt this agreement. Mike R., I do not know how many times you stood tall before the man, i have many times in the past. A person learns alot about the system that way. Ask people who got DUI's about there convictions, and what happened to them. You will understand then how easy this lady got off easy. Like I said in my last comment, "The judge and the attorneys were just looking out for there own kind." I dream of a job like that, have a high postion, get a DUI, get a paid vacation by the tax payers, and get a slap on the hand by the judge. Love that justice system. Let the "Great State of North Dakota" give her a plaque for her outstanding leadership. Wicks is a great example for other law officers on how they don't have to worry about there future DUI's. "

" I know very little about the story, but if she was actually pegged at .08, that is not as dangerous than someone who just worked 12 hours. If she had pegged at above .10 then trying to stick her with DUI might have been worthwile. If her own record of convictions for DUI is high, then she should have been fried. But, that I do not know. "

" To Douglas and GL do you actually think that the police in this area have enough clout and pull that they can dictate what is put in the paper or on the news? If you do then you are seriously misinformed. You can speak to the editor about that and I am sure that he will tell you that the newspaper staff decide what is reported and they also decide how it is reported. They don't take input from the police or sheriffs department. You know "Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press". I can't believe that you can be that naive? And the part about can't even make a DUI stick on an off duty cop, why don't you call the Morton County States Attorneys Office and ask why they accepted the plea bargain or ask the judge why he accepted it. Law Enforcement does not have input into the issuance of sentences or acceptance of plea bargains. Come on and let's not be so short sighted about things. Everything that you disagree with is not a conspiracy or something that was enacted just to tick you off. Take a moment or two and learn about the criminal justice system, ask some questions and do some research. You will be amazed by what you learn. Is it foolproof? No, but it is far and away the best system in the world. If you don't believe it try committing a crime in another country, for example Iran, see what their criminal justice system is like, then appreciate what you have here. "

" Yes, let's drop this one. The person in question did wrong, got convicted for it, and now simply wants to move on. I mean, cut her some slack! DUI can happen to anyone (thankfully I've never had it happen to me), and with a .08 level, that means two or three beers to make you legally drunk. "

" GOOD GRIEF Bismarck, leave her alone already! She has learned her lesson, I'm sure, after getting raked over the coals everytime this story goes public. Have you never made a mistake?? LIFE GOES ON. Grow up, Oh Little Town of Bismarck! "

" While I agree that it is wrong to drive while having consumed alcohol and that this officer should have called a fellow officer or a taxi instead of getting behind the wheel---like the rest of us are told to do after we have been drinking, law enforcement officers are people too. People make mistakes and often learn by them, I do believe that this officer will never do this again. Many DUI's are pleaded to lesser charges. It is part of the judicial system and I guess if people don't like that system then maybe they should run for office or elect the type of people that will stand up for the same things they believe in. This officer does have to take an alcohol evaluation test and if she has a problem she will get the help that she needs. When people write bad checks, they pay a fine. They never have to take finance evaluations to get their money situations straightened out. She took a plea--many of you in the same situation would have done the same thing. "

" Typical, our police enforcement cant even make a DUI stick on an off duty cop.. why do they issue them if it is so common that people can plea bargain down to reckless driving. I got a reckless driving in HS.. doesnt affect my record at all anymore.. A DUI sure would. Didnt she admit to driving drunk??? "

" OK. Once again, here is the comment that I posted before it mysteriously disappeared. Before all you guys and girls blow a gasket about special treatment, let me say this. This kind of plea agreement is VERY VERY common in all counties in ND. This DOES NOT in any way set any precedents. It does not prove anyone is above the law. Get a grip people and actually try to learn something about the law before you go off the deep end and make yourself sound like an idiot. Online editor: I guess I am having more and more of a hard time believing the technical problem story. Some topics stay on here for 3 months and have hundreds upon hundreds of comments and they are fine. The next topic is on here for 2 days with a half dozen comments and it gets lost. Then the comments start up again and then they get lost again. Some topics stay forever without any problems while the next topic seems plagued with problems. It is almost like the computer has it in for certain topics only. It may very well be a technical problem, but each time it happens, it gets harder to believe. As for the other papers, I am mistaken. I do visit several websites with comment sections and several of them are hosted by the same server. For some reason, I thought the tribune also shared that server. My apologies. "

" To MikeR: It's a technical problem, although I do understand how that is hard to believe. If you want more information feel free to call me, or even come in and see how the process works. A couple commentors have done that in the past and have come away with a more complete understanding of the process. By the way, what other Lee papers do you read online frequently? I'm just curious. "

" I know...I know...of course that's what a newspaperman conspiring with the local police would be expected to say! :) "

" To Douglas: A technical glitch caused us to lose the comments. We check the comments before they are posted, not after. Because of that, if we were trying to hide the comments we wouldn't have posted them at all yesterday. "

" I guess if you have enough pull to get out of a DUI, you have enough pull to get rid of the online Tribune comments. Bismarck is run by cops and newspapermen. "

" how come no comments "

" where are the comments? "

" Holy crap man, where are the comments. Please don't use that tired old excuse that they magically disappeared. I visit a couple other websites hosted by the exact same server at the Bismarck Tribune and none of them has ever experienced anything like this - NOT EVER. I am not buying the pathetic excuse that the comments are mysteriously disappearing. Either leave them up or delete the comment feature from this web site altogether, but at least have the balls to admit that you guys control it. "

" Where are all the comments!Did you know that you can not even work in the food service dept. at the corrections center if you have had a DuI. there you are not even exposed to the real deal. She is with those people everyday! "