Pubdate: Sun, 26 Oct 2014
Source: Alaska Dispatch News (AK)
Copyright: 2014 Alaska Dispatch Publishing
Contact:  http://www.adn.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/18
Note: Anchorage Daily News until July '14
Author: Troy C. Payne
Note: Troy C. Payne, Ph.D. is assistant professor of justice at the 
University of Alaska Anchorage. He teaches data analysis, 
criminology, and crime mapping. His research has examined the 
effectiveness of policing and crime prevention strategies.

IT'S COMPLICATED: MARIJUANA LAW ENFORCEMENT NUMBERS IN ANCHORAGE

There are numerous criminal justice statistics cited in support of 
and in opposition to Ballot Measure 2 (An Act to Tax and Regulate the 
Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana). Recently, arrest numbers, 
prosecution outcomes, criminal sentencing practices, and 
incarceration rates, have all been referenced in ads, op-eds, and at debates.

Each of these statistics provides valuable information, but each 
represents only one aspect of the effect of marijuana on criminal 
justice in Alaska. The criminal justice system itself is comprised of 
multiple agencies (law enforcement, courts, corrections, each at 
local, state, tribal, and federal levels) which, while often working 
together, ultimately focus on separate tasks, then record, track, and 
monitor their progress differently and independently.

Focusing on arrests as the sole measure of the criminal justice 
impact of marijuana can be misleading. Often, marijuana crimes are 
accompanied by other criminal activity, so it is difficult to parse 
out what someone was actually "arrested for." Many data sources will 
only report the most serious offense.

Focusing on the number of prosecutions, convictions or incarceration 
rates does not provide an accurate overview either, because that 
number misses the people who had marijuana seized, but who were not 
prosecuted for marijuana offenses. Additionally, prosecutorial 
records, and any statistics drawn from them, may not be reliable 
indicators because as Dean Guaneli, former chief assistant attorney 
general for Alaska, pointed out in an Oct. 17 op-ed, to get the full 
view, "you have to look at the background facts in each case."

As previous commentators have noted, no one in Alaska has completed a 
detailed analysis of marijuana-case processing from start to finish. 
Unfortunately, I do not currently have data for that either.

But each piece of information is useful in light of the upcoming election.

My goal is to bring another small amount of data to the public 
regarding this issue -- a piece of data that illustrates one aspect 
of the effect of marijuana on criminal justice in Alaska: interaction 
with the Anchorage Police Department.

I looked at the beginning of the process -- from the point police 
seized marijuana.

Most other data sources (arrests, prosecution outcomes, sentencing, 
incarceration) deal with much later parts of the criminal justice system.

None of these alone can provide a complete picture of marijuana-case 
processing in Alaska. Doing so is surprisingly complicated. (Readers 
are welcome to register for a few justice and legal studies classes 
at UAA to find out exactly why, but I will explain a few reasons here.)

I requested information on every incident in which APD seized any 
amount of marijuana from January 2010 through the latest date 
available, the end of June 2013. This allows me to describe all 
incidents in which marijuana was seized, regardless of whether an 
arrest was made or charges were ultimately filed -- capturing all 
instances where individuals encountered law enforcement because of marijuana.

An "incident" can start with a citizen call to police or through 
proactive policing such as a traffic stop. "Incident" is the basic 
unit of police work. Marijuana is seized in less than one-half of 1 
percent of all police incidents in Anchorage. Marijuana was seized in 
about 3,400 out of nearly 900,000 police incidents from January 2010 
through midyear 2013, the latest data made available by APD. While 
that is a small percentage of overall police incidents, APD seizes 
marijuana between two and three times a day, on average.

The typical marijuana seizure in Anchorage involves a small amount of 
marijuana -- 78.6 percent of incidents where marijuana was seized 
involved less than 1 ounce of marijuana.

Over a third of incidents, 36.3 percent, involved less than 1/8 of an 
ounce of marijuana.

About three-quarters of incidents (76 percent) where marijuana was 
seized resulted in charges being referred to the prosecutor against 
at least one person.

I examined what APD records noted was the primary, or most serious charge.

The most common primary charge in these situations was use or display 
of marijuana (violation of AS 11.71.060(a)(1)). Nearly a third (31.4 
percent) of persons had this as their primary charge.

The next most common primary charges resulting from an incident where 
marijuana was seized were driving with no license or with a suspended 
license (10.6 percent), and possession of drugs within 500 feet of a 
school (10.2 percent).

Despite use or display of marijuana being the most common primary 
charge, most primary charges were for something other than marijuana 
use or possession. Over half (58 percent) of incidents where 
marijuana was seized began with a police response to something else, 
such as a disturbance or a burglary.

Together with the primary charge data, this suggests either 1) that 
marijuana is most often seized during the investigation of other 
crimes which vary greatly, or 2) that marijuana use or display 
provides probable cause for a citizen to come to the attention of 
police, which then leads to more serious crimes being uncovered.

Either way, the available evidence suggests that APD is not focused 
on making arrests solely for marijuana use, display, or possession.

Demographic data was available for incidents where a person was 
charged. Of persons charged, 18 percent were under the age of 18 at 
the time of the incident.

Another 23 percent of persons were between the ages of 18 and 21 years.

Persons over the age of 21 but under 30 were the largest group by 
age, comprising 32 percent of persons charged, with people in their 
30s making up 15 percent of persons charged. Those 40 years and older 
made up 12 percent of persons charged. The available data on race is 
consistent with general trends in criminal justice, with minorities 
over-represented relative to their percentage in the Anchorage population.

I hope this has provided voters with more information to consider 
before heading to the polls in November. As I stated at the outset, 
these data do not present a complete picture of marijuana-case 
processing - doing that requires collecting, reviewing, analyzing, 
and synthesizing data from police departments, the state Department 
of Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of Corrections and 
the Alaska Court System. We do not yet have a comprehensive criminal 
justice data platform that would allow such cases processing analyses 
to be completed quickly.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom