Scott’s Blog Experience

Imagine a Police Chief deciding for his department which State Laws he feels are important to enforce and which are not? Police Chief Settingsgaard recent comments regarding the the new law that prohibits smoking inside public places, is somewhat perplexing to me. He seems to think that the “singular offence” offender is more of a troublesome journey for the States Attorney’s Office, and catching chronic law breakers will be more of a priority. My question is: If they never arrest nor prosecute a single violator for smoking in a public place, (breaking a State Law) how will they ever know he or she is chronic?

“I believe that the best approach for us right now is to look to address chronic violators rather than singular violations.”

I don’t understand who benifits from the Peoria Police deciding what State Laws (that we pay high tax dollar for), they enforce, and moreover, how they will enforce them? And since when does the Police Dept. speak for the States Attorney’s Office? Settingsgaard goes on to say:

“Given their workload of higher priority cases, I would be surprised if the State’s Attorney has the staff time necessary to prosecute each and every individual smoking case,”

Yea, and I’m suprised when the chronic crack dealer goes free. But what’s your point?

Again I ask: If they don’t prosecute one, how will they know when it’s a chronic abuse? Example. I get pulled over for drinking and driving, if I don’t get arrested, the State then doesn’t know I have a Drinking and Driving “issue”. So, according to Settingsgaard, it’s the Peoria Police who now has the discresion to give or NOT to give someone a DUI knowing they are drunk because they feel it may not be chronic? Mmmmm, interesting.

A State Law is a State Law. You or I would not get a break for a DUI, how come the one time offender of this law will get one?

Technorati Tags: Peoria Police and the Smoking ban, Chief Settingsgaard, The City of Peoria Smoking ban