FAIRBANKS - The two National Park Service rangers who arrested and handcuffed a 70-year-old man on the bank of the Yukon River last summer for refusing to stop for a boat inspection had a similar run-in with another man less than a month earlier.
According to testimony on Wednesday in the federal trial of Jim Wilde, now 71, of Central, rangers Joe Dallemolle and Ben Grodjesk detained and handcuffed another man, Tim Henry, for approximately two hours in August 2010 because he refused to identify himself.
The two rangers did not cite or arrest Henry, or brandish weapons like they did when they arrested Wilde in September, and he was eventually released. But the rangers’ behavior suggests “a pattern of when somebody doesn’t do what we tell him to, we’ll show him who’s boss,” said Fairbanks attorney Bill Satterberg, who is representing Wilde.
Wilde was arrested Sept. 16 on a remote stretch of the Yukon River between Circle and Eagle within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve that is managed by the National Park Service. He is being charged with four misdemeanors stemming from his refusal to stop for a boat inspection and is accused of trying to swerve his boat into the rangers’ boat during a short chase.
The case has stirred up Alaskans, including Gov. Sean Parnell and Alaska’s three members of Congress, who question the authority and attitude of the Park Service to enforce federal regulations on state waterways. Parnell, as well as Rep. Don Young and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, have disparaged the Park Service over Wilde’s arrest.
The non-jury trial, which began Tuesday, is scheduled to continue today at 8:15 a.m. at the federal courthouse. Wilde is expected to testify in his defense.
Day two of the trial began with Satterberg withdrawing the mistrial motion he made late Tuesday. Satterberg had asked Magistrate Judge Scott Oravec to declare a mistrial after it was revealed that prosecutor Stephen Cooper with the U.S. Attorney’s office directed a ranger where to take several photos of the approximate arrest site that were then submitted as evidence.
But on Wednesday, Satterberg told Oravec the issue had been resolved because Cooper was withdrawing the one photo that could lead to him being called as a witness in the case.
Dallemolle, 28, and Grodjesk, 33, were both relatively new on the job when they encountered both Henry and Wilde, according to testimony from the rangers. Both rangers had been working in the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve only about two months prior to their contact with Wilde.
According to their testimony, Wilde refused to stop and cooperate with a request to do a safety check on his boat and sped away, leading to a short chase during which they say he swerved his boat at them.
It was only after Dallemolle pointed a loaded shotgun at Wilde during the pursuit that Wilde pulled his boat to shore, the two rangers testified.
Once on shore, the rangers said an irate Wilde questioned their authority to stop him and approached them with his fists clenched, ready to fight. Grodjesk ended up tackling Wilde and wrestling him to the ground, where both rangers threatened to use Tasers on him if he didn’t stop resisting.
But Wilde’s 74-year-old wife, Hannelore, one of two passengers on Wilde’s boat, testified Wednesday that she was “absolutely” certain her husband didn’t swerve his boat toward the rangers’ boat and that at no time did she feel her husband’s boat handling jeopardized the safety of herself, fellow passenger Fred Shank or the two rangers.
“Are you sure of that?” Satterberg asked.
“I’m positive,” she replied.
Both Dallemolle and Grodjesk testified that it was Jim Wilde’s reckless boat handling that prompted Dallemolle to first pull a pistol and then a shotgun and point it at Wilde in order to get him to stop. Satterberg has suggested that the two rangers have fabricated their version of the story to justify their use of weapons.
Hannelore Wilde also denied that her husband’s fists were clenched when he walked toward the rangers on the beach, though she did admit he was spewing expletives at them.
“He started walking toward the rangers and said, ‘What is this all about’ ” she said, holding her arms and hands out.
“You’re sure he didn’t have his fists clenched?” Satterberg asked.
“I’m positive,” she answered.
As the two rangers tried to handcuff her husband, Hannelore Wilde said he repeatedly asked, “Why are you doing this?”
Grodjesk’s reply, she said, was “You’re going to jail.”
“How many times did he say it?” Satterberg asked.
“Three or four times,” Hannelore Wilde said. “Every time Jim asked the question.”
During his testimony, Grodjesk said Wilde repeatedly told the rangers during the scuffle, “You do not have the authority to do this.”
Contact staff writer Tim Mowry at 459-7587.
I support NPS totally in this after hearing what has gone on in the trial,reading the applicable laws (i.e.CFR36 and ANILCA),reading others opinions on boating on Yukon (I too have been on the Yukon),reading Wilde's own statements about stopping on the river to hunt or fish,and based on my past experience working for NPS closely with their law enforcement officers and NEVER meeting one who acted as some posters try to make them appear. Wilde violated the law in more than one way and by his actions cast suspicion upon himself even further.Those rangers are fully trained and qualified, have jurisdiction in a national park and preserve, are deserving of respect from locals as they are there protecting their hunting and fishing rights and laws under ANILCA.
I stand by my assessment. The rangers overreacted. Wilde probably would have come out of this better if he hadn't cussed a blue streak, but he's still getting shafted. Nothing he did warranted guns being aimed at him, nor his being handcuffed and hauled off to Fairbanks.
You're not doing the Wildes any justice, nor the rangers, nor the pursuit of common sense.
Very frustrating to see posters posting things and talking about things they have no idea about. The real TRAVESTY is the conclusions you and others draw from completely fabricating such things and asserting them as "facts" that no one in the trial even challenged or mentioned. Wow!!
This whole thing is a travesty. It's one of those cases where a couple of government agents overstepped their authority, and rather than simply issue an apology (which would entail someone somewhere in the government taking responsibility for something), the entire enterprise is pushing it all the way into court in a futile effort at making it look like the rangers were behaving properly.
And as is generally the case with these sorts of matters, the only result is that the government looks even worse than it did going into court.
Drop the charges, formally apologize to Mr. Wilde, and move on.
Anyone hunting has weapons, and I'm sure wilde did, then he performed a felony by fleeing from an officer, after he was already stopped in the river, then tried to ram (or maybe just scare) the rangers by trying to hit them with his boat or aleast pretending to do so (a game of chicken perhaps)
Think about what would happen on a car stop, if a driver was fleeing and tried to ram an cop? We would expect the cop to take action, not just stay put. And anyone knows if your being stopped for a felony or trying to hit a cop, a cop is trained to pull out his gun and be ready to shoot it. In this case, the rangers didn't shoot the gun, no "summary execution" here! And no don't make the comparison that "a car pulls to the side of the road, so a boat must pull to the shore and off the "highways"" Anyone that knows calm rivers like the Yukon knows it would be safer to stay floating then put into shore, for a number of reasons especially with a heavy boat, atleast for a safety check that would last only a couple minutes. So yeah, the guy was fleeing, or he was just stupid, then endangered the rangers and no doubt his own passengers. Maybe he should have told, or asked the ranger to go to shore if that was what he was really wanting to do, instead of trying to hit them and flee.
And the engine, I imagine the rangers wanted Wilde's engine off because it was loud and if left on and they discovered more offenses, he might actually drive off!!!, keeping theirs on makes sense if its not too loud, to be able to get away from Wilde if he started shooting at them. Cops always are trained to be able to react first going into a situation they know nothing about, especially knowing the people have guns.
Remember those "old crusty sourdoughs" living on the Yukon River in this very park a couple years ago that just started shooting at innocent campers way down the beach. The troopers and rangers had to come in with a swat team and arrested the lady?? A couple days later. That crazy stuff happens out there. Its not the river that's dangerous (you'd know that if you ever went out on it) its the people that, atleast prove that they can be. Rangers have to be prepared just like a cop in a city, probably even more so.
And that's leaving aside the issue of whether any LEO should be chambering a round in a scattergun and aiming it at a man **and his wife** [Honey was sitting behind Wilde directly in the line of fire], in order to protect people from the [remote] possibility of them coming to some harm as a consequence of their own judgements and actions. I'd point out, that if you reverse this situation, our own State LEOs have repeatedly used that as justification for summary execution - because they maintain it is a real and immediate a threat to their life. So we have the NPS Ranger making a real and substantial threat to the lives of 2 people, in order to [possibly but not probably] save them from themselves????
How in the world can you find either of these actions justifiable?
If you've been boating on the yukon you'd know its normally safe to step onto another boat, I've exchanged things and people and even myself to friends boats on these rivers. Its pretty safe on a deep, 1/2 mile wide river with a 5mph current. The Yukon aint no whitewater rapids. You should get out on a boat in alaska sometime.
Go down to the Kenai or any other, crowded, faster, shallower, more dangerous river and you'll see the troopers and fish and Game doing the same thing, while floating in the middle of the river. I've never had a problem with an LEO(although I'm sure there's some bad one's out there) and I've been checked a number of times on Alaskan rivers (gotten some warnings, but no big deal). Never ran into an LEO on the Yukon though. I think its good that someone's up there.
And it only makes sense that national park rangers patrol a national park, especially during hunting season. After all that's what Congress tells them to do. And last time I checked the congress speaks for the people. And Congress created Yukon-Charley, not the president, not the Dept of Interior or the Nat'l park service. And they created it not from state land but from federal land that never belonged to the state. The name is Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, don't you think Congress felt that the "rivers" in the title were meant to be a part of the preserve? Its pretty silly to think otherwise that park service doesn't have jurisdiction on the rivers of a preserve created by congress because of those very rivers. I guess the judges agree, time and time again when the state challenges that. And congress hasn't changed that law, so they must indent for that to be the case.
I went in expecting Satterberg to tare those rangers apart and poke holes in their stories, after all he's known to be THE defense lawyer in Fairbanks and is known hounding witnesses until he gets every little detail out.
But I've been surprised that its gone the opposite way. The rangers stories match up with out any conflicts even as Satterberg worked for his $20,000 retainer. Now maybe they just practiced and rehearsed really well, but Jim and Honey had the same time and much more expensive lawyer, as well as Fred. It was surprising that it was the three of them whose accounts matched up closer with the rangers than each other. Honey Wilde changed her story and what she heard about 8 times, and Jim close to it. They even said opposite things and they're married. The only one with any creditibility was Fred, and most of what he said supported the rangers. Its clear from all five of them that Jim Wilde had no intention of stopping for the rangers, he said that.
Now maybe the rangers are still lying and doing a damn good job of it, but it sure didn't come out that way and Jim and his wife clearly kept changing their stories. Either Satterberg hasn't earned his money yet and lived up to his rep or the truth is actually coming out and that doesn't seem to be helping Jim; his wife's and Fred's accounts sure don't help him and only seem to help the rangers side. Now this trial sure has been a surprise.
Its almost over, but you all should go to the trial before talking about the things at trial that you have no idea about. Let the testimony influence you, not the agenda of Craig Medred.
If you want to argue the case as it goes, suggest reading the Alaska Dispatch which is carrying fairly complete coverage.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of" made me inhale my wine, I laughed so hard. My friend, you have lived a very insulated life!
The only sure thing is a few posters don't know the difference between facts and supposition. For its supposition to base ones posting on what if.
I'm honestly surprised to hear you say this, rationalc. We have everything to worry about, whether we have something to hide or not. Please brush up on the fourth amendment. It is there for a reason. It protects some of the most basic freedoms, rights, and interests we Americans possess.
If that LEO was indeed infringing upon your fourth amendment rights, I would say you had a duty to challenge him... I certainly thank Mr. Wilde for challenging NPS. I almost would say he's doing it on our behalf as well as his own.
If the camcorder was there and pointed in the appropriate direction at the time it was going on, yes.
"Otherwise, NPS drew on an old man for no good reason, and that's the lawlessness here...."
Without all the facts you can't say any lawlessness has occured...and yet you seem to have made up your mind. That's impartial.
In some sense if a LEO isn't finding people breaking the law are they really doing their job? There is a fine line there that I think we are both aware of...its one thing suggest they work hard to do what they are supposed to, its another to imply as some think here, that they purposely make stuff up, or are on a quota.
And I too for the record have been a victim of an overzealous cop. And I honestly think he was being inappropriate and escalating a situation where a less stable person might have done something stupid. But he didn't do anything I would consider illegal...it was just being a pain in the butt. And if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
And the law is setup to contest what you see as a frivolous offense...and unlike some would think...the judge won't always side with the cop.
The camcorder better show Mr. Wilde threatening the NPS, doncha think?
Otherwise, NPS drew on an old man for no good reason, and that's the lawlessness here.
As you feel entitled to give moving advice, I say you move on to N.Korea. The finer points of American freedom and self-government seem lost on you.
You can doubt it all you want but it is true what I said in my previous post! The LEO that told me this knew I would never divulge his name and I haven't, 20 years later. He was a personal friend so he was not in jeopardy of losing his F&W job. I played softball with a number of troopers over the years and you'd be quite suprised at the stories I heard.
So understanding a fundamental human failing (keeping your hands out of the cookie jar after you have been told a million times) a compromise was made to placate people in the hope of they would leave parks as intact as possible for future generations.
Unfortunately as time passes, people put more and more demands on the park service...the latest caving, being the demand to carry weapons in parks. And it didn't take long for that ruling to have an impact. Already one Grizzly has been killed in Denali, a park that hasn't had a single human fatality in its history...that I am aware of. But now that people are packing I am sure a bravado will replace common sense and caution, and more confrontations will like occur in the future.