(00:00:01) Today, we have a new Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Alexander MacDonald Keith always called Sandy Keith will hear from him today and from his predecessor retired chief justice Peter Popovich, Minnesota public radio's legal Affairs reporter Kathryn winter interviewed both men last week and we'll hear those interviews and we'll also hear the new Chief Justice in a speech he gave last week to a meeting of the organization against a organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving first, then outgoing chief justice Peter Popovich. He turns 70 years old last Friday the mandatory retirement age for Minnesota judges Catherine winter asked him that what he thought about that mandatory retirement law. There's a lot of argument prone Khan and you know, there are some judges as they get to 70 have lost some of their faculties and you know, some people have said and this has been the reason for it the maybe we ought to have judges retiring. 70 and then let the Chief Justice use them and assign him has retired judges if they have all their faculties and stuff. That's fine. If you want to do just judging but see I bring another dimension to it. I like to administer. I think I have some goals as to what to Judicial System ought to accomplish the openness of the courts getting record information officer on working with the school kids getting tapes and and video stuff that can be shown to our classes, you know working with the legislature on state funding so that our poor areas of the state can have the equal kind of justice that we in the Richer parts of the state could be able to afford before in the Old State couldn't afford it reducing delay in the court system, you know, so those are some of my goals that I sat in an administrative way, so I enjoyed working. During the administrative head of the chief judge of the court of appeals and the Chief Justice. I also enjoyed deciding cases on both courts, but then you're wearing a judge head there you see and I'm going to miss the administrative stuff. I just enjoyed getting out meeting with people being on talk shows giving talks to Service Groups high school kids when they came in and elementary students when they came into the captain would come into the courtroom one always make a point and that used to average particularly in the spring of the year two or three times a week just to talk to them about the government and the Judiciary and you know in our new building that we've just moved into now we have a dedicatory wall. It's here on the East Plaza and instead of putting a lot of names of their who the building contractor was and who the Arctic who the Chief Justice was names will be forgotten 50 years now week. from the Constitution excerpts About the Judiciary that RX there in Granite. So when the school children come in and the East Plaza is used for rallies. There's a little outdoor Auditorium Arena area there and stuff people will see those constitutional excerpts from our constitution the Minnesota Constitution, then we're adopting way back when we became a state in 1858 and there is good today as they were then thing. So do you think that the law is wrong? Do you think that you shouldn't be made to retire? I think there should be certain to some provision where people can stay on Beyond 70 now Wisconsin change their law to allow the federal system permits them to stay Beyond it there but there are 29 States including Minnesota than a mandatory retirement. I would favor something more that when you reach a certain age, you could continue to stay on if you passed a physical and mental tests and and that just as when we going to renew our drivers license and when we get to a certain age, they have a right to ask you to take the test. If you have all your faculties in that and by doing that then and getting the okay of that kind of a board or committee or commission and let the people work Beyond because you know, there are some people who are old at Party, and there something were very young at 70 and 80 Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote 475 opinions on the Supreme Court after you reach the age of 80. How come you decided not to fight the largest but to go reason I decided not to fight it was I knew what our own Supreme Court had ruled in the sacred case and I was aware of the Missouri case. So what do you went into the state court of the federal court there was that president against you that was number one. So the odds would have been tough here until the US Supreme Court may have come into it and it's just they just come into it a year too late. Plus I just thought it would be unseemly for me has chief justice to be starting a lawsuit that affected me. So personally now I could go out and defend or represent another judge now that I'm leaving the court who wanted to challenge it and I'd be a darn good Advocate why there are to Changes in there and I suppose at some point the legislature will look at it too because we do lose a lot of good people retired chief justice Peter Popovich. He was also asked how he felt about reaching the very top of his profession and then having it all end. So abruptly it's hard. I've had to you know, this lab is really come in this last month, you know, I've known since last summer that you know, when I sent the letter to the governor that I would be leaving in not challenging it the last month has been tougher because as you get toward that deadline date, you know, it's come in and so mentally I I've had to well I haven't adjusted yet but start getting prepared. So I've had long talks with my wife we got out for walks and she's been very supportive than said. Well, there are other things you can do, you know, you can get a lateral for Of some kind I could go back into practice law or serve any other court and it said yes, that's true. I can serve as a judge will be useful or but I'll never have a position again with the influence than one could have been the Chief Justice and in some state of Minnesota and the opportunity really to do good and to work with the judges on the trial courts and the court of appeals in this court to improve the administration of justice in Minnesota. See that will be lacking and that I will really really miss. (00:07:07) What about some other public office? What about a run for governor or something? (00:07:11) Yeah, that's always a possibility, but I think not Although one can never say never if you know but there was an opening for the state senate in our district this year and I kind of toyed with it a little bit. Well, that's how was a possibility but they're going to be a lot of people who'll be challenging him for years from now and I want to see unfortunately but I've known Dave Berger Dave durenberger very personally in the years as a lawyer. Obviously, we're have different political parties in that but we've always had a kind of a personal relationship you see in one time. He was in the governor's office, you know here in Minnesota as administrative Chief Deputy in fact and our paths crossed in then and so it's been a more than one occasion. So personally, I like him very much on the other hand and I Careful because I'm the judge they shouldn't get involved get involved in politics that will know something is going to occur for years from now, but the thought only flitted through my mind and there was some talk during the summer that in case he resigned that Popovich would be 1/12 least be appointed to it to be the caretaker for a while for years of caretaking would have been quite interesting obviously, but that's how it goes. You never known life. I never knew I had never asked to be appointed since addition Governor purpose called me on May 16th 1983 at 5:30 in the morning. And he said well first he asked me why I was still at home and I asked him what were you governor? And he said he was already down at the office working and he said why aren't you down but I said 5:30 and it was I may be a workaholic but but I Don't do that much that early in the morning. Well at any rate, that's when he offered me to take over the court of appeals. And since then he pointed me two more times. So Governor persons appointed me three times each time without me asking for thing and which is a good feeling because when I'm always asked him, why did you choose me? He said I've done enough checking on you and I talk to people you come so highly recommended. That was the first time the second and third time. He said I know what you've done on the court of appeals. You burnt it. You deserve it. What do you think have been the the most important things that you've accomplished during that eight years? Well, there's a number of things some from a point of view that attorneys would look at and some more from the public point of view. Let's look at it from the tourneys point of view, but also the public at reducing delay now with the creation of the court of appeals. We know now exactly how much time it Eggs to move cases through the Appellate Court and to the Supreme Court and so our emphasis on case delay now is on the trial court and they've all been working. So on with the timelines that they've adopted in December and January of 1989. Now that affects lawyers but also affects the public because a case is so all-consuming to people if you're a party litigant and you know people having a trouble with their marriage the sooner you can get it done and taken care of we're not fighting over support and custody and alimony and all that better off you are if two partners are fighting and they're going to dissolve the party better off to get it done. If somebody's been injured and you have a case they have been able settled the better off you can soon get the trowel get it taken care of better off. Everyone had then we moved towards State funding of the trial courts and that has been helpful will have long-range implication number two this Summer I chaired a task force on local rules and we had judges on it lawyers and Court administrators because we have 10 Judicial District and there are different local rules in each district. And so what we're trying to come up with now is uniform local rules, that will be uniform Statewide. So whether you practice law in st. Paul Minneapolis Duluth arm or head or whatever it may be the rules are the same all over the state and we just submitted our report to the Supreme Court and they'll have a rule hearing on February 1st to look that over and that will be something big. I think what we've done on the openness of the chords the movement toward assisting the media the training sessions. We've had four judges and representatives of the media and vice versa have been very very helpful to both, you know judges get up paint, you know that they are (00:12:17) You know, (00:12:18) you've interviewed many a judge and you know, there you are. You've always been confronted with the judges. Well, why should I do this? They are momently taking care of taken aback and our job is don't don't be reticent about it set down. There are ways that you can help the judicial system by agreeing to be interviewed by explaining the thing rather than just saying I have no comment see and that's taken a little doing as you well know. What do you think Sandy Keith (00:12:49) brings to this job? That will be helpful or do you think is he going to do a good job? (00:12:53) Well, I have every expectation that he Wills, you know, Sandy had a political background in lost when he ran for governor and then just practice laundering all that time, although he did serve on some committees for judicial Improvement the unification of the court system. He chaired that committee and and what have you his specialty is matrimonial law and he may bring something to the court in that area just as I specialize in public law education law and meteorites because as you know, I didn't represent media interest around the legend so I brought that aspect and that's one good thing about a Supreme Court is the diversity of the seven judges who are on it. So just as Keith will bring another dimension. I know from our discussions and For the year 18 months now he served on this court. He favors the same thing that I do on having the Courts open be more available to the public explaining the court system supporting the court information officer and what have you so we're together on that but everybody will have their own style and obviously achieve Justice can't operate in the vacuum. You're the first among equals you have certain duties as chief justice, but the very nature of things the other justices like to be kept informed and you can't go off half-cocked because we you have to always remember as chief judge that you speak for the entire court. So it behooves Sandy and it behooved me to to always try to ascertain. How did the court feel about something before he went off taking a particular position in Catherine Winter Fuse interview session. She asked Peter Pan Bitch, if the Minnesota Supreme Court is deciding cases that used to be decided at higher levels at the United States Supreme Court in a case involving the Amish community. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled that the state constitution goes farther than the Federal Constitution to protect religious freedom. Well that's been a trend now the last few years around the country and they've been law review articles and other states that have discussed two states interpreting their own Constitution for so long the state sort of yielded to the US Supreme Court by saying well, if they interpret their kind of the US Constitution this way and our language is identical or nearly the same then we are to give deference and use that in the Ambush case and I wrote that case after was remanded back to us. We looked at our state constitution and the language is somewhat different and a little bit more than somewhat and so we were able to say You don't have to give deference to the US Supreme Court because they had decided that Oregon case on the use of peyote in the Indian rituals. And we just felt that they had had had in that particular case circumscribed the First Amendment rights that were involved. And so we then looked at our constitution just said we're going to decided on hours and that's how we did it and we're not the only state to do that. You're going to see more of a doing it and you're going to see in other areas of law to not only First Amendment rights, but it can be unconfident ation rights. It can be on the Fifth Amendment the right to counsel. It can be on due process the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but we also have one here and so Minnesota's only taking a fresh look at there. Own Constitution, you know just as other states is doing state courts have come of age see and that's just part of this coming-of-age saying we want to exercise our own jurisdiction. We're willing to take those cases that the federal courts used to take before and by golly we're going to interpret our own Constitution and some of these matters are not just on one use blindly, but just give deference to the US Supreme Court. I think some of it is due to how people perceive this decisions to be coming from the US Supreme Court and the direction in which the court is going and I think you wouldn't be able to find it under the Warren Court back in the 50s. There was less of a feeling toward doing it and now as the court has been changing and as you know, we went through Warren and then Burger now we Rehnquist plus new additions on the on the court that you're seeing that states are taking a good hard look particularly when they disagree with what the US Supreme Court has done or how they've interpreted something retiring chief justice Popovich was asked to describe the future direction of the Minnesota Supreme Court liberal-conservative left or right. Well, I hate to use left and right because they had so many connotation but I think their terms you can use as a moderate approach a liberal approach a due process approach an approach where the rights of the people means something, you know, the residual rights of the people. There's a number of principles and philosophies that come into play knowing the makeup of this court and knowing some of the things we've done I would say that they're very cognizant when rights are being trimmed or circumscribed a little bit. And there's got to be good reasons to do it. And that's as far as I can say in trying to trip but let me say this though, as you know in 1993 that's only three years from now three people on this court will reach the age of 70 just as semenette and just as well. We don't know what the law will be at that time and just as yet go will also reach 70 but the 70 compulsory retirement which may be changed and then put a different complexion on it, but yet cuz not whelmed by that law because he came in in 1973 and when I was doing my research last summer and I was working with the attorney general we both arrived at the conclusion yet cuz exempt so he can serve Beyond 70 and if the law doesn't get changed then Weber's Governor will have you know, at least two appointments then and then obviously coin comes up in 96 and then Sandy will come up in 1998. So there's going to be changes on the court over the next ten year period we're just moving into the 1990s. It's a challenging Year. I'll tell you for years. There was always this deference to the US Supreme Court's decisions on the constitute particular when the state constitution was so similar now, it's like opening the book and looking at your own concert to see where it differs from the federal and if there's any differences as we found in the image Case by golly we use that to arrive at a result and in a rationale that allowed us to arrive at that result. So I I know that this is a movement all around the country to take a look at it like the stopping the search and seizure. There are things like that that they've decided that have been very difficult for justices on State courts to I want to say to swallow but to go along with and so if the right case comes along with the Right facts that really shows gosh this it's just not right to go this way. The way the Supreme Court had been going then you're going to see somebody look at their own Constitution. Finally Catherine winter asked Peter Popovich. What is the hardest part of leaving his job? Well, it's always hard to leave where you have a good relationship with the people and there are 200 people in this new judicial Center. And for the first time we're all Under One Roof. We used to be so disjointed before in seven different location. And I think I have a very good relationship from the people on the Supreme Court on every level here the secretaries and staff people and what have I'm going to really miss leaving them and and by that I mean the whole 200 not just judges. (00:21:54) We're (00:21:54) one big family. They had a birthday party for me yesterday. You can just feel it in the dining room as people got up to talk. And then when I made my remarks and then invited my whole family here and so I introduce my family to them and then I introduced the employees to my my family as my other family see and you have those tugging at your heart strings. You know, that kind of a feeling which is hard to describe but it's there. I'm going to miss the people. I'm obviously going to miss the administrative challenges, which I enjoyed so much and but you know, no one's indispensable the core they the state has existed for over a hundred and thirty years and they've been good people before and there's going to be good people after and I only try to do my share and contribute something during my short tenure. I never thought when I went on the They're surely that the time would go so fast. It's just like yesterday. Retired state supreme court justice chief justice Peter Popovich in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio legal Affairs reporter Kathryn winter Catherine spoke with him last week and he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 last Friday. It's about 24 minutes past the hour and you're listening to midday on the network stations of Minnesota Public Radio at the state capitol in st. Paul on Friday Peter Popovich presided over the swearing in of the new Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Sandy Keith Catherine winter interviewed him last week too and we'll hear him now. (00:23:37) Well, it's a great honor I as you know, I wanted to be governor and I Was Defeated and I've always respected the will of the people and I never have never been bitter about it. It was a great experience and I never wanted to run again. So when and I Thought I would be a judge. I turned down several judgeships. But when someone asks you to be God's friend Court, that's a little harder for a lawyer to turn down. There's only seven it is the policy-making court and it's an experience which it's very hard. I think for any lawyer who believes in our judicial system to turn down an appointment this magnitude. So obviously it wasn't hard to say. Yes to that and of course, it's just the luck of the draw that I become the Chief Justice because Justice by the Chester retire because of Age and and my relationship with the governor made this possible. You talk about this as the policy-making court, which of course it is and in maybe the past few years State Supreme Courts have been I think asserting themselves a little more in deciding constitutional issues. Like for instance the Amish case and I'm wondering given the greater role the state supreme court is playing in deciding fundamental issues of civil liberties that used to go to the US Supreme Court. Do you think that this court is going to maintain the kind of Direction it has or what do you think about that? I don't think there's any question that as the Supreme Court of the United States interprets its Constitution differently from what we think. The constitution of our state stands for yes, we will we will we will review the constitutional rights guaranteed to people both under the federal standard, which is the minimum standard and under our own which may give more weight to the rights of minorities Etc such as in the Amish case. I don't think ice any question is happening all over the United States and this court will be no different. We will review those things under our own Constitution. So where the US court has apparently been narrowing rights or has been some people might say eroding civil rights. This court made step in there's no question about it. It will it did in the Army's case and it was unanimous court. So I think we will interpret under certain circumstances often. I think we will be very similar to how the Federal Government Federal Supreme Court interprets as the Bill of Rights, but there will be areas where we will be different at. Don't think is any question this is going to occur and matter of fact, it's been encouraged by a number of federal judges. So I think this is an exciting intellectual area in one that has deep meaning for people especially in a state like Minnesota where we are. We have a lot of diverse religions. We have a lot of nationalities living here and we have a very long history of adherence to the Bill of Rights. So do you think this court in some instances will go farther than the federal US Supreme Court in protecting the rights of minorities it certainly may well do that in certain specific very unique areas. I have I I certainly think that could possibly be true. Obviously. It does not my own opinion. That's the opinion only of a court which is all seven of us, but we do discuss this and we're aware of this trend. And as I said, this has been a very interesting focus of our intellectual discussions over the past two months because of the past year because of the Amish case that that Trend makes it more important in a sense who's on the court and who's not I mean, we I think we'll have to start to look at the state supreme court the way we look at appointments to the US Supreme Court. Is he a liberal? Is it conservative is she pro-life is she pro-choice? What kind of character is this court can have well, it's awfully hard to label courts. I you know, I who would have ever thought that Earl Warren governor of California would become the most Republican appointed by Governor by President Eisenhower become one of the most liberal judges in history the country who would have thought wizard white appointed by President. Kennedy would become quite conservative on some constitutional issues in Harry blackmun legal counsel. The Mayo Clinic would become a very liberal on considered by some very liberal on some issue. So it's really very difficult to say most lawyers never think through constitutional positions until they become a judge. They don't deal with it in their private practice very often unless they're doing criminal law or some specific area of law. So until they get on a court and have to think through these issues. They don't really have a position. I remember Justice blackmun when he went on the eighth circuit. He had never really thought through a constitutional many. Question because it never come up and his practice and how he had to gradually formulate what his views were on any number of different problems. So I think this is true of many judges. Do you think that your beliefs about civil liberties or the way that you look at those constitutional rights differs very much from Justice Popovich's not really we've been quite I can't recall any case where we've had any very fundamental difference between Justice Popovich and myself whether his replacement will be different. I don't know that's another matter. Do you think it's possible that this court is going to end up having to make decisions about abortion in the right to privacy. It's hard to say. Obviously there hasn't really been any major change in the federal pen the the law as it now stands the Supreme Court has not overturned Roe v-- Wade, and so I obviously until that occurs. It's hard to see where they're all because that would the minimum rights are now set out until that occurs. If it occurs why it's hard to see but the right of privacy has been around in in state courts also and how this is Being Framed depends on specific facts situations and frankly. We've never had it during the 20 months 22 months ago. I've been on the court. I'm sorry to be another reporter who Compares you and him. But since you are taking his job, he's had a reputation for being a real workaholic. And do you think that that you'll keep the same kind of pace or will you manage it by doing things differently? Well, we're different. I think just as Popovich was an administrator in many ways. I think he liked Administration. I think he's very he's very he understands Administration. He's worked on it. I think he administered his own law office when he was in private practice. He was certainly the chief administrative office of the Appellate Court and he was here so he's had a lot of administration and and I'm I come out of a different setting my own Law Firm. I had many partners equal Partners. We I was one of the executive officers of my law firms. I was in charge of much of the management of the firm at different times during the 20 some years of I practice law. So I've had that experience of developing from the beginning a law firm. So but it's a different kind of administrative experience. So obviously I've found that we do have good administrators. I obviously feel like an administrator and ought to administrate and I ought to keep an overall view of the of the system. So whether I am is day-to-day into every little detail, I don't know I would doubt that I would in that sense. I think I am somewhat different in that I would I want to know the overall view. I want to know where the trends I want to know where we're going and I want to keep the court fully informed and all the courts so that we can proceed into the 90s which is going to be an interesting, you know decade. There's just lots of things happening and we're going to have to be Be careful with change but very adoptive. So obviously we're very different. I work. I'm a workaholic I supposed to in the sense that I've always never worked at 40 hour week. It was a private practitioner. I was work Saturdays, you know this sort of thing, but I love my vacations to I like to get away. I love to ski, you know, I need to read I need to get away from it. I need to I need to read novels once in a while. I need to talk to people from all walks of life. I'm a very I love the society we live in like, you know, I don't want to totally be it is going to consume me in that sense. In other words. I need the influences of people outside the law with other areas are interested in what's happening in the country. I need to have I need to physically to work out for instance I need which is why I love to ski. Can't go down those bumps, you know down those Hills and Colorado without you no good thinking that we can be thinking about those cases. Yeah get through those Moguls, but it's a wonderful way to relax for me. I like to read and then I love obviously I love politics all my life. So it's these are things that are perhaps I'm someone different we're all different when you took this job you and I talked about the fact that being a judge is lonelier than being a practitioner has that been hard for you. Have you found yourself losing contact or losing the intimacy? Maybe you had with people before Oh no question about it. It does you sort of have to step back the role of a judge, you know, you have to treat fee of people fairly regardless of their the Richer poor Christian or Jew or no religion at all, whether they, you know, Democrats or Republicans. It makes no difference. Yes. It is a different role and it As in to some extent isolate you from the the day-to-day practice of the law in the trenches if you will, so it I needed a change. I think it was good for me. I needed to do something differently. I had a huge practice. I was really working really almost beyond my capacity to do good work and you get that way and as you get older and your practice builds up, so there's this change I think was good for me. It's given me time to think through a lot of issues and to I think bring to the court someone who spent most of his life outside and the judicial system. And from time to time these types of judges are needed. Have you set some goals or are there any projects you're ready to fire off on once you put on the robe? Well, I think that's I think that's asking a little too much. I think that basically We've got to sort of together set the vision obviously, you know, I feel very strongly about access to our courts courts, you can have a magnificent system, but if people can't get into it or don't know how to get into it doesn't do much good and we've we haven't done very well in the civil law area. There's thousands of men and women who because of need and poverty can't get into the system can't get their disputes resolved in this is just unfair that has got to be changed and obviously I want to work on that as you know, we've we've had an enormous change in the makeup of the profession from an all male profession to one where over forty-five percent of all of the classes in the three law schools in Minnesota are now women are more and over 20% of the practicing bars now women and this is made a great impact and it's going to continue and we have to handle this and we have to see to it that gender is handled in a professional way throughout the court system. We're now starting and we'll announce within the next month the racial bias committee to look into how race affects our system. This is important that we look at ourselves and our critical of ourselves and try to do better. We're trying to Institute a very interesting educational system where our own judges provide a great deal of the impetus to We need to keep judges feeling good about their jobs wanting to go to work in the morning interested in what they're doing always growing and this is hard to do when you're you know, you get paid the same whether you've been here one year 19 years, you know, so it's to be creative to reward excellence and to make judging really what it is one of the most unique and interesting professions. Any person has the honor of being allowed to participate in the in a system where you actually make decisions and help people decide to spew. It's you sure sound like you're saying that you hope that you can help the court system to do something for women and minorities and disadvantaged people. You're right. I think this is a great Always a problem in society most of the people in prison are minorities and poor people and maybe this is always been true. But it makes me sad the you know, you're our prisons are now twenty nine percent black seven or eight percent Native American and for 5% Asian and South Amanda Latin Americans and they only make up four percent of the entire State we're and obviously there's something that bothers me. It just doesn't seem that that's quite right. And so I obviously that that concerns me black mother told me the other day, you know, she's so worried about her children getting into drugs because only blacks get get picked up for drug-related. Why aren't all the white people that are taking cocaine and doing that why aren't they imprisoned and so on it was hard for me to answer so I said yes, we do have we have always had problems the the rich in the mighty do get fine Legal Services because they can afford it. It isn't always so easy for those that aren't and we got to have a system that everyone can get into and use and feel that it treats them fairly. It's not easy to do this. It's always a struggle was this racial bias task force your idea. Are you going to be intimately involved with that? I'm going to be intimately involved in it. But no one was the matter of fact, it came really from the legislature and we've the legislature has been very helpful to us and quite creative a number of the people on the legislation the legislature and the scheme from representative Dawkins who's here in St. Paul. I believe was one of the authors and Senator spear was the author in the Senate the head of the Judiciary Committee. Also when you first took this job several people said to me Sandy Keith, how is (00:40:03) Is (00:40:04) Sandy Keith can keep from firing off at the mouth at an inopportune moment because F and heart of your to squelch yourself. Yes. I have a terrible tendency to talk too much and say too much. They're going to be much more careful. That's true because it's chief justice say you have to be you have to measure your words because they are picked up they are you can be easily misinterpreted and I am very open and so I guess I'm going to have to be more careful. And yes, I do have a reputation exactly as you've indicated which I have to improve what seems like you've managed so far. Well somewhat I as you know, I controversy is my wife says any or you know, you always seem to be able to find some from time to time. (00:40:54) You've been listening to an interview with Minnesota's new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sandy, Keith, Minnesota public radio's legal Affairs reporter Kathryn winter spoke with him last week today. His first day as chief justice Sandy Keith gave a speech to a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving last week and will hear those comments now and I was kind of pleased to be asked to speak here because I have enormous respect for your group and the subject is important to me and Norma SLI important to the society. Generally, I grew up with a mother who had very strong feelings in these areas and believe me. I know she were alive she'd be head of the Rochester chapter as it's really I honestly believe that she would be she'd be head of the Rochester chapter. But you are really the voices of the victim and you're a model of a very powerful advocacy and public awareness organization. The only one I can compare you with is the last 35 years that I've been involved in politics in Minnesota is the retarded associations which started with nothing in 1958 when the state hospitals were filled. I couldn't I couldn't even describe Faribault to you all these thousands of men and women in diapers huddled in Corners treated as literally literally cattle and how this organization developed into what we have today with regard to the treatment of mentally ever mentally retarded people in this in in Rochester and all over the state of Minnesota. So what you're doing is inspiring, you know what I find very personally inspired. Hiring is that you've transformed what I call incomprehensible grief into comprehensive action to deal with a tragic problem of almost epidemic proportions. And I think I have I'm going to try to bring you today three messages not the answers, but three messages. The first is very simple drinking and driving cannot be tolerated by our society. Number two the courts play a very important role in deterring and punishing those who drink and drive. And three as you know all too well, we as a society can't renege on our responsibility just because there are no easy answers. We've got to work together to identify and implement the most effective attack on this problem that we can devise. Now I said we can't tolerate drinking and driving because the extent and the ramifications of the problem are just so pervasive. It's hard to describe it. I had no idea myself to look at these figures the other day in 1989. There were three point two million licensed drivers in Minnesota 300,000 of those individuals have had their license revoked for driving a vehicle in Minnesota while Under the Influence close to 8% of the licensed drivers have been arresting. In this state last year the highway patrol and are various other police officers made 30 4562 DUI arrests in this state. Of those arrested 14,000 had at least one prior offense, which is 40% of all the arrests. We had two hundred and seventy five alcohol related deaths in this state. By the way, the deaths from auto accidents have gone down from a thousand to about 600 over the past decade alcohol-related have stated about the same level about half of the total deaths related to alcohol the 600's 275 out of 600 in 1989 79 drinking drivers were in fatal crashes of those more than a third. Had a prior DUI. Your organization puts faces on these numbers everyone in this room. I suspect has been deeply affected by the some traumatic loss of a child or a loved one due to these traffic accidents. I don't need to convince anyone here of the depth or the extent of the problem and why we've got to stop it. I do want it to end sometime. However talking about the role of the courts in dealing with the problem. Seems to me that the Judiciary has two major obligations when it comes to addressing DWI. The first this is not easy as educating our judges as you know, we now have 241 District judges. And that's basically where most people see the system. We have 15 on the Appellate Court and we have 7 on the Supreme Court with 263 judges. And basically I think all of us will agree that education is the foundation of dealing effectively with a problem. I will say and my predecessors the Judiciary is very committed to educating jugglers judges about alcohol abuse and the DWI Fender mad has been an excellent partner in our efforts. I was personally attended one of your victim impact panels at the request of several of my friends over in Hennepin County. Never been to one. It was a very moving experience. This was last summer when I'd only been on the court a few months and I was over in Hennepin County were huge volume of criminalize is done in this huge metropolitan area. Last at our Statewide conference last year mad provided us with a demonstration of a Victim Impact Panel. Let me give you an example. I went picked up the what the judges said about that the whole conference the Mad victim panel was by far the highlight of the course. I've been ordering All chemical related driving offenders to attend a panel, but I had not attended one myself none but a sociopath could attend such a panel and fail to think twice the next time he or she considers driving after drinking. Basically, what we have to do is institutionalize our judicial training. Are new and experienced judges last year spent an entire day of training on traffic offenses and specifically DUIs. One day of training of our new judges orientation is devoted to this topic everyone. We have a new judges appointed every year we set up a conference and we go through and spend a day working basically on this the most serious problem we have in this area of the law at the judges sentencing Institute, and I know this scenario you're concerned about it's not an easy area judges like to have the right. To have discretion and basically this is they fought the guidelines for felonies serious crimes when they came into effect back in the late 8th notes 1979 1980 when they were adopted and this is one of the but basically we have a sentencing Institute, which is mandatory for each judge and sentencing in this area is a very important topic matter of fact, I got all of the different the ten different districts and they aren't the same. There's a lot of difference out there every we have 10 judicial districts and their summer rural summer Suburban to or the Metropolitan ones and up in Ramsey County. And obviously, this is an area where I think you could play a role in seeing to it that the sentencing becomes more standard you'll find judges resistance and and defense counsel all of the rest. That everyone ought to be treated individually and uniquely every person is different and so forth. So I wanted you to be aware of the feelings and how we have to deal with at this year's Statewide conference for all judges Ron Kenobi of the Hazelden Foundation. Well, I have enormous respect for will spend two hours educating the judges on alcoholic subjects as they relate to the DUI offender. The second part of our obligation is deterrence and Punishment. In other words. We want to achieve specific deterrence of offenders. And of course General deterrence of the driving population the thing you don't realize we're just literally a society that lives in their cars, especially in the rural areas where I come from there's hardly any public transportation anymore. Little towns Ernie, but basically we live in our Automobiles and we all know that 30% of the population don't drink at all. And 5% drink 50% of the booze and cause the bulk of the problems. So this is this is it experts disagree on what is the most effective method of deterrent punishment some say treatment. So what you have to have others say you've got to incarcerate and you've got to take their vehicles and you've got some say do both some have all kinds of combinations of treatment prison Etc and we could debate these for forever. But the one thing that the research consistently shows and this is true in almost all areas of criminal law is that Swift Court action is Central to successfully deterring and punishing offenders. If you don't get them into court quickly and effectively, it breaks down the quicker the court action olestra citizen we find in this is almost not only in this area, but in other areas of the criminal law The certainty of sanction is another important part of the equation and all this leaves the public with probably the most effective deterrent of all the awareness if they drink and drive there's a likelihood of being caught and once apprehended of being punished. With the input of mad, I think I agree with you. I think we do have the laws in place. I don't you can always improve. I don't think there's ever been but I do think we've gotten the message across these include test refusal laws and pounding license plates mandatory sentencing as you know, a new enforcement procedure has recently been upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and it's being implemented on a growing scale in Minnesota. And this is the use of sobriety checkpoints and we've already had a case which is upheld the use of them in Minnesota and which we really reviewed the other day. But as you know, it takes more than a loss to get at the root of this problem. How do we view drinking and driving and we've got the other approaches besides laws and Punishment obviously our how do you change? A latitudes, you know, we've been really pretty good about we've come a long ways and smoking pretty effective. Actually. I'm amazed. My whole building is smoke-free. My old law office is one person now the smokes out of 42. I'm neither son. I mean, I you know, I can't remember anybody smoking in my house recently among my friends and colleagues, but basically, how are we going to reduce alcohol related deaths and injuries, and I think we've gone to re-examine our personal and social attitudes towards Transportation alternatives. We got to get away from using cars. So darn much. Certainly. This is true in the metropolitan areas of the state designated drivers seat belts forcement of liquor selling laws. I've been I've been interested in server intervention and personal Intervention when our friends and family members are at risk of driving under the influence of alcohol. And again, of course, it gets back to education and awareness at all levels the individual your own children. Why shouldn't they drink if you don't if you do it, how can you raise children and think they aren't going to drink if you're going to do it the community and of course the state and the entire judiciary. The court system is always looking for new and effective and better ways to defer to deter drunk driving the best example I've seen recently and you may not agree with me and I'd be anxious to know your your feelings on. This is Anoka County. We're judges. I've had three or four judges call me over the past month and a half concerning that program. Although under this program. The first time offender are sent to a facility for 48 hours of intensive education. It's somewhat similar to being in jail. Not quite the same. They can't watch television or read outside materials. They sleep in a dormitory style bunk beds. They can't leave and they pay the cost and pay their own the pay the actual cost of the treatment the program includes movies on Victim Impact small group, discussions and training. The judges I've talked to in Anoka County tell me the program is very effective. Anoka County is also started intensive program for repeat DUI offenders. That is also paid for by the offenders in these times of skates scarce resources. We've got to look for Creative Solutions that make the most impact because obviously there isn't going to be unlimited funds. I think the real question is now where do we go from here? Well thanks to this organization. I think we are well on the way the read the research shows that the primary factors believed to be responsible for reduction in alcohol-related for fatality. He's our a matter of working through first. We've got to have organizations like your own citizens activism. We've got to have media attention it got to let people know what you're doing and why you feel so strongly about what you're doing. You've got to have legislation and enforcement and use there's got to be an increased perception and fear that if we drink and drive they'll be severe penalties and of course ultimately every Community has got to be involved and where it just isn't acceptable this kind of behavior drinking and driving is without question. This kills more people in America than most of our As we lost less we lose as many driving accidents. I suspect the United States as we did in two years as we did in five in Korea where I was stationed in a very bloody and very difficult War some 30 some years ago eliminating this problem requires long-term commitment from all of us and I want you to know that I take my share of responsibility for keeping drunk drivers off the road very seriously. There's no more important problem that I can think of sure we have our rapes but there's 1,300 rapes not 35,000 arrest. I don't want to rape us around either don't misunderstand me. But I want to send the most powerful message. I can to minnesotans drunk driving cannot be tolerated. Thank you very much. The new Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Sandy Keith. He spoke last week to a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving field recording of that speech was by Maya Bergstrom and we thank her.