By SUZANNE DOWNING
Feb. 9, 2026 – Anchorage Assembly member Keith McCormick is raising concerns about how the Anchorage Police Department is handling certain misdemeanor assault cases, suggesting that victims are being required to complete additional paperwork, and even assume legal responsibility, before officers will take a suspect into custody.
In a Facebook reel posted this week, McCormick described what he views as a troubling gap in enforcement when it comes to lower-level violent incidents that police officers do not personally witness.
“Victims are being held legally responsible after they are assaulted, and that does not sit right with me,” McCormick said. “Accountability should rest with offenders, and with the system that enforces the law, not with victims.”
McCormick’s comments are aimed at what he argues is a procedural barrier that delays law enforcement response — placing more responsibility on victims at the very moment they may be injured, shaken, or reluctant to engage in a complicated legal process.
At the center of the dispute is a form connected to Alaska’s citizen’s arrest framework, which historically left room for communities without immediate law enforcement access, particularly in rural Alaska, to initiate an arrest when necessary.
Under Alaska law, private citizens can in some circumstances detain or arrest someone committing an offense, and police may then take custody of the suspect.
McCormick says Anchorage has increasingly relied on this mechanism in situations where officers did not witness a misdemeanor assault firsthand.
The form, as McCormick describes it, amounts to the victim declaring: I have arrested this individual, allowing police to complete transport and processing without initiating the arrest themselves. But there’s more to the form: It essentially forces the victim to accept all legal responsibility.
The concept stems in part from the legal reasoning of the Moxie decision, which clarified that when a private citizen initiates an arrest, law enforcement may assist in completing it without needing a warrant — because police are not technically the initiating party.
McCormick argues that since roughly 2009, Anchorage modified the way this form is used, and that officers may now be trained to require it in many misdemeanor cases they did not personally observe.
He contends that police can, in fact, arrest for certain misdemeanors without requiring victims to sign such paperwork, but that the form is being used broadly, in part to indemnify the city from liability.
The result, he says, is that victims are effectively being told: Sign this, or we won’t arrest the suspect.
McCormick pointed to a recent example involving Anchorage videographer Cale Green, who posted a video describing an assault downtown.
Green was attacked by a street dweller who broke his glasses, and when police arrived, they presented him with the citizen’s arrest form. Green was told that unless he signed it, officers would not take the suspect into custody.
For many victims, McCormick argues, that demand comes at the worst possible moment.
“In the moment of duress, you’re not going to sign it, and most people don’t even understand that they’re being asked to ‘arrest’ someone,” he said.
Most Alaskans reasonably assume that arrest decisions are the responsibility of law enforcement, not assault victims.
Under Alaska law, police officers can make warrantless arrests in certain circumstances when there is probable cause that a crime has occurred. There are clear carve-outs where police do not rely on citizen paperwork, including domestic violence cases and DUI enforcement.
But for many other misdemeanor assaults, the department defaults to the form requirement unless the officer directly witnessed the offense.
McCormick suggests the practice may be intended to be a time-saver, avoiding the need for interviews, paperwork, or contacting an on-call magistrate for a warrant, but that it shifts the burden onto victims.
The current approach may even discourage victims from reporting assaults and allow offenders to avoid immediate consequences and that victims should not be expected to navigate bureaucratic steps before law enforcement intervenes. Requiring forms or written declarations can leave victims vulnerable and contributes to a growing perception that violent behavior is going unchecked in Anchorage.
5 thoughts on “Assemblyman McCormick raises concern over Anchorage assault arrests, as victims are being asked to ‘make the arrest’ themselves”
“……..The form, as McCormick describes it, amounts to the victim declaring: I have arrested this individual, allowing police to complete transport and processing without initiating the arrest themselves. But there’s more to the form: It essentially forces the victim to accept all legal responsibility…………”
What is “legal responsibility”? Does that mean that the citizen arrester must criminally prosecute the offender in court? Should we now carry zip-ties around with us in our daily carry?
There are only THREE Assembly members who are fighting for the average, law-abiding citizens in Anchorage: McCormick, Goecker and Meyers. When you receiver you ballots in March, vote for Bruce Vergason, Brian Flynn and, Donald Handeland. We need balance on the Assembly and we need it yesterday. As for what’s going on with the police, the current chief is a hand servant of LaFrance’s and the far left that controls the horizontal and vertical of this city. It’s not the fault of the average cop; it’s the useful tool at the top. Someone should ask Case how many officers filed for retirement when he was appointed. Just sayin’.
Carry zip ties and we all get a police vehicle to park in our driveway?
Hmmm(?), I remember a movie from 1974 … “Death Wish” where a common citizen (ie: Paul Kersey) took matters into his own hands to deliver justice and accountability. Maybe, this will play-out ‘similarly’ in modern day Anchorage as the Assembly and Anchorage Police Department is woefully // willfully falling short and udderly(!) failing the Taxpaying Citizens?
If so(?), so be it!
Isn’t that the Assemblyman’s job to pass a law to fix problems just like this?
.
Remind again what part of the Charter authorizes the “procedural barrier” that delays law enforcement response?
.
Worried about -victims- being held legally responsible after they’re assaulted, Keith, you might take a look, a long look, at 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law …then talk about who’s “legally responsible”.
.
Suppose an American citizen comes to a bad end because of the “procedural barrier” which the Assembly, of which you’re part, could fix, but wouldn’t, what do you think’ll happen?
.
How about a public hearing to figure out what needs fixing, or is the Assembly just too damned busy with new taxes, education-industry needs, homeless-industry needs, cutting off microphones, and obstructing federal law enforcement?
.
Speaking of which, would the Assembly be okay with ICE agents just filling out “The Form”, declaring they have arrested an illegal alien who committed a crime by being here …illegally?
.
Now’s your time to shine, son, get loud and do what folks hired you to do, put this on tomorrow’s agenda and don’t quit until it’s fixed …which is what you were going to do anyway, right?