EDITORIAL: Emergency plan's objections should be heeded

The Coeur d’Alene City Council recently adopted the newly updated Kootenai County Emergency Operations Plan, a critical document meant to guide local authorities during disasters. Only Councilor Dan Gookin voted against the plan, and his opposition highlights an essential principle that must not be overlooked: protecting the property rights of citizens.

First, a bit of background. 

Kootenai County is required to prepare for disasters. The Emergency Operations Plan provided fulfills this requirement. 

Coeur d’Alene Fire Chief Tom Greif, in a staff report to the City Council, wrote, “When emergencies go beyond the capabilities of local first responders, they will seek additional resources needed to respond to the incident at hand." 

Sounds pretty straightforward. 

But depending on your world view, as one council member referenced, maybe not. 

In that 208-page document (reduced from its original 500 pages), a few lines caught the attention of some. 

• Those persons who refuse to comply with a Governor ordered evacuation may be arrested.  

• Re-entry to evacuation zone(s) may not be permitted during a voluntary evacuation. 

• Allow critical equipment to be commandeered. 

Gookin said he could not support the plan until it contained language to protect people’s rights. 

“That's what I swore an oath to,” he said. “We all did.” 

Police Chief Lee White addressed those concerns. 

He said arresting people is at the discretion of the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, and it has zero intention of “forcing people from their homes and throwing them in handcuffs if they refuse to leave. That's not something we do.” 

“I see no circumstance of that happening in Coeur d’Alene,” White said. 

He also said he does not see a situation in which police would prevent people from returning to their home. 

White said in his 31-year police career, “I have never commandeered anything.” 

Councilor Christie Wood, who had a 26-year career with the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, said first responders are doing everything they can to help people and preserve lives in an emergency. 

“It's not about taking away your liberties,” she said. “It's about preserving life.” 

Idaho is a state that strongly believes in an individual’s rights. So when a plan contains language about arresting people who won’t leave their home, commandeering resources and not allowing people to return to their property, no one should be surprised when that is questioned and criticized. 

Supporters of the plan pointed out it doesn’t say someone will be arrested. It says “may be.” Either way, after the ordeal with COVID mandates, and the anger and protests they created in Idaho, many are highly suspicious of government.

The fact is, property rights are the cornerstone of individual liberty in Idaho, and in any democratic society. When a plan allows for the potential arrest of citizens simply for refusing to evacuate their own homes, or the confiscation of private property for government use, it creates a dangerous precedent. While Chief White may not foresee such actions, there are no guarantees that his successors will agree.

We suggest that this language be reconsidered in future reviews of the plan. Local authorities, including Chief White, have expressed confidence that such measures would never be necessary in Coeur d’Alene, so it is reasonable to question why the plan includes them at all.

Ultimately, property rights are not negotiable, even in times of crisis. A true emergency response plan must prioritize preserving life without sacrificing the core liberties that define us as citizens. It’s time to ensure that these rights are upheld, not just in theory, but in practice.