Jarnig v. State
2013 Alas. App. LEXIS 96
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Dec. 2006: Anchorage police arrested Jonathan Jarnig as suspected driver of a stolen car; he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car.
- Officer Trull searched the vehicle’s passenger compartment, extracted a black zippered nylon bag wedged under the front passenger seat, and opened it.
- The bag contained drugs, drug paraphernalia, two cell phones, a change purse, and a toothbrush; Jarnig denied ownership of the bag and the car.
- Jarnig was charged with third-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance (convicted) and first-degree vehicle theft (acquitted).
- Superior Court denied suppression, treating the warrantless search as a search incident to arrest; this court finds the superior court applied an incomplete legal analysis and lacked necessary factual findings.
- The case is remanded for additional findings and reconsideration whether the bag was searchable as a container “immediately associated” with the person and within immediate control; trial court to assess potential good-faith/Davis issues if search is invalidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the search | Jarnig: possessory offense triggers standing even if he denied ownership at trial | State: Jarnig forfeited standing by denying ownership at trial; Alaska should abandon automatic standing | Court: Keeps Alaska's Salit automatic-standing rule; Jarnig has standing and the real inquiry is expectation of privacy, not mere trial testimony |
| Preservation of suppression claim | Jarnig: moved to suppress as warrantless search (sufficient) | State: briefing was inadequate to preserve the specific SITA argument | Court: Motion shifted burden to State; issue preserved for appeal |
| Search-incident-to-arrest for evidence (closed container) | Jarnig: bag was not "immediately associated" with person and may not have been within immediate control | State: bag was within Jarnig’s reach; relied on Belton-style reachability analysis | Court: Superior court used incomplete analysis (relied on reachability/Belton) and failed to find whether bag was generally used like a pocket/purse; remand for findings on "immediately associated" and immediate-control facts |
| Search for weapons (Gant retroactivity / exclusion) | Jarnig: search for weapons illegal because he was secured and out of reach; exclusion required under Gant | State: search occurred pre-Gant; argues good-faith reliance on pre-Gant precedent so exclusion not required | Court: Declines to resolve here; notes Gant limits weapon searches when arrestee is secured; directs parties to litigate good-faith/Davis issues on remand if search for evidence is invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) (adopted automatic standing where possession is an element)
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980) (repudiated automatic standing rule under federal law)
- State v. Salit, 613 P.2d 245 (Alaska 1980) (Alaska adopted automatic-standing rule and focused inquiry on expectation of privacy)
- Crawford v. State, 138 P.3d 254 (Alaska 2006) (closed container may be searched incident to arrest only if "immediately associated" with person and within immediate control)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (earlier broad rule permitting vehicle-compartment searches incident to arrest; later narrowed)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest permitted only if arrestee unsecured/within reach or evidence of the offense likely in vehicle)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (evidence need not be excluded when police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest tied to arrestee’s immediate control and officer safety)