Jonathan W. McGraw v. State of Alaska
512 P.3d 994
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2022Background
- McGraw was on felony probation; a condition authorized warrantless searches directed by his probation officer for marijuana or alcohol upon "reasonable suspicion" of possession, use, or distribution.
- Probation Officer Erica Johnson, who monitored McGraw remotely, knew of his prior drug convictions and that he had not completed recommended substance-abuse treatment, but she had no strong suspicion he was using.
- Investigator Dur’an emailed Johnson an anonymous tip that McGraw had been seen at a local dealer’s home who sells meth and heroin and that the tipster suspected McGraw was using.
- Johnson sent a request to local troopers to search McGraw’s residence for drugs, paraphernalia, alcohol, and weapons.
- Troopers arrived three days later, observed McGraw appearing sweaty and agitated, searched his home, vehicles, and trailers, and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia; McGraw was charged with possession with intent to deliver.
- The superior court denied McGraw’s suppression motion, reasoning the anonymous tip combined with PO knowledge and the troopers’ on-scene observations produced reasonable suspicion; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the PO lacked reasonable suspicion when she authorized the search and later police observations cannot be retroactively imputed to validate the prior authorization.
Issues
| Issue | McGraw's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to authorize the warrantless probation search | The anonymous tip was insufficient; PO lacked reasonable suspicion when she ordered the search | The tip plus the PO’s knowledge of McGraw’s history produced reasonable suspicion | PO did not have reasonable suspicion at time of authorization; search unauthorized |
| Whether troopers’ on-scene observations can be combined with the PO’s information to cure an invalid prior authorization | Troopers’ later observations cannot be used to justify a search authorized earlier by the PO | Troopers’ observations, together with PO’s knowledge, supply the missing reasonable suspicion | Facts unknown to the authorizing officer at the time cannot be considered; later observations cannot rehabilitate the prior authorization |
| Whether troopers had independent authority to conduct the search based on their own reasonable suspicion | Troopers lacked independent authority based only on their observations | Troopers’ observations provided sufficient independent reasonable suspicion | Troopers had no authority to rely on their later observations to justify a search absent a valid PO authorization; exclusion required |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. State, 347 P.3d 1012 (Alaska App. 2015) (recognizing constitutional protection against unreasonable home searches)
- State v. Gibson, 267 P.3d 645 (Alaska 2012) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- Schultz v. State, 593 P.2d 640 (Alaska 1979) (same)
- Chandler v. State, 487 P.3d 616 (Alaska App. 2021) (probation-search exception elements)
- Milton v. State, 879 P.2d 1031 (Alaska App. 1994) (probation condition + authority to direct search)
- Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1971) (an affidavit/warrant cannot be rehabilitated by undisclosed information)
- McClelland v. State, 928 P.2d 1224 (Alaska App. 1996) (review limited to information presented to issuing authority)
- Jarnig v. State, 309 P.3d 1270 (Alaska App. 2013) (state bears burden to justify warrantless search)