297 P.3d 896
Alaska Ct. App.2013Background
- Martin was convicted of second- and fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct for manufacturing methamphetamine.
- A state trooper observed meth‑making supplies through a window crack while standing on a public deck adjacent to the residence, leading to a search warrant and arrests inside the unit.
- Superior court found the observation lawful under Pistro v. State and related precedent, upholding the warrant and convictions.
- Martin sought in camera review of personnel files of all potential witnesses, but the court denied the request.
- Martin argued March v. State (Alaska) requires an in camera file review, and he later challenged March as unconstitutional under due process/Brady.
- The court ultimately affirmed, ruling the trooper’s window observation was lawful and denying relief on the Brady/Brustline discovery issues.
- The judgment of the superior court was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the window observation | Martin argues observing through the blinds violated privacy rights. | Ingram argues the public deck approach and small window gap allowed lawful observation. | Observation lawful; warrant upheld. |
| Public-deck approach to the residence | Martin claims approach violated privacy under Pistro. | Ingram followed a public, impliedly open access path to the window. | Lawful approach; deck deemed publicly accessible. |
| March rule and Brady material reform | March rule unconstitutional; requires initial disclosure basis violates due process. | State contends March controls and plain error cannot be shown. | March denial affirmed; no plain error found. |
| Plain error for Brady materials and discovery | Martin contends Milke/Henthorn compel initial Brady review. | Federal circuits are split on initial showing requirement. | Rule not plainly erroneous; discovery denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pistro v. State, 590 P.2d 884 (Alaska 1979) (public access to residence; implied openness of public areas)
- Michel v. State, 961 P.2d 436 (Alaska App.1998) (visitors use normal means to approach a residence)
- United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313 (2d Cir.1997) (observations through small window gaps upheld)
- United States v. Pace, 955 F.2d 270 (5th Cir.1992) (observations from a public vantage through a gap upheld)
- United States v. Wright, 449 F.2d 1355 (D.C.Cir.1971) (observations via openings in closed doors/garages upheld)
- People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217, 453 P.2d 721 (Cal.1970) (observations through an aperture in curtains upheld)
- State v. Bussard, 112 Ohio St.3d 451, 860 N.E.2d 1006 (Ohio 2007) (observations through a narrow crack upheld)
- Henthorn v. United States, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1991) (duty to examine officer files for Brady material)
- Milke v. Ryan, 711 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.2013) (Brady material and officer-file disclosures; not requiring initial showing)
- Cadet v. United States, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir.1984) (Brady-related discovery considerations)