Stepovich v. State
2013 Alas. App. LEXIS 52
Alaska Ct. App.2013Background
- Officer Lockwood observed Stepovich and another man behind the Big I Bar dumpster, standing face-to-face with hands cupped and looking down, at about 1 a.m.
- The men separated; Stepovich did not stop and walked toward the Dumpster, later emerging with a changed demeanor after Lockwood approached.
- A cocaine slip was found on the ground behind the Dumpster after Lockwood circled it, leading to Stepovich’s arrest for possession of cocaine and attempted evidence tampering.
- Lockwood searched Stepovich and found $865 in cash and a jar of gold nuggets; a drug-detection dog sniffed these items and alerted.
- The State sought to admit dog-sniff results and the value of cash/gold over Stepovich’s objection; Stepovich was eventually convicted of possession of cocaine and acquitted on the tampering theory.
- The Alaska Superior Court denied suppression of the stop, permitted the dog-sniff evidence with a cautionary jury instruction, and allowed evidence of cash/gold value; on appeal, the Court reverses the tampering conviction but affirms the cocaine conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Stepovich argues the stop was unlawful fruit of a lack of reasonable suspicion. | State contends the stop was permissible under Coleman and G.B. as a reasonable suspicion of imminent drug activity. | Stop upheld; reasonable suspicion existed |
| Was the drug-detection dog evidence admissible and probative? | Dog alert to cash/gold may be unreliable due to training on multiple substances and lack of Daubert precision. | Dog alert to cash and gold is probative; court instructed caution, but admissible as weight to be assessed by jury. | Admissible with cautionary instruction; weight for jury |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by admitting evidence of cash and gold value? | Value of cash and gold is irrelevant and prejudicial, inviting speculation about trafficking. | Value is probative to show potential trafficking and link to possession; not admitted to prove distribution. | Harmless error; not reversible |
| Is there sufficient evidence to convict Stepovich of attempted evidence tampering? | Stepovich’s behind-the-Dumpster action and dropping the cocaine support attempt to suppress evidence. | Under Vigue and Anderson, stepping behind a dumpster and dropping something does not constitute attempted tampering. | Insufficient evidence for attempted tampering |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. G.B., 769 P.2d 452 (Alaska App. 1989) ( Coleman test governs reasonable suspicion for investigative stops)
- Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40 (Alaska 1976) (imminent public danger standard for stops)
- Vigue v. State, 987 P.2d 204 (Alaska App. 1999) (evidence tampering requires actual suppression or concealment)
- Anderson v. State, 123 P.3d 1110 (Alaska App. 2005) (disposing of evidence while chased does not equal tampering; focus on recovery impact)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Daubert test for admissibility of scientific evidence)
- Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1969) (harmlessness standard for nonconstitutional error)
- Majaev v. State, 223 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2010) (seizure and evidentiary issues under Alaska law)
- Skjervem v. State, 215 P.3d 1101 (Alaska App. 2009) (protecting against improper seizural stops)
- LeMense v. State, 754 P.2d 268 (Alaska App. 1988) (precedes Daubert considerations in Alaska evidentiary rulings)
- Anderson, v. State, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (Abstains from relevance; not included as a separate case here)