Jackson v. State

originally Kep sentenced 1982. When he Kepley

ley, Judge concluded that Rowland that rehabilita

was a worst offender and impossible. Kepley He found that

tion was dangerous needed offender who for the rest of society isolated from State, 644 P.2d Lacquement

life. v. (Alaska The record which App.1982). supports Judge Row

we have before us sentence was not

land’s conclusion. The

clearly mistaken. McClain 1974). (Alaska

AFFIRMED. JACKSON,

Sterling Appellant, M. Alaska, Appellee.

STATE

No. A-2987. Appeals of Alaska.

May 11, 1990. Tan, Orlansky, Asst. Public

Sen K. Susan Salemi, Defenders, De- and John B. Public fender, Anchorage, appellant. Gen., Scukanec, Atty. A. Asst. Of- John An- Sp. Appeals, fice Prosecutions Gen., Baily, Atty. chorage, Douglas B. Juneau, appellee. BRYNER, C.J., and COATS

Before SINGLETON, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM. no

Sterling pled contest M. Jackson of misconduct one count was convicted of in the involving a substance controlled felony, cocaine, degree, a class C AS fourth 11.71.040(a)(3)(A). resеrved the denial right appeal the trial court’s 1024

motion suppress. Cooksey to to or sheath knife that could were be State, (Alaska 1974). 524 P.2d 1251 located in We a wallet of size described reverse. on findings, Dahl. Based these Judge Johnstone denied Jackson’s motion Anchorage Police Officer Matthew Dahl suppress. patrol was on near 27th routine and Arctic 24, September 1988, in Anchorage on DISCUSSION 8:05 a.m. Officer Dahl observed Jackson case, walking Upon along recognizing this Officer Dahl relied Arctic. Jackson, Jackson, ran a on a Officer Dahl warrant cheek warrant to arrest but had no and was Jackson hаd search conducted a informed that an out- warrant. He warrant- standing appear person failure to warrant. Offi- less search of Jackson’s and discov ‍​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‍ cer Dahl did not know at the time of ered contraband. The fourth amendment charges arrest the underlying for the war- to the United States Constitution and arti shoplifting 1, rant which driving were and cle section 14 the Alaska Constitution suspended. while license Officer Dahl exit- bar unreasonable searches seizures. A car, ed his arrested handcuffed Jack- per warrantless search is se unreasonable son. Officer Dahl then searched Jackson unless it falls within to the for requirement. warrant Katz v. United States, 347, 357, 507, 514, 389 U.S. 88 S.Ct. approxi- Officer Dahl located a wallet (1967); State, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 Deal v. 626 mately three inches two inches one- 1073, (Alaska 1980). P.2d 1078 half pocket. inch in Jackson’s left-breast blades, He stated he had found razor stilet- search of a incident to an arrest to-type knives, small sheath knives recognized exception is a to the search that would fit in a wallet size. After requirement. warrant United States v. wallet, removing opened he looking Robinson, 218, 235, 467, 414 94 U.S. S.Ct. type for the described. In the 476-77, (1973); 38 427 L.Ed.2d Gustafson wallet, middle discovered a small 260, Florida, 264, 488, S.Ct. baggie powder. pow- of white The white 491, (1973); 38 L.Ed.2d 456 Hinkel v. An der was tested and was found to be .17 1069, (Alaska chorage, 1980), 618 P.2d grams kept of cocaine. Officer Dahl denied, cert. 450 U.S. baggie and the wallet to returned Jackson. (1981); State, 68 L.Ed.2d 228 Middleton v. type Officer Dahl that he testified does this (Alaska 1978); 577 P.2d Zeh anyone going of search he is to trans- State, (Alaska rung v. port, safety for his but for the 1977), rehearing, on modified safety personnel of other enforcement law (Alaska 1978); State, McCoy v. 491 P.2d down the line. (Alaska 1971); Dunn v. (Alaska App.1982). Officer Dahl also testified that he had stopped prior Jackson five to ten times on McCoy, supreme placed four him occasions and arrested on about half of restrictions on warrantless searches of the those occasions. He indicated that Jackson person incident to arrest: that the arrest had never had concealed on valid; roughly that the be search con- Officer Dahl stated he believed arrest; temporaneous with the that the ar- shoplifting, those arrests to be for but did search; pretext and, rest not for the knowledge have history some Jackson’s crime, that the arrest either be for a must drugs. evidence of which could be concealed on a Judge

Superior Karl S. Johnstone or the search must be intended for proven by discovery prevent had pre- injury found that the state ponderance that the to the officer effectuating of the evidence or the arrestee’s escape. of Jackson was incident to a lawful war- his or her 491 P.2d at 138. In this case, solely rant arrest and was for the concedes arrest was valid, locating weapons. Judge roughly in- that the search was contem- Johnstone arrest, poraneous or a dicated that razor blades small stiletto with the authority search the inci- pretext for the search. arrest was dent to a lawful custodial while arrest was not concedes that the state upon the and to crime, based need disarm could be evidence evidence, depend does Rather, discover ar- person. a it is concealed on later was the what a court decide weapons gued, a search. it was in a probability particular arrest situa- testified, Dahl and the trial weapons tion that or evidence would credible, testimony the found his fact be found the of the weapons to such search was discover suspect. suspect of a custodial arrest knife, and that a razor blade or a small as probable cause a reasonable based on is in a a be concealed such could Amendment; intrusion under the Fourth a size of Such search wallet the Jackson’s. lawful, search inci- being that intrusion a permissible the con- appear “unless would requires to the arrest no additional dent is small to con- fie., the too tainer wallet] It justification. is the fact of the lawful Hinkel, P.2d at 1070. weapon.” a tain authority the arrest which establishes argues that vigorously search, á and we hold that in the case of weap- of the kind was too small contain a custodial arrest full search of lawful to an for incident which searches only an the the permitted. requirement of warrant Fourth all involved The Alaska cases cited Amendment, is also a “reasonable” as weapons such for conventional searches Amendment. search under that knives, In large and clubs. order guns, 235, justices 477. Three at 94 S.Ct. at Id. case, necessary to it is consider resolve this dissented Supreme of the Court Robin for of a search unconventional scope by Justice Mar opinion authored son weapons an arrest un- atypical incident to rejected bright- Marshall shall. Justice law. is dicta der While there Alaska adopted by majority. He rea line rule issue, addressing it is one prior cases required the fourth amendment soned that note impression. important It is of first а case-by-case by determination neutral subjected to was at outset that Jackson judge of reasonableness we define as full which custodial po conducted and seizures searches into custo- the arrestee one where determination, Mar in Justice lice. Such for transported police facility to a dy and view, required a careful evaluation shall’s Robinson, 222 n. 414 U.S. at booking. See in order to circumstances 2, 470 2. is not case of at n. This S.Ct. of the offi adjudicate the reasonableness frisk investigatory stop followed at at U.S. S.Ct. cers’ actions. Ohio, permitted Terry weapons for 20 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. analysis begаn his Justice Marshall (1968). Supreme prior judgment Ter- Court’s Robinson, Supreme the United States held that the reason- where the court ry, person ar- with a search Court dealt investigatory suspicion justifying an able offense, evidence for a minor justify rested automatically search stop did not found on not be “The of the detainee. The at 94 S.Ct. at 477. ‘strictly 414 U.S. tied [any] must be he was not indicated that ren- officer also the circumstances which justified by’ suspect he nor did searching permissible.” Terry, for initiation dered its respondent was armed. 1878. It was that the 392 U.S. at cig- in a found contraband officer had a reasonable arresting officer wherе the per- the arres- concluding removed from that the detained package ‍​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‍arette basis reviewing past dangerous that frisk pocket. authori- was tee’s After son armed ties, person’s of the outer a virtu- limited to a Court contrast, clothing permissible. Jus- once ally was unlimited search a custodial arrest determined validly custody. tice Marshall person is taken into suspect’s a frisk would authorize said: clothing outer in order to remove Id. at 94 S.Ct. at 485-86. He reached suspect may pos- have in his this conclusion because was convinced session, preliminary without a determina- cigarette package removed from tion that the arrestee was armed and dan- pocket by Robinson’s the officer should gerous. mind, Justice Marshall’s there and, impounded have been if impounded, no question a serious as to whether the further risk to the officer would have been go officer could further and remove un- present. 257-59, Id. at 94 S.Ct. at 487-88. objects known from pockets. the arrestee’s The Alaska Court had occasion He noted that coopera- Robinson had been rejected consider Robinson and tive and that there was no reason to believe bright-line adopted. Middleton, rule it See that he dangerous. was armed аnd Robin- 1055; 577 P.2d at Zehrung, 569 P.2d at son, 253, 414 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at 485. Jus- 197-200. Zehrung, court stated tice Marshall continued: 1, that under article section 14 of the Alas While this difference between the situ- Constitution, governmental ka intrusions presented ation in Terry and the context personal into the privacy of Alaska citizens presented in this case sug- would tend to including subject those to a custodial arrest gest a authority lesser to search here must be in scope degree limited to that than was in Terry, other dis- necessary particular under circum tinctions between the suggests two cases stances. 569 P.2d at 199. The court relied just opposite. Ap- As the Court of Kaluna, 361, Statе v. 55 Haw. 520 P.2d noted, peals a crucial distinguish- feature (1974) Brisendine, People and v. in-custody Terry arrest from the “ 528, 119 Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d context, greater ‘is not the likelihood (1975). In differentiating the Alaska rule that a taken custody into is arm- rule, from the

ed, federal gave pri court but rather the increased likelihood of mary danger requirement consideration to the to the officer if in fact the ” is Terry stop armed.’ A warrantless searches incident involves- a to an arrest momentary encounter between other than for officer must be limited to suspect, in-custody while an arrest occasions where evidence of the offеnse places proximity the two in close could be concealed on the Zeh longer period much of time. If the indi- rung, footnote, 569 P.2d at 199-200. In a happens vidual weapon to have a on his significant the court made one comment: person, he certainly will have much more A warrantless search for opportunity against to use it the officer permissible when one is arrested and tak in-custody pro- situation. ‍​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‍The However, en custody. into as to the longed proximity also makes it more like- permissible extent and limitations on the ly that the individual will be able to extri- scope search, of such warrantless sеe cate weapon small hidden People Brisendine, 531 P.2d at 1107- might go frisk, undetected in a also, Collins, People 1 Cal.3d safety pin such as a or razor blade. 406- addition, suspect custody taken into (1970). may feel more threatened the serious Zehrung, 569 P.2d at 199-200 n. 39. liberty restraint on his than a who simply stopped by an ques- officer for Court of California dealt tioning, may therefore be more with an investigatory stop where the inves- likely to resort to force. tigating probable officer did not have cause Collins. The expressed Justice Marshall concluded that no concern as to whether there was a suffi- bright-line possible rule was and that each cient suspicion reasonable case must be decided on its warrant an own facts. view, investigatory stop, unnecessary light it was to balance the its deci- sion harmlessness of Robinson as an event an individual unreasonable against arrestees, occurred, general, the risk from search had did not decide that properly in order to determine the case. issue. 463 P.2d at 405. In reliance on in scope limited articulable 88 S.Ct. at absent Terry, grounds for an additional intrusion. court held: Accordingly, we hold that an officer searching legally detained individu- [I]n pat-down who exceeds a without first being armed, reаsonably suspected of al discovering object which feels reason- limited to “a police officer must be knife, gun, ably like must be club exploration of the outer surfaces careful point specific able to and articulable person’s clothing until and unless of [the] support suspi- reasonably facts which specific discovers and articulable facts suspect particular cion that the is armed suspicion. supporting atypical with an which would Only then exceed the officer pat- during like feel felt reach into the satisfy Only judges then can down. clothing suspect’s limited requirement Fourth Amendment’s thought tо be a recovering neutral evaluation reasonableness weapon. As with other searches by comparing warrants, pointing “spe- the burden of facts with the officer’s view of those which, cific articulable Thus, example, facts. officer who rational from together with inferences object a a “sap” believes soft the facts, reasonably warrant” such those bag a form of small of sand must be able People. properly with the intrusion rests weight consistency to to and point its to Feeling suspect’s a soft a suspect’s justify an intrusion into the pat-down, pocket during a absent un- pocket. allоw less would to leave “To be circumstances, does not warrant an usual law-abiding mercy the citizens at the suspect’s pocket officer’s intrusion into caprice”. or officers’ whim object. pat-down must retrieve the Collins, 406-07, (citations at omit- to an scope confined intrusion “be ted). guns, designed to discover Collins, supreme specifically court the knives, clubs, or hidden instru- other Armenta, People v. 268 Cal. disapproved police offi- for the assault of ments (1968) Cal.Rptr. App.2d where holding The obvious cer.” Appeals approved Court of California go beyond explora- officers cannot that small, package of a hard from a removal suspect’s of the surfaces of a cloth- tion pocket and that detainee’s reasoned point being spe- ing “able might suspect have had a “rubber water which, cific and articulable acid or some pistol loaded with carbolic inferences from together with rational suspect liquid, used other facts, reasonably that warrant those [ad- permanently blind an officer.” Col could that the is to ensure intrusion” ditional] Armenta, lins, (quoting 463 P.2d at 407 cannot exceed- scope of such a search be 821). supreme The officer, the mere discretion ed at rеasoning suspect it found this because discovery of tactile only upon evi- scope permit to exceed the would officers tending to corroborate particularly dence discovering any pat-down of a suspect armed. To suspicion that suspect’s person. on a Id. permit officers to exceed Brisendine, pat-down they feel a whenever lawful situation specula- applied Collins object by relying upon mere California soft arrest. Brisen object might approached custodial be razor tion handkerchief, arrested for an offense that a dine was concealed in blade in a citation. atypical weapon normally would have resulted any or other “sap,” camping at a remote possession arrest occurred hold that would site, however, wallet, necessary for the plena- and was including a invites a object, companions accompany arrestee and his an individual’s ry search of hike back meaningless police officers on extended holding render Such Brisendine, 531 pat-downs police officers’ car. to the Terry’s requirement that P.2d at 1107. Consequently, the court con and necessitating articulable facts cluded though that even аdditional intrusion. there were no suggesting par articulable facts that this (citations omitted). Id. at 1108-09 ticular arrestee was armed dangerous, We have discussed Collins and Brisen justified pat- circumstances a limited length dine at some because the down of the surface of the arrestee’s cloth specifically Court of Alaska in Zehrung ing as well as of his effects that would directed our attention to those cases. Zeh accompany trip have to him on the back to rung, circumstances, like Jackson’s in police car. at 1106. Since the court volved a custodial arrest. concluded that a of the arrеstee’s Appellate cases decided Alaska courts knapsack was insufficient to ensure that it are consistent with the limitations estab- knife, club, gun, did not contain a or other lished in Collins and Brisendine. assault, hidden instrument of it concluded Hinkel, Dunn, McCoy, searches of justified in protect officers were jackets of the arrestee and by looking themselves into the interior purses associated with the of the knapsack weapons. Id. at 1108. large arrestee all involved enough items When the knapsack, officer looked into the weapons. hold conventional ap- No Alaska opaque plаstic found a frosted bottle pellate permitted decision has a search of a pair and a envelopes. These were container so small that it could hold blade, searched, knife, razor pen needle, contraband was found. safety pin. Middleton a search court held that this impermissible was an of the arrestee’s wallet because she was search for The court said: crime, arrested for a robbery, armed of Peoples’ Nor can the burden dis- which evidence could be concealed in a wal- charged by the assertion that the bottle let. 577 P.2d at McCoy charged was envelopes might possibly un- contain forgery. The court atypical weapons.... usual or of- “[A]n search of a packet wrapped in alu- ficer who exceeds a minum plastic foil and covered with found discovering first an which feels jacket pocket because evidence of reasonably knife, gun, like a or club forgery could have been concealed on his point must specific be able to person. 491 P.2d at 139. articulable facts reasonably sup- which We therefore conclude that a search inci- port suspicion particular sus- arrest, dent to an where no evidence of the pect atypical is armed with an weapon charged crime could exist person, on the which would feel like the felt dur- person extend to the of the arrestee pat-down.” containers associated with the ar- restee’s which gun, contain a Typically in cases of weap- warrantless knife, large or a club. Search of smaller police ons searches the must be able to containers which could atypi- contain point specific and articulable facts blade, cal such as a razor a small reasonably justify which a belief that the knife, safety pin, or a needle must be suspect is armed. ordinary cita- supported by specific and articulable facts tion situation the fact of the arrest alone which would lead a reasonable supply justification will not this and addi- atypical believe that such an inwas tional facts must be shown. the case the small container. If Zehrung requires vehicle, transportation police of in the people that arrested for minor crimes and however, or in analogous circum- transported police station must be —to here, necessity prox- stances of close inventory shielded from full searches until imity provide will itself the needed basis they bail, opportunity post have had an protective pat-down person. it necessarily they follows that must like- pat-down, To intrude further than a the wise be shielded from full searches incident provide specific officer must additional to their arrest in compelling the absence of circumstances, personal privacy of protections of intrusions into otherwise to that Alaska citizens limited Zehrung would be eroded. degree necessary ‍​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‍under the law, Having applicable reviewed we are circumstances. able to discuss the facts this case. now (footnote Zehrung, P.2d at 199 omit- law, stress that under Alaska unlike We ted). law, each warrantless search for federal protections incident to arrest must be con- implement To inherent I, Constitution, justified on its own facts. Alaska sidered art. 14 of the Zeh § case, rung examine the search When we held: search of are satisfied that the Jack- we [Ajbsent specific justi- articulable facts First, justified. we son’s wallet fying ..., the intrusion a warrantless Officer Dahl knew Jackson and note that search incident to an other than prior had arrested him on a number weapons, and there- unreasonable occasion, the On each occasions. fore violative of the Alaska Constitution Officer Dahl was for a nonviolent crime. charge if the which arrest is made on a number occa- one, had searched Jackson on is not evidence which could be atypical weapon. sions and never found an concealed on Dahl’s Officer search of Jackson’s (footnote omitted). no Jackson’s wallet uncovered part This was based in conclusion anything small to was too conceal People Angeles Superior Los atypical weapon. point Dahl could County, 7 Cal.3d specific no and articulable (1972), which, according P.2d 1205 suspicion support court, held the search Zehrung atypical weap- was armed with justi- incident to arrest would not contained such a on or that fy a search for evidence when warrantless circumstances, weapon. Under the the tri- typi- “for an an arrest was offense which in denying erred Jackson’s motion al court nor cally neither instrumentalities has suppress. Zehrung fruits.” 199. While the Id. at weapons superior is that a for judgment recognized of the court court search cases, permissible emphasized in such it REVERSED. limited must be search BRYNER, C.J., intensity Refer- concurs. in its and intrusiveness. ring again approval Supe- to People v. SINGLETON, J., dissents. Angeles County, the rior Los BRYNER, Judge, concurring. Chief pat-down, limited that “a or noted weapons, permissible ... search for Robinson, rejecting v. United States at custody.” is taken into arrestee 94 38 L.Ed.2d 427 414 U.S. S.Ct. omitted). (footnote (1973), electing to follow course Supreme Court in by the Hawaii for What a “limited search” constitutes Kaluna, Haw. 520 P.2d 51 v. State Zehrung must be deter- under (1974), by Supreme the California in principles espoused that by mined Brisendine, People in Cal.3d Court may as a be case. Just for a searched for evidence when arrested (1975), Supreme the Alaska Court went instru- typically neither crime “which has in great pains Zehrung fruits,” nor so that mentalities (Alaska 1977), basis, assure that searches not, be should without articulable arrest circumscribed incident to be that subjected to a search particularized need: principle that would articles areas delves into Zehrung view, weapon. no typically contain right to be ‘secure ... our [I]n search inci- compels conclusion that the sei- searches and against unreasonable permit I, dent to arrest does zures,’ 14 of the Alaska under art. § wallet to searched Constitution, article such as a be governmental that requires recognizes in his uncommonly weapons “unless there able. As Justice Marshall present Robinson, which would in a frisk of the dissent even, lead the officer to believe the arrestee is extension, pat-down of the armed.” Id. at 199.1 always disclose the wallet itself will not presence of a razor blade. contrary reading Zehrung Thus, at 485. under the test holding. effectively nullify its For it would majority, officer will adopted utterly meaningless say, in one be justified searching for razor never be breath, may that one’s wallet never be needles, blades, safety pins, or small searched for evidence when the search is endangers arresting a rule knives. Such incident to an arrest for a crime in which found, they typically required transpоrt be while officers those no evidence would next, without, saying, any significant way, pro- in the always safety pins, searched for razor tecting privacy they of those arrest. blades, knives. and miniature switchblade evaluating appropriate scope Zehrung If the court in had intended such weapon’s search incident to an I am result, simply have followed the it would satisfied that Professor LaFave is correct ruling in United States Court’s says: when he United States v. Robinson. Robinson’s evidence, discussing searches for it bright-line approach may have its advan- evidentiary noted that if an tages. Even if we were inclined to follow predetermined need not be limited to ob- Robinson, however, we would have no au- jects extremely difficult to would be thority Zehrung. to overrule impose practical limits problem the same

SINGLETON, the search. Somewhat Judge, dissenting. search, exists here. The testified, Dahl and the trial court in the words of the found, that he searched Jackson’s wallet Robinson, “any weapons is to find such as a razor blade or might use in order seek to [arrestee] small knife. Officer Dahl testified that escape.” to resist arrest or effect his weapons in past he had found such seem, “Any weapons,” it would is not as small as Jackson’s. It is undis- wallets bulky guns and knives which limited to puted that Jackson’s wallet was associated readily patdown, could be detected circumstances, with his Under the nor to those to which the arres- seized, opened, such a container in the tee has immediate access outer searched incident to the arrest unless clothing. areas of his As even the Rob- the container is too small contain acknowledge: dissenters P.2d inson weapon. Anchorage, Hinkel v. 1980). (Alaska McCoy happens If a the individual have (Alaska 1971). Wheth- weapon person, certainly on his he will the container was too small to contain a er opportunity have much more to use it weapon of the kind described in-custody against the officer question a of fact. It does not Dahl was type Terry situation a [than appear Judge Johnstone’s conclusion prolonged proximity also case]. The clearly erroneous. likely makes it more that the individual will be able to extricate small hid- adopted requirement majority has might go weapon den which undetect- must have reason to know a that officers frisk, weapons safety as a they ed in a such contains a razor blade before addition, pin This test is unwork- or razor blade. sus- can search fоr one. nothing Anchorage, Nothing incident to arrest. But in Hinkel v. 1. (Alaska 1980), contrary. prohib- suggests to the Hinkel is incident to arrest of articles that that articles associated with the Hinkel its the search person subject to a search of limitless inten- closely associated with the are not sity, unsupported by any grounds, articulable arrestee; closely conversely, permits articles for minute and uncommon person to be searched for associated with the rejecting may offers some reasons for custody taken into feel more LaFave pect suggestion threatened the serious restraint that small Justice Marshall’s liberty simply than who weap- possibly holding atypical containers questioning, stopped by an officer for than merely be seized rather ons could likely more therefore be protect the officer from violent searched to resort to force. attack. then, rule, If, Terry “an under the “position would re- This alternative object from

officer remove confiscated quire officer to retain all suspect’s pockets unless has rea through- possession containers in his own dangerous weap to believe it son to be following trip out the to the stationhouse on,” unduly strict in the the limitation is typical street custody arrest. search incident to case might single officer well encounter Rather, seem that an it would arrest. wallets, ciga- cope purses, have as some clearly identifiable envelopes, myriad packages, rette weap than hidden thing other a “small Moreover, should offi- of other items. inspec to further on” must be amenable arresting policeman than the cers other is a container tion. And station- provide transportation to the might kind of have some house, require procedure would it, it seems reasonable that within system of potentially some cumbersome object, as should look inside the officer guard police against accountability to de appears have claims of loss.” York, cided Peters v. New [392 (citation omitted). Id. at n. 81 1912, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 alternative, (1968) requiring ].1 It is clear that objects to retain such officer all con- rejected seizure of small Alaska has them, practicable. inspecting is less than as an with the tainers ‍​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‍associated “general authority” to search an Hinkel, If the to their search. alternative must extend this arrestee 1071-73; Middleton, P.2d at P.2d at far, very then it is doubtful whether 1055; 491 P.2d at 133-34. McCoy, intensity limitation such realistic judgment I AFFIRM would Moreover, any is feasible. such searches n superior court.2 appear to be of little limitation searching ac- significance whenever justified upon additional

tivity may be such as obtain evidence or

grounds facility. a custodial security

ensure 5.2(d), LaFave,

2 W. Search and Seizure § (2d (footnotes 1987) ed. and cita-

at 454-55 omitted).

tions greater poses a or lesser risk approval McCoy, defendant [x] is cited with Peters [y]. expect And the arrest- than defendant at 135-36. traffic to somehow divine which officer recognize was a that Jackson nonviolent likely I most to be armed offenders are circumstances,” offense. La- “special arrested for a nonviolent offender Fave, to some reference addressing movements,” highly this issue states: seems suсh as "furtive short, impracticable. particular that in a unrealistic is well remember [I]t justification protective “is not the dealing policeman with a class case offenders, into greater likelihood with one of- but rather armed, fender, custody the increased rather "stands before and when that officer, danger in fact danger, to the officer potential for likelihood of contains is armed. that it quantum The fact unknown." 5.2(e), LaFave, offenders, § W. Search and as a traffic Seizure fair to assume that omitted) 1987) (citations (empha- (2d class, burglars ed. frequently as not as armed original). nothing really about sis the officer whether tells

Case Details

Case Name: Jackson v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Alaska

Date Published: May 11, 1990

Citation: 791 P.2d 1023

Docket Number: A-2987

Court Abbreviation: Alaska Ct. App.