 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock v. State5/9/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4395
Alaska State Troopers, investigating a hit-and-run accident, arrived at the residence of Carolyn S. Rock and knocked on the door. Rock answered the door and the troopers informed her that they were investigating the hit-and-run accident. Rock initially tried to close the door but could not because one of the troopers blocked the door with his foot. Ultimately, Rock invited the troopers into her house, made statements admitting hitting the child on the bicycle and leaving the scene, and allowed the troopers to look at her van, which showed signs of the collision. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress her statement and the evidence that the police obtained from the van, Rock was convicted of assault, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving while intoxicated. Rock argues on appeal that Superior Court Judge Charles E. Pengilly erred in finding that her statements and the evidence from the van were admissible because Rock consented to the troopers entering her residence. We conclude that Judge Pengilly's finding that Rock consented to allow the troopers to enter her residence is not clearly erroneous.
On April 8, 1999, the Alaska State Troopers investigated a hit-and-run accident in which a dark green van struck a child on a bicycle. A few hours later, the investigation focused on Rock, who owned a green 1991 Ford Aerostar van. Troopers Jared Cannell and Darrell Christensen went to Rock's residence and knocked on the front door. According to Christensen's testimony at the evidentiary hearing on Rock's motion to suppress, Rock opened the door and the troopers told her that they were investigating a hit-and-run accident. The troopers asked if they could come inside to talk to her about the accident. According to Christensen, Rock expressly gave the troopers permission to come inside. Trooper Christensen stated that he did not have any independent recollection of Trooper Cannell putting his foot in the door to prevent the door from closing. But he conceded that Trooper Cannell had written in the police report that Cannell had prevented Rock from closing the door by putting his foot in the door. Christensen stated that Trooper Cannell was no longer employed with the state troopers at the time of the evidentiary hearing, and that he had no reason to believe that Trooper Cannell would have put this information in the police report if it was not accurate. (Trooper Cannell did not testify at the evidentiary hearing.) According to Trooper Christensen, troopers are trained not to allow a person to suddenly slam a door in their faces. The concern is that the person could be reaching for a weapon. But if the officers are aware that the person merely does not want to talk to them, they will go away.
Rock also testified at the evidentiary hearing. She testified that when she opened the door and saw it was the state troopers, she attempted to close the door. But, Trooper Cannell had his foot in the door. According to Rock, she asked him to remove his foot and he did not do so. Because she was unable to close the door, she walked back into the house and the troopers followed her. When Rock asked the troopers if they had a search warrant, Trooper Cannell stated that they did not need a search warrant. According to Rock, she talked to the troopers and gave them permission to search the van because she was afraid and felt that she had no other choice. Rock conceded that at the time the troopers entered her residence she was "really drunk."
It is undisputed that after the troopers entered the residence Rock made statements in which she admitted that she had struck the child on the bicycle and had left the scene because she was af
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|