 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haskins v. Municipality of Anchorage5/4/2001
ay harbor people who are suspected of serious crimes. We believe that the fourth amendment allows entry into a residence on the basis of a protective search only under compelling circumstances. Since an argument can frequently be made that[,] when the police are investigating a serious crime, exigent circumstances exist which would allow them to follow a suspect into his home in order to protect themselves, it follows that only in the most serious situations can we allow this justification to be used. See e.g. Gallmeyer v. State, 640 P.2d 837 (Alaska App. 1982). To rule otherwise would seriously compromise the special protection which the home has been afforded under the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and under the Alaska Constitution. We therefore reject the argument that the protective search exception justifies the entry into the residence and the act of following David Taylor to his bedroom. Taylor, 642 P.2d at 1382 (footnote omitted).
The facts of Haskins's case are even less supportive of a protective search than the facts of Taylor. In Taylor, at least, the police could justifiably say that their suspect was believed to be armed and dangerous. The Municipality makes no such claim here, nor would the record support such a claim. Rather, the Municipality broadly argues that whenever the police obtain permission to step inside a residence to investigate a crime or question a suspect, they are entitled to make a sweep of the house for their own protection. We rejected this argument in Taylor, and we re-affirm that decision here.
Under the Municipality's proposed rule, all homeowners who consent to have a police officer enter their front door would effectively be consenting to a search of every room in their home. As we stated in Taylor, such a rule "would seriously compromise the special protection which the home has been afforded under ... the United States Constitution and under the Alaska Constitution." Although a warrantless protective search may sometimes be justified, we will uphold such a search "only in the most serious situations". Haskins's case does not present one of those situations.
We therefore reject the Municipality's proposal to remand this case to Judge Wanamaker for a ruling on whether the officers' actions might be justified as a protective search. Under the facts of this case, we rule as a matter of law that the officers' actions can not be justified under this rationale.
Because the officers did not have consent to enter the downstairs area of the Haskins residence, and because their entry can not be justified as a protective search, the officers violated Haskins's rights under the search and seizure clauses of the federal and state constitutions, and the district court should have suppressed all evidence arising from that violation.
When Haskins entered his Cooksey plea, the Municipality agreed that the DWI charge against him would have to be dismissed if Haskins showed that he was entitled to suppression of this evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|