 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Irish v. State11/6/2002
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4635
Edward A. Irish was convicted of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. He entered a Cooksey plea, preserving the right to appeal on whether he had voluntarily consented to police entry into his home. We find that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Irish had voluntarily consented. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision.
Facts and Proceedings
After Irish filed a motion to dismiss asserting that he had been illegally arrested when police entered his home without a warrant, District Court Judge Joel H. Bolger conducted an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the State presented evidence and testimony concerning the police contact with Irish. After the hearing, Judge Bolger issued written findings and a decision denying the motion.
According to Judge Bolger's findings, on July 18, 2001, a dispatcher at the Valdez Police Department received a call that a yellow van, driven erratically on the Richardson Highway, had nearly caused an accident. The caller identified himself and was able to give the dispatcher the van's license plate number. Using the license plate number, the police determined that the van was registered to Irish. A police officer drove to Irish's residence, a trailer located in the South Central Trailer Court. Once there, he found the van; its hood was still warm.
The officer, who was in uniform, knocked on the door of the trailer; he heard a voice say "come in." The officer opened the door and, as he entered, asked "Mr. Irish?" Irish was sitting on a couch just inside the door. Irish acknowledged who he was. The officer and Irish exchanged brief greetings, and then the officer told Irish that he was investigating a citizen's report of erratic driving. Irish admitted that he had been driving erratically and that he had been drinking. Ultimately, the officer determined that Irish was intoxicated, and placed him under arrest. Soon after, another officer arrived. When this officer knocked on the trailer door, Irish again answered "come in." Irish never said or did anything to indicate that he wanted either officer to leave.
Discussion
Judge Bolger concluded that, based on all the surrounding circumstances, the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Irish's consent was "unequivocal, specific and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion." He ruled that Irish had given voluntary consent when he said "come in," even though he did not know who had knocked on the door.
We agree.
Police intrusion without a warrant into a home is presumptively unreasonable unless the intrusion falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. In this case, the State claimed that there was an exception: Irish had consented to the entry. On appeal, Irish contends that the State cannot prove that he voluntarily consented to police entry into his home because the police officer did not identify himself when he knocked on the door. Irish argues that a person cannot voluntarily consent to police entry into the home if the police do not tell the person who they are or why they are there.
Contrary to Irish's claim, the fact that the police officer did not identify himself when he knocked on Irish's door is not controlling. As Judge Bolger noted
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|