 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castleberry v. State5/3/2000
inspection. Judge Larry D. Card conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 21 and 28, 1998. He denied the motion to suppress. He found that the jail needed to search Castleberry because he could not be released because of his high level of intoxication and therefore needed to be placed in the general population of the jail until he could meet the magistrate's order to hold him until he was sufficiently sober.
At a bench trial on September 1, 1998, Judge Card found Castleberry guilty of the lesser-included offense of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree. He also found Castleberry guilty on the other three counts. Castleberry appeals Judge Card's order denying the motion to suppress. We affirm Judge Card's decision.
Castleberry argues that the inventory search which led to the discovery of the cocaine violated the supreme court's holding in Zehrung v. State because he was not afforded an opportunity to post bail prior to the search. In Zehrung, the Alaska Supreme Court limited the intrusiveness of the search that could be conducted in cases where bail has been set for a minor offense. Zehrung was arrested for driving a truck that was emitting excessive smoke. During the stop, the trooper discovered that two bench warrants had been issued for Zehrung - one for failing to appear on a misdemeanor, and one for not paying a $25 fine. Thus, the trooper arrested Zehrung and took him to jail, where he was subject to an inventory search as part of the booking procedure. During this search, a corrections officer discovered credit cards that belonged to someone else. These credit cards linked Zehrung to a rape. Zehrung sought to have the credit cards and evidence derived from the cards suppressed. The supreme court stated the following:
In summary, we hold that when one is arrested and brought to a jail for a minor offense for which bail has already been set in a bail schedule, he should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to attempt to raise bail before being subjected to the remand and booking procedures and the incident inventory search.
The court noted that the purpose of the bail schedule for minor offenses "was to afford an arrestee such as Zehrung the opportunity to avoid incarceration by posting the established bail without need to appear before a magistrate." In addition, the court stated that "a warrantless jailhouse inventory is without justification when an arrestee is not going to be incarcerated, and it is therefore constitutionally impermissible."
After this decision, the state petitioned for rehearing, arguing that the Zehrung holding was too broad and would create difficulties in smaller facilities. The court agreed and modified its earlier holding, stating the following:
It may well be that exigencies may arise warranting a more thorough search for contraband under unusual circumstances. It is impossible to rule on the myriad of conceivable circumstances. The rule set forth in our original opinion in Zehrung should normally be followed unless exigencies demand a different course of action. Whether circumstances justify a variance will depend on the particular facts involved and must be determined in an adversary proceeding on a case-by-case basis.
In Gray v. State, this court applied and further defined the limits of Zehrung. Gray was arrested on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for contempt of court. Bail had already been set on the warrant. Correctional officers at the Matanuska Pretrial Correctional Facility discovered cocaine after removing all articles from Gray's pockets. This court stated the following:
Whatever right correctional officers might have, und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|