 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castleberry v. State5/3/2000
er Zehrung, to conduct immediate "patdown" searches for weapons in cases such as Gray's, that right certainly does not extend to the type of search involved here. A "patdown" is just that - a limited, external probing of clothing or articles for signs of possible weapons. Ordinarily, the permissible scope of a "patdown" is exceeded when the search extends beyond the exterior of a person's clothing or possessions and intrudes into pockets and closed containers.
Judge Card concluded that the inventory search which Officer Hill conducted did not violate Zehrung and Gray. He concluded that Castleberry was not eligible to post bail because he was obviously intoxicated. Since the magistrate had ordered the jail to hold Castleberry until he was sober, Castleberry, unlike Zehrung and Gray, could not meet his conditions of release and the jail needed to hold him. We conclude that Judge Card's factual findings are not clearly erroneous and that his conclusion that Castleberry's case is distinguishable from Zehrung and Gray is correct. The record shows that Castleberry was highly intoxicated and was not eligible to be released within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, Officer Hill was authorized to conduct an inventory search of Castleberry before booking him into the jail to join the general prison population.
Castleberry appears to be correct that the procedures which Officer Hill described violate Zehrung and Gray. But those procedures would only violate the rights of a prisoner who was eligible to post bail. Castleberry was not eligible to post bail until he was sober. Therefore, the holdings in Zehrung and Gray do not apply to his case.
Castleberry also argues that the scope of the search which Officer Hill conducted was overly intrusive. In Reeves v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court outlined the purpose and permissible scope of a pre-incarceration inventory search. The court found that pre- incarceration searches may be conducted for two reasons: (i) "prohibiting the introduction of weapons, illegal drugs, and other contraband or potentially dangerous items into the jail environment[ ]" and (ii) "protection of the arrestee's property and the related interest of the jail administration in protecting itself against claims loss or damage[.]" In Reeves, the court concluded that there was generally no justification for correctional officers to search closed containers:
The search of an arrestee's person should be no more intensive than reasonably necessary to prevent the entry of weapons, illegal drugs, and other contraband or potentially dangerous items into the jail. Any items taken from the arrestee's possession in the search may not be further searched or opened except pursuant to a search warrant or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applicable in the circumstances. Finally, the inventory conducted shall consist of a cataloging of the arrestee's property thus seized and may not, without a specific request from the arrestee, extend to a search and inventory of the contents of any object, closed or sealed container, luggage, briefcase, or package.
But Judge Card found that Officer Hill did not discover the cocaine which he found on Castleberry by opening a closed container. Judge Card accepted Officer Hill's testimony that he immediately recognized the crack cocaine, which was wrapped in clear cellophane, when he removed it from Castleberry's watch pocket. Judge Card also accepted Officer Hill's testimony that when he removed the white plastic film canister from Castleberry's pocket, the lid was partially opened so that Hill could see that there was crack cocaine in the container. These findings are supported by the record. We ac
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.
|
|