Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493 This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
www.gottsteinLaw.com

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Pitka v. State (6/17/2016) ap-2502

Pitka v. State (6/17/2016) ap-2502

                                                                                NOTICE
  

              The text         of   this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the                             

             Pacific Reporter              .   Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal                                

              errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:    



                                                    303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501  

                                                                    Fax:  (907) 264-0878  

                                                         E-mail:  corrections@ akcourts.us  



                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                                      



FREDERICK  A.  PITKA,  

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                       Court of Appeals No. A-11122  

                                                                                                                                                              

                                                      Appellant,                                      Trial Court No. 4FA-11-232 CR  



                                         v.  

                                                                                                                    O   P   I   N   I   O   N  

STATE  OF  ALASKA,  



                                                      Appellee.                                            No.  2502 -              June 1       7,  2016  



                           A                                                                                                       

                              ppeal  from  the  Superior  Court,  Fourth  Judicial  District,  

                                                                                               

                           Fairbanks, Michael A. MacDonald, Judge.  



                                                                                                                                               

                           Appearances:  Douglas O. Moody, Deputy Public Defender, and  

                                                                                                                                                       

                           Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.  

                                                                                                                                      

                           Ann B.  Black,  Assistant  Attorney General,  Office  of  Special  

                                                                                                                                              

                           Prosecutions                  and       Appeals,             Anchorage,                and       Michael             C.  

                                                                                                                                    

                           Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.  



                                                                                                                                      

                           Before:  Mannheimer, Chief  Judge, Allard, Judge, and Hanley,  

                                                                    *  

                                                                       

                           District Court Judge. 



                                                                                                                                                  

                           Judge  MANNHEIMER,  writing  for  the  Court  and  writing  a  

                                                                                                                       

                           separate concurrence in which Judge ALLARD joins.  



       *      Sitting   by   assignment    made   pursuant   to   Article   IV,   Section   16   of   the   Alaska  



Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).                              


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                                       

                     Frederick A. Pitka was arrested for driving under the influence.  Following  



                                                                                                                                

Pitka's arrest, officers at the scene searched the ashtray of his car (without a warrant) and  



                                                                                                                               

discovered a bindle of cocaine.                      Based on the discovery of this cocaine,  Pitka was  



                                                                                                                                

indicted for, and later convicted of, fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct.  (He  



                                                                                

was also convicted of driving under the influence.)  



                                                                                                                        

                     In this appeal, Pitka claims that the search of the car ashtray was unlawful,  



                                                                                                                                 

that the bindle of cocaine found in the ashtray should have been suppressed, and that his  



                                                                                                                         

drug conviction should therefore be reversed.  For the reasons explained in this opinion,  



                                                                                                                       

we agree with Pitka that the search of his car ashtray was unlawful, and we therefore  



                                            

reverse his drug conviction.  



                              

           Underlying facts  



                                                                                                                                 

                     In January 2011, a Fairbanks police officer observed a car stopped in the  



                                                                                                                               

middle of a street,  parked at an angle so that it blocked both lanes  of  traffic.                                            The  



                                                                                                                                

passenger door of the car was open, and there was a man standing in the street who was  



                                                                                    

leaning into the car through the open passenger door.  



                                                                                                                                  

                     The police officer believed that he was observing a drug transaction, so he  



                                                                                                                     

activated  his  overhead  lights.                 When  the  officer  activated  his  lights,  the  pedestrian  



                                                                                                                             

quickly put his hands into his coat pockets and fled (jumping over three fences to make  



                                                                                                                                 

his escape).  The car also drove away from the scene, but other officers soon stopped the  



         

car.  



                                                                                                                               

                     The driver of the car was Frederick Pitka.  During the police contact with  



                                                                                                                                

Pitka, officers smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Pitka's breath, and they observed that  



                                                                                                                             

his  eyes  were  bloodshot  and  watery,  and  that  he  was  unstable  on  his  feet.                                       Pitka  



                                                                                                                                

performed poorly on various field sobriety tests, and Pitka admitted that it probably was  



                                                               - 2 -                                                          2502
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

not safe for him to be driving.                                                                            After a portable breath test showed that Pitka had a blood                                                                                                                               



alcohol level of .163 percent, Pitka was arrested for driving under the influence.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                 Pitka's passenger told the police that she and Pitka had purchased and                                                                                                                                                                                      



smoked marijuana earlier that evening.                                                                                                         In addition, Pitka was behaving erratically:                                                                                                                    he  



exhibited mood swings ranging from calm co-operation to agitation.                                                                                                                                                                                    This led the police                             



to believe that Pitka was not only                                                                                             under   the influence of alcohol, but also under the                                                                                                                            



influence of some other substance.                                                                                               



                                                 The police had a drug-sniffing                                                                                        dog,   and they directed the dog to walk                                                                                          



around Pitka's car.                                                   The dog alerted to the presence of drugs.                                                                                                                After the dog alerted, the                                                       



police searched the interior of Pitka's car.                                                                                                          During this search, the police opened the car's                                                                                                    



ashtray and found a bindle of cocaine.                                                                                                       Pitka admitted the cocaine was his.                                                                                                   



                                                 Pitka was charged with fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct and                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1  

driving under the influence of alcohol and/or controlled substances.                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                 After Pitka was charged with these crimes, he filed a motion to suppress the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



cocaine  found in his vehicle's ashtray (as well as the statements he made about this  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



cocaine to the officers at the scene).  The superior court upheld the search of the ashtray  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



under the theory that the police had probable cause to arrest Pitka for driving under the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



influence of controlled substances, and that the search of the ashtray was a valid search  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



incident to Pitka's arrest.  

                                                                                              



                                                 After the superior court denied his suppression motion, Pitka consented to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



a bench trial, and the court found him guilty.  Pitka now appeals.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



             1          AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A) and AS 28.35.030(a), respectively.                                                                                                      



                                                                                                                                                      - 3 -                                                                                                                                                  2502
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                       Why we conclude that the search of the ashtray was illegal under Alaska                                                                                                                                                    

                       law  



                                            As we just explained, the superior court upheld the search of the ashtray                                                                                                                                                  



under the theory that it was a valid search incident to arrest.                                                                                                                                                    Pitka   challenges the   



superior court's ruling on two bases.                                                                                      



                                             Pitka's first challenge to the superior court's ruling is based on the Fourth                                                                                                                                               



Amendment   to   the   United   States   Constitution.     Pitka   argues   that   the   police   lacked  



probable cause to arrest him for any drug-related crime, and that therefore the police had                                                                                                                                                                                         



no authority to conduct                                                       any  search of his car.                                                     See  Arizona v. Gant                                                   , where the United                     



 States Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, the search of the interior                                                                                                                                                                                



of a vehicle incident to the driver's                                                                                      arrest is lawful only (1) to prevent an unsecured                                                                                



arrestee from gaining access to a weapon or to destructible evidence, or (2) when the                                                                                                                                                                                               



police have reason to believe                                                                         that   the vehicle might contain evidence relevant to the                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                  2  

crime for which the driver is being arrested.                                                                                                         



                                            We reject this argument because we conclude that, under the circumstances,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



the police did have probable cause to arrest Pitka for a drug offense.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                            When the police first observed Pitka's car, it was illegally parked across  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



two lanes of traffic.                                                     A man was standing in the street next to the car,  and he was  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



apparently conducting a drug transaction with the occupants of the vehicle.   When the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



officer activated his patrol car's overhead lights, this man fled, and the car drove away.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                            A few minutes later, when other  officers stopped Pitka's car, Pitka was  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



behaving erratically  -  exhibiting mood  swings  which,  according to  the  testimony,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



suggested that Pitka was under the influence  of some substance besides alcohol.   In  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



           2           556 U.S. 332, 335, 343; 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1714, 1719; 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).                                                                                                                                                                                See  



also Davis v. United States                                                             , 564 U.S.                      229, 234-35; 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2425;180                                                                                           L.Ed.2d 285  

(2011) (summarizing the holding in                                                                              Gant).   



                                                                                                                                         - 4 -                                                                                                                                    2502
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

 addition, Pitka's passenger told the police that she and Pitka had purchased and smoked                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



 marijuana   earlier   that   evening.     Finally,   a   drug-detecting police                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             dog alerted                                                   to   the  



 presence of drugs in Pitka's car.                                                                                                                           



                                                                 These facts, viewed objectively, gave the police probable cause to believe                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 that Pitka was driving under the influence of both alcohol and a controlled substance -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 as well as reason to believe that drugs might be found in Pitka's vehicle.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               We therefore   



 conclude that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 interior of the car (including the ashtray) for evidence of a drug offense.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                                 Pitka's second challenge to the superior court's                                                                                                                                                                                             ruling is based on the                                                                          



 search and seizure provision of the Alaska Constitution (Article I, Section 14).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                                 The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted our state constitution to impose                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 greater restrictions on police searches of vehicles incident to arrest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Under Alaska law,                                                       



 when the police arrest the driver of a vehicle and no exigent circumstances exist -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     i.e.,  



 when there is no immediate threat to officer safety, and no immediate risk that evidence                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 will be destroyed or removed from the vehicle - the police may not search closed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 containers within the vehicle unless (1) the container was within the arrestee's immediate                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 control at the time of the arrest,                                                                                                                  and  (2) the container is large enough to contain evidence                                                                                                                                                                     



 of the crime for which the person is being arrested,                                                                                                                                                                                                      and   (3) the container is of a type                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               3          Unless all three of these  

 "immediately associated with the                                                                                                                                   person" of the arrestee.                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 conditions are met, the police must obtain a warrant to search the closed container.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                                 In Pitka's case, the superior court found that the first two conditions were  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 met, and the testimony presented to the superior court supports  these findings.   The  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 ashtray was within Pitka's immediate control at the time of his arrest: it was located next  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                 3               See Crawford v. State                                                                                   , 138 P.3d 254, 258-261 (Alaska 2006).                                                                                                                                                     See also Hinkel v.                                                               



Anchorage , 618 P.2d 1069, 1070-71 (Alaska 1980);                                                                                                                                                                                                Jarnig v. State                                                         , 309 P.3d 1270, 1275                                                        

 (Alaska App. 2013).                                                                         



                                                                                                                                                                                                      - 5 -                                                                                                                                                                                                2502
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

to the steering wheel,                                 and it was readily accessible from the driver's seat.                                                                                And the   



ashtray was large enough to contain drugs or other evidence of drug possession.                                                                                                                     



                                 But the superior court failed to consider the third requirement imposed by                                                                                                 



Alaska law:                   whether the car ashtray was the type of container "immediately associated                                                                                  



with [Pitka's] person".            



                                 This third requirement was first applied by the Alaska Supreme Court in                                                                                                     

                                                     4   In Hinkel, the supreme court held that, incident to an arrest, the  

Hinkel v. Anchorage                                .                                                                                                                                                      



police could search an arrestee's purse because purses are often carried on the person,  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                        5    The court reasoned that the  

and because purses serve the same function as pockets.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



search of this type of container did not involve "any greater reduction in the arrestee's  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                   6  

expectations of privacy than that caused by the arrest itself."  

                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                       7  

                                 More recently, in Crawford v. State,  the supreme court held that the center  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



console of a vehicle is a container that is "immediately associated with the person" of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



driver because the center console normally serves the same purpose as a pocket:  it is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

"commonly used to hold money, a cellular telephone, and personal hygiene items." 8  

                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                 In Pitka's case, the State contends that the reasoning of Crawford applies  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



equally to an ashtray that is built into a vehicle, because such ashtrays are capable of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



holding small personal items.  

                                                                         



        4        618 P.2d 1069 (Alaska 1980).
                                          



        5  

                                                                                      

                Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1070-71.
  



        6       Id. at 1072, quoting United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 1977).
  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



        7  

                                                                                     

                 138 P.3d 254 (Alaska 2006).
  



        8  

                              

                Id. at 260.
  



                                                                                                    - 6 -                                                                                               2502
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                      But   as   we   recently   explained   in   our   unpublished   opinion   in   Jarnig   v.  



          9  

State,                                                                                                                                 

            the fact that a container inside a vehicle is capable of holding personal items does  



                                                                                                                                         

not answer the question of whether that container is "immediately associated with the  



                                                                                                                                            

person" of the driver.  The police are not allowed to simply assume that the container is  



                                                                                                                                       

"immediately associated with the person" of the arrestee on the basis that it could hold  



                                                                                                                                 

small personal items.  Rather, before the police search the container without a warrant,  



                                                                                                                               

the police must have some articulable basis for believing that the container is generally  



                                                                                                                                    

used, or is  actually being used  in that particular instance, to store items that would  



                                                                  10  

                                                                      

normally be kept in a pocket or a purse.  



                      Any  other  rule  would  subject  virtually  every  container  in  a  vehicle  to  

                                                                                                                                           



warrantless searches incident to the driver's arrest, without the State having to prove that  

                                                                                                                                        



there were exigent circumstances to justify these warrantless searches.  We do not think  

                                                                                                                                      



our supreme court intended this result when the court decided Crawford.  

                                                                                                                         



                      In Pitka's case, the container at issue is a built-in ashtray.  The intended  

                                                                                                                                



function of an ashtray is to serve as the repository for cigarette ashes and butts.   The  

                                                                                                                                       



State presented no evidence that vehicle ashtrays are generally used as containers for  

                                                                                                                                         



small personal items.   Nor did the police  have any case-specific indication (until they  

                                                                                                                                       



performed  the  warrantless  search)  that  Pitka  was  using his  vehicle  ashtray  for  this  

                                                                                                                                        



alternative purpose.  

                                   



                      The State argues that it was Pitka's burden to show that ashtrays in vehicles  

                                                                                                                                  



are not commonly used to store personal items  - and that Pitka failed to carry that  

                                                                                                                                        



      9    2015 WL 1137656 (Alaska App. 2015).                             



      10   Jarnig , 2015 WL 1137656 at *2-3.  

                                                                     



                                                                   - 7 -                                                               2502
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

burden in the superior court.                                   But the State's argument contravenes the well-settled                                       



                                                                                                                                                                                11  

principle that              the State          bears the burden of justifying a warrantless search or seizure.                                                                       



                            Because the record fails to support a finding that Pitka's vehicle ashtray was  

                                                                                                                                                                            



a container that was "immediately associated with [his] person", we conclude that the  

                                                                                                                                                                             



superior  court should have granted Pitka's motion to suppress the bindle of cocaine  

                                                                                                                                                                   



found  during  the  warrantless  search  of  the  ashtray  (as  well  as  Pitka's  associated  

                                                                                                                                                             



statements to the police).  

                                                     



              Conclusion  



                            Pitka's  conviction  for  fourth-degree  controlled  substance  misconduct  

                                                                                                                                                           



(possession of cocaine) is REVERSED.   (Pitka does not challenge the  validity of his  

                                                                                                                                                                             



conviction for driving under the influence.)  

                                                                                          



       11     Chilton v. State               , 611 P.2d 53, 55 (Alaska 1980);                               Jarnig v State              , 309 P.3d 1270, 1274             



(Alaska App. 2013).                      



                                                                                     - 8 -                                                                                2502
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

Judge MANNHEIMER, with whom Judge ALLARD joins, concurring.                                                 



                          For the reasons I am about to explain, I believe that                                                     our   supreme court   



should re-examine its decision in                                Crawford v. State                   - and the entire question of what                          



containers are "immediately associated with the person" of an arrestee.                                                                     



                                                                                            1  

                          In 1980, in            Hinkel v. Anchorage                       ,                                                                      

                                                                                               our supreme court announced the rule  



                                                                                                                                                                  

that a search incident to arrest could include the search of a closed container that was  



                                                                                                                                                              

"immediately associated with the person" of the arrestee.  But during the ensuing thirty- 



                                                                                                                                                                   

five  years,  both  the  supreme  court  and  this  Court  have  substantially  expanded  the  



                                                                                                                                                                     

definition of which containers qualify as "immediately associated with the person" of an  



                   

arrestee.  



                                                                                                                                                                 

                          As originally conceived, the classification of "immediately associated with  

                                                                                                                                                         2   In this  

                                                                                                                                                                   

[the arrestee's] person" applied only to containers that were "akin to clothing."  



early formulation of the test, the phrase "immediately associated" was used in the sense  

                                                                                                                                                               

of "[with] nothing coming between; [with] no intermediary"3  - the same concept that  

                                                                                                                                                                  



underlies such legal phrases as "immediate presence" and "immediate control".  

                                                                                                                                         



                          In other words, just as arrestees could not validly object to a police search  

                                                                                                                                                             



of the clothing they were wearing at the time they were taken into custody, warrantless  

                                                                                                                                                    



searches of items "immediately associated" with the arrestee's person were justified by  

                                                                                                                                                                     



the notion that a search of these items "[did] not involve any greater reduction in the  

                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                4  

arrestee's expectations of privacy than [the reduction] caused by the arrest itself."  

                                                                                                                                                                   



       1     618 P       .2d   1069 (  Alaska   1980).   



       2     Dunn v   .  State,  653 P              .2d   1071,   1082 (  Alaska  App.   1982).    



       3      Webster's  New   World C                     ollege D        ictionary  at  713 (  4th  ed.  2004).  



       4     Crawford,   138 P               .3d  256,  261 (  Alaska  2006),  quoting  Hinkel ,  618 P                                     .2d  at   1072,  and  



 United S        tates  v.  Berry ,  560  F.2d  861,  864 (  7th  Cir.   1977).   



                                                                                - 9 -                                                                            2502
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                  But even though a certain type of container might typically be carried by                                                                                                            



a person, and even though that type of container might typically be used                                                                                                                      for carrying   



personal items, these two factors alone did not necessarily mean that the container could                                                                                                                      



be categorized as "immediately associated" with the arrestee's person.                                                                                                               Something else   



was required: an immediacy and constancy of possession, akin to a person's relationship                                                                                                         



to the clothing they were wearing.                                                       



                                  This   limitation   on   the   scope   of   "immediately   associated"   containers   is  



exemplified by the cases dealing with valises and attaché cases.                                                                                                 In particular, in                          United  

                                       5  (a case that our supreme court cited approvingly in Hinkel and later in  

States v. Berry                                                                                                                                                                                                         



Crawford), the Seventh Circuit held that an attaché case or briefcase is not the kind of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



closed container that is "immediately associated with the person" of an arrestee - even  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



though attaché cases are designed to be carried in one's hand, and even though they are  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                         6  

commonly employed to hold items that are personal to the owner.  

                                                                                                                                                                              



                                  As the Seventh Circuit explained in Berry, an attaché case does  not fall  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



within the category of containers "immediately associated with the person" because an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



attaché case is "not ... carried on an individual's person in the sense that his clothing or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                           7   The Seventh Circuit concluded that the search of  

 [the] items found in his pocket are".  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



an attaché case was better characterized as "a search of possessions within the arrestee's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                              8     Thus, the  

immediate control" as opposed to "a search of [the  arrestee's] person ."  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



search of the closed attaché case required a warrant.  

                                                                                                                                        



         5       560 F          .2d  861,  864 (  7th  Cir.   1977).  



         6       Berry ,  560 F                  .2d  at  864-65.   



         7       Id.  at  864.  



         8       Ibid.  (emphasis  added).  



                                                                                                        - 10 -                                                                                                     2502
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                           As part of its explanation of why an attaché case should not be deemed                                                              



"immediately associated with the person" of an arrestee, the                                                              Berry  court remarked that                    



an attaché case was different from a purse because "a purse ... is carried with the person                                                                        



                            9  

at all times".                                                                                                                                                             

                                 In other words,  the Seventh Circuit viewed  purses as equivalent to  



                                                                                                                                                                        

pockets because pockets are, in essence, interior containers that are carried with the  



                                         

person at all times.  



                                                                                                                                                                           

                           The  Alaska  Supreme  Court  employed  this  same  analysis  in  Hinkel  v.  



                                                                                                                                                                           

Anchorage .  The issue in Hinkel  was whether a woman's purse should be classified as  



                                                                                                                                                                         

a container "immediately associated with [an arrestee's] person".  The court viewed this  



                                                                                                                                                                         

issue as hinging on  whether a purse should be viewed as analogous to a pocket or,  



                                                                                                                                                           

instead, analogous to a valise or attaché case.  Ultimately, the supreme court concluded  



                                                                                                                                                            

that a purse was more like a pocket than a valise or attaché case - and that, therefore,  



                                                                                                                                                                         

a purse should be considered a container "immediately associated with the person" of the  



                   10  

arrestee.     



                           In reaching this result, the Hinkel majority approvingly cited (and quoted  

                                                                                                                                                                  



at length from) the Seventh Circuit's decision in Berry.   Most importantly, the Hinkel  

                                                                                                                                                                 



majority approved of the distinction drawn in Berry  between (1) containers that are  

                                                                                                                                                                         



merely "within the arrestee's immediate control" at the time of arrest (i.e., containers that  

                                                                                                                                                                        



can  not  be  opened  without  a  warrant)  and  (2)  containers  that  are  so  "immediately  

                                                                                                                                                    



associated with the arrestee's person" that a search of these containers constitutes no  

                                                                                                                                                                          

more than "a search of [the arrestee's] person" incident to arrest. 11  

                                                                                                                                         



       9      Id.  at 864, quoted in                 Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1072.
            



       10  

                                                                        

              Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1071-72.
  



       11  

                                       

              Id. at 1072.
  



                                                                                  - 11 -                                                                               2502
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                           But when the                Hinkel  court described this analysis, the court used inexact                                            



phrasing that would become a predominant theme of later cases. Specifically, the                                                                                Hinkel  



court declared that purses could be searched without a warrant because purses "generally                                                                   



                                                                                            12  

serve the same function as clothing pockets."                                                    



                           This phrasing was unfortunate because it was incomplete.                                                                    The phrase  

                                                                                                                                                                 



"generally serve[s] the same function as clothing pockets" emphasizes the requirement  

                                                                                                                                                       



that the container in question be used for holding personal items.  But, standing alone,  

                                                                                                                                                                  



this emphasis on the container's function suggests that attaché cases could be searched  

                                                                                                                                                             



without a warrant - the conclusion that the Berry court rejected.  

                                                                                                                                      



                           By phrasing the test as a question of "function", the Hinkel court failed to  

                                                                                                                                                                           



expressly include the crucial additional requirement that the Berry  court emphasized  

                                                                                                                                                       



when  it  declared  that  attaché  cases  could  not  be  searched  without  a  warrant:                                                                                the  

                                                                                                                                                                       



requirement  that  the  container  also  be  "akin  to  clothing"  -  in  the  sense  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                       



container must, in normal usage, be more or less in continuous physical contact with the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



arrestee.  

                   



                           There are many types of containers - for example, attaché cases - that  

                                                                                                                                                                       



are used for carrying personal effects, but not all of these containers should be classified  

                                                                                                                                                            



as  "immediately  associated  with  the  person".                                                  As  the  Berry  court  emphasized,  the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



requirement of constant and immediate physical possession is the factor that makes a  

                                                                                                                                                                            



particular type of container "akin to clothing".  

                                                                                              

                                                                                                  13 this Court neglected this requirement  

                           In the later case of Wilburn v. State,  

                                                                                                                                                       



of constant and immediate possession -and, in my view, reached the wrong conclusion  

                                                                                                                                                         



as to whether a container could be searched without a warrant.  

                                                                                                                                 



       12    Ibid .  



       13     816 P.2d 907 (Alaska App. 1991).                    



                                                                                  - 12 -                                                                              2502
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                            Wilburn  involved two items - a cold-weather glove and a film canister -                                                                     



that were found within the arrestee's car, and were within the arrestee's reach at the time                                                                          



 of his arrest.            The   Wilburn  court noted that a glove is an article of personal clothing -                                                                  



 and   the   court   apparently   concluded   that   this   fact,   standing   alone,   was   a   sufficient  



justification for finding that the glove was "immediately associated" with the person of                                                                                 

                          14  But the  Wilburn court failed to consider the question of whether a glove  

the arrestee.                                                                                                                                                      



 is  the type of container normally employed for carrying personal effects - which  it  

                                                                                                                                                                          



 clearly is not.  

                             



                           And with respect to the film canister, all the Wilburn court said was that the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



 canister was "in Wilburn's vicinity when the police initiated the investigative stop", and  

                                                                                                                                                                      

that there was testimony that film canisters "are frequently used to hold drugs". 15  

                                                                                                                                                                    



                            Wilburn was the first Alaska appellate decision to abandon the requirement  

                                                                                                                                                      



that a container be "akin to clothing".  By doing so, the  Wilburn decision departed from  

                                                                                                                                                                    



Hinkel 's and Berry 's central rationale for allowing a warrantless search - the rationale  

                                                                                                                                                             



that the warrantless search of the container "[did] not involve any greater reduction in  

                                                                                                                                                                          

the arrestee's expectations of privacy than [the reduction] caused by the arrest itself". 16  

                                                                                                                                                                               



                           This shift in the law became more apparent when our supreme court issued  

                                                                                                                                                                  



 its decision in Crawford v. State.  

                                                                     



                           The question in Crawford was whether, following the arrest of a person for  

                                                                                                                                                                        



reckless driving, the police could open and search the center console of the arrestee's  

                                                                                                                                                          



vehicle without a warrant.   The supreme court, ostensibly relying on its prior decision  

                                                                                                                                                             



 in Hinkel and on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Berry, held that the warrantless search  

                                                                                                                                                                 



       14     Wilburn, 816 P.2d at 912.                 



       15     Ibid .  



       16  

                                                                                                               

              Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1072; Berry , 560 F.2d at 864.  



                                                                                 - 13 -                                                                              2502
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

 of the center console was proper.                                        The   court explained that, in its view, the required                                   



 conditions had been met:                               the center console was within the immediate access                                                            of   the  



 driver at the time of the stop, and the center console constituted a container that was                                                                                   



 "immediately associated" with the arrestee's person - because (1) a center console is                                                                                          



 commonly used to hold                               personal items,                    and (2) "the center console is permanently                       

 located directly next to the driver".                                   17  



                             It is true that the center consoles of motor vehicles often serve the same  

                                                                                                                                                                         



function  as the pockets of a driver's clothing.  As the Crawford court observed, center  

                                                                                                                                                                       



 consoles are commonly employed to hold personal items such as "money, a cellular  

                                                                                                                                                                  

 telephone, and personal hygiene items". 18  But this fact - that center consoles are often  

                                                                                                                                                                        



 employed to store the same things as pockets - does not answer the question of whether  

                                                                                                                                                                   



 center consoles should be treated more like attaché cases or, instead, like purses.  

                                                                                                                                                                         



                             To answer this question, the Hinkel and Berry courts focused on whether  

                                                                                                                                                                   



 the  container  in  question  was  the  kind  of  container  that  was  so  constantly  and  

                                                                                                                                                                          



 immediately  in  the  physical possession  of  the  arrestee  that  the  container  should  be  

                                                                                                                                                                              



 deemed "akin to clothing" -so that the warrantless opening and search of this container  

                                                                                                                                                                 



 "[did] not involve any greater reduction in the arrestee's expectations of privacy than [the  

                                                                                                                                                                            

 reduction] caused by the arrest itself". 19  

                                                                                     



                             In Berry, even though the Seventh Circuit conceded that attaché cases are  

                                                                                                                                                                             



 commonly employed to hold items that are personal to the owner, the Seventh Circuit  

                                                                                                                                                                      



 held that an attaché case did not fall within the category of containers "immediately  

                                                                                                                                                        



 associated with the person" because an attaché case is "not ... carried on an individual's  

                                                                                                                                                            



        17     Crawford, 138 P.3d at 259, 262.                                   



        18  

                          

               Id. at 260.  



        19  

                                                                                                                   

               Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1072; Berry , 560 F.2d at 864.  



                                                                                     - 14 -                                                                                2502
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                          20  

person in the sense that his clothing or [the] items found in his pocket are".                                                                                                                 And in   



Hinkel,    the   supreme   court   agreed   with   the   Seventh   Circuit   that   the   doctrine   of  



"immediately associated with the person of the arrestee" embodied this concept of ready                                                                                                              



portability and more or less constant possession.                                                                      



                                 But in         Crawford, the supreme court concluded that the center console of a                                                                                              



motor vehicle was "immediately associated with the person" precisely because a center                                                                                                              



console is              not  portable -because,                                   "[u]nlike a briefcase, which can be placed in the trunk                                                             



or otherwise made inaccessible to the driver, the center console is permanently located                                                                                                          



                                                                  21  

directly next to the driver."                                           



                                 On this point, I believe that Crawford is in conflict with Hinkel and Berry.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



The fact that center consoles can not be removed from the passenger compartment  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



appears to defeat any conclusion that a center console is "immediately associated with  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 [an arrestee's] person", as that concept was explained in Berry and Hinkel .  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                 When the Berry  and Hinkel  courts speak of containers that are "akin to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



clothing"  -  containers  that  are  the  equivalent  of  pockets  -  they  are  referring to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



containers that are constantly in a person's possession, regardless of where the person  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



might move - so that the search of these containers adds essentially nothing to the level  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



of intrusion represented by the seizure and search of the arrestee's person.   A center  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



console fails to meet this test.                                               The console is not "permanently" located next to the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



arrestee; it is only located next to the arrestee when the arrestee is seated in the driver's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



seat (or the passenger seat) of the car.  

                                                                                               



                                 In fact, under the Hinkel and Berry analysis, the immobility of a vehicle's  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



center console affirmatively disqualifies it from the category of "immediately associated"  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



        20      Berry , 560 F.2d at 864.                                 



        21       Crawford, 138 P.3d at 260.  

                                                                                  



                                                                                                   - 15 -                                                                                               2502
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

containers - because the search of the center console is a material expansion of the                                                                                                                                            



search of the driver's                                    person .   



                                    This departure from                                   Berry  and  Hinkel  becomes clearer when one considers                                                                 



that   Crawford's "immobility" rationale would seemingly justify the police in searching                                                                                                                       



a night stand and nearby dresser if a person is arrested while sitting or lying on a bed in                                                                                                                                         



a small hotel room, or would seemingly justify the police in searching the drawers of a                                                                                                                                               



desk if a person is arrested while sitting at the desk - because people commonly put                                                                                                                                            



personal items in dresser drawers and desk drawers.                                                                                           



                                    Following   Crawford, this Court in                                                           Lyons v. State                          held   that   an unlocked   

                                                                                                                                                              22      And in Howard v. State,  

glove box could be searched incident to the driver's arrest.                                                                                                                                                             



this Court held that a plastic food storage container found on the floor of the defendant's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



vehicle was "immediately associated" with the defendant's person - a conclusion that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



                                                                                 23  

I disputed in my concurrence.  

                                                                                       



                                    In short, Alaska jurisprudence has substantially departed from the limited  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



exception to the warrant requirement that was envisioned when the Hinkel court adopted  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



the "immediately associated with the person" rule for warrantless searches of containers.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                    Moreover, the current law has proved confusing and difficult to apply in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



practice  -  as  Pitka's  case  illustrates.                                                                        Here,  the  police  understandably  (though  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



erroneously) assumed that the ashtray of a vehicle could  be  searched as a matter of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



course incident to the arrest of the driver.  

                                                                                                                  



                                    The police need to be able to meaningfully assess whether a container in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



a vehicle may be lawfully searched incident to the driver's arrest.   The Hinkel  court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



actually recognized this potential problem:  the court questioned whether the line it had  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



         22        182 P.3d 649, 650-51 (Alaska App. 2008).                                                   



         23       209 P.3d 1044, 1048-49 (Alaska App. 2009).  

                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                                             - 16 -                                                                                                           2502
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

drawn - the line between containers that are "immediately associated with the person"                                                     



and   other   types   of   containers   -   was   "sufficiently   perceptible   to   be   observed   in  



                  24  

practice".        



                                                                                                                                                   

                       At the time, the Hinkel  court declared that "experience will give us the  

                25    I now  fear  that  the answer is not a good one.                                          In Justice Matthews's  

answer."                                                                                                                           



concurrence in Crawford, he echoed the Hinkel court's earlier concern - warning that  

                                                                                                                                                  



an ill-defined "immediately associated with the person" test could "cause confusion as  

                                                                                                                                                    



                                                               26  

to what properly may be searched".                                  Justice Matthews also cautioned that if Alaska's  

                                                                                                                                         



courts   adopted  an  overly  broad  definition  of  which  containers  are  "immediately  

                                                                                                                                



associated   with   [an   arrestee's]   person",   this   might   lead   to   searches   that   are  

                                                                                                                                                 

unconstitutional under federal law. 27  

                                                                   



                        I think the present case provides an opportunity for our supreme court to  

                                                                                                                                                     



re-evaluate this area of Alaska law - both in terms of its compatibility with federal law  

                                                                                                                                                  



and its continued viability as a state law doctrine.  More specifically, I recommend that  

                                                                                                                                                 



the supreme court re-examine the question of warrantless searches of closed containers  

                                                                                                                                       



in vehicles, and that the court re-align our law with the original justification for those  

                                                                                                                                              



warrantless  searches  -  by  limiting  warrantless  searches  incident  to  arrest  to  the  

                                                                                                                                                  



containers that are normally carried on the person at all times.   Such a rule would not  

                                                                                                                                                  



hamper the ability of law enforcement officers to search a vehicle to ensure officer safety  

                                                                                                                                              



      24    Hinkel , 618 P.2d at 1072.
         



      25    Ibid.
  



      26    Crawford, 138 P.3d at 266 (Justice Matthews, concurring).
  

                                                                                           



      27    Ibid.
  

                     



                                                                       - 17 -                                                                   2502
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                         28  

 or to prevent the removal or destruction of evidence.                                                                                                                                          And such a rule would re-affirm                                                     



the long-standing principle that the detached scrutiny of a magistrate "is a more reliable                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 safeguard against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement                                                                                                                                                                                    

 officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."                                                                                                                                                                                           29  



            28          See Clark v. State                                           , 574 P.2d 1261, 1263 (Alaska 1978) (discussingthe conditions                                                                                                                                                      that  



permit   a   warrantless   search   of   a   vehicle   under   the   "destructible   evidence"   exception);  

Fresneda   v.   State ,   458   P.2d   134,   143   &   n.28   (Alaska   1969)   (adopting   the   standards  

 articulated in                                Chimel v. California                                                     , 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969),                                                                                                             

governing warrantless searches incident to arrest).                                                                                                                         



            29  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                         United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S.  1, 9; 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2482; 53 L.Ed.2d 538  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 (1977);Johnson v.United States ,333 U.S. 10, 14;68 S.Ct. 367, 369;92 L.Ed.2d 436 (1948).  



                                                                                                                                                 - 18 -                                                                                                                                               2502
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC