Waters v. State, A-5881
| Decision Date | 04 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A-5881,A-5881 |
| Citation | 924 P.2d 437 |
| Parties | Victoria A. WATERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
Marcia E. Holland, Assistant Public Defender, Fairbanks, and John B. Salemi, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Eric A. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and MANNHEIMER, JJ.
Victoria A. Waters entered a plea of no contest to one count of third-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance. AS 11.71.030(a)(1) (). In entering the plea, Waters reserved the right to appeal 1 Superior Court Judge Ralph R. Beistline's denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized from her purse by officers executing a search warrant at a residence that Waters was visiting. We affirm.
On August 25, 1994, state and federal officers conducting a joint investigation into illicit drug trafficking executed a warrant authorizing them to search the persons of David and Theresa Edwards, the Edwardses' Fairbanks apartment, and their automobile. Upon arrival at the apartment, the officers knocked and were admitted by Mrs. Edwards. Waters, who was visiting the apartment, was seated on the living room couch. The two women were immediately ordered to lie down on the living room floor; shortly thereafter, they were allowed to sit on a love seat. A cursory search of both women was conducted; both cooperated in providing the officers with identification. Edwards' identification was located in a purse in her bedroom; Waters' was in a checkbook-type purse in a shopping bag on the living room coffee table.
After Edwards and Waters were identified, Fairbanks Police Investigator Parry Williamson embarked on a search of the living room. On the couch, toward the opposite end from where Waters had been sitting when the officers first entered the apartment, Williamson found a small coin purse. He opened it and saw several tinfoil slips, which he recognized as a type of packaging commonly used to wrap crack cocaine. As Williamson emptied the coin purse onto the couch, Waters said that the purse was hers. The purse contained twenty-two slips; each had crack cocaine inside.
Waters was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. She moved to suppress the cocaine seized from her purse, arguing that "the officer was on notice that the [coin purse] belonged to Ms. Waters and he should have at least obtained her permission prior to searching it." Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Beistline denied the motion. Based on the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in Carman v. State, 602 P.2d 1255 (Alaska 1979), and this court's subsequent decisions interpreting Carman, 2 Judge Beistline concluded that Waters forfeited her right to privacy in the coin purse by failing to assert her ownership of it prior to the search.
On appeal, Waters challenges this ruling, arguing that Judge Beistline misconstrued the case law when he ruled that Carman required Waters to claim ownership of her coin purse prior to its search. Waters urges us to hold that the police were forbidden from searching any article of personal property that they knew or reasonably should have known belonged to someone who was a mere visitor in the apartment.
The rule advocated by Waters is endorsed by LaFave and has been accepted in many, but not all, jurisdictions. 3 However, even if we assume Waters to be correct in arguing that this rule should apply in Alaska, her argument for suppression fails on the facts of her case.
The rule Waters proposes is founded on two potentially conflicting rules. A warrant authorizing the police to search specified premises ordinarily encompasses the opening and inspection of any containers on the premises where the object of the warrant may be hidden. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2170-71, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). This general rule, however, is limited by a second rule, which prohibits the police from searching visitors who merely happen to be at the searched premises during the execution of the warrant. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 342, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979). In cases of uncertainty, the tension between these principles is resolved in favor of executing the warrant. As noted by LaFave, "[the] limitation on the police authority to execute the warrant by searching into personal effects [of visitors] comes into play only if the police 'knew or should have known' that the effects belonged to a 'mere visitor.' " LaFave, supra § 4.10(b), at 664.
As this passage from LaFave makes clear, the Ybarra limitation is triggered, not by suspicion, but by knowledge. It is well settled that officers executing a warrant have no duty to inquire into ownership. Carman v. State, 602 P.2d 1255, 1262 (Alaska 1979). 4 "[W]ithout notice of some sort of ownership of a belonging, the police are entitled to assume that all objects within the premises lawfully subject to search under a warrant are a part of those premises for the purpose of executing the warrant[.]" State v. Nabarro, 55 Haw. 583, 525 P.2d 573, 577 (1974).
Waters' proposed rule prohibits searching personal effects only when officers executing a warrant actually know, or when existing circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to actually know, that an article belongs to a mere visitor. A mere showing of grounds for suspicion--even a showing of grounds for strong suspicion or of probable cause to question ownership--will not suffice. 5
In the present case, the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that any officer executing the warrant ever saw Waters in possession of the disputed coin purse. To the contrary, Judge Beistline expressly found that Waters "intentionally tried to dissociate herself from the purse." This factual finding is not clearly erroneous. The coin purse was found on the couch where Waters had been sitting, but "toward the other end." By the time the coin purse was found, Waters had already directed officers to a wallet, in a different location, that contained her identification. Waters made no claim to the coin purse until...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...or perhaps constructive knowledge that the container belongs to a visitor may not search the container. See, e.g. , Waters v. State , 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) ; State v. Lambert , 238 Kan. 444, 710 P.2d 693, 697–98 (1985) ; State v. Lohr , 164 Wash.App. 414, 263 P.3d 1287, 1......
-
Houghton v. State, 96-99
...v. Reese, 520 Pa. 29, 549 A.2d 909, 912 (1988); and State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1168 (Utah App.1994).4 See also Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 440 (Alaska App.1996) (absent a clear notice that the purse belonged to female visitor rather than female identified in warrant, search upheld)......
-
State v. Merritt
...object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident." Id. (citing Waters v. State , 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no "circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actua......
-
State v. Reid
...of passenger's purse during course of vehicle search), rev'd, 526 U.S. 295, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999); Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska App.1996) (search of nonresident's coin purse was lawful where executing officers did not "actually know," and circumstances would n......