Moore v. State

[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW]#

In Moore v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that reasonable suspicion does not allow police to keep a defendant’s luggage overnight and ship it elsewhere for further investigation.[2] Police seized Moore’s luggage at the Dillingham airport based on tips that he was carrying marijuana.[3] After a magistrate judge in Dillingham denied an application for a search warrant, police kept the luggage overnight and shipped it to Anchorage to be sniffed by a drug dog.[4] The drug dog alerted to the luggage, and police applied for, and received, a search warrant in Anchorage.[5] Moore was convicted of fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct.[6] On appeal, the court of appeals applied the multi-factor test from Peschel v. State[7] to evaluate the reasonableness of the seizure.[8] The court reasoned that the first two factors, the length of detention and whether the traveler was forced to continue his journey without luggage, weighed in favor of Moore.[9] The State argued that the remaining factors, whether the police gave the traveler an adequate explanation and whether the police pursued the investigation diligently and in the least intrusive means possible, weighed against Moore because the police informed him that they would send the luggage to Anchorage, which they had to because there were no drug dogs in Dillingham.[10] But the court reasoned that reasonable suspicion did not justify holding the luggage for over twenty-four hours and sending it to Anchorage.[11] The State then argued that it actually had probable cause, but the court rejected this argument on the ground that the magistrate judge had properly denied a search warrant.[12] Reversing Moore’s conviction, the court of appeals held that police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when they hold the defendant’s luggage overnight and ship it elsewhere for further investigation based only on reasonable suspicion.[13]

[1] 372 P.3d 922 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
[2] Id. at 926, 928.
[3] Id. at 923.
[4] Id. at 923–24.
[5] Id. at 924.
[6] Id.
[7] 770 P.2d 1144 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989).
[8] Moore, 372 P.3d at 925.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 925–26.
[11] Id. at 926.
[12] Id. at 926–28.
[13] Id. at 926, 928.

Moore v. State

[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW]#

In Moore v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that reasonable suspicion does not allow police to keep a defendant’s luggage overnight and ship it elsewhere for further investigation.[2] Police seized Moore’s luggage at the Dillingham airport based on tips that he was carrying marijuana.[3] After a magistrate judge in Dillingham denied an application for a search warrant, police kept the luggage overnight and shipped it to Anchorage to be sniffed by a drug dog.[4] The drug dog alerted to the luggage, and police applied for, and received, a search warrant in Anchorage.[5] Moore was convicted of fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct.[6] On appeal, the court of appeals applied the multi-factor test from Peschel v. State[7] to evaluate the reasonableness of the seizure.[8] The court reasoned that the first two factors, the length of detention and whether the traveler was forced to continue his journey without luggage, weighed in favor of Moore.[9] The State argued that the remaining factors, whether the police gave the traveler an adequate explanation and whether the police pursued the investigation diligently and in the least intrusive means possible, weighed against Moore because the police informed him that they would send the luggage to Anchorage, which they had to because there were no drug dogs in Dillingham.[10] But the court reasoned that reasonable suspicion did not justify holding the luggage for over twenty-four hours and sending it to Anchorage.[11] The State then argued that it actually had probable cause, but the court rejected this argument on the ground that the magistrate judge had properly denied a search warrant.[12] Reversing Moore’s conviction, the court of appeals held that police violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when they hold the defendant’s luggage overnight and ship it elsewhere for further investigation based only on reasonable suspicion.[13]

[1] 372 P.3d 922 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
[2] Id. at 926, 928.
[3] Id. at 923.
[4] Id. at 923–24.
[5] Id. at 924.
[6] Id.
[7] 770 P.2d 1144 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989).
[8] Moore, 372 P.3d at 925.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 925–26.
[11] Id. at 926.
[12] Id. at 926–28.
[13] Id. at 926, 928.