McGuire v. State

In Mcguire v. State,[1] the Alaska Court of Appeals held that when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for a drug offense, and has reason to believe that the individual might have other evidence of that offense on his person, the officer is authorized to conduct a pat-down search. During a traffic stop, McGuire was asked to step outside of his car because his insurance was invalid. McGuire informed Officer Butler that he had a pocketknife in his front right pocket. During the pat-down, but before locating the pocketknife, Butler found a marijuana pipe. Butler continued the pat-down, found the pocketknife, and then found more drug paraphernalia. McGuire was indicted on two counts of fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct and one count of sixth-degree controlled substance misconduct. Following his indictment, McGuire requested suppression of most of the evidence against him, claiming that Officer Butler violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Butler continued patting-down McGuire after finding the pocketknife. The trial court denied this request and McGuire was convicted of all three drug charges; he appealed. The court of appeals reasoned that that the discovery of the marijuana pipe before obtaining the pocketknife made it reasonable to suspect that McGuire may be carrying more evidence of that crime. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the court of appeals held that when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for a drug offense, and has reason to believe that the individual might have other evidence of that offense on his person, the officer is authorized to conduct a pat-down search.

 

 

[1] 425 P.3d 203 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018).

McGuire v. State

In Mcguire v. State,[1] the Alaska Court of Appeals held that when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for a drug offense, and has reason to believe that the individual might have other evidence of that offense on his person, the officer is authorized to conduct a pat-down search. During a traffic stop, McGuire was asked to step outside of his car because his insurance was invalid. McGuire informed Officer Butler that he had a pocketknife in his front right pocket. During the pat-down, but before locating the pocketknife, Butler found a marijuana pipe. Butler continued the pat-down, found the pocketknife, and then found more drug paraphernalia. McGuire was indicted on two counts of fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct and one count of sixth-degree controlled substance misconduct. Following his indictment, McGuire requested suppression of most of the evidence against him, claiming that Officer Butler violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Butler continued patting-down McGuire after finding the pocketknife. The trial court denied this request and McGuire was convicted of all three drug charges; he appealed. The court of appeals reasoned that that the discovery of the marijuana pipe before obtaining the pocketknife made it reasonable to suspect that McGuire may be carrying more evidence of that crime. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the court of appeals held that when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for a drug offense, and has reason to believe that the individual might have other evidence of that offense on his person, the officer is authorized to conduct a pat-down search.

 

 

[1] 425 P.3d 203 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018).