CRIMINAL LAW
Peter Graham
In Perozzo v. State, 493 P.3d 233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the Court of Appeals held that the state constitution prohibits officers from requesting a passenger’s identification and then using that identification to run a warrants check when the officer’s request is unrelated to the basis for the stop, and the officer has no other case-specific jurisdiction for doing so. (Id. at 242). An Anchorage police officer performed a traffic stop on a vehicle—in which Perozzo was a passenger—for having an obscured license plate. (Id. at 235). The officer asked Perozzo as well as the driver for their identifications. (Id. at 236). Perozzo handed his identification to the officer, who then used it to run a warrants check. (Id.). The warrants check revealed an outstanding search warrant for Perozzo’s DNA, prompting the officer to detain Perozzo. (Id.). The trial court denied Perozzo’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop, concluding that the officer’s request for Perozzo’s identification did not impermissibly expand the traffic stop. (Id.). The Court of Appeals reversed, determining that privacy rights under the state constitution provide additional protections beyond those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 241). The court held that the state constitution prohibits officers from requesting a passenger’s identification and then using that identification to run a warrants check when the officer’s request is unrelated to the basis for the stop, and the officer has no other case-specific jurisdiction for doing so. (Id. at 242).