Perozzo v. State 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sasha Kahn

In Perozzo v. State, 493 P.3d 233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a police officer’s request for a vehicle passenger’s identification before subsequently conducting a warrants check is not part of a “routine” traffic stop, meaning it cannot be done “without a reasonable suspicion of criminality or other particularized justification.” (Id. at 243). After an Anchorage police officer pulled over a car with an obstructed license plate for a routine traffic stop, he requested the passenger’s identification and received it after the passenger’s light protest. (Id. at 236). The officer later admitted he regularly checked passenger identification and there was nothing about this passenger that particularly interested him. (Id.). After the officer ran a warrants check and discovered that the passenger had an outstanding search warrant for his DNA, the officer removed him from the car and found a weapon in the vehicle, which the passenger admitted was his. (Id.). Possessing a prior felony, the passenger was indicted for being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm and charged with failing to immediately inform the police that he was armed. (Id.). After the passenger’s motion to suppress was denied and he was convicted at trial on both counts, he appealed, arguing the police exceeded the scope of the traffic stop. (Id. at 236–37). After reviewing the decisions by U.S. district courts and other state courts, the Alaska court of appeals held that a police officer’s request for a vehicle passenger’s identification before subsequently conducting a warrants check is not part of a “routine” traffic stop, meaning it cannot be done “without a reasonable suspicion of criminality or other particularized justification.” (Id. at 243).

Perozzo v. State 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sasha Kahn

In Perozzo v. State, 493 P.3d 233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a police officer’s request for a vehicle passenger’s identification before subsequently conducting a warrants check is not part of a “routine” traffic stop, meaning it cannot be done “without a reasonable suspicion of criminality or other particularized justification.” (Id. at 243). After an Anchorage police officer pulled over a car with an obstructed license plate for a routine traffic stop, he requested the passenger’s identification and received it after the passenger’s light protest. (Id. at 236). The officer later admitted he regularly checked passenger identification and there was nothing about this passenger that particularly interested him. (Id.). After the officer ran a warrants check and discovered that the passenger had an outstanding search warrant for his DNA, the officer removed him from the car and found a weapon in the vehicle, which the passenger admitted was his. (Id.). Possessing a prior felony, the passenger was indicted for being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm and charged with failing to immediately inform the police that he was armed. (Id.). After the passenger’s motion to suppress was denied and he was convicted at trial on both counts, he appealed, arguing the police exceeded the scope of the traffic stop. (Id. at 236–37). After reviewing the decisions by U.S. district courts and other state courts, the Alaska court of appeals held that a police officer’s request for a vehicle passenger’s identification before subsequently conducting a warrants check is not part of a “routine” traffic stop, meaning it cannot be done “without a reasonable suspicion of criminality or other particularized justification.” (Id. at 243).