CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Catherine Cole
In Duty v. State, 532 P.3d 742 (Alaska Ct. App.) the court of appeals reasonable suspicion of the presence of drugs, but not suspicion of imminent public danger or recent serious harm, is necessary to ask about the presence of drugs in a vehicle. (Id. at 747–49). A jury convicted a driver, Duty, of fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance for possessing a vial of testosterone. (Id. at 743). Duty appealed the court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs that were found in his car. (Id.). A trooper had stopped Duty because of an equipment violation, and asked if there were any drugs in his vehicle. (Id. at 743). Duty volunteered to let the trooper search the vehicle; the trooper subsequently found the vial. (Id. at 743–44). Duty argued that the trooper needed to have a reasonable suspicion of imminent public danger or recent serious harm to persons or property before asking about whether he possessed drugs. (Id. at 745). Based on precedent, the court of appeals rejected Duty’s argument and decided upon a general reasonable suspicion standard. (Id. at 745). Because of the trooper’s observations of material similar to the type used to transport drugs in the vehicle, the standard was satisfied in this case. (Id. at 747). The court also noted that Duty volunteering to let the trooper search his car demonstrated a lack of coerciveness. (Id. at 750–51). Affirming the district court, the court of appeals upheld the denial of Duty’s motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that reasonable suspicion of the presence of drugs, but not suspicion of imminent public danger or recent serious harm, is necessary to ask about the presence of drugs in a vehicle (Id. at 747–49).
