{"id":38298,"date":"2018-11-09T13:55:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-09T22:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/alaska-appeals-court-rules-on-gun-case-searches\/"},"modified":"2018-11-09T13:55:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T22:55:00","slug":"alaska-appeals-court-rules-on-gun-case-searches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/home\/alaska-appeals-court-rules-on-gun-case-searches\/","title":{"rendered":"Alaska appeals court rules on gun-case searches"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Alaska Court of Appeals<\/a> overturned an Anchorage man’s drug conviction on Friday, issuing a ruling<\/a> that appears to strengthen gun owners’ Fourth Amendment protection from police searches.<\/p>\n In their opinion on Cardenas v. Alaska, judges David Mannheimer, Marjorie Allard and John Suddock said police officers must have probable cause to believe that someone’s possession of a gun is illegal before searching their gun case without a warrant.<\/p>\n “I think it could have fairly broad applicability,” said Tim Terrell, the attorney who prosecuted the case for the state Office of Criminal Appeals.<\/p>\n Friday’s decision comes from an incident in Anchorage involving a man named Jesus Alberto Cardenas. Cardenas was stopped by an Anchorage Police Department officer for reckless driving, and the officer asked Cardenas whether he had any firearms in the car. Cardenas said he did, and he gestured to a soft-sided rifle case in his back seat.<\/p>\n The officer, working alone and nervous about his own safety, took the case from the car while he processed Cardenas’ registration and information through the state’s criminal database.<\/p>\n While that was legal, what came next was not, the judges said. The officer opened the case, searched it, and found (in addition to a rifle) “an Airsoft pellet gun, a wad of cash, a box of plastic baggies, and several plastic bags with a white powdery substance that was later determined to be cocaine.”<\/p>\n The officer called for backup and Cardenas was arrested. In the subsequent trial, he was represented by Anchorage attorney Jane Martinez, who argued that the search was illegal, because officers did not have a warrant and there was no danger to the officer.<\/p>\n Anchorage Superior Court Judge Michael Spaan disagreed and convicted him of drugs misconduct and weapons <\/a>misconduct<\/a>.<\/p>\n Cardenas and Martinez appealed to the appeals court, which sided with the defendant.<\/p>\n State prosecutors had argued that the search was legal under a 1979 exemption to the Fourth Amendment that allows searches if “their very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.”<\/p>\n Under the state’s interpretation, police would always be entitled to open a rifle case if it was identifiable as a rifle case.<\/p>\n “This is a misinterpretation of the ‘single-purpose’ exemption,” the appeals court decided.<\/p>\n That exemption applies only if police have reason to believe that possession of a particular item is illegal. “Here, there was nothing obviously unlawful about Cardenas’ possession of a rifle,” the court wrote.<\/p>\n