Opinion ID: 2338449
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court

Text: In September 2002 the State of Alaska indicted Gibson on four counts related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Bevin was indicted on the same four counts. In May 2003 the State added one count of fourth-degree assault against Gibson for recklessly caus[ing] physical injury to Bevin. The State later dropped one of the methamphetamine-related counts against Gibson and amended another. Bevin moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the warrantless searches of the trailer. Gibson filed his own motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the indictment against him. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motions over five days in 2003. Officers Stanfield, Doll, and Asselin testified, along with Detective Bryant and others. The court held oral argument on the motions in February 2004, ultimately denying them with a written order making factual findings. The court concluded Officers Stanfield and Doll's warrantless entry was justified by the emergency aid doctrine. The court confined its findings and conclusions to the facts of this case recognizing that there is not a general warrantless search exception for all domestic violence cases. Analyzing the emergency aid doctrine under the three-prong test the Alaska Court of Appeals adopted in Gallmeyer, [2] the court determined that all three prongs were satisfied. First, the court found the reasonable grounds factor was met because the officers arrived at the scene of a domestic disturbance reportedly involving a weapon, heard a female screaming, and saw a woman stumbling out of the trailer half naked and injured; Bevin was hysterical, uncooperative and argumentative, and the officers were not certain about how many people were involved. The court therefore concluded the officers' belief that an injured party might be inside and in need of emergency aid was objectively reasonable. The court determined the second factor was met, as [t]here was absolutely no evidence . . . that something outside the trailer led [the officers] to suspect that there could be a meth lab inside, and the officers' subjective motivation for entering the trailer was to determine whether there was anyone inside in need of emergency aid. The court further determined the final factor was met, as the search was sufficiently restricted in time and scope to the nature and duration of the particular emergency. Additionally, the court concluded exigent circumstances justified Officer Asselin's subsequent search and the inevitable discovery doctrine justified Detective Bryant's later search. Following a two-week trial a jury found Gibson guilty on the three methamphetamine-related counts and of disorderly conduct, a lesser included offense of the assault charge.