Opinion ID: 2593051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: How serious was the alleged crime to which Officer Mickelson was responding?

Text: The state argues that Officer Mickelson was responding to a reported crime, asserting that the officer had a reason to believe that a domestic disturbance had taken place moments before he arrived at the scene. Miller disagrees, arguing that [t]he 911 call did not provide any indication that a crime had occurred or was about to occur because arguing is not a crime. Judge Levy found that Officer Mickelson knew that a domestic disturbance had taken place moments before he arrived on the scene. The court of appeals' conclusion that the investigative stop was illegal rested upon the court's determination that Officer Mickelson had no objective basis for believing that a crime had occurred or that one was imminent because Officer Mickelson was responding to a report of an argument and had no reason to infer that this was a domestic violence situation. [20] The court of appeals failed to accord the district court's factual findings the deference to which they were entitled, and it did not consider the factual context in which Officer Mickelson acted. He was responding to a citizen's 911 call reporting to the dispatcher that a couple was fighting, relayed to him as a domestic verbal dispute. Thus, the district court's finding that the officer was acting on information that a domestic disturbance had taken place only moments before he arrived was not clearly erroneous. Moreover, the court of appeals failed to recognize the danger that a report of a verbal domestic dispute portends. As Officer Mickelson testified, such a report may indicate something more serious and, in his experience, a verbal dispute always precedes a physical one. A study issued in September 2005 ranked Alaska first in the nation for the rate of intimate partner violence ending in homicide. [21] Nationally, for homicides in which the victim-to-offender relationship could be identified, ninety-two percent of female victims were murdered by someone they knew, and sixty-two percent were killed by husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends. [22] In holding that the report of a verbal domestic argument did not provide reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of Miller's vehicle, the court of appeals determined that Officer Mickelson had no reason to infer that this was a domestic violence situation: no violence had been reported, he had observed no violence, and he had no knowledge of the relationship of the people involved. [23] But as the state correctly points out, physical contact is not a necessary element of domestic violence or of assault in the fourth degree. Alaska Statute 11.41.230(a)(3) states that a person commits the class A misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree when by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury. Under AS 18.66.990(3), domestic violence includes the commission or attempted commission by a household member against another household member of a crime against the person under AS 11.41. The definition of household member under AS 18.66.990(5) is very broad, and includes, among others, adults or minors who live together or who have lived together, who are dating or who have dated, who are engaged in or who have engaged in a sexual relationship, or who are related to each other up to the fourth degree of consanguinity. Here, Officer Mickelson understood that he was responding to a report of a verbal 10-16or verbal domestic disputeinvolving a man who was a foot and a half taller than the woman with whom he was arguing vociferously in a parking lot in the vicinity of a bar near closing time. The argument was sufficiently extreme to prompt a citizen's 911 call. The police dispatcher who communicated this information to Officer Mickelson had received the 911 call from a person who stated that a man and a woman described by the caller as a couple or siblings [24] were fighting in the parking lot, even though the fight involved no physical punching. Because domestic violence can include an incident in which an individual makes a verbal threat that places a partner or sibling in fear of imminent physical injury, [25] and because the 911 report suggested that all of those elements could have been present in this case, we conclude that it was reasonable for the police dispatcher to believe that a crime involving domestic violence had been committed, was being committed, or would soon be committed, and to convey this information to Officer Mickelson. Miller attempts to downplay the risk of domestic violenceand therefore the severity of the alleged crimeby asserting that there was only some small possibility that an assault would occur given that most arguments do not end in criminal activity. But most arguments do not lead to 911 calls by disinterested citizens. Miller also argues that the state is trying to create an exception to the Coleman standard whereby the police could detain a citizen on nothing more than the anonymous allegation that they have engaged in a verbal argument with anyone who meets the extraordinarily broad statutory definition of `household member' in AS [18.66.]990(5). The state responds that [b]ecause domestic violence crimes are so pervasive and yet so underreported, police must be encouraged to investigate all reports of domestic violence. The state is right: Alaska courts have repeatedly recognized the problem of domestic violence in Alaska, and the importance of vigorously resist[ing] complacency about the problem in the face of the fact that domestic assaults are so commonplace, and that they typically occur in [private]. [26] It is also true that domestic disturbances have the potential to, and often do, lead to injury and death of third persons. [27] Miller also appears to suggest that the officer should have abandoned his investigation once he saw the couple enter the private vehicle because at that point he had not received sufficient information to suggest that a crime had occurred, or was occurring. The fact that the couple had moved from arguing in public to entering a private vehicle does not mean that domestic violence had not already occurred, or was not still occurring. Because the report that Officer Mickelson received from the dispatcher was consistent with a domestic violence situation, and because that particular crime is one that typically occurs in private, Officer Mickelson could reasonably believe that the crime was ongoing. This reasoning does not require, as Miller suggests, a departure from the Coleman standard, but rather involves a recognition of the continuing problem of domestic violence, and the state's responsibility in protecting against it. The facts of this case, therefore, can be distinguished from the facts in Jones v. State , [28] relied on heavily by the court of appeals here. In Jones, the court of appeals held that a verbal argument alone is insufficient to justify a detention. [29] In that case, the police responded to a 911 call that reported an argument between a tenant and a landlord. [30] When the police separated the tenant and the landlord and began to question them individually about the dispute, the tenantJonesattempted to walk away from the officers. [31] The police moved to restrain Jones and, when he resisted, they handcuffed and searched him. [32] The court of appeals ultimately held that the cocaine that was recovered as a result of the search was inadmissible because the police had no indication that Jones had assaulted the landlord or had committed any illegal act and therefore had no basis for requiring Jones to remain at the scene. [33] In that case, unlike the present, the police had already separated the two individuals and one attempted to leave, thereby ending the danger that the argument could escalate and become violent. In contrast, in this case the parties who were involved in the argument had not been separated but had instead moved into a private vehicle where the dispute could continue or even escalate. It is also significant that Officer Mickelson had a stronger indication in this case that Miller had committed or was about to commit a crime because the 911 call provided information that could reasonably be regarded as a description of domestic violence involving assault in the fourth degree. In sum, Officer Mickelson was responding to a situation that he could reasonably believe may have already satisfied, currently satisfied, or would soon satisfy all of the requirements for domestic violence involving assault in the fourth degree.