Opinion ID: 2338449
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Police duties

Text: The emergency aid doctrine is predicated on the notion that during emergencies police have duties to take action that might otherwise violate legally protected rights. [115] We note Professor LaFave's approval of a court's artful articulation of the relevant question in the warrantless search context as whether the police would have been derelict in their duty by not taking action. [116] Because this case involves domestic violence, we consider the relevant police duties in that context. In Alaska there are circumstances where [a] police officer is under a duty to protect the lives and property of the public. [117] The Alaska Legislature has passed a law specifically outlining the duties of a police officer responding to a crime involving domestic violence. [118] Alaska Statute 18.65.515, entitled Duties of peace officer in a crime involving domestic violence, [119] provides in relevant part: (a) A peace officer investigating a crime involving domestic violence shall protect the victim and any member of the victim's family and prevent further violence by (1) transporting an adult victim and any member of the victim's family from the place of the offense ... to a location within the community ... that is a shelter [or other location] requested by the victim; (2) assisting the victim in removing from the residence essential items belonging to the victim ...; (3) assisting the victim and any member of the victim's family in obtaining medical treatment necessitated ... by contacting emergency medical services or by transporting the victim to a local medical facility....[ [120] ] The text of .515(a), .515(a)(1), and.515(a)(3) each refers to not only the victim of domestic violence but also any member of the victim's family. This language was deliberate. The bill leading to the addition of AS 18.65.515 as currently in force was passed with conscious reference to the Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence; [121] the analogous Model Code provision to .515(a), however, speaks only to protecting the victim of domestic violence, without mentioning family members or other residents. [122] Similarly, the Model Code analog of .515(a)(3) requires providing only the victim and any child access to medical treatment; AS 18.65.515 broadens this requirement to apply to any member of the victim's family. While chapter 18.65 does not define family, the same title borrows the Model Code's extremely broad definition of family or household member, defining family and household members interchangeably. [123] In light of our legislature's special focus on family members, it is relevant that in nearly half of domestic violence incidents in Anchorage between 1999 and 2002, children under the age of 18 were present. [124] In this context we must also reiterate our recent statements about domestic violence. In State v. Miller , we noted the danger that a report of verbal domestic dispute portends. [125] We also noted a September 2005 study ranked Alaska first in the nation for the rate of intimate partner violence resulting in homicide, and that nationally 92% of female victims were murdered by someone they knew and 62% were killed by husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends. [126] The court of appeals itself noted in Gallmeyer that police intervention in domestic violence incidents is often particularly hazardous and courts should be flexible in assessing the reasonableness of the particular manner chosen to deal with the emergency. [127] The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement must be viewed against that backdrop in this case. We do not mean to suggest the legislature could eviscerate Alaska's constitutional right of privacy merely by statutorily delineating police duties in specific situations. But in the domestic violence context we can say it is undisputable that the threat of injury or death affecting multiple people, including children and other family members, is a serious consideration for responding officers.