Opinion ID: 1428871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: uniform alcoholism and intoxication treatment act

Text: I do not believe that the cases from other jurisdictions which have adopted the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act mandate the result reached by the majority. While twelve states have adopted similar or identical versions of the Act, [2] few have addressed this issue. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the admission into evidence of contraband seized during a protective custody search of an intoxicated party. The court held that the police acted legitimately in searching the defendant's pockets because they could have contained a small object or substance dangerous to the officers or to the defendant himself. Thus the removal of the plastic bag was consistent with the policies of the protective custody statute. State v. Donovan, 128 N.H. 702, 705, 519 A.2d 252, 254 (1986). In so doing, the court distinguished its earlier holding in State v. Harlow , where it held that search of the detainee's wallet did violate the protective custody statute. The court had held in Harlow that [i]t may be necessary, in some cases, to determine whether a container holds some object which might injure someone, 123 N.H. 547, 552, 465 A.2d 1210, 1213 (1983), and relied on this distinction as well as the fact that the marijuana in Donovan's pocket was stored in a transparent bag. The majority cites State v. Perry in support of its statement that the Act alone does not provide justification for a criminal custodial arrest, absent probable cause. In State v. Perry , the Oregon Supreme Court held that the Act alone does not support a search, but was careful to render a narrow decision, based on the specific facts detailed in the case. The court said: [i]t is important to be precise about the exact situation that this case presents. It concerns the propriety of police opening for inventory purposes luggage belonging to a person who is being held solely for detoxification.... The state does not claim the police had probable cause or reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime.... The police lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the suitcases contained evidence of a crime, contraband or weapons.  298 Or. 21, 24, 688 P.2d 827, 829 (1984) (emphasis added). Another case cited by the majority is Peter v. State, 531 P.2d 1263 (Alaska 1975). That holding also turned on the particular facts, which involved information obtained by the police from an informant prior to the defendant being found in an allegedly intoxicated state and detained. The Alaska Supreme Court held that, under the Uniform Act, the officer may have had a duty to take him into protective custody and went on to hold that: [a]n officer transporting a person incapacitated by drink has a valid reason to make a limited search for possible weapons which might be used to injure him. Accordingly, any items discovered by [the officer] as a result of such a search made prior to transporting [the defendant] to jail were not the product of an illegal search. Id. at 1272 (emphasis added). The court suppressed evidence seized during a more detailed search conducted when the defendant was jailed. Id. at 1272-73. Based on the analysis above, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding. I am authorized to state that ROVIRA, J., joins in this dissent.