Court Opinion

ID: 9601600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:47:33.097278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:09.279574
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
dissenting.
In Fresneda v. State, 458 P.2d 134, 143 n. 28 (Alaska 1969), we held that the constitutional rule announced in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), was applicable to all cases pending on direct review in this court as of the date of the Chimel decision.1 I am not *16persuaded that we should depart from the rule of Fresneda and, therefore, would hold that all cases pending in this court on direct review on the date of the Glass decision, in which the issue of warrantless electronic monitoring was raised, should be governed by the substantive holdings of State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978).
CONNOR, J., joins in the dissent.

. In reaching this holding, we relied on Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 255-58, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1037-38, 22 L.Ed.2d 248, 259-61 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 627, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601, 607 (1965); and H. Schwartz, Retroactivity, Reliability, and Due Process: A Reply to *16Professor Mishkin, 33 U.Chi.L.Rev. 719, 762-64 (1966).
Additionally, in Fresneda v. State, 458 P.2d 134, 143 n. 28 (Alaska 1969), we observed that the announced rule we adopted dates back to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). See also Lopez v. Bowen, 495 P.2d 64, 66 n. 7 (Alaska 1972) (“The rationale for the [Fresneda ] rule on retrospective application is that where several cases are pending on appeal which each present the same issue, the fortuity of which case is first decided should not be determinative of that issue in the other cases.”)