Court Opinion

ID: 9550078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:29:01.176084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:41.962470
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the court’s interpretation of the record in this case. My disagreement centers on the majority’s conclusion that security officer Jones’ war-rantless seizure of the marijuana was authorized under the plain view exception to the search warrant requirements of both the United States and Alaska constitutions.
The principle foundation for the majority’s conclusion rests in analogizing the facts of the case at bar to those found in Daygee v. State, 514 P.2d 1159 (Alaska 1973). In my view, comparison of the two cases compels the conclusion that officer Jones conducted an unauthorized, warrantless search of the contents of the carton in question.
I think it instructive to reiterate what was stated in Daygee regarding the plain view exception. There we said:
An officer may seize evidence which is legitimately in his plain sight. It is not necessary that the contraband be positively identified before it is seized. The officer, who had extensive training in detecting marijuana, testified that he recognized the smell of marijuana burning and that the substance in the bag looked like marijuana, which he had seen previously. The officer thus had cause to believe a misdemeanor was committed in his presence other than the traffic event. The seizure of this item was therefore valid.1
Unlike Daygee, in the instant case officer Jones never testified that the contents of the one torn opaque plastic bag, which were partially exposed, looked or smelled like marijuana. It was only after officer Jones had searched the contents of the carton and cigarettes that he “became rather suspicious” and called his supervisor.
As far as this record shows, officer Jones possessed “clear and convincing evidence” that the packages contained contraband only subsequent to his unauthorized search of the contents of the open carton and his discovery of the two hand-rolled cigarettes. Prior to the time officer Jones made his search of the carton, his knowledge of the surrounding circumstances was that a Wien cargo handler, Richard Graves, had called airport security to report that he had a package, that he did not know what was in it, and that he would like to have security look at it.2 After he arrived at the Wien cargo area, Graves showed him the box and said there was something suspicious about the box. Jones further testified in viewing the box one torn green package looked peculiar in that “some dried vegetation matter, leaves and things of this nature” were visible.
Thus, I conclude that this record falls far short of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that officer Jones knew the contents of the carbon were contraband without the benefit of the knowledge he derived from his warrantless search of the interior of the carton. To hold oth*811erwise, in this factual context, seems to me to ascribe unwise and unwarranted breadth to the plain view exception to the search warrant requirements of the Federal and Alaska constitutions.

. Daygee v. State, 514 P.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (Alaska 1973).

. The record is devoid of any indication that officer Jones was informed, prior to making his search, that the contents of the carton had been designated “clothing” for shipping purposes.