Court Opinion

ID: 9548011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:56:19.579664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:22.230942
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion with the exception of the statement contained in Footnote 11 applying the same standard to a request to enter premises as to a request to search premises. The authorities cited in Footnote 11 do not deal specifically with a distinction between authorizing an entry and authorizing a search. I believe that situations may well arise where an occupant of premises has an implied authority to consent to the entry of those premises by police officers but would not have the implied authority to consent to a search. A search in the sense of opening drawers and delving into hidden portions of the premises involves a much greater invasion of privacy than the mere admission to the premises themselves.1 The question that I believe is relevant in this case is whether Ms. Chat-man had authority to consent to the officer’s entry into the hotel room. No search was made as the items subsequently seized were in plain view, assuming that the entry into the room was permissible.2 The case is distinguishable from State v. Spietz, 531 P.2d 521 (Alaska 1975), in that no one consented to the officer’s entering the home in the Spietz case, and therefore there was no right to go into the home to seize items that could be seen from outside the home.

. See United States v. Bussey, 507 F.2d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir. 1974) (confederate’s consent to entry and search of motel room occupied by defendant and confederate did not extend to defendant’s personal luggage); Davis v. People of State of California, 341 F.2d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1965) (consent to enter motel room by third party did not extend to search of defendant’s person); Holzhey v. United States, 223 F.2d 823, 826 (5th Cir. 1955) (consent of daughter and son-in-law to enter and search their premises where accused lived did not authorize search of accused’s locked personal effects).

. Anderson v. State, 555 P.2d 251, 256 (Alaska 1976); Daygee v. State, 514 P.2d 1159, 1162 (Alaska 1973).