Court Opinion

ID: 9755939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:00:36.845183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:13.236851
License: Public Domain

CHRISTEN, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the court's articulation of the Gallmeyer test as the correct standard for the warrantless entry of a private residence under the emergency aid exception, but I agree with the court of appeals that the first prong of the test was not met here. In Alaska, it is necessary for police officers to base the suspicion that an emergency exists on objectively reasonable facts. Gallmeyer requires more than pure speculation that an emergency could be ongoing.1 Despite its lengthy review of fact patterns from other cases that justified warrantless searches where babies were obviously at risk or where citizens had been injured or were clearly in peril-the bottom line in this case is that no objective facts provided grounds for the war-rantless entry. None are cited by the court.
In my view, the court of appeals was disciplined in its application of Gallmeyer and correctly concluded that if a warrantless search could be upheld under the cireum-stances of this case, then a warrantless search could be permitted in virtually all domestic disturbance 911 calls. The Alaska Constitution requires more. Because the decision issued today allows the emergency aid exception to swallow the rule that warrant-less entries of private homes are not permitted in Alaska, I respectfully dissent.

. Gallmeyer v. State, 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) ("[Ilt is well settled that the existence of an emergency must be determined by an objective standard-whether the evidence would have led a prudent and reasonable officer to perceive an immediate need to take action in order to prevent death or to protect against serious injury to persons or property.").