Court Opinion

ID: 9538431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:36:22.765047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:52.261503
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that it was improper for the superior court to condition Sprague’s probation on the requirement that he submit to a warrantless search, upon the request of a probation officer, for the presence of narcotics or dangerous drugs. Where, as here, the offender has a history of drug abuse, I think that such a requirement is “reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public” and not “unduly restrictive of [his] liberty.” Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235, 1240 (Alaska 1977). To the extent that our opinion in Roman v. State dictates a contrary result, I would overrule it.