Court Opinion

ID: 9552217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:06:28.773269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:47.255201
License: Public Domain

CONNOR, Justice,
concurring separately.
I concur in the result.
It is my view that questions might have been raised in the case at bar which would compel a determination on our part of whether, and to what extent, the right to privacy would cover certain instances of marijuana possession outside the home. If such possession were covered by the right to privacy, I do not believe that the order of an Alaska court returning the seized material to an individual, to whom the Alaska right to privacy applied, would amount to a violation of federal law. The act of the Alaska court would not be one of “interposition” by Alaska to prevent the enforcement of federal law. The federal authorities could still act immediately after the material was placed in the possession of the defendant.
In short, I cannot agree with the reliance on federal law in the majority opinion. But because no factual record of the circumstances of possession, and seizure by the officer, appears in this appeal, I do not believe that the privacy question must be reached. Accordingly, I agree to affirming the action of the trial court.