Opinion
A-13281
12-01-2021
RYAN K. FRIDELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Michael Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Christopher M. Coy, Legal Intern, and Ryan T. Bravo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Clyde Ed Sniffen Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, Trial Court No. 1KE-18-00084 CR William B. Carey, Judge.
Michael Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Christopher M. Coy, Legal Intern, [*] and Ryan T. Bravo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Clyde "Ed" Sniffen Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.
Ryan K. Fridell was convicted of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance after a bench trial on stipulated facts. On appeal, Fridell argues that the superior court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia found in his hotel room.
[*] Appearing pursuant to Alaska Bar Rule 44. Former AS 11.71.030(a)(1)(A) (2018).
Police officers arranged for an informant to conduct a controlled buy of heroin from Fridell out of a hotel room in Ketchikan. Following the purchase, police began drafting a warrant application to search Fridell's hotel room. In the meantime, two officers monitored Fridell's hotel room. They saw Fridell leave the room and decided to arrest Fridell upon his return.
When Fridell returned and attempted to enter his hotel room, the officers announced themselves in the hotel hallway. Fridell responded by fleeing into his hotel room. The officers followed Fridell into the room, where they saw heroin on the floor near Fridell and other drug paraphernalia in plain view. The officers secured the room but did not conduct a further search until after the search warrant was issued.
Prior to trial, Fridell moved to suppress the heroin and other drug paraphernalia discovered by the officers when they entered the room. Following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Fridell outside of his hotel room, and that Fridell's act of fleeing into his hotel room in response to the police contact created an exigent circumstance (i.e., the potential destruction of evidence) that justified the warrantless entry. The superior court therefore denied Fridell's motion to suppress the heroin and drug paraphernalia.
On appeal, Fridell argues that the court erred in finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. For support, Fridell cites to the principle that exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the police "creat[ed] the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 462 (2011).
However, Fridell fails to explain how the police engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment. The superior court found, and Fridell does not dispute, that the police had probable cause to arrest Fridell outside of his hotel room and that Fridell was, in fact, outside of his hotel room when the police made initial contact. Under these circumstances, the exigency was not created by police engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment. Rather, the exigency was created by Fridell fleeing a lawful arrest. The superior court therefore did not err in denying Fridell's motion to suppress the drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.