From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGee v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska
May 24, 2002
No. A-7697 (Alaska Ct. App. May. 24, 2002)

Opinion

No. A-7697.

May 24, 2002.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Charles R. Pengilly, Judge, Trial Court No. 40FA-S99-132 CR.

James M. Hackett, Law Office of James M. Hackett, Inc., Fairbanks, for Appellant.

John A. Scukanec, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.

Before: COATS, Chief Judge, and MANNHEIMER and STEWART, Judges.


OPINION


Sam W. McGee entered a no contest plea to various counts of controlled substance misconduct preserving his right to appeal the superior court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

See Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1255-57 (Alaska 1974).

The police discovered the evidence against McGee after the police intercepted a Federal Express package addressed to McGee and tested it with an Ion Track Instruments "Itemiser" — an ion mobility spectrometer. The Itemiser test revealed traces of a controlled substance; based on this test result, the police obtained a search warrant to open the package. When the police opened the package, they found about 7 ounces (200 grams) of cocaine. This discovery prompted further investigation and ultimately led to the charges against McGee.

McGee raises several claims on appeal, but we need address only one of them: whether the police must have reasonable suspicion to temporarily remove McGee's package from the normal flow of commerce and test it with the Itemiser. The State concedes that, until the police tested McGee's package with the Itemiser, the police did not have reasonable suspicion that McGee's package contained or constituted evidence of criminal activity.

In Gibson v. State, this court ruled that the police need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before they can temporarily detain a package and subject it to sniffing by a drug detection dog. We conclude this same rule applies to temporary detention of a package for the purpose of subjecting it to ion mobile spectrometry.

708 P.2d 708 (Alaska App. 1985).

See id. at 709-10.

Thus, the police violated McGee's rights when they tested the package, and the superior court should have granted McGee's suppression motion.

The judgment of the superior court is REVERSED.


Summaries of

McGee v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska
May 24, 2002
No. A-7697 (Alaska Ct. App. May. 24, 2002)
Case details for

McGee v. State

Case Details

Full title:Sam W. McGEE, Appellant v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska

Date published: May 24, 2002

Citations

No. A-7697 (Alaska Ct. App. May. 24, 2002)