emergency aid doctrine in Alaska

1982See, e.g., Schraff v. State, 544 P.2d at 841-42 ; People v. Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d at 249-250 , 347 N.E.2d at 611 . 10 Finally, with regard to the third requirement, it must be clear from the circumstances that any warrantless search conducted under the emergency aid doctrine is restricted in time and scope to the nature and duration of the particular emergency.

1982The emergency aid doctrine has been uniformly recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement. 5 Perhaps the most commonly cited statement of the doctrine is found in United States v. Barone, 330 F.2d 543, 545 (2nd Cir. 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 1004 , 84 S.Ct. 1940 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1053 (1964), where the court said: The right of the police to enter and investigate in an emergency without the accompanying intent to either search or arrest is inherent in the very nature of their duties as police officers, and derives from the common law. 6 *842 The emergency aid doctrine has been given exp

2012Because the court of appeals stopped its consideration of Gibson's appeal at this first prong of the emergency aid doctrine, we remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the remainder of Gibson's issues on appeal in light of our decision. 160 CHRISTEN, Justice, dissenting. . 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe ... an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis ... to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quotin

2006Williams, 823 P.2d at 3 (citing Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 841 -43 and Johnson v. State, 662 P.2d 981, 985-86 (Alaska App.1983) (listing eleven factors relevant in determining if the emergency aid doctrine applies)). 8 . 537 P.2d at 504 . 9 .

2012Because the court of appeals stopped its consideration of Gibson's appeal at this first prong of the emergency aid doctrine, we remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the remainder of Gibson's issues on appeal in light of our decision. 160 CHRISTEN, Justice, dissenting. . 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe ... an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis ... to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quotin

2012Because the court of appeals stopped its consideration of Gibson's appeal at this first prong of the emergency aid doctrine, we remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the remainder of Gibson's issues on appeal in light of our decision. 160 CHRISTEN, Justice, dissenting. . 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe ... an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis ... to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quotin

1982Stevens v. State, 443 P.2d 600, 602 (Alaska 1968). 7 A concise summary of the elements necessary to justify a warrantless entry under the emergency aid doctrine was recently set forth in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 3178 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976); there, the New York Court of Appeals identified three separate requirements: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The

1982See also Stevens v. State, 443 P.2d at 602 ; People v. Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d at 249-250 , 347 N.E.2d at 611 ; State v. McCleary, 116 Ariz. 244 , 568 P.2d 1142 (Ariz.App.1977). 9 The second requirement takes account of the fact that the emergency aid exception must not be permitted to act as a subterfuge, allowing officers to search for evidence of crime in areas to which they would otherwise have no access in the absence of a warrant.

2006Williams, 823 P.2d at 3 (citing Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 841 -43 and Johnson v. State, 662 P.2d 981, 985-86 (Alaska App.1983) (listing eleven factors relevant in determining if the emergency aid doctrine applies)). 8 . 537 P.2d at 504 . 9 .

1991See also Johnson v. State, 662 P.2d 981, 985-86 (Alaska App.1983) (listing eleven factors relevant in determining if the emergency aid doctrine applies).

1982Stevens v. State, 443 P.2d 600, 602 (Alaska 1968). 7 A concise summary of the elements necessary to justify a warrantless entry under the emergency aid doctrine was recently set forth in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 3178 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976); there, the New York Court of Appeals identified three separate requirements: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The

1982Stevens v. State, 443 P.2d 600, 602 (Alaska 1968). 7 A concise summary of the elements necessary to justify a warrantless entry under the emergency aid doctrine was recently set forth in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 3178 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976); there, the New York Court of Appeals identified three separate requirements: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The

1982Stevens v. State, 443 P.2d 600, 602 (Alaska 1968). 7 A concise summary of the elements necessary to justify a warrantless entry under the emergency aid doctrine was recently set forth in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 3178 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976); there, the New York Court of Appeals identified three separate requirements: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The

1979The essential components of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement are aptly articulated by the court in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 248 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 , cert. denied, 426 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 3178 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976): (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable caus

2018I would affirm the superior court’s decision to dismiss the Lums’ claims for trespass and breach of privacy. 12 Id. (footnote omitted).

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2018Erickson v. State, 507 P.2d 508, 515 (Alaska 1973). 53 Gibson, 267 P.3d at 658-60 . -17- 7302 The officers here rely on the emergency aid exception, which allows a warrantless entry when three elements exist: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance in the protection of life or property; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by the intent to arrest a person or to seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or pla

2012See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 922 (Alaska 1999) (concluding discussion in previous case "was necessary for our holding" and therefore not dictum); Gonzales v. Krueger, 799 P.2d 1318, 1322 (Alaska 1990) (Moore, J., concurring) (stating language in previous decision was not dictum because it was necessary to reach the conclusion). .

2012See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 922 (Alaska 1999) (concluding discussion in previous case "was necessary for our holding" and therefore not dictum); Gonzales v. Krueger, 799 P.2d 1318, 1322 (Alaska 1990) (Moore, J., concurring) (stating language in previous decision was not dictum because it was necessary to reach the conclusion). [29] Stevens, 443 P.2d at 604-06 (Rabinowitz, J., concurring). [30] Id. at 605 (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [31] Id. (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [32] Id. (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [33] 544 P.2d 834 (Alaska 1975).

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 922 (Alaska 1999) (concluding discussion in previous case "was necessary for our holding" and therefore not dictum); Gonzales v. Krueger, 799 P.2d 1318, 1322 (Alaska 1990) (Moore, J., concurring) (stating language in previous decision was not dictum because it was necessary to reach the conclusion). .

2012See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 922 (Alaska 1999) (concluding discussion in previous case "was necessary for our holding" and therefore not dictum); Gonzales v. Krueger, 799 P.2d 1318, 1322 (Alaska 1990) (Moore, J., concurring) (stating language in previous decision was not dictum because it was necessary to reach the conclusion). [29] Stevens, 443 P.2d at 604-06 (Rabinowitz, J., concurring). [30] Id. at 605 (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [31] Id. (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [32] Id. (quoting Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 ). [33] 544 P.2d 834 (Alaska 1975).

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

2012NOTES [1] 640 P.2d 837, 842 (Alaska App.1982) (adopting standards requiring "reasonable grounds to believe. . . an emergency [is] at hand," that search not be "primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence," and "some reasonable basis. . . to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976))). [2] See note 1, above. [3] Gibson v. State, 205 P.3d 352, 353 (Alaska App.2009). [4] Id. at 354-56 . [5] Id. at 353 (quoting Gallmeyer, 640 P.2d at 842 ). [6] Id. at 356 (quoting Gallmeye

1982The emergency aid doctrine has been uniformly recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement. 5 Perhaps the most commonly cited statement of the doctrine is found in United States v. Barone, 330 F.2d 543, 545 (2nd Cir. 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 1004 , 84 S.Ct. 1940 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1053 (1964), where the court said: The right of the police to enter and investigate in an emergency without the accompanying intent to either search or arrest is inherent in the very nature of their duties as police officers, and derives from the common law. 6 *842 The emergency aid doctrine has been given exp

1982See, e.g., United States v. Moskow, 588 F.2d 882 (3rd Cir. 1978); State v. McCleary, 116 Ariz. 244 , 568 P.2d 1142 (Ariz.App.1977); United States v. Dunavan, 485 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1973); West v. State, 617 P.2d 1362 (Okl.Cr.App. 1980); State v. Super, 37 Or.App. 731 , 588 P.2d 106 (1978); State v. Gallo, 20 Wash. App. 717 , 582 P.2d 558 (1978); and United States v. Rodriguez, 503 F.Supp. 15 (D.P.R. 1980).