 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TOPCOCK GLICK DEFENDANT WARRANT ANCHORAGE ALASKA PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE MARIJUANA VILLAGE CORROBORATION NOME TROOPER GLICK MAGISTRATE BREVIG MISSION REGULAR POLICE ARGUES SECOND PRONG SUPPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MOTION EVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT RETURNING DRUGS RESIDENCE VPSO BASIS AGUILAR/SPINELLI TEST |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT NOME STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, vs. EDWARD TOPCOCK, Defendant. Case No. 2NO-S97-224 CR MEMORANDUM and ORDER In this case, the defendant has moved to suppress the results of a search conducted pursuant to a ossession of approximately one quarter pound of marijuana after returning from Anchorage by plane. seized and opened by Trooper Glick. Glick had applied for and been granted a contingent warrant ived from Anchorage between May 2 and May 5, 1997. The warrant was issued after Glick testified een contacted by an undisclosed individual in Brevig Mission, Alaska. That individual told Glick n and Anchorage for the purpose of acquiring marijuana. After he would return to the village, he na and Emma Koefer. with whom he would stay while in the village. He indicated that he had , and that a relative regularly purchased as well. He indicated that the reason he was making the es were impacting the ability of residents of the village to acquire subsistence resources. He also ay 1, and was expected back on May 3. Trooper Glick also called the VPSO in the community, who revig Mission since early April of that year, and was gone for only a short period of time. The the Olanna household were known "dope smokers." Finally, Glick checked the Alaska Airlines o Anchorage on May 1, but used a one-way ticket, and had no return reservations. Based upon this When police seek a warrant using hearsay, it is necessary for the court to examine the basis for bility. This two part analysis is known as the "Aguilar/Spinelli test." In this case, the defendant et. That is, the information provided to Glick by the unnamed person was not sufficientlySNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
