NCJ Number
134602
Journal
Alaska Law Review Volume: 7 Issue: 2 Dated: (December 1990) Pages: 381-407
Date Published
1990
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This article examines Alaska's seeming resolution of the conflict between public safety and private rights in Coleman v. State and the subsequent shift in the battle over investigative stops and how this standard should be administered.
Abstract
Two primary methods for implementing Alaska's Coleman standard for investigative stops are available: categorical and case-by-case. Both methods are ideologically neutral and should not necessarily be paired with either the law and order or individual liberty ideology. One methodology provides for the administration of Coleman as a categorical exclusion in which investigative stops can be performed only if there is a reasonable suspicion of certain offenses, regardless of other circumstances. The second methodology implements Coleman on a case-by-case basis in which the court considers all the circumstances of a particular police and citizen contact to determine if the stop was reasonable. Alaska's courts now use a case-by-case analysis after an initial use of categorical exclusion. The courts essentially have failed to administer Coleman in a way that requires the imminent public danger or serious harm standard to be met. Until Coleman is explicitly and completely overruled, a proper reading requires that the imminent danger and harm factors be specifically considered and afforded special weight in the reasonableness analysis. 169 footnotes