skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 134602 Find in a Library
Title: Investigative Stops in Alaska: Can Coleman Survive a Multifactored Balance?
Journal: Alaska Law Review  Volume:7  Issue:2  Dated:(December 1990)  Pages:381-407
Author(s): D A Greene
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 27
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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
Main Term(s): Right of privacy; Search and seizure laws
Index Term(s): Alaska; Reasonable suspicion; Search and seizure; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=134602

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.