MAN WINS HIS APPEAL ON DRUG POSSESSION CONVICTION

The state Court of Appeals overturned a Fairbanks man's cocaine
possession conviction Friday, ruling the officer didn't have enough
evidence to warrant search the man in 2001 after questioning him briefly.

John Q. Adams, 42, won his second attempt to suppress evidence--a
crack pipe and cocaine discovered during the pat down. The first time,
Judge Niesje Steinkruger denied his motion to suppress, and Adams
pleaded no contest to the charge in February 2003.

This time, the appellate court used a standard set in a 1976 ruling
that drew up controls to protect a person's Fourth Amendment rights by
limiting the guidelines leading to searches during investigative
stops, the opinion stated.

Under the ruling, a police officer has the authority to ask questions
and search a person when the officer has reason to suspect there is an
imminent danger to the public or someone or property has recently been
harmed, the decision stated.

The appeals court found Fairbanks police Officer Jonathan Terland
didn't have enough information to meet these two guidelines when he
patted Adams down after questioning him that night.

In this case, "the officer's need to conduct a protective search was
weak," the opinion stated in overturning the felony fourth-degree
misconduct conviction against Adams.

Adams was a passenger in a car Terland noticed parked on a dead-end
street near an elementary school that had been recently victimized by
vandals and burglars, the opinion stated.

Terland first approached a man standing outside the car and questioned
him. This man told Terland he had stopped to check on some baleen he
had just picked up at the airport.

When Terland questioned Adams, who was sitting in the car, Adams gave
him a different story and acted "extremely nervous" by repeatedly
putting his hands in his pockets, the opinion stated. Terland later
conceded many people get nervous when questioned by an officer, and
the cold could have caused Adams to repeatedly move his hands to and
from his pockets.

Terland decided to pat Adams down for weapons, using the two different
stories the men had given him and Adams' suspicious behavior as
justification.

The appellate court, however, disagreed.

"Officer Terland did not give a convincing reason why he thought Adams
might be armed and dangerous," the opinion stated.