STORY ABOUT MARIJUANA RULING LACKED IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM CASE

You published an article ("Privacy wins in pot ruling") Aug. 28
describing the recent Alaska Court of Appeals decision in State v.
Crocker (that a search warrant may not be issued for a small amount of
personal marijuana in the home -- a crime prohibited by the 1975 Ravin
case). You quoted the state attorney general as saying, "At this point
the only way to get a search warrant is for someone to testify to the
size of the crop." You concluded, "Renkes said he plans to ask the
U.S. Attorney's Office to be more aggressive in busting marijuana growers."

Regrettably, your article was incomplete. The Crocker opinion states
that there was an extensive search warrant application describing the
electrical usage records. The amount of kilowatt-hours and the math
applied by the trooper in his search warrant application simply
support a finding that only a small amount of marijuana was being
grown (only 15 plants were seized) -- a conclusion shared by the
Superior Court. No additional investigation is needed -- just a larger
grow.

The Crocker case does not make applications for search warrants any
more difficult than before. It merely applies the full scope of our
constitutional privacy right: that without good reason the government
should stay out of our homes. During these times of shrinking privacy
rights, such an opinion should be respected rather than subverted.

Andrew Haas

attorney representing Leo Richardson Crocker Jr.

Homer