Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10520.
September 8, 2010.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Second Judicial District, Kotzebue, Michael I. Jeffrey, Judge, Trial Court No. 2KB-08-160 CR.
Beth Lewis Trimmer, Assistant Public Advocate, and Rachel Levitt, Public Advocate, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elijah Rock appeals from his conviction of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree. He argues that a search warrant for his DNA was based on hearsay statements and that the warrant affidavit did not adequately establish the declarants' firsthand knowledge or veracity.
AS 11.41.410(a)(1).
See State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317, 324 (Alaska 1985) (holding that a search warrant based on the hearsay statement of a confidential informant must establish the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity).
Rock did not raise this issue in the trial court. It is generally inappropriate to raise arguments requesting exclusion of illegally seized evidence for the first time on appeal. We will consider such arguments only if they involve "singularly egregious violations."
Moreau v. State, 588 P.2d 275, 280 (Alaska 1978).
Id. at 280 n. 13; Atkinson v. State, 869 P.2d 486, 493-94 (Alaska App. 1994) (stating that a finding of plain error on a suppression issue is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances).
This case does not involve a singularly egregious violation. When we review the warrant affidavit "in a commonsense and realistic fashion," it is apparent that the affiant is a Kotzebue police officer. The affidavit appears to be based on first-hand information related by the crime victim and other police officers. Such declarants are generally presumed to be reliable. There may be defects in this affidavit, but there do not appear to be any singularly egregious violations.
See State v. Koen, 152 P.3d 1148, 1151 (Alaska 2007) (citation omitted).
See Landon v. State, 941 P.2d 186, 190 (Alaska App. 1997) (explaining that police officers are presumed to be credible); Stam v. State, 925 P.2d 668, 670 (Alaska App. 1996) (same); Murray v. State, 770 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Alaska App. 1989) (stating that crime victims are generally presumed to be credible citizen informants).
We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's judgment.