District Court, D. Alaska — appointed by George H.W. Bush
United States v. Thoms
District Court, D. Alaska · 2011-04-22
In United States v. Thoms, defendants Trace Rae Thoms and Jennifer Anne Thoms moved to suppress evidence obtained from search warrants executed on their Wasilla, Alaska property, which uncovered a large marijuana grow operation. The warrants were based on an Alaska State Trooper's affidavit stating he smelled cultivated marijuana while driving nearby, along with supporting details like high electricity usage and the defendants' backgrounds. The defendants sought a Franks hearing, arguing the officer intentionally or recklessly misrepresented facts about the odor and omitted material information. After a limited Franks hearing, Magistrate Judge Roberts recommended denying the motion, finding the affidavit truthful regarding the marijuana smell and sufficient to establish probable cause, and the district court adopted this recommendation in its final order.
criminal law
Organized Village of Kake v. United States Department of Agriculture
District Court, D. Alaska · 2011-03-04 · cited 6×
The case challenged a U.S. Forest Service rule exempting the Tongass National Forest from the nationwide Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which restricts road construction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas of national forests. Plaintiffs, including the Organized Village of Kake, moved for summary judgment to invalidate the Tongass Exemption, reinstate the Roadless Rule, and vacate conflicting timber sales, while federal defendants and intervenors cross-moved for dismissal. The opinion reviews the factual and procedural background of the Roadless Rule's adoption, including alternatives considered for the Tongass, the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, and standards for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court analyzed whether the exemption complied with applicable procedural and substantive requirements before resolving the cross-motions.
environmentfederal powerprocedure
United States v. Jensen
District Court, D. Alaska · 2010-02-16
In United States v. Jensen, defendants Mr. and Mrs. Jensen, proceeding pro se, were charged with attempting to defeat the payment of taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, unlawfully filing false joint federal income tax returns, and willfully failing to file income tax returns for certain years. They filed multiple motions to dismiss the indictment on grounds including overreach, absence of essential elements, fatal defects, and lack of magistrate authority for arraignment. The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted the findings and conclusions, and denied all motions at dockets 23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 44, and 45, determining that the magistrate correctly applied the law and that the indictment was legally sufficient to apprise defendants of the charges. The court also directed the parties to confer on trial readiness for the March 10, 2010 date.
criminal lawtaxes
United States v. Washington
District Court, D. Alaska · 2009-07-23
In this case, defendant Cassero Lenell Washington faced federal charges for distributing controlled substances and possessing them with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress evidence found in his Chevy Tahoe during a search conducted under a state warrant, arguing that the supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that the officer could not reasonably rely on the warrant. The district court denied the motion after de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's findings that the affidavit—detailing a traffic stop, strong marijuana odor, bloodshot eyes, lethargic behavior, large cash wads folded like those of drug dealers, and the officer's experience—provided enough facts to support probable cause for searching the vehicle for drugs, money, and related items. Alternatively, the court held that the Leon good-faith exception would apply even if probable cause were lacking, as the application was not so deficient that reliance on the warrant was objectively unreasonable.
criminal lawprocedure
Northstar Trekking LLC v. United States
District Court, D. Alaska · 2009-05-04 · cited 2×
The case involved NorthStar Trekking LLC's challenge to an IRS assessment of Air Transportation Excise Tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4261 for its 2002 flight-seeing helicopter charters in Alaska, which the IRS claimed were operated on established lines; NorthStar sought a refund after paying a portion of the assessed amount and argued it qualified for the exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 4281. The court addressed NorthStar's motion for summary judgment on whether the flights were taxable. The court granted the motion, ruling that the flights were exempt because they were not operated on established lines. The reasoning centered on undisputed facts showing that NorthStar provided only on-demand charter flights with no fixed schedules or routes, varying landing sites based on weather and customer requests, and service only when sufficient demand existed, consistent with the statutory exemption for non-scheduled sightseeing operations.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Rountree v. CHING FENG BLINDS INDUSTRY CO. LTD.
District Court, D. Alaska · 2008-06-10 · cited 1×
This case arose from the 2002 death of a child who strangled on the inner cord of a window blind, leading plaintiffs (the child's parents and sister) to sue the Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA), a trade group, along with other defendants for negligence in developing an allegedly inadequate national safety standard for window coverings. After other defendants were dismissed, WCMA moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to consumers under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A or Alaska law. The court denied the motion, holding that WCMA's voluntary undertaking to create safety standards could impose a duty, as the risk of harm might be increased by an inadequate standard, the association had undertaken duties owed by manufacturers, and policy factors under Alaska precedent supported potential liability. The decision turned on whether reasonable jurors could find the association failed to exercise reasonable care in its undertaking.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory