AK declines to overrule automatic standing–the rule serves a purpose

Defendant was stopped driving a stolen car, and his bag was searched. The court rejects the state’s invitation to overrule automatic standing which was adopted before Salvucci. Jarnig v. State, 2013 Alas. App. LEXIS 96 (September 27, 2013):

The State argues that Alaska should abandon the automatic standing rule, but it recognizes that this Court has no authority to overrule a decision of the Alaska Supreme Court. The State therefore urges us to hold – consistently with Salit, it argues — that even if Jarnig had standing to contest the search before trial, he forfeited that standing once he took the stand at trial and disavowed ownership of the bag. The State argues that “Jarnig should not, as a matter of sound public policy, be allowed to have it both ways.” The position the State urges is not consistent with Salit, because it would allow the government to have it both ways — to “subject[] the defendant to the penalties meted out to one in lawless possession while refusing him the remedies designed for one in that situation” — a practice Salit expressly condemned.

The State asks us in the alternative to certify Jarnig’s case to the Alaska Supreme Court, so that court can rule on whether Salit is still good law. Under AS 22.05.015(b), this Court has the authority to certify a case to the Alaska Supreme Court if the case involves a significant question of law under the constitutions of the United States or Alaska, or if it involves an issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the supreme court. The supreme court may then accept or decline the proposed transfer of the case.

We decline to certify Jarnig’s case to the supreme court. The State has advanced no persuasive reason to believe the Alaska Supreme Court is now prepared, more than thirty years after Salvucci was decided, to repudiate the automatic standing rule in Salit.