Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. State of Alaska v Falealo Manuele Pulusila (7/2/2020) sp-7463

State of Alaska v Falealo Manuele Pulusila (7/2/2020) sp-7463

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                         

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                           

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                       



STATE  OF  ALASKA,                                                   )  

                                                                     )      Supreme  Court  No.  S-17124  

                                Petitioner,                          )     Court  of  Appeals  No.  A-12783  

                                                                     )  

                                                                                                                                       

           v.                                                        )      Superior Court No. 3AN-13-05018 CR  

                                                                     )  

                                         

FALEALO MANUELE PULUSILA,                                                                       

                                                                     )     O P I N I O N  

                                                                     )  

                                Respondent.                                                                

                                                                     )     No. 7463 - July 2, 2020  

                                                                     )  



                                          

                                                                                                                    

                      Petition for Hearing from the Court of Appeals of the State of  

                                                                                                                    

                      Alaska, on appeal from the Superior Court of the State of  

                                                                                                            

                      Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Paul E. Olson,  

                                   

                      Judge.  



                                                                                                          

                      Appearances: PatriciaL.Haines, Assistant Attorney General,  

                                                                                                                  

                      Office  of  Criminal  Appeals,  Anchorage,  and  Kevin  G.  

                                                                                                             

                      Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for Petitioner.  Callie  

                                                                                                       

                      Patton Kim, Assistant Public Defender, and Beth Goldstein,  

                                                                                                              

                      Acting Public Defender, Anchorage, for Respondent.  



                                                                                                        

                      Before:  Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,  

                                           

                      and Carney, Justices.  



                                           

                      STOWERS, Justice.  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                                        

                      A man was arrested in 2013 and after conviction was sentenced to 48  



                                                                                                                                       

months' imprisonment with  42  months suspended and three years' probation.   His  



                                                                                                                                     

probation officer successfully petitioned to revoke probation four times.   This case  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

involves the fifth petition for probation revocation, in which the                                                                         probationofficer alleged               



that the probationer was in possession of certain prohibited items after he was found in                                                                                                     



a truck with those items. The probationer argued that the State had to show that he knew                                                                                              



the items were in the borrowed truck for there to be a violation.                                                                                    The superior court               



disagreed and imposed all oftheremaining                                                      timein          theprobationer's                      suspended sentence.                            



The   court   of   appeals   reversed,   holding   that   there   was   a   mens   rea   requirement   for  



possession as a condition of probation.                         



                              The   State   petitioned   for  hearing,   arguing   that   the   court   of   appeals  

                                                                                                                                  1  which outlines the proper  

significantly modified our decision in                                                   Trumbly v.                  State,                                                       



analytical framework for probation revocation hearings; the State also argued that the  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



court of appeals erred  in  holding that the probation condition included a mens rea  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                   2  and now reaffirm our holding in Trumbly and its  

requirement.  We granted the petition                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                   



two-stage probation revocation hearing process. We also hold that the appropriate mens  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



rea requirement for possession of items prohibited by a condition of probation is a  

                                                                                                                                                                                              



negligence  standard,  not  an  actual  knowledge  standard:                                                                           the  State  must  prove  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



probationer knew or should have known he was in possession of items prohibited by a  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



condition of probation.  We reverse the court of appeals' decision and remand to the  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



superior court to determine whether Pulusila knew or should have known that he was in  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



possession of the prohibited items.  

                                                                 



II.            FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                                 



               A.             Facts  



                              In May 2013 Falealo Pulusila was stopped by police officers in Anchorage.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



               1              515  P.2d  707  (Alaska   1973).  



               2              State  v.  Pulusila,  No. S-17124   (Alaska   Supreme   Court   Order,  Nov.   16,  



2018).  



                                                                                              -2-                                                                                            7463  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

He   was   charged   with   fourth-degree   misconduct   involving   a   controlled   substance  



 (methamphetamine), misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree, failure to carry                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



proof of auto insurance, and failure to carry vehicle liability insurance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              He entered into                                            



a plea agreement in July 2013, pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to the fourth-degree                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



misconduct charge and the State dismissed the other charges; the court sentenced him to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



48 months' imprisonment with 42 months suspended and three years' probation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                                                 In July 2014 Pulusila's probation officer petitioned to revoke his probation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 for five alleged violations.  The court found that he violated his probation and ordered                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



him to serve 25 days of his suspended jail time.                                                                                                                                                                                          Over the next two years the probation                                                                                                       



officer petitioned the court four more times to revoke Pulusila's probation, and the court                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



ordered him to serve various amounts of his suspended jail time in connection with each.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



This appeal involves the probation officer's fifth petition to revoke probation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                 B.                              Proceedings  



                                                                  1.                              Before the superior court                                                                              



                                                                 The probation officer petitioned the superior court to revoke Pulusila's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

probation in September 2016, alleging that he violated special probation condition one                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3  



and  general  probation  condition  five.4  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               She  alleged  that  Pulusila  had  violated  his  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                 3                                "You   shall  not  use,   possess,   handle,   purchase,   give or                                                                                                                                                                                                                     administer   any  



controlled substance, including marijuana, without a valid prescription. . . . You shall not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

have on your person, in your residence or vehicle or any vehicle under your control, any                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

drugs or paraphernalia normally associated with the illicit use of drugs. . . . You shall                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 submit to a search of your person, personal property, residence, vehicle or any vehicle                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

over which you have control, for the presence of illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                 4                                "You shall not own, possess, purchase, transport, handle or have in your  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

custody, residence, or vehicle, any firearm, ammunition, explosives, or weapon(s) . . .  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

capable of inflicting bodily harm or incapacitation.   You shall not carry any deadly  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

weapon on your person except a pocket knife with a 3 " or shorter blade.  You must  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             -3-                                                                                                                                                                                               7463
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

 conditions of probation in August by ingesting methamphetamine and in September by                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



possessing ammunition, a knife with a blade longer than three inches, an explosive                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 device, and drug paraphernalia, for a total of five violations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                                                              At a contested hearing before the superior court in December, the State                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 called a police officer and the probation officer as witnesses.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Pulusila did not testify.                                                                                                                        



The police officer described the events that led to the probation officer's petition.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             He  



 explained that in September 2016 he was conducting a routine patrol in a high-crime area                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



when he came across a truck parked at the end of a cul-de-sac.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Pulusila was in the                                                                                  



 driver's seat.                                                              The police officer searched Pulusila and the vehicle.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                                              The   police   officer   testified   that   he   found  a   black   bag   containing   an  



 explosive device in the center console of the truck.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  He stated that he also found a knife                                                                                                                                     



with a five-inch blade on the floorboard next to the gear shifter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The police officer                                                   



 detained Pulusila and obtained a search warrant to further search the vehicle. The officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



testified that he found a BB gun between the driver's seat and the center console seat; a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



magazine pouch containing two magazines loaded with .45 caliber bullets in the back                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



portion of the vehicle's cab; and what he described as a methamphetamine pipe with                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



residue in it in a backpack in the back compartment of the truck behind the front seat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



The probation officer testified about the reasons she had brought the previous four                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



petitions to revoke probation and Pulusila's recurring methamphetamine use.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                              After both witnesses testified, Pulusila argued that the State failed to meet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



its burden of proof on the probation violations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                He asserted that "the State has to prove                                                                                                                                                            



that there was some sort of willful violation of probation" and analogized "willful" to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 "knowing."   He argued:                                                                                                                       



                                       4                                      (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 submit to any search for the aforementioned weapons."  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -4-                                                                                                                                                                                                                       7463  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                                                                          

                               So  what  the  State basically  has to  do  is show that  

                                                                                                           

                    Mr.   Pulusila   was   knowledgeable   or   at   least   that   he  

                                                                                                          

                    disregarded a substantial risk that this vehicle that he had  

                                                                                                            

                    borrowed from a friend actually contained a pipe bomb.  I'd  

                                                                                                 

                    submit  .  .  .  that  the  State  has  provided  no  evidence  

                                                                                                             

                    whatsoever . . . linking Mr. Pulusila to the vehicle.  None of  

                                                                                                            

                    his personal effects were found in it.  They've provided no  

                                                                               

                    fingerprint evidence.  In a case that's arguably this serious,  

                                                                                                          

                    you'd think that would be something they would look into,  

                                                                                                           

                    but they didn't, so they can't . . . meet their burden on that  

                                                                                                        

                    point to show that Mr. Pulusila even touched any of these  

                                                                                           

                    items, much less was aware that they were in the car that he  

                                                  

                    happened to be in.  



                                                                                                                                  

Pulusila also argued that the State had not demonstrated that he was in "possession" of  



                                                                                                                             

any of the items the police officer found in the vehicle, but instead only that they were  



                                                                                                                               

in the vehicle with him. Finally, he claimed that his probation conditions did not put him  



                                                                                                                              

on notice that this behavior violated his probation.  Pulusila asked the court to find only  



                                                                                                                                  

one probation violation - that he ingested methamphetamine in August 2016 - and to  



                                                         

revoke 60 days of his probation as a consequence.  



                                                                                  

                    The court made the following findings:  



                                                                                                              

                               I  do  .  .  .  find  that  the  State  has  proven  by  a  

                                                                                                           

                    preponderance of the evidence - first on his admission that  

                                                                                                           

                    he ingested methamphetamine on August 19th, I do find that  

                                                                                            

                    he   was   in   possession   or   control   of   the   ammunition  

                                                                                                             

                    found . . . in the vehicle. He was in possession and control of  

                                                                                                              

                    the explosive device.  And I find that he was in possession of  

                                                                                                             

                    the  pipe  which,  based  on  the  burden  of  proof  by  a  

                                                                                                       

                    preponderance of evidence, was drug paraphernalia based  

                                                                                                           

                    upon the testimony of the officer that, in his experience that  

                    he has had, that those items are associated with drug use, in  



                                                                -5-                                                         7463
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                       particular methamphetamine use.                            So I find that the State has             

                                                                               [  ]  

                       met its burden of proof on those.                        5 



The court reasoned that if it required the State to prove knowledge, "that would give free  

                                                                                                                                               



rein to anyone on probation to say it's not my car . . . [o]r if it's a rental car . . . [to] say,  

                                                                                                                                               



well, it was left in there by the previous renter." The court explained that "the obligation  

                                                                                                                                    



is on the probationer to know what will be a violation of conditions of probation."  

                                                                                                                           



                       Pulusila then asked the court to clarify the "applicable mens rea for a  

                                                                                                                                                   



probation violation," and the court explained that "the mens rea involved here is only  

                                                                                                                                              



that he needs to . . . have knowledge of what will be the conditions of violations.  And  

                                                                                                                                              



if he has possession or control of these particular items and he knows that the condition  

                                                                                                                                     



is a violation, that's enough."  The court went on to explain that Pulusila "possesses and  

                                                                                                                                               



controls this vehicle.   Everything that is in that vehicle is under his possession and  

                                                                                                                          



control and it's [his] obligation . . . to make sure that he doesn't have those items."  

                                                                                                                                                



                       After finding Pulusila in violation of his probation on four of the five  

                                                                                                                                              



allegations, the court moved forward with the disposition phase of the hearing. Both the  

                                                                                                                                                



probation officer and the State asked the court to impose the remainder of his time.  

                                                                                                                                                       



Pulusila again argued that the court must consider whether he knew about the items in  

                                                                                                                       



the vehicle and, since the State had not shown he had knowledge, impose no more than  

                                                                                                                                              



the 60 days he had recommended.  

                                  



                       The court considered the parties' recommendations and sentencing criteria  

                                                                                                                                          



and imposed the remainder of Pulusila's time based on his criminal history and the fact  

                                                                                                                                               



that this was his fifth violation of probation conditions.  Pulusila appealed to the court  

                              



of appeals.  

      



            5  

                                                                                                                                                 

                       The court did not find a violation regarding the knife because it was not on  

                                                                                                                                    

Pulusila's person, as the court interpreted the probation violation to require.  



                                                                        -6-                                                                      7463  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                               

                    2.        Before the court of appeals  



                                                                                                                                

                    On appeal Pulusila argued that the State has to prove he was aware of the  



                                                                                              

contraband in his vehicle to establish a probation violation, claiming that possession  



required proof of knowledge and it was "fundamentally unfair and arbitrary to revoke  



                                                                                                                                

a person's probation for being in the proximity of items of which he is unaware."  He  



                                                                                                             

argued that the conditions of probation did not provide notice that his probation could  



                                                                                                                   

be revoked for this behavior.  Finally, he argued that the court erred by not considering  



                                                                                                             

his state of mind or knowledge at the disposition phase of the hearing.  



                                                                                                                         

                    The  State  responded  that  sufficient  evidence  supported  the  court's  



                                                                                                                        

conclusion that Pulusila violated his probation conditions and the court was not required  



                                                                                                                    

to find that he had knowledge of the items, noting that the majority of courts addressing  



                                                                                                                      

the issue do not require proof of mental state at the adjudication phase of a probation  



                                                                                                                         

revocation hearing.  It argued that Pulusila was in possession of the items in the vehicle,  



                                                                                                                                   

and that he had notice that possession of weapons and drug paraphernalia would be a  



                                                                                         

violation of the terms of his probation.  Finally, the State argued that his sentence was  



                                                                                                                    

not clearly mistaken, and that the court did consider Pulusila's mental state in sentencing,  



                                                                                                                     

finding that he "had knowledge of the conduct prohibited by his probation conditions  



                                                                                                                               

and that it was incumbent upon him to ensure that he did not possess or control any  



                              

prohibited items."  



                                                                                                  

                    In its opinion the court of appeals summarized its decision:  



                                                                                                       

                    We will first discuss the State's claim that Alaska law allows  

                                                                                                             

                    a court to hold a defendant strictly liable for any violation of  

                                                                                                            

                    probation, regardless of the defendant's lack of fault.  As we  

                                                                                                   

                    explain  in  this  opinion,  the  State's  argument  is  partially  

                                                                                                               

                    correct.  There are circumstances when a court can revoke a  

                                                                                                          

                    defendant's probation for a violation of probation that was  

                                                                                                               

                    not the defendant's fault. But there is no universal rule that a  

                                                               

                    defendant's lack of fault is irrelevant.  



                                                                -7-                                                         7463
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                             Rather,   under   Alaska   law,   a   court   can   revoke   a  

                                         defendant's   probation   when   the   defendant's   violation   of  

                                        probation supports the conclusion that the aims of probation                                                                                             

                                         are not being met, and that the defendant's continued release                                                                                                   

                                         on probation would be at odds with the goals of protecting                                                                                            

                                         society and fostering the defendant's rehabilitation.                                                                                                       When a   

                                         court makes this determination, the defendant's fault (or lack                                                                                                           

                                         of    fault)    may    sometimes    have    little    relevance    -    but  

                                         conversely,   the   defendant's   fault   or   lack   of   fault   may  

                                         sometimes be a crucial factor in the court's decision.                                                                              



                                                             We will then address the question of how to interpret                                                                                  

                                         Pulusila's conditions of probation, given our construction of                                                                                                                  

                                         Alaska probation law.                                                  As we explain in this opinion, we                                                                   

                                         agree   with   Pulusila   that   his   conditions   of   probation   only  

                                        prohibited him from  knowingly  possessing the ammunition,  

                                         explosives, and drug paraphernalia. And because of this, the                                                                                                                

                                         superior court was required to resolve the contested issue of                                                                                                                  

                                        whether Pulusila was aware that these prohibited items were                                                                                                            

                                                                                                           [  ]  

                                        present in the vehicle.                                              6   



                                                                                                                                                                      7  

The court discussed our decision in  Trumbly v. State,  concluding that "even though  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 Trumbly appears to describe probation revocation proceedings as having two stages, it  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



is clear from the supreme court's discussion that sentencing courts must perform three  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



duties":  (1) "ascertain the historical facts of the case;" (2) "decide whether, given those  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



facts, there is good cause to revoke . . . probation"; and (3) if good cause to revoke exists,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

"determine  what  consequences,  if  any,  should  be  imposed."8                                                                                                                                                    The  court  then  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



"conclude[d] that Pulusila's two conditions of probation prohibited him from knowingly  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



possessing the listed prohibited items. Thus, without proof that Pulusila knew that these  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                    6                   Pulusila v. State                                 , 425 P.3d 175, 177-78 (Alaska App. 2018) (emphasis in                                                                                                                 



original).   



                    7                    515 P.2d 707 (Alaska 1973).  

                                                                                                                                  



                    8                   Pulusila, 425 P.3d at 179 (emphasis in original).  

                                                                                                                                                                



                                                                                                                               -8-                                                                                                                      7463
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

 items were in the truck, the superior court had no basis for finding that Pulusila violated                                                       



                                                                   9  

these conditions of his probation."                                                                                                                          

                                                                       The court held that the superior court erred by  



                                                                                                                                                     

 determining that Pulusila's knowledge was irrelevant and reversed the superior court's  



                                                                                                                                                

judgment, explaining that "[t]he State is free to renew its petition to revoke Pulusila's  



                                                                                                                                              

probation, but the State must prove that Pulusila knowingly possessed the prohibited  



              10  

 items."            

                         The State filed a petition for hearing, which we granted.11  

                                                                                                                   



III.         STANDARD OF REVIEW                 



                         "When reviewing questions of law, we exercise our independent judgment                                                  



                                                                                                                                                           

 and adopt those rules of law that are 'most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and  



                  12  

                 

policy.' " 



IV.          DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                            

             A.          We Reaffirm Our Decision In Trumbly v. State.  



                                                                                                                                                        

                         Probation is defined as "a procedure under which a defendant, found guilty  



                                                                                                                                              

 of a crime upon verdict or plea, is released by the superior court subject to conditions  



                                                                                                                                                               13  

                                                                                                                                                                    

 imposed  by  the  court  and  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  probation  service." 



                                                                                                                                                        

Probation is a creature of statute, so we look to the statutes in addressing any legal  



             9           Id.  at   182  (emphasis  in  original).  



             10          Id.   at  183.     The   court   also   explained   that   it   did   not   need   to   "address  



Pulusila's   claim   that   his  probation   revocation   sentence   was   excessive"   given   how   it  

resolved  the  case.   Id.  



             11          State v. Pulusila, No.  S-17124 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, Nov.  16,  

                                                                                                                                                            

2018).  



             12          State  v.  Ranstead,  421  P.3d  15,  19  (Alaska  2018)  (quoting  Johnson  v.  State,  



 328  P.3d  77,  81  (Alaska  2014)).   



             13          AS  33.05.080(3).  



                                                                              -9-                                                                       7463
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

questions surrounding its implementation.                               The legislature has given courts authority to                         



                                                                             14  

grant probation and set probation conditions                                                                                               

                                                                                 as well as to "revoke or modify any  

                                                                                                                                     15   The  

                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                   

condition of probation, change the period of probation, or terminate probation." 

legislature has identified the circumstances under which a probationer can be arrested16  

                                                                                                                                  



and authorized courts to "revoke the probation and require the probationer to serve the  

                                                                                                                                            

sentence imposed or any lesser sentence" following arrest.17                                           Upon revocation, a court  

                                                                                                                                      

can impose the full sentence only if it finds good cause.18  

                                                                                    



                      We also look to the Alaska Constitution for guidance in deciding questions  

                                                                                                                                  



surrounding  probation.                      As  amended  in  1994,  the  constitution  requires  criminal  

                                                                                                                                  



administration to be premised upon "the need for protecting the public, community  

                                                                                                                              



condemnation  of  the  offender,  the  rights  of  victims  of  crimes,  restitution  from the  

                                                                                                                                            

                                                                          19   Courts should consider these factors in  

offender, and the principle of reformation."                                                                                                  

                                                    



           14         AS   12.55.080,  AS   12.55.090(a),  AS   12.55.100.  



           15         AS   12.55.090(b).  



           16         See  AS 33.05.070(a) (allowing  probation  officer  to  arrest  probationer  for  



cause  without  warrant);  AS  33.05.070(c)  (allowing  police  officer  to  detain  probationer  

with   reasonable   suspicion of   violation   of   certain   probation   conditions   and   to   arrest  

probationer  without warrant  with  probable  cause  to  believe  such  violations occurred);  

AS   12.55.085(b)   (allowing   probation   officer   to   "without   warrant   or   other   process,  

rearrest  the  person  so  placed  in  the  officer's  care  and  bring  the  person  before  the  court").  



           17         AS  33.05.070(b); see  also AS  12.55.085(c) ("Upon the revocation  and  

                                                                                                                                           

termination of the probation, the court may pronounce sentence at any time within the  

                                                                                                                                            

maximum probation period authorized by this section . . . .").  

                                                                                                  



           18         AS  12.55.110(a).  

                              



           19         Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.  

                                                             



                                                                     -10-                                                               7463
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                 20  

addition to statutes in determining whether to grant, amend, or terminate probation.                                                                 



                                                                                                                                             

Any  probation  decision  by  the  courts  must  be  consistent  with  both  statutory  and  



                                                   

constitutional requirements.  



                                                                                                                                   

                       In  Trumbly we outlined the purpose of and procedure for a probation  



                                   

revocation hearing.  



                                                                                                              

                                  A  probation  revocation  hearing  is  not  a  criminal  

                                                                                                             

                       proceeding.  The focus of the hearing should be to determine  

                                                                                                                       

                       whether   the  probationer  violated  one  or  more  of  the  

                                                                                                                           

                       conditions of his probation and the appropriate disposition in  

                                                                                                                       

                       the  event  it  is  determined  that  petitioner  violated  his  

                                                                                                                 

                       probation.           In  Morrissey  v.  Brewer,  Chief  Justice  Burger  

                       wrote  



                                                                                                    

                                  []The first step in a [parole] revocation decision  

                                                                                                    

                                  involves           a     wholly           retrospective             factual  

                                                                                                         

                                  question:  whether the parolee has in fact acted  

                                                                                                               

                                  in violation of one or more of the conditions of  

                                                                                                    

                                  his parole.           Only  if it is determined that  the  

                                                                                                            

                                  parolee  did  violate  the  conditions  does  the  

                                                                                                              

                                  second question arise:   should the parolee be  

                                                                                                              

                                  recommitted to prison or should other steps be  

                                                                                                               

                                  taken to protect society and improve chances of  

                                  rehabilitation.[21]  



Later in the opinion we provided further clarification on "the dual nature of a probation  

                                                                                                                                    



revocation hearing":  

                    



                       As was noted previously, Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon  

                                                                                                        

                       v.  Scarpelli  illuminate  the  dual  nature  of  a  probation  

                                                                                                            

                       revocation hearing. The first facet of such a hearing involves  

                                                                                                               

                       "a  wholly  retrospective  factual  question:                                   whether  the  

                                                                                                                       



           20          See State v. Ranstead               , 421 P.3d 15, 19-20 (Alaska 2018).                 



           21  

                                                                                                                                                 

                       Trumbly v. State, 515 P.2d 707, 709 (Alaska 1973) (second alteration in  

                                                                                                                                             

original) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S.  

                       

471, 479-80 (1972)).  



                                                                      -11-                                                                 7463
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                              [probationer] has in fact acted in violation of one or more                                                             

                              conditions of his [probation]." . . . The second aspect of the                                                               

                             probation    hearing    requires    a    determination   as    to    the  

                              disposition to be made once violation of the conditions of                                                                     

                             probation are established. [The probationer's] mental state at                                                                   

                             the time of the violation of the terms of his probation as well                                                             

                              as at the time of the revocation hearing is relevant to the                                                                 

                                                                                                [22]  

                             resolution of the second issue.                                            



In Trumbly we thus identified two stages to a probation revocation hearing.  First, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



court must make a finding of fact regarding whether the probationer violated a probation  

                                                                                                                                                                         



condition.  If the court does not find a violation, the hearing ends.  If the court does find  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



a violation, it proceeds with the second stageand determines the proper disposition given  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



the violation. As part of the disposition stage, the court determines whether there is good  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

cause to revoke probation.23  

                                                                We explained the "good cause" requirement:  

                                                                                                                                        



                                            Therequirement that probation revocationfollowafter  

                                                                                                                                                         

                              a showing of "good cause" requires the trial judge to find that  

                                                                                                                                                          

                              continuation of probationary status would be at odds with the  

                                                                                                                                                            

                             need   to   protect   society   and   society's   interest   in   the  

                                                                                                                                                         

                             probationer's   rehabilitation.   Revocation   should   follow  

                                                                                                                                                 

                             violation  of  a  condition  of  probation  when  that  violation  

                                                                                                                                             

                              indicates  that  the  corrective  aims  of  probation  cannot  be  

                                                                                                                                                            

                              achieved.[24]  



                             In its brief to this court the State argues that "the court of appeals revised  

                                                                                                                                                                               



this 'well-established and long-standing' two-step procedure, instead replacing it with  

                                                                                                                                          



               22            Id.  at 709-10 (citations omitted) (quoting                                                 Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480).                        



               23            See AS 12.55.110(a) ("When sentence has been suspended, it may not be  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

revoked except for good cause shown.").  

                                                                      



               24             Trumbly, 515 P.2d at 709 (footnote omitted).  

                                                                                                             



                                                                                           -12-                                                                                     7463
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                                          25  

'three separate duties.' "                    We agree that the court of appeals misconstrued our decision                               



                     26  

in   Trumbly.                                                                                                                                        

                          As discussed above, the court of appeals identified three duties for a  



                                                                                                                                        

sentencing court:  (1) "ascertain the historical facts of the case"; (2) "decide whether,  



                                                                                                                                              

given those facts, there is good cause to revoke . . . probation"; and (3) if there is good  

                                                                                                                                  27  The court  

                                                                                                                                               

cause to revoke, "determine what consequences, if any, should be imposed." 



of appeals thus suggests that a sentencing court should reach the disposition phase only  

                                                                                                                                                



if it has made a finding of good cause to revoke probation.  This is not the case. Instead,  

                                                                                                                                          



the good cause determination is part of the disposition phase.  

                                                                                                



                       We reaffirm our decision in  Trumbly and hold that trial courts should  

                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                       28  First, the superior court should ask  

continue to apply Trumbly's two-stage framework. 

                                                                                                                                                  



"a wholly retrospective factual question:  whether the [probationer] has in fact acted in  

                                                                                                                                                    



            25         See Rich v. State            , 640 P.2d 159, 162 (Alaska 1982) ("well-established and                                     



long-standing");   Pulusila   v.   State,   425   P.3d   175,   179   (Alaska   App.   2018)   ("three  

separate duties").   



            26         The        court       of     appeals'          confusion            may        have        stemmed            from        its  

                                                                                                                                                 

misunderstanding of the State's arguments.  In its brief before the court of appeals, the  

                                                                                                                                                  

State argued that "the finding of 'good cause' occurs only if the court reaches step two  

                                                                                                                                                 

of the probation proceeding; that is, if the court has already found a violation during the  

                                                                                                                                                  

adjudication phase and is considering imposing jail time in the disposition phase."  

                                                                                                                                          

(Emphasis in original.) However, the court of appeals understood the State to be arguing  

                                                                                                                                          

"that  the  'adjudication'  phase  encompasses  both  the  court's  duty  to  ascertain  the  

                                                                                                                                                 

historical facts and the court's duty to decide whether those facts constitute good cause  

                                                                                                                                              

for  revoking  the  defendant's  probation."                                  Pulusila,  425  P.3d  at  179  (emphasis  in  

                                                                                                                                                   

original).  



            27         Id.  

                              



            28         We note that the court of appeals has decided two probation revocation  

                                                                                                                                    

cases since it issued its decision in this case:  Silas v. State, 425 P.3d 197 (Alaska App.  

                                                                                                                                               

2018) and Charles v. State, 436 P.3d 1084 (Alaska App. 2018).  These cases are not  

                                                                                                                                                 

before us on appeal, but to the extent that they are inconsistent with Trumbly and our  

                                                                                                                                                 

opinion today, they are to be disregarded.  

                                                    



                                                                        -13-                                                                  7463
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                                                                                                   29  

violation of one or more conditions of his [probation]."                                               Second, it must determine the                    



disposition to be made once violation of the conditions of probation is established. "[The                                                         



probationer's] mental state at the time of the violation of the terms of his probation as                                                                



well as at the time of the revocation hearing is relevant to the resolution of the second   

            30   The good cause determination is one part of this second stage.31  

issue."                                                                                                                 



                                     1.         The trial court has substantial discretion at the disposition  

                                                                                                                                         



stage.  A trial court can impose a sentence less than jail time or otherwise change the  

                                                                                                                                                       

terms and conditions of probation without imposing full remaining jail time.32   If a court  

                                                                                                                                                   

wants to impose remaining jail time, it must make a finding of good cause.33  A court can  

                                                                                                                                                       



consider any relevant information in the record, including "the original offense, the  

                                                                                                                                                       

offender, and the defendant's intervening conduct."34  

                                                                             



                        Here, the court of appeals, relying on a 1977 case, stated "that conditions  

                                                                                                                                          



of probation must be 'reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the offender and the  

                                                                                                                                                       



            29          Trumbly,  515  P.2d  at  709-10  (quoting  Morrissey  v.  Brewer,  408  U.S.  471,  



479-80  (1972))  .  



            30          Id.  at  710.  



            31          See  Holton  v.  State,  602  P.2d   1228,   1239  (Alaska   1979).  



            32          See  AS   12.55.086(c),  AS   12.55.090(b);  AS  33.05.070(b);  State  v.  Henry,  



240   P.3d   846,   848   (Alaska   App.   2010)   ("Under   Alaska   law,   whenever   a   sentence  

includes   suspended  jail   time   and   a   concomitant   term   of   probation,   the   sentence   is  

inherently  mutable:   the  sentencing  court  retains  the  authority  to  alter  the  conditions  of  

probation,  to  shorten  or  lengthen  the  probationary  term,  and  to  impose  some  or  all  of  the  

previously  suspended  jail  time.").  



            33          See AS  12.55.110(a).  

                                       



            34          Betzner v. State, 768 P.2d 1150, 1156 (Alaska App.  1989).  

                                                                                                                        



                                                                           -14-                                                                    7463
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                                                                                                         35  

protection of the public[,] and [not] unduly restrictive of liberty.' "                                                                       This statement,   



while correct as far as it goes, is inaccurate because it is incomplete. In 1994 the Alaska                                                                      



Constitution was amended to expand the list of principles a court should consider:                                                                                   "the  



need for protecting the public, community condemnation of the offender, the rights of                                      

                                                                                                                                                                  36   We  

victims of crimes, restitution from the offender, and the principle of reformation."                                                                                    



recently  reaffirmed  that  "[e]ach  component  of  a  criminal  sentence  -  including  

                                                                                                                                                          



conditions  of  probation  -  must  be  reasonably  related  to  at  least  one  of  these  

                                                                                                                                                                   

constitutional principles."37                             A court should consider all of these principles in making  

                                                                                                                                                               



probation disposition decisions, not just those identified by the court of appeals.  

                                                                                                                                                 



                           Wereaffirmthetwo-stageframework weoriginallyannounced in Trumbly.  

                                                                                                                                                                                



To the extent that the court of appeals' opinion conflicts with Trumbly, it was error.  

                                                                                                                                                                          



              B.	          It  Was  Error  To  Interpret  Pulusila's  Probation  Conditions  As  

                                                                                                                                                                       

                           Requiring Knowing Possession Of The Prohibited Items.  

                                                                                                                                        



                           The allegations brought by Pulusila's probation officer were related to two  

                                                                                                                                                                       



probation conditions:  

                     



                                        You shall not use, possess, handle, purchase, give or  

                                                                                                                                                

                           administer  any  controlled  substance, including  marijuana,  

                                                                                                                              

                           without a valid prescription. . . . You shall not have on your  

                                                                                                                                           

                           person, in your residence or vehicle or any vehicle under  

                                                                                                                                        

                           your control, any drugs or paraphernalia normally associated  

                                                                                                                                

                           with the illicit use of drugs. . . . You shall submit to a search  

                                                                                                                                       

                           of your person, personal property, residence, vehicle or any  

                                                            

                           vehicle over which you have control, for the presence of  

                                                                                                                                               

                           illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia.  

                                                                    



             35            Pulusila v. State                 , 425 P.3d 175, 182 (Alaska App. 2018) (alterations in                                                       



original) (quoting                   Roman v. State                 , 570 P.2d 1235, 1240 (Alaska 1977)).                          



             36            Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.  

                                                                        



             37            State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 20 (Alaska 2018).  

                                                                                                                   



                                                                                   -15-	                                                                            7463
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                                                  . . . .  



                                                 You   shall   not   own,  possess,   purchase,   transport,  

                                 handle or have in your custody, residence, or vehicle, any                                                                                

                                 firearm, ammunition, explosives,or weapon(s) that                                                                          is capable  

                                 of inflicting bodily harm or incapacitation.                                                                   You shall not              

                                 carry any deadly weapon on your person except a pocket                                                                            

                                 knife with a 3                      "   or shorter blade.                           You must submit to any                                

                                                                                                                                   [38]  

                                 search for the aforementioned weapons.                                                                    



The superior court found Pulusila in violation of his probation conditions by being in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



possession and control of the explosive device, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



found in the vehicle.   The court offered the following reasoning in support of this  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



finding:  



                                                 I  think  the  mens  rea  involved  here  is  only  that  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                 [Pulusila] needs to . . . have knowledge of what will be the  

                                                                                                                                                                            

                                 conditions of violation.  And if he has possession or control  

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                 of these particular items and he knows that the condition is a  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                 violation, that's enough. . . . I don't think the State has to  

                                                                                                                                                                               

                                 prove that he had a specific knowledge that each and every  

                                                                                                                                                                      

                                 one of these items is in the vehicle or that he intended to have  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                 each and every one of these items in the vehicle.  

                                                                                                                                                           



The  court  went  on  to  explain  that  "the  responsibility  should  be  on  the  person  on  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



probation . . . to make sure that they don't possess these items or don't violate the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



conditions.  And I find that [Pulusila] . . . knew what the conditions were and it's his  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



responsibility to make sure that he's not in possession or control of these items."  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                 The court of appeals disagreed, instead holding that Pulusila's probation  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



conditions "prohibited him from knowingly possessing the prohibited items found in the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                38               The State argues that "the court of appeals adopted an unreasonably narrow                                                                                         



view" of the probation conditions by distilling them to just "possession."  We read the                                                                                                                      

conditions expansively to include all terms, not just "possess."                                                                                           However, our decision                

does not turn on this distinction.                  



                                                                                                     -16-                                                                                               7463
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                                      39  

borrowed vehicle."                         The court explained that the State was wrong in arguing that the                                                         



conditions   "prohibited   Pulusila   from   being   in   control  of   a   vehicle   that   had   these  



prohibited items in it - even if Pulusila remained wholly ignorant of their presence"                                                                 



                                                                                                                                                                      40  

because its argument was "based on a misunderstanding of the law of possession."                                                                                           



Specifically, the court noted that Alaska criminal law requires the State to prove that a  

                                                                                                                                                                        



person  engaged  in  a  voluntary  act  of  possessing  or  controlling  an  item  to  prove  

                                                                                                                                                             

possession, and that this voluntary act requires knowledge.41  While acknowledging that  

                                                                                                                                                                   



the statutory definitions apply only to the interpretation of criminal statutes, the court  

                                                                                                                                                               



asserted that the laws "merely codify the common understanding of what 'possession'  

                                                                                                    



means" and that "Pulusila's conditions of probation must be interpreted in light of this  

                                                                                                                                                                   

common understanding."42  The court stated that "it is unclear what public benefit would  

                                                                                                                                                              



be  achieved  by  sending  probationers  back  to  jail  for  'possessing'  explosives,  

                                                                                                                                                  

ammunition, or drug paraphernalia that they did not know they had."43                                                                        The court held  

                                                                                                                                                                 



"that Pulusila's two conditions of probation prohibited him from knowingly possessing  

                                                                                                                                                     



the listed prohibited items. Thus, without proof that Pulusila knew that these items were  

                                                                                                                                                                 



             39           Pulusila, 425 P.3d at 181 (emphasis in original).                             



             40           Id.  at 182.   



             41           Id. ; see also  AS 11.81.600(a) ("The minimal requirement for criminal  

                                                                                                                                                         

liability is the performance by a person of conduct that includes a voluntary act or the  

                                                                                                                                                                    

omission              to      perform             an      act       that       the       person            is     capable            of      performing.");  

                                                                                                                                           

AS 11.81.900(b)(68) (defining "voluntary act" to include possession "if the defendant  

                                                                                                   

was aware of the physical possession or control for a sufficient period to have been able  

                                                                                                                                                                  

to terminate it").  

                         



             42           Pulusila, 425 P.3d at 182.  

                                                                     



             43           Id.  



                                                                                 -17-                                                                           7463
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

in the truck, the superior court had no basis for finding that Pulusila violated these                                                                      



                                                       44  

conditions of his probation."                               



                          We approach this issue differently.  We start by noting that the criminal  

                                                                                                                                                       



code authorizes a sentencing court to place the defendant on probation "under conditions  

                                                                                                                                                   

specified by the court."45                          Another section of the code allows the court to place the  

                                                                                                                                                                

defendant on probation "upon the terms and conditions as the court considers best."46  

                                                                                                                                                                        



The legislature has therefore granted abundant discretion to the sentencing judge to  

                                                                                                                                                                   



impose the conditions "the court considers best" hemmed only by the requirement that  

                                                                                                                                                                



these conditions must be reasonably related to the required constitutional sentencing  

                                                                                                                                                  

principles.47              We therefore interpret these conditions to  effectuate the intent of the  

                                                                                                                                                                



sentencing court "subject to construction according to the rules that apply to all written  

                                                                                                                                                         

instruments."48  



                          We  disagree  with  the  court  of  appeals'  conclusion  that  the  word  

                                                                                                                                                           



"possession" must always be interpreted to include a requirement of knowledge. Under  

                                                                                                                                                           



the criminal code " 'possess'  means having physical  possession  or  the exercise of  

                                                                                                                                                                  

dominion or control over property."49  This definition is consistent with the way this term  

                                                                                                                                                              



             44          Id.  (emphasis in original).
     



             45  

                                  

                          AS 12.55.015(a)(2).
  



             46  

                                  

                          AS 12.55.080.
  



             47           See State v. Ranstead                    , 421 P.3d 15, 20 (Alaska 2018).                   



             48           See Pennington v. Emp'r's Liab. Assurance Corp., 520 P.2d 96, 97 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                        

 1974).  



             49           AS 11.81.900(b)(50).  

                                  



                                                                               -18-                                                                          7463
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

                                                              50  

is used in other areas of the law.                                 No element of knowledge is necessarily implied by                                              

this term.        51  



                          We also disagree with the court of appeals' conclusion that there is no  

                                                                                                                                                                  



public benefit to a condition that requires a probationer to avoid possessing explosives,  

                                                                                                                                                 



ammunition, or drug paraphernalia, regardless of the probationer's actual knowledge.  

                                                                                                                                                                        



The benefit of such a condition is that the threat of punishment may cause the offender  

                                                                                                                                                       

to "exert his faculties" to avoid a violation.52  

                                                                                        



                          Even when an offender does not of his own accord realize  

                                                                                                                                

                          that his conduct is wrongful, he can in many cases be made  

                                                                                         

                          to  take  care.               Coercion  that  causes  the  offender  to  pay  

                                                                                                                               

                          attention can serve important social aims that would not be  

                                                                                                                                         

                          achieved by proscriptions that only come into effect when the  

                                                                                                                                        

                          transgressor recognizes the harm in his or her behavior.[53]  

                                                                                                                   



Therefore, this type of condition could make probationers "think[] before they act" in a  

                                                                                                                                                                     

way that will "reduce risky conduct."54  

                                                      



             50           Vezey   v.   Green,   35   P.3d   14,   25   (Alaska   2001)   ("Evidence   of   actual  



possession must be sufficient to alert a reasonably diligent owner to the possessor's                                                           

exercise of dominion and control.").               



             51           Cf. State v. Dutch Harbor Seafoods, Ltd., 965 P.2d 738, 739-40 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                        

 1998) (addressing strict liability violations including possession of fish taken by an  

                                                                                                                                                                  

unregistered  vessel);  McCann  v.  State,  817  P.2d  484,  485  (Alaska  App.  1991)  

                                                                                                                                                          

(addressing strict liability convictions for the possession of undersized crab).  

                                                                                                                                          



             52           See State v. Hazelwood, 946 P.2d 875, 883 (Alaska 1997) (quoting H.L.A.   

                                                                                                                                         

    ART, PUNISHMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY  134 (1968)).   

H                                                                                 



             53          Id.  



             54  

                                                             

                          See id. (quoting 1 WAYNE  R. L                            AFAVE  & A            USTIN  W. S          COTT, J   R., C        RIMINAL  

LAW § 47, at 337-38 (1972)).                                  

           



                                                                               -19-                                                                          7463
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

                          We have recognized that this "principle of reasonable deterrence" may                                                                    



allow the government to impose strict liability for a criminal offense "when the failure                                                                       

                                                                                              55  For example, strict liability may be  

to abide by a rule is inherently unreasonable."                                                                                                                        



imposed  



                           (1) when "a person's conduct is hedged in by regulation, such  

                                                                                                                                         

                          that one may reasonably assume his or her routine decisions  

                                                                                                                               

                          are guided by rules"; (2) when conduct is "malum in se," that  

                                                                                                                                          

                          is, so obviously wrong that all reasonable members of society  

                                                                                                                                    

                          recognize it as such; and (3) when violations "call for only a  

                                                                                                                                               

                          modest fine."[56]  

                                           



A probation violation is not necessarily "malum in se" and the consequences are rarely  

                                                                                                                                                                



limited to a modest fine.  But in one respect, a probationer's situation is similar to a  

                                                                                                                                                                         



company in a highly regulated industry:   a probationer may reasonably assume his  

                                                                                                                                                                     



routine decisions may be restricted by the rules of his probation.  

                                                                                                            



                          This is not to suggest that a probation revocation proceeding is the same as  

                                                                                                                                                                        

a criminal trial.57                 Since probationers have already been convicted, they do not stand in  

                                                                                                                                                                        

the same position as ordinary citizens.58                                        Therefore, the full protections of criminal law  

                                                                                                                                                                     

and procedure often do not apply to probationers.59                                                    We merely note that the "principle  

                                                                                                                                                        



             55           Jordanv.State                ,420      P.3d 1143,1149(Alaska2018) (citing                                         Hazelwood, 946  



P.2d at 883).     



             56           Id. at 1149 (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Hazelwood,  

                                                                                                                                                     

946 P.2d at 883-84).  

                        



             57            Trumbly  v.  State,  515  P.2d  707,  709  (Alaska  1973)  ("A  probation  

                                                                                                                                                       

revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding.").  

                                                                        



             58           See Davenport v. State, 568 P.2d 939, 947 n.20 (Alaska 1977).  

                                                                                                                                           



             59           See, e.g., AS 12.55.085(b) (allowing probation officer to arrest probationer
  

                                                                                                                                                     

"without warrant or other process"); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 (2001)
  

                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                 (continued...)
  



                                                                                  -20-                                                                           7463
  


----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

of reasonable deterrence" suggests that there may be situations when a probationer                                                     

should be strictly accountable for a violation.                                   60  



                        We now turn to the interpretation of the probation conditions in this case.  

                                                                                                                                                               



Conditions one and five required Pulusila not to possess any controlled substances,  

                                                                                                                                        



firearms, or explosives. As noted above, the court of appeals concluded "that Pulusila's  

                                                                                                                                           



two  conditions  of  probation  prohibited  him  from  knowingly  possessing  the  listed  

                                                                                                                                                  

prohibited items."61  The court thus held that "without proof that Pulusila knew that these  

                                                                                                                                                    



items were in the truck, the superior court had no basis for finding that Pulusila violated  

                                                                                                                                               

these conditions of his probation."62  

                                                                   



                        But it is not necessary to imply an element of actual knowledge to provide  

                                                                                                                                               



the probationer with fair notice that he must be careful to avoid a violation.  We faced  

                                                                                                          



a similar problem in State v. Rice, which dealt with a regulation providing, "No person  

                                                                                                                                                 

may possess or transport any game or parts of game illegally taken."63                                                           We recognized  

                                                                                                                                         



that this game violation was a regulatory crime that could be characterized as a strict  

                                                                                                                                                    



            59          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                         

(applying lower "reasonable suspicion" standard to search of probationer's home, as  

                                                                                                                                                     

opposed to higher "probable cause" standard); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 878- 

                                                                                                                                                         

80  (1987)  (allowing  search  of  probationer's  home  "based  upon  a  lesser  degree  of  

                                                                                                                                                     

certainty thantheFourth Amendment wouldotherwiserequire"); Statev. Sears, 553 P.2d  

                                                                                                                                           

907, 913 (Alaska 1976) (holding that exclusionary rule does not apply to probation  

                     

revocation proceedings).  



            60          See  Bearden  v.  Georgia,  461  U.S.  660,  668  n.9  (1983)  (stating  that  

                                                                                                                                                     

revocation may be proper even if probationer is not at fault for violation).  

                                                                                                                   



            61          Pulusila v. State, 425 P.3d 175, 182 (Alaska App. 2018) (emphasis in  

                                                                                                                                                         

original).  



            62          Id.  



            63          626 P.2d 104, 107 (Alaska 1981).  

                                                                           



                                                                           -21-                                                                    7463
  


----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

                                                                 64  

 liability   offense   at   common   law.                               We   nonetheless   determined   that,   to   provide   a  



 defendant with fair notice, the regulation should be strictly construed to require some                                                                 

                                                                                                                     65  We therefore required  

 degree of mens rea absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.                                                                                



the prosecution to prove that the defendant "knew or should have known" that the game  

                                                                                                                                                         

was illegally taken when he transported it.66  

                                                                             



                         We  believe  the  present  case  requires  a  similar  balance  between  the  

                                                                                                                                                            



requirement of fair notice and the requirement that a probationer take responsibility to  

                                                                                                                                     



 avoid possession of contraband.  A probationer is in a position where he can expect his  

                                                                                                                                                              



 conduct to be tightly supervised.  He should not be able to rely on willful ignorance to  

                                                                                                                                                               



justify a violation.   On the other hand, he should not ordinarily be required to take  

                                                                                                                                                           



responsibility for circumstances he cannot reasonably avoid. We will generally construe  

                                                                                                                                                   



 similar conditions to refer to careless or negligent misconduct - when the probationer  

                                                                                                                                             



knows or reasonably should know he is in possession of contraband.  Such a condition  

                                                                                                                                                 



will not be interpreted to impose strict liability unless it does so explicitly.  

                                                                                                                         



V.           CONCLUSION  



                         We REVERSE the court of appeals' decision.  We REMAND this matter  

                                                                                                                                                       



to the superior court to determine whether Pulusila "knew or should have known" that  

                                                                                                                                                            



he was in possession of contraband.  

                                              



             64          Id.  at 108.   



             65          Id.  at 108-09.   



             66          Id.  at 109-10.   



                                                                              -22-                                                                       7463
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC