Alaska Employment Law

The State successfully prosecuted Gerald Mahle for in-home possession of marijuana, but lost on appeal after the state Court of Appeals issued State v. Crocker, 97 P.3d 93 (Alaska App. 2004)(court should not issue a search warrant for home unless it has probable cause to believe that the resident’s possession of marijuana exceeds Ravin limits).  Mahle then sued the Municipality, the State, and several DAs under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985. 

Judge Sedwick

1. dismissed the state because it is not a § 1983 person;
2. held that § 1983 does not apply to state violations of state-created rights (Crocker and Ravin);
3. held that defendants had probable cause for the search warrant;
4. held that the prosecutors were shielded by absolute immunity for their decision to seek indictments against Mahle;
5. held that the prosecutors were shielded by qualified immunity for their testimony in support of the search warrant, because their testimony preceded the issuance of Crocker (thus, Mahle’s rights were not “clearly established”); and
6. held that Mahle’s failure to allege race- or class-based animus precluded a § 1985 claim.

Herbert Viergutz of Barokas Martin represented Mahle; Joyce Weaver Johnson represented the Municipality of Anchorage and Rebecca Cain of the AG’s represented the state defendants.

Mahle v. Mun. of Anchorage, et al., 3:06-cv-00255 JWS, 2007 WL 2021814 (D.Alaska July 10, 2007).