Coffey v. State ( 1978 )

BURKE, Justice,

dissenting in part.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978), I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the electronic monitoring and recording of the transaction in this case violated the defendant’s rights under art. I, §§ 14 and 22 of the Constitution of Alaska. Thus, I would hold that the superi- or court did not err in admitting the evidence so derived and affirm Coffey’s conviction.¹

1 . On all other issues, I concur.