Fox v. State
In Fox v. State, 825 P.2d 938 (Alaska App. 1992), an undercover officer went to a residence for a pre-arranged drug transaction.
The expected seller was not home, but his brother, Fox, was. When the officer mentioned that he had come to purchase cocaine from Fox's absent brother, Fox "said that he would 'take care of' the officer."
The Court upheld the warrantless recording of the informant's transaction with Fox because his brother's absence was unanticipated, as was Fox's involvement.