Search Warrant For Marijuana Grow Operation

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

indoor marijuana growing property insurance

In State v. Le, No. 58336-4-II (Mar. 11, 2025)., the WA Court of Appeals held that a search warrant for an illegal cannabis grow operation need not necessarily include information that police checked the legal status of the grow operation and confirmed whether or not the operation is registered with the State.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In December 2017, law enforcement in Thurston County began investigating a possible illegal marijuana grow operation involving four properties. After investigating and surveilling the properties, law enforcement applied for search warrants. The warrant affidavit described the investigation and outlined numerous facts to establish probable cause. A superior court judge issued the warrants. Officers searched the four properties pursuant to the warrant and discovered over 1,000 marijuana plants. They also recovered tools, equipment, and supplies used to grow and package marijuana.

Officers arrested Ms. Le and her codefendants. The State charged Le with Drug Offenses to include unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. Le moved to suppress evidence obtained during the search. She argued that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause. She also argued that the affidavit did not sufficiently support probable cause because it did not indicate that officers checked the legal status of the marijuana grow operation. The trial court denied Le’s motions to suppress.

A jury found Le guilty of both counts. On appeal, Le argued thatargues that law enforcement was required to check whether the grow operations were legal and registered with the State and include that information in the affidavit.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals held that the facts in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause to search the properties involved. First, the affidavit described vehicle traffic and movements “consistent with individuals involved in the manufacture of marijuana.” Second, the affidavit notes that police reported smelling the odor of “fresh growing marijuana” at the defendant’s properties. Third, the affidavit outlines unusually high energy consumption at the four properties. Fourth, the affidavit stated that individuals involved in marijuana grow operations “often put the power in other people’s names to help avoid detection and investigation.” Finally, the investigations discussed in the affidavit revealed that although Ms. Le reported no income, she and other co-defendants purchased multiple homes, paid significantly high energy bills, made home improvements, and purchased multiple vehicles.

“We hold that the facts outlined in the affidavit, when viewed together, established probable cause to search all four properties, regardless of the fact that the odor of marijuana was only detected at two of the four properties.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Further, the Court of Appeals held that the search warrant was valid even though the affidavit did not indicate whether the marijuana grow operations were legal and registered with the state. In short, the Court of Appeals held Ms. Le lacked legal authority to support the argument:

“The State, in response, correctly notes that no case has held that a search warrant application must affirm, as a precondition to a finding of probable cause, that officers searched the medical cannabis authorization database to confirm that the suspect does not hold a registration.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Additionally, the Court reasoned that a suspect’s presence in the registry does not mean that their possession or use of marijuana is, in all respects, lawful. Moreover, each of the locations named in the search warrant application were single-family residences. Under the law, the Liquor Control Board cannot approve a license to process cannabis at a personal residence.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Ms. Le’s convictions.

Please review my Search & Seizure Guideline and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Testifying Non-Citizen Witnesses Can Be Cross-Examined On Their U-Visa Status

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Immigration, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, U-Visa, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In State v. Bravo, No. 85030-0-I (February 18, 2025), the  WA Court of Appeals held that prohibiting cross-examination into a victims’ pending U-Visa application may violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses. Bravo is an important legal decision regarding whether a victim/witness seeking U.S. citizenship can be impeached at trial for assisting the prosecution in furtherance of gaining citizenship.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Mr. Bravo of a Sex Offense. At trial, Bravo sought to cross-examine the victim, M.H., about her and her family’s pending U-visa application. A U-visa grants temporary legal residence to a person who is the victim of a qualifying crime and who helps law enforcement investigate or prosecute that crime.  Qualifying crimes include, among other things, Homicide, Kidnapping, Domestic Violence, and Drug Offenses.

The trial court limited Bravo’s cross-examination of M.H. to her knowledge at the time of her initial report to investigators—six years before her trial testimony. The court also prohibited cross-examination of M.H.’s sister, L.H., as to their immigration status. On appeal, he argues that exclusion of the U-visa evidence violated his state and federal constitutional rights to confront witnesses.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) began its analysis by saying both the United States and Washington State Constitutions guarantee a defendant’s right to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against them.

“The primary and most important component of the confrontation right is the right to conduct a meaningful cross-examination of adverse witnesses,” rerasoned the COA. “Cross-examination is designed to expose a witness’s bias has long been recognized as particularly important because it reveals a witness’s motivation in testifying.”

However, the COA emphasized that the right of confrontation does not give the defendant an absolute right of cross-examination. Judges have wide latitude to impose limits on cross-examination. These limits are based on concerns including harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.

“Inquiry into the U-visa may not have necessarily revealed that M.H. outright invented the allegations. Rather, the structure of the U-visa program can encourage some victims to be as helpful as possible to the prosecution in order to obtain citizenship. This could have motivated either M.H. or L.H. to embellish their stories and allegations. The evidence was relevant.” ~WA Court of Appeals

Consequently, the COA held that the trial court erred in prohibiting the cross-examination of M.H. and L.H. about their U-visa status.

Next, the COA addressed whether the trial court’s error to prohibit cross-examination of the witnesses’ U-visa status was harmful:

“The State’s closing argument emphasized that M.H. and L.H. demonstrated no bias and had no motive to fabricate. But Bravo was not able to cross-examine and expose any motive for bias or motive to fabricate, so the jury was unaware of their motives. Because of the State’s closing argument, lack of corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies in testimony, assuming the damaging potential of cross-examination were fully realized, we cannot nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the COA reversed Bravo’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence May Be Admitted Under the Independent Source Doctrine

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Chapter 9 The Exclusionary Rule. - ppt video online download

In State v. Tyson, the WA Court of Appeals held the Independent Source Doctrine allows admission of digital evidence seized from a cell phone pursuant to a valid warrant regardless of whether the officer’s initial, warrantless seizure of the physical phone was authorized.

The Independent Source Doctrine

The Independent Source doctrine provides that evidence from an illegal search may be admitted when it can be established that the evidence would have been eventually legally obtained from an independent source. For example, if police obtain evidence during an unlawful search but later obtain the same evidence through a valid search warrant, the evidence can be used in court. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Tyson was charged with numerous sex offenses. He moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone by police. He later expanded his motion to include suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the search warrants in this case.

With regard to the cell phone, Tyson argued that the deputy’s seizure of the phone pending the issuance of a warrant to search it was unlawful, and that any evidence obtained during the subsequent search of the phone should be suppressed. With respect to the search warrants, Tyson argued that the first warrant was unlawful because it lacked sufficient particularity. Tyson further argued that the evidence obtained as a result of the subsequent warrants should be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree” of the unlawful first warrant.

Following a pre-trial hearing, the trial court denied both of Tyson’s motions to suppress. The trial court ruled that the warrantless seizure of the cell phone was authorized by the exigent circumstances exception, but not by the plain view exception. The trial court further ruled that the warrants were supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular.

The case proceeded to a bench trial. The judge found Tyson guilty on charges.

On appeal, Tyson argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motions to suppress evidence. First, Tyson argued that the warrantless seizure of his cell phone was unconstitutional because no exception to the warrant requirement applies. Next, Tyson argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence obtained pursuant to the warrants to search Tyson’s cell phone, laptop, and hard drive. Tyson argues that the warrants were unconstitutional because they were not supported by probable cause under the Aguilar/Spinelli test, and the allegations in the warrant were not sufficiently particularized.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

In short, the WA Court of Appeals held that regardless of whether the warrantless seizure of Tyson’s cell phone was authorized, evidence obtained from the cell phone is admissible under the independent source doctrine because it was seized pursuant to a valid warrant.

“As we conclude above, the photos and evidence on the cell phone were seized pursuant to valid search warrants. Because there had been no search of the phone prior to the warrant application, no information from the phone was used in any of the search warrant affidavits. Therefore, neither the deputy’s decision to seek the warrants nor magistrate’s decision to issue the warrants were influenced by the warrantless seizure of the cell phone. The trial court did not err in denying Tyson’s motion to suppress.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the Court of Appeals denied Tyson’s appeal and upheld Tyson’s convictions.

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a similar crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

House Bill 1596 Seeks to Curb Speeding & Reckless Driving

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

12V/24V vehicle speed limit device, The mechanical pedal speed limiter for cars

New proposed legislation could prevent reckless drivers from exceeding speed limits. Introduced by Representative Mari Leavitt (D), the  Andrea Smith Hudson Act (House Bill 1596) is currently under consideration in the Washington state legislature. If passed, this legislation would require habitual speeders and reckless drivers with suspended licenses to have a speed limiter installed on their car’s ignition. Acting much like a breathalyzer, this device uses GPS to keep the vehicle within the speed limit.

The Andrea Smith Hudson Act is named in honor of Andrea Hudson, who was driving a minivan with five children when an Audi traveling at 112 mph struck her vehicle at an intersection in Renton. Hudson and three of the children in her car, including 12-year-old Buster Brown, 12-year-old Matilda Wilcoxson and 13-year-old Eloise Wilcoxson, were killed instantly.

“My bill attempts to address these factors by focusing on those who have repeatedly shown these behaviors. I propose implementing Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) technology for habitual speed violators as a tool for our Courts to impose on these habitual speeders. This technology, which has been successful in other regions as well as countries, ensures that vehicles adhere to posted speed limits, significantly reducing the likelihood of speed-related crashes. In addition to ISA devices, the bill requires speed limiters for repeat offenders as a condition of being able to drive.” ~Representative Mari Leavitt.

Key measures of the legislation include:

  • Targeting the most dangerous violations (20+ mph over the limit) rather than penalizing minor infractions.
  • Providing opportunities for folks with suspensions to drive with this tool similar to the ignition interlock program as imposed by a court.
  • Implementing a structured fee system for ISA device installation that considers financial capabilities, ensuring all drivers can comply.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Reckless Driving or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Traffic Safety For All

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Washington doesn't need to choose between road safety and equity — we can have both. Traffic Safety for All (HB 1513) will improve road safety by helping law enforcement better focus on

A new Democratic-backed bill is gaining momentum in the state Legislature. Dubbed “The Traffic Safety for All” legislation, House Bill 1512 would bar police from stopping drivers solely for nonmoving violations, like expired tabs or a broken headlight.

The legislation is a top priority for the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. Instead of pulling people over, officers would send warnings in the mail about nonmoving violations if they have no other reason for a stop.

WHAT CAN/CAN’T POLICE PULL MOTORISTS OVER FOR?

Officers could still pull people over for any criminal offense, not wearing a seat belt, not having license plates, or having an expired registration. The same goes for faulty equipment, a shattered windshield that affects visibility or a dragging muffler. And police could still cite drivers for nonmoving violations during a stop. However, they would need to initially pull the driver over for something else.

HOW DOES THE BILL LIMIT POLICE POWERS?

When officers pull someone over, they would have to immediately inform drivers of the reason for the traffic stop. And they could only question the driver about that issue, unless they find evidence giving them a reasonable suspicion to ask about something else. Police would also need written consent to search the car. Furthermore, police can only search if the offense precipitating the stop is a gross misdemeanor or felony.

WHAT DO THE BILL’S SUPPORTERS ARGUE?

Supporters argue reducing stops for minor infractions would free up time for officers to prioritize drivers who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or speeding.

Police accountability advocates say stops for nonmoving violations do little to improve public safety while disproportionately affecting people of color. And the fines can be burdensome for low-income communities.

State troopers search the cars of Native American drivers five times more than white drivers, according to an InvestigateWest analysis of traffic stop data from 2018 to 2023. Troopers also searched Black and Hispanic drivers more than white drivers.

Between 2009 and 2019, Washington State Patrol troopers found contraband during a mere 0.27% of traffic stops, according to a Vera Institute of Justice analysis.

WHAT DO THE BILL’S OPPONENT’S ARGUE?

Police officials oppose the bill, arguing it is ill-timed given the dramatic rise in traffic deaths in the past few years. In 2023, over 800 people died on Washington roads, the highest mark since 1990. Impairment and speeding caused a half and a third of those deaths, respectively.

WHERE IS THE BILL PRESENTLY HEADED?

The Senate version of the legislation hasn’t been scheduled for a public hearing. The House bill doesn’t yet have a committee vote scheduled. The proposal would take effect 90 days after the session adjourns, scheduled for April 27.

My opinion?  Bouse Bill 1512 is public safety that benefits everyone. It addresses racially discriminatory police practices and improves safety.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a driving-related crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Voter Disenfranchisement Case

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Red background of someone standing behind bars and some of the background ripped away with a blue-toned ballot underneath.

Last month, the United States Supreme Court said it will not consider whether a Mississippi law banning people convicted of certain felonies from voting should be overturned. Mississippi’s law stands as one of the toughest such restrictions in the nation.

The Jim Crow-era practice extends to people convicted of nonviolent crimes, including perjury and forgery. A group of disenfranchised Mississippians asked the justices to determine whether it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is barred under federal law.

SECTION 241 MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION

The case centers on Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution, which denies people who have been convicted of a range of felonies the right to vote for life. The range of crimes include murder, rape, bribery, theft, forgery and arson.
The practice was codified in the state’s 1890 constitution as part of early Jim Crow provisions attempting to limit the rights of Black residents. The disenfranchised plaintiffs’ attorneys said about 58 percent of those convicted of disenfranchising offenses between 1994 and 2017, who have completed their sentences, are Black. Mississippi and Virginia are the only two states that continue to permanently disenfranchise first-time offenders who were convicted of non-violent and non-voting-related felonies. Black people make up 38% of the state’s population, according to U.S. census statistics, opens new tab.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action suit was brought in 2018 by six Mississippi men – including white and Black plaintiffs – who lost the right to vote even though they have completed their sentences for various felonies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said it applies regardless of the seriousness of the felony, even “writing a bad check for $100 or stealing $250 worth of timber.” Attorneys for the disenfranchised voters called the state’s “harsh and unforgiving” practice, which is enshrined in its constitution, a “national outlier.”

The 2023 appeal, which the Supreme Court rejected, contended that those who authored Mississippi’s constitution showed racist intent when selecting the felonies that would cause people to lose the right to vote. A lower court found Mississippi remedied the underlying discrimination by later altering which crimes are disenfranchising.

In the latest appeal, the justices were asked to reverse the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel on the appeals court deemed the provision illegal, but the full court reinstated it.

Last term, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Mississippi, in 2023 ruled 2-1 in favor of the claim by the plaintiffs that the ban violates the Eighth Amendment.

My opinion? Being convicted of a felony is obviously a terrible thing. Fortunately, your right to vote can be restored as long as you are not currently serving a DOC sentence of total confinement in prison.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

A Person May Harass Someone by Threatening to Injure Another

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Man pointing threatening finger

In State v. Johal No. 58980-0-II, the WA Court of Appeals held that a person may harass someone by threatening to injure another.  Therefore, the victim of Harassment need not be the person who was threatened.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Defendant Mr. Johal and his former partner Ms. Rivera dropped off their six-week-old child, SJ, with a friend. Later that night, after an apparent dispute, Rivera walked into a convenience store. Johal later entered the store and dragged Rivera out. Around 2:00 AM, Johal arrived at the friend’s house and insisted on taking SJ home. Johal took the baby to his apartment.

Vancouver police were dispatched to Johal’s apartment. When officers arrived, Rivera exited and they escorted her away. The officers believed that SJ still was inside the apartment. Several officers entered the apartment. Johal was holding SJ, and using profanity he yelled for the officers to leave his apartment. Johal then picked up a hammer, drew his arm back, and said that he was going to kill SJ. Johal eventually put down the hammer, but he then started walking toward the balcony and yelled that he was going to throw SJ off the balcony.

Officers stopped him from getting to the balcony and eventually removed SJ from Johal’s arms. The State charged Johal with Felony Harassment – Death Threats, Felony Violation of a DV No-Contact Order, First Degree Kidnapping, Third Degree Assault, and Attempted First Degree Assault.

At trial, the officers who witnessed the defendant threaten to kill the infant in his arms testified they the victims of Felony Harassment. That is because the defendant’s threats were to coerce or intimidate the officers into leaving the scene.

The trial court found Johal guilty of multiple felonies, including Felony Harassment-death threats. Regarding the Felony Harassment-death threats charge, the court orally found that Johal threatened to kill SJ and that the officers heard the threat and reasonably believed that Johal would use the hammer to kill SJ.

Johal appealed his conviction of Felony Harassment-death threats. He argued that the victim of the harassment must be the person the defendant threatens to injure or kill, and that third parties who are not threatened with injury or death cannot be victims of harassment. He claimed that the person threatened with injury or death – here, SJ – must be placed in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out to support a Harassment conviction.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The WA Court of Appeals began by saying that to sustain a conviction for Felony Harassment, the statute requires that the State prove that the person threatened was placed in reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried out. The only question here is who constitutes the “victim” of harassment.

Next, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Harassment statute states that a person is guilty of harassment if they threaten to cause bodily injury to “the person threatened or to any other person.” (Emphasis added.)

“This language establishes that the harassment victim and the person threatened with bodily injury need not be the same person,” said the Court of Appeals. “In other words, a defendant may harass one person by threatening to injure another person.”

Next, the Court of Appeals stated that here, a rational trier of fact could determine that Johal’s threats to kill SJ were both directed at and an attempt to coerce or intimidate the officers on the scene. He wanted the officers to leave his apartment and to abandon their attempt to arrest him, and threatening to kill SJ was his way of accomplishing that end. Therefore, the officers were the “persons threatened” under the statute.

“We hold that based on the offense as charged, the officers in this case could be victims of harassment under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b) even though Johal threatened to kill SJ. As a result, the trial court properly addressed under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b) whether the officers were placed in reasonable feared that the threat to kill SJ would be carried out.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Johal’s conviction for Felony Harassment – Death Threats.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Felony Harassment or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

A Terry Stop Is Not Improper Just Because Police Officers Handcuff a Defendant

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In United States v. In, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Terry stop  does not escalate into an improper arrest just because the officers handcuffed the defendant.  Handcuffing was a reasonable safety precaution, given the totality of the circumstances. Here, bicycle officers spotting a firearm in the back seat of the defendant’s vehicle during a parking enforcement stop.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Seng In (“Mr. In”) was charged in a federal indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm after a gun was found in his car during a traffic stop. Mr. In moved to suppress the gun in district court, contending that it was obtained as a result of an unlawful de facto arrest. He did not challenge the officers’ initial traffic stop as an unlawful Terry stop. Instead, Mr. In argued that the officers’ actions, in particular their decision to handcuff him, escalated a valid Terry stop into an unlawful de facto arrest because the officers handcuffed him before they had probable cause to believe that he was prohibited from possessing the gun.

WHAT IS A TERRY STOP?

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Ninth Circuit explained that in order to determine whether a Terry stop becomes an arrest, one must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the intrusion, the aggressiveness of the officer’s actions, and the reasonableness of the officer’s methods under the circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit further elaborated that when considering the reasonableness of the officer’s methods under the circumstances, “We consider whether the officer had sufficient basis to fear for their safety to warrant the intrusiveness of the action taken.” This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of law enforcement, while bearing in mind that the purpose of a Terry stop is to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence.

“In this case, the officers’ decision to handcuff Mr. In made the traffic stop more intrusive than a typical Terry stop, but the use of handcuffs was reasonable under the circumstances and did not convert the stop into an arrest.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here, the police officer saw an unsecured gun on the floor of the backseat of Mr. In’s car seconds into the traffic stop. When Mr. In was asked whether he had a gun in his car, Mr. In lied to police and said “No.” Although Mr. In was physically cooperative with the officers up until this point, he became uncooperative when he answered untruthfully the officer’s question about having a gun in his car. Therefore, Mr. In’s response reasonably raised the possibility that the stop could turn extremely dangerous due to the information gap that existed between the officers and Mr. In. The safety risks posed by the stop were amplified because the stop occurred about fifty feet from the Strip, a densely populated tourist area, and the officers were patrolling on bicycles without the protection of a patrol car if the traffic stop turned dangerous.

The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that because the officers were patrolling on bicycles, they could not place Mr. In inside a patrol car while conducting their investigation. If the officers had not handcuffed Mr. In, they would have had to rely on their ability to physically overpower him if he attempted to reach for the gun.

“Although Mr. In did not actually reach for the exposed gun, the question is whether officers had a sufficient basis to fear for their safety to warrant the intrusiveness of the actions taken.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers had a sufficient and reasonable basis to fear for their safety. This justified their decision to handcuff Mr. In so that their safety was assured during their investigation.

“The officers had good reason to handcuff In to prevent him from being able to access the unsecured gun on the floor of the backseat. The officers were eliminating the possibility that In could gain access to the unsecured gun. That conduct properly protected both the officers and the general public. And this is true even though Nevada is an open carry state. Because the officers’ conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, the Terry stop did not escalate into a de facto arrest without probable cause.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower order granting Mr. In’s suppression motion and remanded the case for trial.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search and Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office to Host Gun Buyback Program

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Gun Buyback Program, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

gun-buyback

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press – Mel Evans

The Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) recently announced it was awarded $125,000 from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to support a gun buy-back program and firearm storage in Whatcom County.

WHAT IS A GUN BUYBACK PROGRAM?

Gun buyback programs compensate individuals who turn over firearms to a public agency or private organization. In the United States, nearly all buyback programs are implemented at the county or city level, and participation is always voluntary. The primary goal of gun buyback programs is to prevent firearm violence by reducing the stock of firearms in a community.

Gun buybacks can also serve as venues for raising awareness of the risks associated with firearms, educating participants about safer firearm storage, and connecting violence prevention organizations, all of which could potentially lead to reductions in firearm crimes, injuries, or deaths.

The WCSO is one of 12 law enforcement agencies statewide to receive funding as part of the Attorney General’s Office efforts to promote firearm safety, combat gun violence, and support victims of gun violence. Some of the funding will be used to purchase gift cards in exchange for surrendered firearms, to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and to promote community safety.

“As the Sheriff of Whatcom County, I want to emphasize that combating gun violence is extremely important to me, not only as a law enforcement officer but also on a deeply personal level . . . Having tragically lost several family members to gun violence, I understand the devastating impact it has on families, communities, and our entire society.” ~WCSO Sheriff Donnell “Tank” Tanskley.

The Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office will provide additional details about the gun buy-back program, including the date, time, location, and eligibility requirements this coming spring.

HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE GUN BUYBACK PROGRAMS?

Gun buyback programs remain popular despite limited evidence of their effectiveness as a violence prevention tool. A combination of consistently high public support, low cost, and local control contribute to the political and practical feasibility of implementing buyback programs. In contrast, many other violence prevention efforts face intractable political debates, are cost prohibitive, or are implemented at the state or federal level. Buybacks might also be appealing because the results—the guns that are surrendered—provide public officials with the opportunity to point to immediate and visible “success.”

My opinion? The empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of buyback programs is limited and mixed at best. Regardless, buyback programs continue to garner considerable public support and continue to be implemented in many communities. They’re a step in the right direction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

New Law To Punish Those Who Injure or Kill Vulnerable Road Users

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Vulnerable Road User, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

New state law to protect vulnerable road users takes effect January 1

The Washington traffic Safety Commission reported that on January 1, 2025, Washington State will implement a new law intended to enhance safety for “Vulnerable Road Users” such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals using personal mobility devices.

The law aims to reduce injuries and fatalities from crashes involving non-motorized road users by increasing penalties for negligent drivers. A negligent driver is generally considered to be a person who fails to exercise ordinary care, which then endangers another person.

In the past decade traffic fatalities of vulnerable road users have increased dramatically. Since 2014 annual deaths of vulnerable people on our roads more than doubled. These aren’t just numbers; they’re people in our communities – neighbors, friends, and family.

WHAT IS A VULNERABLE ROAD USER?

Vulnerable road users are people on our roads and sidewalks that don’t have the protection of a vehicle’s cage to keep them safe. This includes people walking, biking, riding scooters and skateboards, using mobility aids, riding motorcycles, traveling by horseback, and even driving a tractor without a protective shell.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING

By statute, a person drives negligently when they fail to exercise ordinary care. To determine negligence, the law compares the action of a driver to a reasonably careful person. Did the driver do something a reasonably careful person wouldn’t do, or did the driver fail to do something a reasonably careful person would do? And did that driver endanger or likely endanger any person or property?

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES OF VIOLATING THIS NEW LAW?

Under the new law, penalties for a negligent driver who causes the death of a vulnerable road user include:

  • A fine of $5,000
  • Up to 364 days in jail
  • Suspension of driving privileges for 90 days

Penalties for a negligent driver who seriously injures a vulnerable road user may include:

  • A fine of $5,000
  • Suspension of driving privileges for 90 days
  • Traffic school
  • Up to 100 hours of community service

“This law is one part of Washington’s ongoing efforts to make our roads safer for everyone. By focusing on protecting our most vulnerable road users, we’re sending a clear message that when you’re the biggest and the fastest, you need to be the safest, too. Everyone has a right to safe passage on our roads, whether they’re in a car, on a bike, or on foot.” ~Shelly Baldwin, Director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)

The WTSC will run an educational campaign through January to inform drivers and vulnerable road users about the new law and promote safe road-sharing practices.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Negligent Driving, Reckless Driving or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.