Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

State v. W.R.: Defendants Do NOT Need to Prove Consent in Rape Cases

Assault, Constitutional Rights, Evidence, felony, Rape, Self-Defense, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

9th Circuit Affirms TCPA Consent Defense

In State v. W.R, J.R., the WA Supreme Court held that it violates due process to make the defendant prove the alleged sexual act in question was consensual when the crime charged is Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion.

The defendant, a minor named W.R., was found guilty at his bench trial of Rape in the Second Degree by Forcible Compulsion. The event in question was a sexual encounter between W.R. and J.P. that occurred on January 2, 2011, while J.P. was visiting her aunt, who resided with W.R. and his sister. J.P. was also a minor at the time.

Throughout trial, the juvenile court judge found W.R. lacked credibility. Consequently, the court explained that the State had proved rape in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt and that W.R. had failed to prove the defense of consent by a preponderance of the evidence.

W.R. appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred in allocating to him the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was consensual.

The WA Supreme Court granted review of the case on this one issue: When the State charges the defendant under a rape statute that includes “forcible compulsion” as a necessary element of the crime, does due process forbid requiring a criminal defendant to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence?

The court reasoned that once a defendant asserts a consent defense and provides sufficient evidence to support the defense, the State bears the burden of proving lack of consent as part of its proof of the element of forcible compulsion. It analyzed the decision in State v. Camara and other cases which applied a “negates” analysis. In short, the Court held that when a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime, it violates due process to place the burden of proof on the defendant. It stated, “The key to whether a defense necessarily negates an element is whether the completed crime and the defense can coexist.”

Furthermore, the court said other courts have recognized that when a person consents to sexual intercourse, such consent negates forcible compulsion. In addition, the defendant cannot be burdened with proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence, as the burden must remain on the State to prove forcible compulsion beyond reasonable doubt.

We hold that consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion. For this reason, due process prohibits shifting the burden to the defendant to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. While the defendant may be tasked with producing evidence to put consent in issue, such evidence need only create reasonable doubt as to the victim’s consent. Our prior decisions in Camara and Gregory are inconsistent with this holding; we thus must explain why these cases must be overruled.

My opinion? Good decision, on many levels. It’s satisfying that the WA Supremes overruled bad caselaw and reasoned their way back to the one of the oldest standards in American jury trial jurisprudence: it is the State, and not the defendant, who carries the burden. Making the defendant carry this burden violates due process.

Although it appears Camara and Gregory tried to carve out an exception to this general rule in much the same way a defendant must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence if charged with Assault, making a defendant prove consent in rape and sex cases is far too difficult to prove. This is especially true when the Rape-Shield statute suppresses information about a victim’s past sexual history. Good decision, WA Supremes.

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.

State v. Westvang: Ferrier Warnings, Arrest Warrants & Questionable Searches of a Home.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Evidence, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Consent to Search When There Are Co-occupants of a Residence — OMAG

In State v. Westvang, the WA Court of Appeals just decided that Ferrier Warnings (discussed below) are NOT necessary when police officers obtain consent to enter a home in order to execute an arrest warrant on a fugitive.

Police were searching for a fugitive named Scott Miller, who had a warrant for his arrest. Officers received a tip that Miller was at Ms. Westvang’s home. They arrived at her home. The  officers informed Ms. Westvang that they were looking for Miller. She said he was not there. Officer Sawyer asked permission to search her home and look for Miller. Although Officer Sawyer did not give full Ferrier Warnings, he informed Westvang that she did not have to consent to the search.

Westvang consented to the search and led officers through her living room, kitchen and bedroom. They did not find Miller. However, after returning to the living room, the officers saw a desk upon which were substances recognized as meth and marijuana, as well as small plastic baggies; a digital scale with a white crystalline substance, and $105 in U.S. currency.

Ms. Westvang was arrested for Possession of a Controlled Substance With Intent To Deliver. Although Westvang’s attorney argued a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to provide Ferrier warnings, the judge denied her motion. At trial, Westvang was convicted. She appealed.

Some background is necessary. In State v. Ferrier, the WA Supreme Court announced a rule to protect occupants who may not be aware of the right to refuse consent to a search or to limit its scope and duration. The court stated the following:

“When police officers conduct a “knock and talk” for the purposes of obtaining consent to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she maylawfully refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at any time, the consent that they give, and can limit the scope of the consent to certain areas of the home. The failure to provide these warnings, prior to entering the home, vitiates any consent given thereafter.”

Importantly, and after Ferrier was decided, the WA Supreme Court has since ruled under State v. Ruem that Ferrier warnings are not required when law enforcement officers seek consent to enter a home and execute an arrest warrant. Instead, Ferrier warnings are required only when law enforcement officers are conducting a “knock and talk”: entering the home without a search warrant to search for contraband or evidence of a crime.

Here, the officers were not required to give Ms. Westvang any Ferrier warnings because they were not requesting entry to her home to search for contraband or evidence of a crime pursuant to a “knock and talk.” The officers observed Westvang’s consent to enter her home to execute and arrest warrant. Therefore, no Ferrier warnings were required. Based on this reasoning, the WA Court of Appeals affirmed Westvang’s conviction.

My opinion? Cases like this are never easy. Consent walks hand-in-hand with duress. It’s very difficult for the average citizen to say “No” to law enforcement. Instinctively, we believe that refusing to cooperate with an officers request to search will only hinder their duties and bring harsher consequences for failing to cooperate. In these cases, and as soon as possible, it’s always wise to respectfully deny their questions and contact an attorney regarding your legal rights.

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.

State v. Merrill: Victim’s Rights to Deny a Defense Attorney’s Interview

Assault, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, misdemeanor, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

10 Questions to Ask a Criminal Defense Attorney | Browning & Long PLLC

Interesting opinion.

In State v. Merrill, the WA Court of Appeals decided that  an attorney may be sanctioned for directly contacting a crime victim after the crime victim has exercised her rights under RCW 7.69.030(1) to have an advocate present at any prosecution or defense interview.

The facts were such that defense attorney Mr. Harget was representing the defendant, Lucas Merrill, who was charged with assaulting members of the Gertlar family. The Gertlar family signed a “Notice of Victim’s Intent to Rely on RCW 7.69.030(10). Through the document, the Gertlars exercised their right to have a victim’s advocate present at any prosecution or defense interviews and demanded that any conduct, interview, or correspondence be arranged through the victim/witness office of the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office.

Despite the family’s wishes to have a DV advocate present, Mr. Harget nevertheless contacted the victim’s family in an attempt to discuss the case. This happened not once, but twice. The victim’s family brought this to the attention of the Prosecutor; who in turn informed the court. Ultimately, Mr. Harget was sanctioned by the trial court. He appealed the sanctions.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s sanctions. It reasoned that a trial court has the inherent authroity to sanction lawyers for improper conduct during the course of litigation, but that generally requires a showing of “bad faith.” Furthermore, the court is encouraged to make an explicit finding of bad faith before imposing such sanctions. Finally, sanctions may be appropriate if an act affects the integrity of the court, and if left unchecked, would encourage future abuses.

The court further reasoned that, when invoked, victims of violent crimes have the right to have a victim advocate present during an interview by defense counsel or the prosecution under RCW 7.69.030(10). However, the right given by the statute “applies if practical, and if the presence of the crime victim advocate or support person does not cause any unnecessary delay in the investigation or prosecution of the case.”

Here, the Court of Appeals found Mr. Harget’s actions supported the sanctions against him.

My opinion? This is a very tricky case to dissect. I’ve interviewed dozens of crime victims – the good, the bad and the ugly – during my career. Some victims do not want to be interviewed. When this happens, I’ll usually argue a legal brief that states the necessity of conducting witness interviews for the matter at hand. I’ll couch my arguments in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also cite helpful statutes and cases from Washington State.

It’s highly necessary to interview victims. Sometimes, victims change their minds about the incident in question after thinking about it. Sometimes, they recant. Sometimes, they want the case dismissed and the No-Contact Orders to be rescinded. Sometimes, victims have ulterior motives; or their version of the facts is inconsistent with other evidence, or they don’t have much opportunity to witness/observe the totality of the incident.

A defense attorney must know these things before proceeding to trial. After all, a defense attorney can be found to be ineffective if they don’t interview witnesses and victims! So yes, I fully understand Mr. Hagley’s dilemma.

On this same note, I understand the concerns of the victim’s family’s as well. I’m sure they simply wanted to be left alone, and not contacted by Mr. Hagley at all.

Interesting case.

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.

State v. Pinson: When Prosecutors Violate a Defendant’s 5th Amendment Right

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Forcing iPhone unlock violates Fifth Amendment, says Court of Appeals – Naked Security

In State v. Pinson, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Prosecutor violated a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination by arguing that the defendant was guilty because he chose to not talk to police when arrested.

Mason County Sheriff Deputy Nault responded to a reported domestic violence call. He contacted Stacey Campbell, who was in a parking lot across the street from her home. She said the defendant Jarad Pinson, her boyfriend, violently assaulted her. Deputy Nault saw red marks on her neck. Deputy Nault went into the home and arrested Mr. Pinson. During the arrest, Mr. Pinson was cooperative. He said he was drinking with his friends. When asked by officers if the situation became violent with Ms. Campbell, however, Mr. Pinson did not respond. he was arrested for Assault Second Degree Domestic Violence.

At trial, the judge granted the defense attorney’s motion in limine to suppress the Prosecutor from asking whether the fight was physical. However, defense counsel asked that question during cross-examination. Because of this, the judge ruled that Pinson’s defense attorney “opened the door” and gave the Prosecutor opportunity to cross examine the defendant on whether the fight was physical.

In closing argument, the Prosecutor said Mr. Pinson’s silence during arrest was substantive evidence of guilt. Although Ms. Campbell recanted her earlier accusations of assault while testifying on the witness stand, the jury nevertheless returned a guilty verdict on the Assault Second Degree charges. The case went up on appeal.

The law on prosecutorial misconduct is straightforward. To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that “in the context of the records and the circumstances of trial, the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. However, when the defendant fails to object to the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s argument, he is deemed to have waived any error unless the prosecutor’s conduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not “cure” the resulting prejudice to the defendant.

The 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution states, “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Similarly, Article I, section 9 of the WA State Constitution follows this language. Both Constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to be free from self-incrimination, including the right silence. A defendant has the right to remain silent both prearrest and post-arrest; i.e., both before and after a defendant is given Miranda warnings.

 Here, the Court of Appeals held that the Prosecutor’s statement was improper because in violated Mr. Pinson’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. More specifically, it was improper for the State to make closing arguments that infer guilt from the defendant’s silence. Even though defense counsel did not object, his failure to object did not waive the claim of prosecutorial misconduct because the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice.

The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

My opinion? Great decision. It’s a long-standing, basic principle that Prosecutors cannot infer a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. I’m pleased the Court acknowledged this basic principle.

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.

State v. Foster: When Detainments for “Officer Safety” Violate People’s Rights.

Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, police, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Police Officers Showing A Safety First Message Board Royalty Free Cliparts, Vectors, And Stock Illustration. Image 64115849.

In State v. Foster, the WA Court of Appeals held that a police officer cannot seize someone for “officer safety” reasons and keep them handcuffed indefinitely. Here, the police officer’s decision to keep the defendant handcuffed indefinitely instead of checking for weapons turned an otherwise lawful seizure into an unlawful one.

The facts were such that defendant Samuel Foster was accused of Burglary; more specifically, stealing a tent from the home of the alleged victim. In an effort to gain more information about the stolen tent, Officer Anderson made contact with Mr. Foster. The officer became concerned for her safety because Mr. Foster refused to take his hand out of his pocket.

Officer Anderson grabbed Mr. Foster’s hand and placed him in handcuffs as a safety precaution. Sergeant Renschler happened upon the scene. He questioned Mr. Foster – who was still in handcuffs – about drugs. Sergeant Renschler searched Mr. Foster and found a small bag of meth inside a cigaratte container in Mr. Foster’s pocket. Naturally, Mr. Foster was charged with Unlawful Possession of Meth.

At trial, the judge denied Mr. Foster’s Motion to Suppress based on an unlawful search and seizure. In short, Mr. Foster argued the seizure under Terry v. Ohio was unlawful because the officer exceeded what was supposed to be a brief seizure for officer safety. The judge found Mr. Foster guilty of Possession of Meth. The case went up on appeal to Division III of the WA Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that police can conduct a Terry investigative stop if they don’t have a warrant. A Terry stop allows officers to briefly seize a person in specific and articulable facts, in light of the officer’s training and experience, if the facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person was engaged in unlawful activity. In evaluating the lawfulness of a Terry stop, the court must inquire whether the temporary seizure was justified at its inception, and whether the stop was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the initial interference.

Here, the basis for the stop was insufficient. Simply because a person is in a high crime area does not establish a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal activity. Also, the simple fact that Mr. Foster had his hand in his pocket when approached by Officer Anderson does not support a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Foster was engaged in criminal activity. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled the seizure of Mr. Foster under these circumstances was not a valid Terry stop.

The court reasoned that the true nature of the stop was for officer safety. Still, however, Officer Anderson did NOT frisk Mr. Foster for weapons. The court said, ” . . . because the only legal basis to seize Mr. Foster was for officer safety, we are constrained to hold that the officer’s decision to forego frisking Mr. Foster amounts to continued detainment without a legal basis.”

The court concluded that Mr. Foster’s consent to search was obtained by exploitations of his prior illegal seizure, and as a result, the evidence obtained as a result of his consent to search must be suppressed.

Good decision.

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.

State v. Brock: The “Time for Arrest” Doctrine

Constitutional Rights, felony, Jail, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Should school officials be allowed to search students? | Debate.org

In State v. Brock, the WA Court of Appeals held that police officers cannot search someone’s backpack and arrest them for Drug Offenses 10 minutes after contacting a suspect on a Terry stop.

“NO,” said the Court of Appeals in a recent decision.  the facts were such that during a Terry stop, an officer separated Mr. Brock from his backpack. The officer subsequently arrested Brock and searched his backpack, but not until nearly 10 minutes after separating Brock from the bag. Officer Olson told Brock that he was not under arrest. Officer Olson asked Brock to put down his backpack, and Brock complied.

Officer Olson did not find any weapons or any other items during his pat down of Brock. He did not pat down or search the backpack at that time. At trial, the trial court denied Brock’s motion to suppress, finding that this was a valid search incident to arrest under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Some explanation is necessary. A “Terry stop” is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. The name derives from a famous United States Supreme Court decision titled, Terry v. Ohio.

Also, under the “time of arrest” rule, an officer may search personal articles in an arrestee’s actual and exclusive possession at or immediately preceding the time of arrest.

Here, the search of the defendant’s bag did not happen immediately after he was arrested. Officer Olson searched the bag roughly 10 minutes after seizing it from Brock. The bag was secured in Officer Olson’s truck from the time of seizure through the time of the search. Brock was 12 to 15 feet away from the vehicle and the backpack at the time of arrest and during the search of the backpack.

Brock had actual possession of the backpack when Officer Olson initiated the Terry stop and when he seized it. However, Brock did not have actual possession of the backpack at the time of his arrest. Brock’s backpack was neither on his person nor within his area of control at the time of his arrest. While Officer Olson had probable cause to arrest Brock when he seized the backpack, it is the arrest itself—not probable cause—that constitutes the necessary authority of law to search under article I, section 7.

Therefore, to find that this was a valid search incident to arrest, the Court said it must be convinced that, for the purposes of what is in an arrestee’s possession, “immediately prior to arrest” includes either the time between a valid Terry stop and the actual resulting arrest or the time between seizure of the backpack during the Terry stop and the resulting arrest. The Court concluded in saying that Washington Supreme Court’s opinions have not gone this far, and “We decline to do so here.”

My opinion? Good decision. It’s pleasing to know our courts are upholding the WA Constitution and following the stringent search and seizure caselaw. Kudos.

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.

State v. Saggers: When Officers Exceed the Scope of Searches Under Terry v. Ohio

911 Call, Assault, Constitutional Rights, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Terry V. Ohio (@ohio_terry) | Twitter

In State v. Saggers, the WQA Court of Appeals held that police officers exceed the scope of a Terry Stop when  an informant’s tip is questionably (un)reliable and the exigency of the alleged serious offense has dissipated.

Police arrived at the home of defendant Andrew Saggers because a 911 call indicated an altercation occurred outside his home involving a shotgun. The 911 call was placed from a payphone. Although the caller provided his name, he was unknown to the police. When police went to the payphone, the caller was gone and the phone was hanging from the cord. The police contacted Mr. Saggers.

Although the present situation was neither dangerous nor life-threatening, the police inquired whether Mr. Saggers had a shotgun in the house. He admitted, “Yes.” The police searched his home and found the gun. Mr. Saggers was subsequently charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. At trial, he was found guilty of the charges. The case went up on appeal.

The Court of Appeals held the police officers exceeded the scope of a search under Terry v. Ohio because the informant tip was unreliable and the emergency of any life-threatening situation was already passed. For those who don’t know, Terry v. Ohio is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.

Here, however, the Court of Appeals ruled that although it is understandable that officers faced with a 911 call like this one would rightfully pursue an investigation, the 911 Call itself was unreliable. Additionally, the danger had already passed by the time officers arrived at Sagger’s house. Consequently, the officer exceeded the scope of a valid search under Terry v. Ohio. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed Saggers’ conviction.

Good opinion.

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.

State v. Martines: More Good Caselaw on Blood Tests Taken After DUI Arrests

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Both cops, drivers have rights at checkpoints | Local News | scnow.com

In State v. Martines, the WA Court of Appeals held that after police investigate and arrest a suspect for suspicion of DUI, the State may not conduct tests on lawfully procured blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifying the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested.

The defendant was seen driving his SUV erratically. He veered into another car, careened across the highway, bounced off the barrier, and rolled over. A Washington State Trooper arrived and took Mr. Martines into custody. Martines smelled of intoxicants, had bloodshot watery eyes, and stumbled while walking.

Trooper Tardiff sought a warrant to extract blood samples from Martines. His affidavit of probable cause stated that a blood sample “may be tested to determine his/her current blood alcohol level and to detect the presence of any drugs that may have impaired his/her ability to drive.” He obtained a warrant that authorized a competent health care authority to extract a blood sample and ensure its safekeeping. The warrant did not say anything about testing the blood sample.

Martines’ blood was taken at a local hospital. Then it was tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol. The test results indicated that Martines had a blood alcohol level of .121 within an hour after the accident, and that the drug diazepam (Valium) was also present. Martines had a prior conviction for vehicular assault while driving under the influence. The State charged him with Felony DUI.

The trial court denied Martines’ motion to suppress. He was found guilty at trial. The case went up on appeal. The primary issue on appeal was that testing a blood sample for any purpose is a search for which a search warrant is required. Because the warrant authorizing the extraction of blood did not specifically authorize blood testing of any kind, Martines argued that the results should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search.

The court held that (1) the extraction of the blood was one search while (2) the testing of the blood constituted another:

“The extraction of blood from a drunk driving suspect is a search.  Testing the blood sample is a second search.  It is distinct from the initial extraction because its purpose is to examine the personal information blood contains.  We hold that the State may not conduct tests on a lawfully procured blood sample without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing and specifies the types of evidence for which the sample may be tested.”

In short, the court held that extracting someone’s blood is a first search, and testing the blood is a second search. The first search – the initial extraction – is totally different than the second search, which is analyzing the blood. Because the second search is so intrusive (blood contains someone’s personal DNA code, pregnancy results, information on diseases, etc.), a second warrant is needed. Consequently, the State may NOT test blood samples without first obtaining a warrant that authorizes testing. The warrant must specifically state the types of evidence they’re looking for.

My opinion? State v. Martines is an interesting decision. I admire the Court of Appeals for making a decision which is consistent with Missouri v. McNeely (discussed in another blog) and going one step further favoring a defendant’s constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment.

The opinion prevents police officers from getting a boilerplate search warrant and going on fishing expeditions when they pull people over on suspicion of DUI. The officers must be trained to determine what exactly they’re looking for; be it drugs, alcohol or both. Saying someone has bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech and smells of intoxicants does not, by itself, cut it anymore.

Good job, Court of Appeals. I’m impressed.

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.

State v. McNeely: U.S. Supreme Court Says Blood Draws Require a Warrant

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Harmless Error Blog: Missouri v. McNeely: Trouble for Implied Consent Laws?

In Missouri v. McNeely, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers investigating DUI must obtain search warrants for blood draws if emergency circumstances – in legal language, exigent circumstances – do not exist.

The issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.

The facts were such that the defendant McNeely was stopped by Missouri police for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood and alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.

The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a blood sample anyway. McNeely’s BAC sample was well above the legal limit. He was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that rather than applying a blanket per se exigency due to the dissipation of BAC in a person’s body, an exigency must also be based upon “special facts” under a case-by-case analysis.

The Supremes reviewed prior caselaw on this subject. In State v. McNeely, the Court pointed out that a diminishing BAC result upon the passage of time that happens during a DUI investigation is only one factor that must be considered in determining whether a warrant is required.

The Court in McNeely further stated that other factors, such as the procedures in place for obtaining a warrant or the availability of a magistrate judge, may affect whether the police can establish whether an exigency exists. In other words, a warrantless blood draw can still be conducted provided there are other factors articulated by the officer.

My opinion? McNeely is a good, straightforward decision. In short, McNeely holds that when a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a chemical test for BAC, if time permits, a warrant should be obtained. If an officer cannot get a search warrant in a reasonable time, the officer should explain in great detail why a search warrant could not be obtained.

The officer must be able to articulate what factors were present that created an exigent circumstance. Also, and importantly, “exigent circumstance” cannot be a result of the officer’s conduct. There must be objective, independent facts articulating why exigent circumstances exist to get a warrant.

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.

Unlawful Frisking Violates Constitutional Rights

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Austin PD defends officer who stopped and frisked woman in video

Good case. In State v. Russell, the WA Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a small container found on the defendant’s body exceeded the proper scope of a pat-down search under the guise of a “protective frisk for weapons” during a Terry Stop.

The defendant Mr. Russell was stopped for violating several minor traffic laws. The officer recognized Russell from a prior stop. Although the Mr. Russell told officers he was not armed, he did, in fact, have a small pistol in his pocket. The officer frisked Mr. Russell for weapons. The officer felt a small box in Russell’s pants. The box was did not weigh any significant amount, and the officer had no idea whether the box contained a weapon. The officer opened the box. It contained a syringe filled with methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested for Possession of Meth.

The trial court granted Mr. Russell’s motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case. However, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on appeal. Eventually, the case found its way to the WA Supreme Court.

The WA Supreme Court ruled that although the initial protective frisk was permissible, the officer violated Russell’s constitutional rights when he removed a small container from his pocket and searched it without a warrant. The officer admitted that the container’s contents weighed only a fraction of what a pistol weighs. Because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the container housed a gun, the warrantless search was not justified.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that any threat to the officer’s safety ended when he took control of the container. He did not have authority to search it while investigating traffic infractions. Finally, the WA Supreme Court  held that the search was not justified on the basis of consent because the State did not show that Russell consented to the search. For these reasons, the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals.

My opinion? Great decision. Under the law, officers can only search for “hard and sharp” objects which might be used as weapons. Anything else they find is “fruit of the poisonous tree” under an unlawful search. Again, good decision.

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.