Category Archives: Due Process

State v. Hall: WA Supremes Determine The “Unit of Prosecution” For Multiple Charges of Witness Tampering.

Assault, Burglary, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Unit of Prosecution, Violent Crime, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Freehold NJ Witness Tampering Lawyer | Asbury Park NJ Witness Tampering Charge Attorney

In State v. Hall, the WA Supreme Court decided that an incarcerated defendant’s numerous phone calls to a witness constituted only one charge of Witness Tampering.

Defendant Mr. Hall threatened his girlfriend and her lover with a gun after finding them together in her apartment.  He flees the scene and drives away in a car owned by his friend, Desirae Aquiningoc.  Police later confront Aquiningoc about lending her car to Hall.  She said that Hall was her boyfriend, that he lived with her, that he had borrowed her car on that January 14 to visit his mother.  Later, police find Hall at his home and arrest him.

Based on what happened at Salazar’s apartment, Hall was charged with Burglary First Degree Burglary and Assault Second Degree and held in jail pending trial.  While in jail, Hall attempted to call Aquiningoc over 1,200 times. During those phone calls, some of which were played for the jury, Hall attempted to persuade Aquiningoc that his legal woes were her fault and that she had a moral obligation not to testify or to testify falsely.

The phone calls were recorded.  The State charged Hall with four counts of Witness Tampering.  Hall goes to trial.  The trial judge treated each count of Witness Tampering as a separate unit of prosecution.  Hall appeals.  The case winds its way to the WA Supreme Court.

The legal issue was whether Witness Tampering is a continuing offense or whether it is committed anew with each single act of attempting to persuade a potential witness not to testify or to testify falsely.

The WA Supremes reasoned that a “unit of prosecution” can be either a single act or a course of conduct.  Here, the plain language of the statute supports the conclusion that the unit of prosecution is the ongoing attempt to persuade a witness not to testify in a proceeding.  They further reasoned that, in the alternative, each conversation is a separate crime and, in this case for example, could lead to as many as 1,200 separate crimes.

“Such an interpretation could lead to absurd results, which we are bound to avoid when we can do so without doing violence to the words of the statute,” said the Court.  “It seems unlikely the legislature intended that a person could be prosecuted for over a thousand crimes under the circumstances presented here.”  Consequently, the Court held, under the facts of this case, Hall committed one crime of Witness Tampering, not three.

My opinion?  Makes sense.  It DOES seem absurd to stack multiple charges in this case.  After all, a unit of prosecution can either be a single act or a course of conduct.  It seems more realistic to view Halls many calls as a continuing course of conduct.  You can’t label the calls as single acts because he didn’t change his plans, motive, or modus operandi.

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. Jones: Rape Shield Statute vs. Defendant’s Right to Testify

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

What Is A Rape Shield Law? | The Defence Group

In State v. Jones, the WA Supreme Court held that the Rape Shield Statute does not stop a defendant from offering evidence or cross-examining a victim about the events on the night of the alleged sexual encounter, including the victim’s sexual conduct with other individuals during a wild sex party.

Defendant Mr. Jones was charged with first and second degree rape after his niece, K.D., claimed that Jones put his hands around her neck and forcibly raped her.  At trial, the jury acquitted Jones of first degree rape but could not reach a decision on second degree rape.  Jones was tried again for second degree rape along with the aggravating factor of being an individual in a position of trust to the victim.

Jones wanted to present evidence that K.D. consented to sex during an all-night sex party.  The party included one additional woman and two additional men, cocaine and alcohol.  During this party, K.D. consented to sex with all three men (which included Jones).  The judge, citing the Rape Shield Law, would not allow Jones to introduce such evidence because it was only being introduced to attack K.D.’s credibility.

Furthermore, during the trial, the prosecutor noted that Jones was compelled to give a DNA sample (did not do so voluntarily) and that he refused to clear up matters with the police.  At the end of trial, the judge backtracked a little and claimed that it allowed Jones to present evidence that the sex was consensual (but without mentioning the sex party).   Jones was convicted and appealed.  Jones claimed that the trial court erred when it refused to allow him to present evidence of the sex party and for the prosecutor’s inappropriate comments with respect to speaking with police and giving a DNA sample.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed.

First, the court reasoned that the trial court violated Jones’ 6th Amendment rights by refusing to allow Jones testify about the sex party.  “Jones’s evidence, if believed, would prove consent and would provide a defense to the charge of second degree rape.”  Furthermore, since no State interest can possibly be compelling enough to stop the introduction of evidence of high probative value, the trial court violated Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights when it barred his testimony.

Second, the Court held the Rape Shield Statute did not apply.  Washington’s rape shield law provides:

Evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior including but not limited to the victim’s marital history, divorce history, or general reputation for promiscuity, nonchastity, or sexual mores contrary to community standards is inadmissible on the issue of credibility and is inadmissible to prove the victim’s consent except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, but when the perpetrator and the victim have engaged in sexual intercourse with each other in the past, and when the past behavior is material to the issue of consent, evidence concerning the past behavior between the perpetrator and the victim may be admissible on the issue of consent to the offense.

Here, the Court decided the Rape Shield Statute protects victims from testifying about past sexual behavior.  In this case, however, Jones was attempting to introduce evidence of present sexual behavior.  Thus, to deny such evidence under the rape shield law would be to read out the term past.   Furthermore, since the evidence that Jones sought to be introduced involved Jones’s defense and version of what occurred the night of the crime, the denial of such evidence was NOT harmless error.  Jones is entitled to a new trial.

My opinion?  Under the circumstances, the court made a well-reasoned decision.  Their interpretation of the Rape Shield Statute appears correct: although one cannot admit evidence of the victim’s past sexual history, the statute does not prevent present sexual history from being admitted into evidence.  This evidence seems especially relevant when the victim is engaged in exploits in the manner described in this case.  Good decision.

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

Padilla v. Kentucky: Noncitizens Entering Guilty Pleas + Bad Legal Advice = DEPORTATION!

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Immigration, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Will a Felony Get You Deported - JobsForFelonsHub.com

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Defense attorneys representing aliens charged with crimes have a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation.

Mr. Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faced deportation after pleading guilty to Drug Offenses in Kentucky.  He claimed his attorney not only failed to advise him of this consequence before he entered the plea, and also told Padilla not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long.  Padilla says he would have avoided pleading guilty and gone to trial had he not received bad advice from his attorney.

In deciding the issue, the U.S. Supremes applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668.  The test analyzes whether (1) counsel’s legal advice fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there exists a reasonable probablity that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.

Here, Padilla proved his defense attorney gave misleading advice.  The Supremes reasoned that defense attorneys MUST inform a client whether his plea carries risk of deportation.  Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction.  They further reasoned that, recently, immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences.  The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens has never been more important.

My opinion?  Good decision.  Mr. Padilla was rightfully granted relief for his attorney’s bad legal advice.  Under the law, immigrants can be deported if they are convicted of crimes which expose them to serving a year or more jail time.  Practically speaking, this applies to all gross misdemeanors and felonies.  Simple misdemeanors are exempt because their exposure is typically only 90 days in jail.

Padilla warns defense attorneys to correctly advise immigrant clients of the consequences of entering guilty pleas.

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.

How To Protect Your Rights On Facebook

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Social Media, , ,

How to protect your privacy from Facebook | ZDNet

Think twice before posting those party pictures on Facebook.

The LaCrosse Tribune wrote an article on a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student named Mr.  Bauer. He was popular with nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.

He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.

He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites.

*       *       *       *       *       *      *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *

My opinion?  First things first, there’s certainly nothing good to be said about these sorts of law-enforcement tactics. Police always have better things to do than roam the Internet looking for pictures of naughty college kids and there’s no excuse for invading people’s privacy to make a couple petty arrests. The very notion of officers assuming fake identities on Facebook is just inherently repugnant and serves only to destroy their relationship with the very people they’re supposed to be protecting.

That said, it’s also worth keeping in mind that you have a 5th Amendment right not to post incriminating pictures of yourself on Facebook. It’s just an unfortunate reality that police do creep around on the web an awful lot for no particularly good reason and you never know where their prying eyes might land. This means you should think about what you’re posting, and keep an eye out for other people incriminating you as well. Simply un-tagging yourself from a couple questionable photos could be all it takes to save you a huge hassle down the road.

In my experience, this issue goes beyond what may or may not have taken place in one photo on one particular night. Seriously, I’ve known – and heard of – people who got passed over for a job because their prospective employer found unflattering photos online. Worse, I know of instances in which online photos were used to attack someone’s character in an otherwise unrelated criminal case. The bottom line is that posting pictures online has much broader implications than simply showing your friends what a kick-ass weekend you had.

Finally, remember that if you’re ever confronted with a photo that shows you in a compromising situation, you don’t have to incriminate yourself. Rarely will the photo itself be sufficient evidence to convict you of anything. What they’re really looking for is the confession that they hope will come spilling out of your mouth after they show you what they’ve got. If you keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer, chances are they’ve got nothing.

BTW, I’m not offering legal advice by posting this subject matter.  It’s offered for educational purposes only.   😉

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.

Berghuis v. Smith: Defining the Hardship of Obtaining an Impartial “Cross Section” of the Jury Community

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, Race & Law, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Jury Selection: How Social Media is Changing the Game | Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

In Berghuis v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Michigan state court did not create an unfair bias in jury selection for a murder trial. case.

The defendant was an African-American man charged with Second Degree Murder and Felony Firearm Possession.  He goes to trial.  At voir dire, the jury panel was composed of 60 and 100 individuals, only 3 of whom, at most, were African American.  At that time, African-Americans constituted 7.28% of the County’s jury-eligible population, and 6% of the pool from which potential jurors were drawn.  An all-white jury was selected.  The trial court rejected Smith’s objection to the panel’s racial composition.  The all-white jury convicted Smith of the crimes.  He was sentenced to life in prison.

For those who don’t know, the 6th Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community.  The issue was whether, under the circumstances, the defendant’s right was violated by the all-white jury’s conviction.

The Court reasoned that a defendant raising a violation of the “fair-cross-section” requirement of the Sixth Amendment must establish that any existing underrepresentation was due to “systematic exclusion” of the group in the jury-selection process. Practices, such as excusing people who merely alleged hardship or simply failed to show up for jury service, reliance on mail notices, a failure to follow up on nonresponses, the use of old addresses, and the refusal of police to enforce court orders for the appearance of prospective jurors, are insufficient to establish “systematic exclusion.”  Consequently, the U.S. Supremes upheld Smith’s conviction.

My opinion?  Pollyannaish as it sounds, this opinion shows why it’s SO IMPORTANT for citizens to show up for jury duty.  Juries are the last bastion of objective, impartial justice.  We all experience moments when we are wrongfully accused; not because we intentionally did something wrong, but merely because we look/think/act outside the norms of the majority.

That’s exactly why juries MUST reflect a fair cross section of the community.  That “cross section,’ however, can only happen if YOU – the citizen – do your part and answer the call to serve on a jury.  Your lone perspective adds depth.  Your life experience – which, amazingly, might be similar to the defendant’s/petitioner’s/plaintiff’s – adds insight to their arguments.

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. Eaton: A Defendant’s Sentence Cannot Be Enhanced For Involunatry Acts

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Search and Seizure, Sentencing, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

sentence enhancements Archives - Oklahoma Justice Reform

In State v. Eaton, the WA Supreme Court decided a defendant must act volitionally – with intent – to put himself within a zone that requires an upward sentencing enhancement.  An enhancement should not apply for drugs the defendant possessed when arrested and brought to jail.

Mr. Eaton was arrested for DUI and taken by police to the Clark County Jail.  At the jail, Eaton was searched by staff who discovered a small bag of methamphetamine taped to his sock.  The State charged Eaton with DUI and Possession of Methamphetamine and sought a sentencing enhancement for possessing a controlled substance in a jail or prison.  A jury convicted Eaton on both charges and found by special verdict that Eaton possessed methamphetamine while in a jail.  The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence.

The WA Supremes overturned the sentencing enhancement.  They reasoned that once Eaton was arrested, he no longer had control over his location.  From the time of arrest, his movement from street to jail became involuntary: involuntary not because he did not wish to enter the jail, but because he was forcibly taken there by State authority. He no longer had the ability to choose his own course of action.  Nor did he have the ability through some other course of action to avoid entering the area that would increase the penalty for the underlying crime.

My opinion?  Again, excellent decision.  It’d be different if Eaton knew he was going to jail and tried sneaking meth within the facility. However, those circumstances did not exist.  He was arrested for DUI  – a different matter altogether – and immediately booked into jail.  He never voluntarily brought the drugs into the jail itself.  He merely happened to possess them when arrested for DUI.

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.

Whatcom County Jail Gets Record Number of Inmates

Animal Abuse, Assault, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jail, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Pretrial Investigations, Probable Cause, Property Crimes, Retail Theft, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Terry Stop, Theft, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

COVID-19 infections hit record high in California prisons | CalMatters

Whatcom County Jail’s population hit a record high over Presidents Day weekend and since then, law enforcement agencies have been booking fewer people, to ease the crowding.
The jail’s population reached 323 inmates – its operational capacity should be 212 inmates -the weekend of Feb. 13-15, causing the jail to run out of temporary beds and come close to running out of clothes, sheets and other resources. From Feb. 1 to Feb. 16, an average of 26 people were booked into the jail each day.

Bellingham police have been citing and releasing some people arrested on misdemeanor, and booking and then immediately releasing others.  An officer might take some people to jail to have their photos and fingerprints taken, then have the jail release them.

My opinion?  I’ll state the obvious: the criminal justice system in Whatcom County has reached peaked capacity.  Jails are overcrowded.  Trial calendars are filled.   Trust me, I know.

The easy solution?  Hire an additional judge, build additional courts, and build another jail.  Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen any time soon.   Put simply, The County lacks resources to build jails and/or hire more court staff.  This is not due to sloppy spending on the part of the County.  The Whatcom Superior Court has already eliminated numerous services due to the decrease in revenues.  That said, the likelihood of obtaining more revenue to hire another judge and/or construct another jail is slim to none.

The harder solution – and probably the more criticized; yet WORKABLE solution – is for the Prosecutor’s Office to negotiate more cases to a favorable resolution.  They’re a trial-happy bunch, and unnecessarily so.  Not every case must be brought to trial.  Justice happens when all parties leave the courtroom satisfied with the result.

At any rate, overcrowded jails are symptomatic of larger problems.  The County judiciary is burning the candlestick at both ends.  We’re seeing a decrease in judicial revenues and an increase in inmates.  The state of affairs certainly is alarming.  Why now, and why all of the sudden?

A tough nut to crack.

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. Buelna Valdez: Search Incident to Arrest is Invalid (Tip of the Hat To Arizona V. Gant)

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Requirement - FindLaw

In State v. Buelna Valdez, the WA Supreme Court held that a search incident to arrest was invalid under the 4th Amendment.

Here, a police officer pulled over a vehicle because it had only one working headlight.  The officer ran a records search on the driver, Mr. Buelna-Valdez, and discovered there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.  The officer handcuffed and secured the defendant in his patrol car.  Officer searched the vehicle.  He noticed loose dashboard panels.  He calls a K-9 unit.  The K-9 uncovered methamphetamine located under a moldy cup holder.  The passenger was then also arrested. Both men were charged with drug offenses.

The WA  Supremes held that the automobile search incident to arrest was unlawful.  They reasoned that because the arrestee was handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car, he no longer had access to any portion of his vehicle.  The officer’s search of the vehicle was therefore unconstitutional under both the Fourth Amendment and the WA Constitution.  The Court also embraced the U.S. Supreme Court’s Arizona v. Gant in finding factual similarities between the cases:

“Under the Fourth Amendment, the arrestee was secured and not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, so neither officer safety nor preservation of evidence of the crime of arrest warranted the search.  See Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1719.  Furthermore, the arrestee was arrested based upon an outstanding warrant; the State has not shown that it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the underlying crime might be found in the vehicle.  See Gant, citing Thornton, 541 U.S. at 632 (Scalia, J., concurring).”

The Court also reasoned the search was conducted without a warrant, even though the circumstances did not prevent officers from obtaining one prior to the search:  “There was no showing that a delay to obtain a warrant would have endangered officers or resulted in evidence related to the crime of arrest being concealed or destroyed.  As such . . . the evidence collected from that search should be suppressed, and the resulting convictions reversed.”

My opinion?  Obviously, I’m happy.  The case is great law for defense attorneys.  Indeed, it goes even further than Gant. Although good, Gant was slightly problematic because it allowed police to search for evidence of the crime of arrest.   In this decision, however, the WA Supremes only allow a search if there is evidence of destruction.  Therefore, in WA, if the defendant is in the squad car, the police cannot search the defendant’s vehicle.  Beautiful.

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. Harrington: “Progressive Intrusion” = Unlawful Search

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

4 Charts That Show Stop-and-Frisk Is a Terrible Crime-Fighting Tool

In State v. Harrington, the WA Supreme Court held that the “Progressive Intrusion” of the officer during the investigations was an unlawful search.

Issue was whether the police unlawfully searched/seized the defendant prior to arrest, in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, requiring suppression of drugs found on his person.

In short (yes, I’m getting to the good part), the WA Supremes decided the search WAS unlawful, and amounted to a “progressive intrusion.”  Evidence suppressed, case thrown out of court.

The facts: On August 13, 2005, 11:00PM, Officer Reiber of the Richland Police was driving his police car on duty.  He noticed soon-to-be defendant, Dustin Harrington, walking down the sidewalk.  Officer Reiber made a U-turn, drove past Harrington, and pulled into a driveway.  He did not activate his lights or siren.  Officer exited his car and made contact with Harrington (this is called a “social contact”).

Officer Reiber asked questions.  Harrington answered them awkwardly and non-sensically.  Officer became nervous because Harrington kept putting his hands in his pockets.  The conversation lasted about five minutes.

State patrol Trooper William Bryan drove by the scene.  He initiated a U-turn, got out of his car, and approached the two men.  Similar to Officer Reiber, Trooper Bryan did not activate his emergency lights.  Upon contact, Trooper Bryan did not speak to either gentleman.  He stood about eight feet away.

Officer Reiber asked Mr. Harrington if he could pat down Harrington “for officer safety reasons.”  Mr. Harrington said “No.”  Officer patted Harrington down anyway, against Harrington’s consent.  During the pat-down, Officer Reiber found a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine.  Reiber arrested Harrington.  During the search, officers discovered a pipe and baggie containing methamphetamine on Harrington’s person. Harrigton was charged with Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine.

The WA Supremes articulated why the search/arrest was illegal, and consequently, why the evidence should be suppressed.  They discussed what “social contact” between an officer and citizen means:

“The phrase’s plain meaning seems somewhat misplaced.  ‘Social contact’ suggests idle conversation about, presumably, the weather or last night’s ball game — trivial niceties that have no likelihood of triggering an officer’s suspicion of criminality.  The term ‘social contact’ does not suggest an investigative component.”

The Court further reasoned that subsequent events quickly dispelled the social contact and escalated the encounter to an unlawful seizure. First, Trooper Bryan’s arrival at the scene escalated the situation away from a mere “social contact” because a reasonable person would think twice about the turn of events.  As a result, Trooper Bryan’s presence contributed to the eventual seizure of Harrington.

Second, Officer Reiber’s request for Mr. Harrington  to remove hands from pockets added to the officer’s unlawfully progressive intrusion.  Third, Mr. Harrington did not consent to the search.  Officers MUST have a well-founded suspicion to search when they lack a defendant’s consent.

Here, these circumstances lacked the foundational basis for a search.  Finally, and before Officer Reiber’s request to search, he did not ask for Harrington’s name or address, did not conduct a warrant check, and did not ask if Harrington carried drugs.

The court concluded Harrington was unconstitutionally seized because, like him, an objectively reasonable person would not have felt free to leave when officers asked to frisk.  Consequently, the seizure violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.

My Opinion?  Excellent.  Beautiful.  On point.  The WA Supremes got it right.  The cumulative effect of these violations — all three of them — amounted to an unlawful search.  I’m extremely happy the WA Supremes addressed the fine line between a lawful “social contact” and unlawful “progressive intrusion.”  I’ve had numerous clients face criminal charges as a result of an officer’s apparently innocent “social contact,” which was, in reality, a progressive intrusion into their privacy.

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. Winterstein: Parole Officers Cannot Search A Home If Facts Do Not Support the Officer’s Belief That Probationer Lives There.

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Parole and probation have grown far beyond resources allocated to support them

In State v. Winterstein, the WA Supreme Court held that parole officers cannot search a home if the facts do not support the officer’s belief that that defendant on probation lives there.

Terry Lee Winterstein was convicted of Unlawful Manufacture of Methamphetamine after his probation officer conducted a warrantless search of his residence. After trial, Winterstein’s counsel discovered that Winterstein had reported a change of address with the Department of Corrections at least three weeks prior to the search.

Neverthless, the probation officer searched Winterstein’s prior residence. Winterstein argued that the evidence gathered as a result of the warrantless search should be suppressed because his probation officer did not have the authority of law to search a house that was not Winterstein’s documented residence.

The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals also held that regardless of the illegal search, the evidence could be admissible under the “inevitable discovery doctrine”—that is, evidence that police would have ultimately or inevitably discovered through other (lawful) means.

The case wound its way up to the WA Supreme Court.

First, the Court addressed whether the probation officer’s search of the Winterstein’s former residence was proper.  They reasoned that, generally speaking, individuals under Department of Corrections supervision have a lesser expectation of privacy, and can be searched on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of a probation violation.  However, the Court also said that probation officers must have probable cause—a higher standard—to believe that their probationers live at the residences they search:

“In this context, probable cause exists when an officer has information that would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that the probationer lives at the place to be searched. The information known to the officer must be reasonably trustworthy. Only facts and knowledge available to the officer at the time of the search should be considered.”

Second, the Supremes addressed the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine.  They reasoned it is well-established that article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection of privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Section 7 says: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”

While federal cases have allowed for inevitable discovery, and the state Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine, the Supreme Court said the doctrine is “speculative and does not disregard illegally obtained evidence”—and is therefore incompatible with the state constitution’s expansive protection of privacy.

My opinion?  Extremely well-articulated and correct decision.  The WA Supremes’ handling/dispatching of the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine acknowledges the expanded freedoms under the WA Constitution in comparison to the U.S. Constitution.  Admitting evidence under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine leaves no incentive for the State to comply with the constitution’s requirement that arrests precede searches.

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.