Category Archives: Methamphetamine

State v. Vanness: Unlawful Search of a Lockbox Inside a Backpack.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals

LOCKMED GUARDIAN LARGE Combination Lockbox

In State v. Vanness, the WA Court of Appeals Division I decided that the warrantless search of a locked box found inside a backpack that the defendant was wearing at the time of arrest violated both the Fourth Amendment and Washington Const. art. I, § 7.

Defendant VanNess was arrested for having outstanding warrants in Everett, WA. When arrested, VanNess was wearing a backpack and carrying a bag. A police officer removed the backpack and asked permission to search it. VanNess did not respond. Everett Police Department had a policy requiring officers to search backpacks for dangerous items. Following that policy, officers searched VanNess’s backpack and found knives. They also found a small box with a combination lock.

The police officer used a flathead screwdriver to pry open the box. He looked inside. Although he did not see any dangerous items, he saw a scale and small plastic “baggies” and smelled vinegar, which he associated with heroin. The box was delivered to the Everett Police Department’s property room.

Police obtained a warrant to search the box. They found suspected methamphetamine and heroin, a digital scale, a glass pipe, and several plastic baggies. The Prosecutor charged VanNess with Possession of Heroin with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Deliver. Both crimes are Class B felonies. The trial court denied VanNess’s motion to suppress. At trial, the court admitted the evidence. A jury found VanNess guilty of all charges. VanNess appealed.

A warrantless search is per se unreasonable, unless the State can prove a “carefully drawn and jealously guarded exception” applies. These exceptions include a search incident to arrest and an inventory search. If an exception does not apply, a warrantless search is illegal and the exclusionary rule prevents the State from presenting the illegally seized evidence. Here, the defendant argued that the inventory search of his lockbox violated his Constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals agreed. It reasoned that although State v. Stroud and State v. Valdez each involved a locked container found in an automobile, the court’s consideration of the Chimel v. California applies just as well to the facts of our case:

“Where a container is locked and officers have the opportunity to prevent the individual’s access to the contents of that container so that officer safety or the preservation of evidence of the crime of arrest is not at risk, there is no justification under the search incident to arrest exception to permit a warrantless search of the locked container.”

Under Chimel, the Court reasoned that police officers may conduct a warrantless inventory search (1) to protect the arrestee’s property, (2) to protect the government from false claims of theft, and (3) to protect police officers and the public from potential danger. Courts generally uphold inventory searches conducted according to standardized procedures which do not afford police officers excessive discretion and when they serve a purpose other than discovery of evidence.

The Court of Appeals decided that here, an officer’s compliance with an established police procedure does not constitutionalize an illegal search. Similarly, the court rejected the claim that the possibility of a bomb or dangerous firearm in the locked box established a “manifest necessity” to search the box. They reasoned that without exigent circumstances, a legitimate inventory search only calls for noting such an item as a sealed unit. With that the court concluded that neither the search incident to arrest nor the inventory search exception applies to the officer’s initial search of VanNess’s locked box. Therefore, the police unconstitutionally searched the locked box.

My opinion? Good decision. It appears the Court of Appeals announced a new balancing test for some items found on an arrested person at the time of arrest. Basically, if the item to be searched falls within a category that implicates an arrestee’s significant privacy interests, the court must balance the government interests against those individual privacy interests. Only when government interests in officer safety and evidence preservation exceed an arrestee’s privacy interest in the category of item to be searched may it be searched incident to arrest without a warrant.

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. Rubio: “Exigent Circumstances” Found in Arrest for Possession of Methamphetamine.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES | Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer

In State v. Rubio, the WA Court of Appeals Division III upheld the defendant’s conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine because exigent circumstances existed to seize and search the defendant after it was discovered he had open warrants for his arrest and possibly witnessed a domestic violence incident.

Officers from the Spokane police department responded to a domestic disturbance call and found Ricardo J. Rubio inside the apartment at the reported address. Police ran a check on Mr. Rubio and discovered three outstanding warrants for his arrest. He was subsequently arrested and booked into jail. While being booked, police discovered methamphetamine in Mr. Rubio’s sock. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The judge denied Rubio’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. He was later convicted at a bench trial.

Rubio appealed on the argument that he was unlawfully seized because he was merely witnessed the reported DV disturbance. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. They reasoned the seizure was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

Some background is necessary. Generally, warrantless searches are unreasonable per se under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, courts recognize a few carefully drawn exceptions to this rule. The State carries the burden of proving that a warrantless seizure falls into one of these exceptions. A recognized exception to the warrant requirement allows police to seize and search a person without a warrant when justified by “exigent circumstances.”

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

An officer is allowed to stop a witness under exigent circumstances when (1) the officer has reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor or felony involving danger or forcible injury to persons has just been committed near the place where he finds such person, (2) the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has knowledge of material aid in the investigation of such crime, and (3) such action is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identification of such person, or to obtain an account of such crime. The rationale behind the exigent circumstances exception is to permit a warrantless search where the circumstances are such that obtaining a warrant would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape or permit the destruction of evidence.

Here, the court reasoned Mr. Rubio was lawfully seized even though the officer had no search warrant. The officer’s detention of Mr. Rubio was reasonable due to exigent circumstances because it was imperative that the officer quickly locate the injured woman and her assailant.

The court also reasoned the seizure under exigent circumstances was lawful for three reasons. First, the police officer had reason to believe that a crime was just committed at the address involving injury to a person. Second, the officer had reason to believe that each person who was in the apartment, including Mr. Rubio, had knowledge which would aid in the investigation of the crime. Third, the officer’s request for Mr. Rubio’s identification was necessary to determine the true identity of Mr. Rubio. Running the warrant check was needed to verify that Mr. Rubio was the person he claimed to be. Consequently, Officer Kirby’s seizure of Mr. Rubio was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

My opinion? This is a difficult case to swallow. Sure, Mr. Rubio had warrants for his arrest. And yes, the police can lawfully arrest and incarcerate people for that reason alone. And yes, the authorities regularly find illegal contraband during inventory searches and/or when defendants are booked into jail on warrants.

Still, it’s difficult to accept the notion that citizens can become criminal defendants by merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time; and that merely witnessing an alleged incident can lead one to be seized, searched and charged for a totally different crime than the one police responded to in the first place. Interesting.

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. Nicholas: Court Rejects “Jury Nullification” Arguments

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Nullification, Jury Trial, marijuana, Methamphetamine, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

What is Jury Nullification and Why is it Important? | Nevada CopBlock

VERY interesting opinion from the WA Court of Appeals raises and dismisses the issue of whether jury nullification has any place in jury deliberations.

In State v. Nicholas, a jury found defendant Scott Nelson guilty of Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine, Possession of Marijuana and Use of Drug Paraphernalia. Nicholas appealed the verdict and argued that the trial court errored when it allowed the Prosecutor’s jury instruction saying, it was the jury’s “duty to return a verdict of guilty.”

Some background on jury nullification is necessary. Basically, it occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the jury believes the defendant is guilty of the charges. This happens when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. Nullification is a juror’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law because the result dictated by law is contrary to the juror’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Here, the defendant took issue with the notion that the “To Acquit” instruction from the Prosecutor states that jurors have a duty to acquit if they found the defendant guilty of the charges. This “duty” language, said the defendant, violates his right to have the jury acquit him if they disagreed with the law itself.

However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the State of Washington’s 1874 case Hartigan v. Territory of Washington disassembles the defendant’s argument: The Hartigan court wrote, “A juryman is just as much bound by the laws of this territory as any other citizen. He acquires no right to disregard that law simply because he has taken an oath as juryman to aid in its administration.”

The court also reasoned, “Judges must declare the law, while jurors must swear to faithfully apply that law.” Their oath to faithfully apply the law is under RCW 4.44.260, which states the following:

When the jury has been selected, an oath or affirmation shall be administered to the jurors, in substance that they and each ofthem, will well, and truly try, the matter in issue between the plaintiff and defendant, anda true verdict give, according to the law and evidence as given them on the trial.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the use of the word “duty” is consistent with the oath requirement that the jury give a true verdict, and that it does so according to the law and evidence.

Finally, the Court discussed the horrors surrounding the verdicts of defendants accused of killing and maiming individuals because of racial hatred, and that these jurors exercised jury nullification even though the evidence against the defendants was strong. The court describes how the murder trials involving the death of African American Emmett Till and NAACP leader Medgar Evers were horrible examples of jury nullification gone wrong.

The Court of Appeals concluded with a strong, scathing remark on jury nullification:

A fundamental value of America is the rule of law rather than rule by men. The Washington populace justifiably does not want activist judges who base decisions upon political views or moral judgments. The same should hold true for jurors. Jury nullification destroys the rule of law upon which America is based. As the 1992 Los Angeles riots evidence, nullification engenders anarchy.

My opinion? I see the pros and cons of this decision. On the one hand, I agree with the court that jury nullification can lead to horrible results and miscarriages of justice. On the other hand, although jury nullification is by no means a Constitutional right, it is an inherent feature of the use of jury trial verdicts. Sometimes, the law is simply unjust, misapplied by Prosecutors or simply out-of-touch with today’s reality.

For the most part, jury nullification is sometimes applied by juries yet rarely spoken about in open court. It is  certainly not supported by judges. 99.9% of all judges will refuse to formally instruct juries that the may “nullify” and acquit a defendant based on their disagreements with the law itself.

Indeed, judges constantly tell juries they must apply the law, not disagree with it! Judges know that the power to acquit a defendant does not require any instruction from the judge telling the jury that it may do so. In other words, although courts recognize that jury nullification occurs in practice, they will not promote it nor educate jurors about nullification.

Again, interesting 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.

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.

State v. Schultz: Warrantless Search of Home

911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Drug Offenses, Exigent Circumstances, felony, Knock & Talk, law enforcement, marijuana, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Vindictive Police: 6 Detectives Search Yehuda Glick's Home following Temple Mount Arrest | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | David Israel | 24 Shevat 5780 – February 19, 2020 | JewishPress.com

Excellent opinion. In State v. Schulz, the WA Supreme Court held that the Exigent Circumstances exception to the Search Warrant requirement was inapplicable when police unlawfully searched the Defendant’s home.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Officers received a 911 call about a couple was yelling inside their apartment.  Officers drove to the scene.  The woman, Ms. Schultz, consented to the officer’s request to enter the apartment.  Officers found a marijuana pipe.  Upon their find, they also conducted a more intrusive – and warrantless – search of the apartment.  Methamphetamine was found. Ms. Schultz was charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

COURT’S REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS

The WA Supremes reasoned the test for an emergency aid exception (also called Exigent Circumstances) entry has been expanded to include the following elements: (1) The police officer subjectively believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety concerns; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was need for assistance; (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place being searched; (4) there is an imminent threat of substantial injury to persons or property; (5) state agents must believe a specific person or persons or property are in need of immediate help for health or safety reasons; and (6) the claimed emergency is not a mere pretext for an evidentiary search.

They further reasoned that here, the mere acquiescence to an officer’s entry is not consent to search.  It is also not an exception to our state’s constitutional protection of the privacy of the home. Finally, while the likelihood of domestic violence may be considered by courts when evaluating whether the requirements of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement have been satisfied, the warrantless entry in this case was unnecessary.  Officers merely heard raised voices from outside the home.  The agitated and flustered woman who answered the door indicated that no one else was present in the home.  No emergency existed.

My opinion?  Good decision.  Granting a police officer’s request to enter the home is not, by itself, consent to search the home.  Period.

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. Doughty: WA Supremes Limit Scope of Terry Stops

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, Jail, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

terry stop | Nevada Public Radio

In State v. Doughty, the WA Supreme Court held that a person’s two-minute visit to a suspected drug house at 3:20 in the morning is insufficient grounds for an investigative seizure.

Late one night, defendant Walter Moses Doughty approached a suspected drug house, stayed for two minutes, then drove away.  A police officer who observed Doughty’s approach and departure stopped Doughty on suspicion of drug activity.  This is typically called a Terry stop under Terry v. Ohio.

During this investigative seizure the officer ran a records check and, based on the results, arrested Doughty for driving with a suspended license.  Police found methamphetamine during a vehicle search incident to arrest.  At trial, he was convicted of Possession of Methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction.  The case ended up with the WA Supremes.

Some explanation of a Terry stop is necessary.  In justifying the particular intrusion/investigation, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.  When reviewing the merits of an investigatory stop, a court must evaluate the totality of circumstances presented to the investigating officer.  The State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the stop was justified.

Under this analysis, the WA Supremes reasoned that a person’s presence in a high-crime area at a “late hour” does not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion to detain that person.  Similarly, a person’s “mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not justify the stop.”

Although the State argued the circumstances warranted the search, the court reasoned that Police may not seize a person who visits a location — even a suspected drug house — merely because the person was there at 3:20 a.m. for only two minutes.  “The Terry-stop threshold was created to stop police from this very brand of interference with people’s everyday lives.”  Additionally, the United States Supreme Court embraced the Terry rule to stop police from acting on mere hunches.

Finally, the Court reasoned that Officer Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations.  There was no informant’s tip and no furtive movement.  Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m.  Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty did at the house.  Accordingly, these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into Doughty’s private affairs.

The WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals, suppress the evidence against Doughty, and vacated his conviction.

My opinion?  GREAT decision.  It’s always nice when our esteemed judges follow the law in undramatic fashion.  Clearly, the stop was unlawful and the evidence should have been suppressed by the trial court and court of Appeals. 🙂

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. Afana: ANOTHER Awesome Decision re. Illegal Car Searches

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Passengers, Tire Chalking, Warrantless Searches

In State v. Afana, the WA Supreme Court held the warrantless search of a vehicle incident to passenger arrest was unlawful, and there is no “good faith” exception under the Washington Constitution.

BACKGROUND FACTS

At 3:40 a.m., Deputy Miller noticed a car which was legally parked on a city street in Spokane County.  He became suspicious, parked his cruiser behind the vehicle, shone his spotlight on it, and made contact.  Two people were inside.  The driver said they were watching a movie on his portable DVD player.  Deputy Miller ran warrant checks on both individuals.  He discovered a warrant existed for the passenger, Ms. Bergeron, for the crime of Criminal Trespass.  He arrests her.

Deputy Miller searched the car and found a black cloth bag behind the driver’s seat.  The bag contained a crystalline substance which looked like methamphetamine.  He also found a glass marijuana pipe, needles, and plastic scales.  Deputy Miller arrested Mr. Alfana, the driver, on Drug Charges.

The case wound up for review before the WA Supreme Court.  in the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).  There, the Court said that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest “only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.”

The Court reasoned that, pursuant to Gant, nothing justified the search that happened after arrest.  Although the warrant for Bergeron’s arrest gave Deputy Miller a basis to arrest her, he had no reason to believe that the vehicle she occupied contained evidence of her underlying crime, namely, Criminal Trespass.  The deputy also lacked reason to believe that she posed a safety risk because she was already in custody in the backseat of the patrol vehicle.

Furthermore, the fact that the driver, Afana, was unsecured at the time of the search does not justify the search.  This is so because he was not under arrest at the time the search was conducted, and Gant held that “police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.”  Here, the only arrestee was Bergeron; who was already in the backseat of the police cruiser.

The Court addressed the State’s “Good Faith” exception to warrantless searches.  Historically, this exception allows an otherwise unconstitutional search or seizure if the police officer believes the search was constitutional/reasonable at the time.  Here, the court rejected the State’s “Good Faith” argument because there was no probable cause to conduct the illegal search in the first place.  The evidence was suppressed.

My opinion?  August is a BIG month for handing down post Gant-related decisions (please refer to my blog on State v. Tibbles).  I’m really impressed with how the WA Supremes are handling Gant.  They aren’t chipping away at Gant with BS opinions.  They are, in fact, honoring Gant.  Afana was a unanimous decision, with only one Justice dissenting.  Horray!  🙂

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. Maddox: Great Decision on Unlawful Vehicle Searches

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Vehicle Inventory and Community Caretaker - Daigle Law Group

In State v. Maddox, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Evidence found during an inventory search was suppressed, as no statute specifically authorized impounding the vehicle for Reckless driving or DWLS 3, the vehicle was not impeding traffic, it was not abandoned, and the driver offered to have his friend pick up the vehicle.

Officer Bonney pulled Neal Maddox over for driving suspiciously.  Upon contact, Officer Bonney noticed the vehicle’s tags were expired and Maddox’s license was suspended.  Officer Bonney placed Maddox under arrest, handcuffed him, and escorted him to the patrol car.  He search Maddox and found $358 cash.  Maddox posed no threat to officer safety and there was no danger of evidence destruction.

Nevertheless, Officer Bonney returned to Maddox’s vehicle, reached inside, and retrieved a key chain.  Hanging on the key chain was a metal vial with a screw top.  Officer opened the vial’s top and found methamphetamine.  He searched the vehicle, found a computer case, and discovered a handgun and more methamphetamine.

The court reasoned the officer’s search of Maddox’s keychain was unlawful.  Since Maddox was handcuffed in the backseat of the car, there was no possibility of Maddox concealing or destroying the key chain and the items contained therein.  There was also no sighting of weapons or threats to use one.

The court also reasoned the vehicle impoundment was unlawful.  The police were not performing community caretaking, the vehicle was not abandoned, impeding traffic, or threatening public safety or convenience.  Also, because Maddox offered to have his friend move the vehicle, the officer did not rightfully consider any alternatives before impounding it.  Consequently, The officer’s impoundment of the vehicle did not qualify as a valid inventory search and violated the Fourth Amendment.

My opinion?  Obviously, I’m pleased.  Some may argue the court wrongfully decided the case because RCW 46.55.113(1)  specifically authorizes an impound when a driver is arrested for Driving While License Suspended (DWLS).  Nevertheless, there were larger issues at stake transcending a mere DWLS.  The officer’s unlawful search of the keychain itself moved this issue beyond statutory obligations imposed on DWLS.

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. 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.

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.