Category Archives: Privacy

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.

State v. Patton: WA Supreme Court Acknowledges Search and Seizure Protections Afforded by Arizona v. Gant.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Police Misconduct, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, United States Supreme Court, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?

In State v. Patton, the WA Supreme Court held that an automobile search which happens after arrest is not justified unless the defendant is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search and the search is necessary for officer safety or to secure evidence of the crime of arrest.

Randall Patton was wanted on a felony warrant.  A Skamania County Sheriff Deputy spotted him. Patton was on his property and leaning into his own car through the window, rummaging with something on the seat.  The Deputy told Patton he was under arrest.  Patton fled, but was soon apprehended inside a trailer.

Deputies searched the car and found methamphetamine. Patton challenged that the search violated his state and federal constitutional rights because it was not a valid search incident to arrest. The trial court suppressed the evidence but was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

The Court found that Patton was arrested when the officer “manifest[ed] an intent to take [him] into custody” while Patton was standing by his car. Nevertheless, “the search incident to arrest exception is narrow and should be applied only in circumstances anchored to the justifications for its existence.”  The court elaborated their reasoning with the following:

The question before us, then, is whether it would stretch the search incident to arrest exception beyond its justifications to apply it where the arrestee is not a driver or recent occupant of the vehicle, the basis for arrest is not related to the use of the vehicle, and the arrestee is physically detained and secured away from the vehicle before the search. We believe it would.

Congratulations to Justice Jim Johnson, who found the case identical to Arizona v. Gant, decided earlier this year by the United States Supreme Court.   In Gant, the U.S. Supremes held that a search conducted by police officers after handcuffing the defendant and securing the scene violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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

Seattle v. St. John: Police May Obtain a Search Warrant For a Blood Sample When Motorists Refuse to Give Breath Test.

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Can I Refuse A Blood Test? - Welch and Avery

In Seattle v. St. John, the WA Supreme Court held that police may obtain a search warrant for a blood sample when motorists refuse to give a breath test.

After crashing his motorcycle in Seattle, Robert St. John was investigated for DUI. A police officer asked St. John to consent to a blood alcohol test.  St. John refused.   The officer obtained a warrant for the test.  The results were suppressed in municipal court based on a broad interpretation of a provision of the Implied Consent Law that prohibits performing the test once consent has been refused. The superior court reversed and the Court of Appeals certified three questions to the Supreme Court:

1. Does the implied consent statute allow the State to administer a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant after a driver has declined a voluntary blood alcohol test?

2. Does an implied consent warning violate due process if it does not inform drivers that an officer may seek a warrant for a blood alcohol test even if the driver declines the voluntary blood alcohol test?

3. Does the doctrine of equitable estoppel bar the State from seeking a warrant for a blood alcohol test after informing drivers that they may refuse the voluntary blood alcohol test?

The WA Supreme Court upheld the superior court and allowed the blood test evidence.  They reasoned that the Implied Consent law restricts performing a blood test pursuant to that law, but does not prohibit performing a blood test pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant (RCW 46.20.308). Similarly, the officer’s statements about the Implied Consent law did not foreclose his obtaining the warrant.

I echo the dissenting opinion of Justice Charles Sanders.  Simply put, an officer cannot force a driver to submit to a blood test if the driver refuses consent.  However, under the majority opinion’s reasoning, a driver’s refusal to consent to a Breath test is essentially meaningless.

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.

X52 Program Leads to Increased DUI Patrols and Arrests

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Traffic Commission, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

2018 DRUNK-DRIVING AWARENESS ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN | DMV Assistant

This past Labor Day Weekend, the Washington State Patrol made 296 arrests for suspicion of DUI.  That’s slightly higher than the 292 arrests WSP made over the same weekend in 2008.  In a recent report released by the WSP, there were 44 calls from concerned motorists which led to 20 arrests for suspicion of DUI.  The increased arrests — and inevitable prosecutions — are directly attributed to Washington State Patrol’s (WSP)  implementation of the X52 anti-DUI campaign.

X52 stands for extra patrols 52 weeks per year. The goal of the X52 program is to reduce speeding and DUI-related traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington’s roads.

Under the program, Washington Traffic Safety Commission released $450,000 worth of grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them provide additional impaired driving and speed patrols every week of the year.  These sustained enforcement patrols specifically target speed and DUI offenders, as well as look for other traffic violations. The program is being administered statewide through a network of community traffic safety task forces.

The X52 program also includes initiatives designed to let the public know that these extra patrols are happening in Washington every week. $450,000 is budgeted for paid radio advertising and alternative messaging. Earned media efforts will be spearheaded by community traffic safety task forces.

My opinion?  Clearly, the WSP is aggressively campaigning the X52 program.  I foresee even greater DUI patrol this holiday season.

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. Eriksen: Tribal Officers Can Pursue Suspects Off the Reservation

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Anatomy of a DUI investigation - Sanford Horowitz Criminal Defense, PC.

In State v. Eriksen, the WA Supreme Court decided that tribal police officers can pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation.

A Lummi Nation Police Department officer witnessed a motorist on the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider.  He began following the vehicle and activated his emergency lights.  After traveling a quarter mile the car pulled into a gas station located off the reservation.  The police officer witnessed the driver, Loretta Eriksen, hop over the car’s center console and into the passenger’s seat.  The officer detained Eriksen until a Whatcom County police deputy arrived, who arrested her for DUI.

Ms. Eriksen was convicted for DUI.  The trial court said Lummi Nation’s inherent sovereign power authorizes tribal police to continue in “fresh pursuit” of offenders who drive off the reservation.

The Supreme Court agreed.  It reasoned  that the Lummi Nation is a sovereign nation with inherent authority to enforce its laws and detain Indians or non-Indians who violate those laws.  Courts have long recognized the right of law enforcement officers to cross jurisdictional lines when in hot pursuit of a violator.

The court said this doctrine should apply to sovereign tribal nations as well.  “The Lummi Nation Police Department has authority under the Lummi Nation’s sovereign authority and under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, chapter 10.93 RCW, to enforce its laws by continuing the ‘fresh pursuit’ of suspects off the reservation and then detaining these suspects until authorities with jurisdiction arrive.”

My opinion?  I’m not surprised.  Recently, the WA Supremes have deciding other “hot pursuit” cases in similar fashion.  Indeed, in State v. Rivera-Santos, a recent case which my blog covered earlier this month, the WA Supremes decided that a defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights IF law enforcement was engaged in hot pursuit across state lines.

Additionally, I’ve found the criminal justice system is extra tough on defendants who “elude” law enforcement with high-speed chases.  Eluding is a fairly serious felony, especially if the defendant already has felony convictions on their criminal record.

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.

Bellingham Police Department Launches Anti-Crime Team

911 Call, Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Bench Warrant, law enforcement, Privacy, Terry Stop, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Exclusive: A look at the NYPD's anti-crime unit in the subway | PIX11

Bellingham’s finest created a five-person “Anti-Crime Team (ACT) dedicated to warrant arrests, stakeouts, sting operations, and plainclothes detective work.  The team’s goal is to reduce  — and follow up on — the number of 911 calls the police department receives.  “Our purpose is basically to do what patrol doesn’t have time to do,” Sgt. Keith Johnson said.  “If we can spend some quality time and solve problems rather than deal with them every time they flare up, then the community benefits and patrol benefits.”

The Anti-Crime Team (ACT) appears to be a proactive sub-unit of the Bellingham Police Department.  In short, ACT provides additional investigations/policing of our neighborhoods.  These activities include serving bench warrants, police interviews, stakeouts, etc.  In other words, ACT is involved in community caretaking.

Know this, however: “community caretaking” is, in reality, a legal term; and establishes an exception to rule that officers MUST have a warrant to arrest citizens.  ACT’s proactive approach could create a risk of abuse to the community caretaking exception of the warrant requirement.  Under WA law, and in light of the risk of abuse, courts must be cautious in applying the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.

n order to avoid abuse of the exception, community caretaking searches/seizures must be strictly divorced from criminal investigations.  Also, the community caretaking function exception may not be used as a pretext for a criminal investigation.

Given ACT’s proactive approach to neighborhood policing as a “community caretaking” function, we could see an increase in unlawful arrests.

The solution?  Be aware of your Constitutional rights when approached/questioned by police officers.  Be cooperative.  Avoid making unnecessary statements.  Ask for an attorney.

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. Garvin: WA Supremes Held “Squeeze Search” Unlawful

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Know Your Rights: Stop-and-Frisk | ACLU of DC

In State v. Garvin, the Court held that police officers cannot “squeeze” a defendant’s pockets to determine the nature of objects in the pocket.

An officer pulled Anthony Garvin over for a traffic infraction. When he noticed a knife on the seat next to Garvin, the officer ordered Garvin out of the car and conducted a search for additional weapons. In the process he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine. At trial the officer testified, “We don’t really pat anymore. It’s more of a squeeze search.”

Garvin moved to suppress the evidence seized, and the trial court denied the motion. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.  The WA Supreme Court granted review.

The court reasoned that the officer was not allowed to manipulate objects within the clothing, and his “squeeze method” exceeded the scope of a valid frisk under the “stop and frisk” rule articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The court added, “Without probable cause and a warrant, an officer is limited in what he can do.  He cannot arrest a suspect, he cannot conduct a broad search.”

My opinion?  Yaaaay!!

Many clients get arrested because police officers obtain evidence unlawfully.  It’s an outrage!  This case is beautiful.  I can’t wait to argue a Garvin motion in my future attempts to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.   🙂

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. Hinshaw: Absent Exigent Circumstances, Cops Can’t Enter Your Home Without a Warrant & Arrest for DUI

911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Corpus Delicti, Due Process, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES | Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer

Great opinion.

In State v. Hinshaw, the WA Court of Appeals held that absent Exigent Circumstances, police cannot enter a home without a warrant & arrest for DUI.

Here, the Moses Lake Police investigated reports of a car unlawfully driving on a bike path.  Police search the path.  They find Mr. Hinshaw on a bike close to the path.  He said he was a passenger in the suspect car, but denies driving.  They release him.

Later, the police find the suspect car in his driveway.  It had a flat tire.  They knock on the door.  He answers the door, yet refuses to come out.  He admits to drinking earlier.  Officers grab his arm, go inside of his home, and arrest him for DUI.  They are concerned his BAC level was dissipating.

The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that “exigent circumstances” justified Mr. Hinshaw’s warrantless seizure.  The Court saw several errors in the police officer’s conduct.   First, the officers failed to establish how quickly the BAC would/could dissipate.  Second, the officers could not estimate how long it would take to get a warrant.

Third, although the police had probable cause to believe Mr. Hinshaw became intoxicated and drove home, the reckless operation of the car and consequent threat to public safety had ended.  Mr. Hinshaw was neither armed nor dangerous.  He posed no threat to the public or officers.  His car was disabled.  Consequently, exigent circumstances did not exist.

My opinion?  Great opinion!  The Court of Appeals saw through the State’s smoke and mirrors.  This was not a case about exigent circumstances.  An emergency never existed!  No, this was a bona-fide; unlawful exercise of “arrest first, ask questions later” on the part of the police.  Clearly unlawful.  Kudos to the 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.

 

Kitsap Jury Acquits Medical Marijuana Defendant

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Legislation, marijuana, Privacy, Search Warrant, , ,

Pennsylvania MMJ Patients Face Choice: Cannabis or Guns? | Leafly

A medical marijuana patient being prosecuted in Kitsap County Superior Court for drug trafficking was found not guilty on Tuesday morning, after a jury ruled that his use of the drug was within the law.

The jury deliberated for approximately two hours prior to its ruling.

The prosecution alleged that the crop was being sold commercially, and that the Olsons were hiding behind medical marijuana laws as cover for a drug operation.

Defendant Bruce Olson decided to go to trial as the law had changed and he was advised that he had a better chance of acquittal.

The trial was attended by a floating group of medical marijuana activists, from patients to political activists. Several of them noted that it was rare for such cases to go to trial, as defendants usually enter a plea.

These activists filled the courtroom throughout the trial, with no visible support for the prosecution’s position.

Olson, who turns 55 on Wednesday, maintained a subdued manner throughout the trial, and barely talked when he was in the courtroom. This changed on Tuesday, when he was laughing and joking with his attorney prior to the verdict’s reading.

When it was announced Olson blurted “thank you, thank you you guys” to the jury, prompting Superior Court Judge Leila Mills to repeat her admonition to stay quiet until the jury was released.

“As a businessman I am really discouraged at all the money that was spent on this trial . . . It was a waste, and a lot of people who have seen the trial and are in business are wondering why I was prosecuted.” ~Defendant Bruce Olson

My opinion?  Great job, jury.  The government should not tamper in the affairs of defendants who are licensed to possess marijuana.  Period.   I welcome the day when marijuana will be legalized.  Let’s face it: the “War on Drugs” has failed.  Marijuana should not be demonized as a Gateway Drug.  Legalize it!