Category Archives: Washington Court of Appeals

In re Detention of H.N.: Screenshots of Text Messages Are Admissible Evidence

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Constitutional Rights, Detention, Due Process, Evidence, Social Media, Text Messages, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

 

In In re Detention of H.N., Division I of the WA Court of Appeals decided that E-mailed screenshots of text messages that a medical expert used as part of her testimony were properly admitted as substantive evidence at trial.

H.N. is a college student who was less than 21 years of age at the time of the events leading to this case. She worked at part time jobs, and she had two roommates who worked with her at one of her jobs. After midnight on a night in May 2014, H.N.’s two roommates returned home to discover her unconscious on the floor and lying in a pool of her own vomit. Nearby there was an empty bottle of wine, an empty bottle of Nyquil, and a partially empty bottle of vodka. H.N. briefly awoke but then passed out again. One roommate called 911, and medics responded to the scene.

Afterward, H.N. was involuntarily detained for mental health treatment.

Thereafter, the State petitioned for up to 14 days of additional inpatient treatment, pursuant to the involuntary treatment act, RCW 71.05. For those who don’t know, detainees like H.N. may petition their local superior courts to be released from detention and observation. However, courts won’t release detainees if the detainee is likely to gravely injure themselves or someone else upon release.

On May 7, 2014, the court conducted a hearing on H.N.’s petition for release. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of a psychologist who evaluated H.N. at the hospital. The psychologist testified as an expert. Part of her testimony was based on what purported to be e-mailed screenshots of text messages between H.N. and her boyfriend, “A.” These messages were exchanged on the night her roommates found her unconscious on the floor, lying in a pool of her vomit. The psychologist read several of these text messages into the record. Over H.N.’s objection on the basis of lack of foundation, the court admitted this evidence.

For those who don’t know, the “lack of foundation” objection most often applies to exhibits or pieces of evidence other than testimony that are brought into court without an explanation of where they came from or what they represent.  Foundation is usually laid by having a witness testify as to what the object is.

At any rate, and after the hearing, the trial court found that H.N. suffered from a mental disorder and presented a likelihood of serious harm to herself. The court entered an order committing H.N. for involuntary treatment for a period of 14 days. H.N. appealed the court’s decision to detain her.

The WA Court of Appeals took the case and decided the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted as substantive evidence e-mailed screenshots of text messages that the State’s expert witness used during her testimony.

The Court decided that the text message evidence was properly authenticated pursuant to ER 901(b). For those who don’t know ER 901(b) is an evidence rule which allows or disallows evidence depending on whether the evidence is properly “authenticated” (or not).

Here, the Court of Appeals gave many reasons why H.N.’s text messages were, in fact, authentic. She gave out-of-court acknowledgments that she sent the messages, the identifying information at the top of the text messages showed that she was the sender of the messages, her phone number matched the contact information in her medical chart, the messages consistently reference names of people in her life, the messages were consistent with certain events in H.N.’s life, and the timing of the text messages were consistent with her hospitalization on the night of the incident.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s detention of H.N. and concluded that text message evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that H.N. posed a likelihood of serious harm to herself.

My opinion? The Court’s logic appears sound. Although the text messages are inadmissible Hearsay under Evidence Rule  (ER) 801, hearsay is, in fact, admissible under certain circumstances.  Also, courts may consider evidence that might otherwise be objectionable under other rules of evidence. They can rely upon such information as lay opinions, hearsay, or the proffered evidence itself in making its determination. Such information must be reliable. Here, ER 901 allowed the State to authenticate the text message evidence. It was reliable. Therefore, it was admissible.

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. Abitia: Sexual Assault Advocate’s Testimony Was Improper

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Jury Trial, Perpetrator Profile Testimony, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Court Says Eyewitness Testimony in Crash Case Was Improper but Harmless | The Legal Intelligencer

In State v. Abitia, the WA Court of Appeals Division I decided that it was improper testimony and reversible error that an expert witness for the State – a Sexual Assault Advocate, no less – testified that people who molest children often do not tell the truth and when subjected to polygraph testing and often admit to committing more sexual abuse than the child victim reported.

The facts were such that defendant Raymond Abitia went to trial on one count of Rape of a Child in the Second Degree and one count of Distribution of a Controlled Substance to a Minor. The alleged victim was Abitia’s daughter, KM. At trial, KM disclosed the abuse after an incident in Skagit County that occurred shortly after she turned 14 years old.

One of the State’s witnesses was Joan Gaasland-Smith, the sexual assault case specialist – also called a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate – for the Whatcom County Prosecutor’s Office. Gaasland-Smith was qualified as an expert to discuss child sex abuse in general. For those who don’t know, “Sexual Assault Victim Advocates” are professionals trained to support victims of sex crimes. Advocates offer victims information, emotional support, and help finding resources. Sometimes, advocates attend court and pretrial interviews with victims. Advocates may also contact organizations, such as criminal justice or social service agencies, to get help or information for victims. Some advocates staff crisis hotlines, run support groups, or provide in-person counseling.

Gaasland- Smith testified that it is not unusual for children to delay disclosure. She said while there is no single reason that applies in every case, there are many reasons a child may not immediately disclose. A perpetrator may have offered the child rewards, money, or special attention in exchange for silence. The child may value the relationship with the perpetrator, fear being seen as abnormal, or think that the sexual contact feels good.

Up to this point, there was nothing particularly objectionable about Gaasland-Smith’s testimony. KM did not disclose abuse until the Skagit County incident and even then she resisted disclosing it to the police. Abitia’s defense strategy was to challenge KM’s credibility. It is generally permissible for a jury to hear expert testimony explaining why delayed disclosure does not necessarily mean the victim lacks credibility.

But in response to the prosecutor’s next question, Gaasland-Smith began to veer toward generalities about perpetrators. She said, “Kids can be told by perpetrators that, urn, that other adults believe adults, they won’t necessarily believe a child.” Abitia objected to “this whole line of questioning as to what do other sexual predators do. Abitia’s attorney objected to the testimony.

The court overruled the objection, stating that “what kids can be told by perpetrators … is appropriate testimony for an expert witness.” The court warned the prosecutor to “be very cautious so that generalization does not directly or indirectly suggest to the jury that that is what has happened” in this case.

Gaasland-Smith went on to discuss reasons why children may be afraid to disclose. She testified that most of the time, children do not disclose everything all at once. When asked about the basis of her knowledge, she answered that sexual deviancy evaluations show it is common to discover that “more happened than the child ever told.” In the course of this answer, Gaasland-Smith testified that a sexual deviancy evaluation includes a lie detector test because “oftentimes people who do this kind of thing don’t tell the truth.”

The jury convicted Abitia as charged. The case was appealed on the issue of whether the expert witness’s testimony was improper.

The Court of Appeals reasoned “Perpetrator Profile Testimony” is improper because it “clearly carries with it the implied opinion that the defendant is the sort of person who would engage in the alleged act, and therefore did it in this case too.” Gaasland-Smith’s line of testimony about what perpetrators do should have been cut off when the objection was first raised. Her opinion that sex offenders lie about their conduct implied that Abitia was lying when he denied having sexual contact with KM. No witness may testify as to an opinion on the veracity of the defendant, either directly or inferentially.

The Court also reasoned that Gaasland-Smith’s testimony that offenders can be trusted to tell the truth only when they are subject to lie detector tests was also unduly prejudicial. Ordinarily, polygraph evidence is inadmissible absent stipulation by both parties because the polygraph has not attained general scientific acceptability. Therefore, Gaasland-Smith’s improper reference to lie detectors bolstered her opinion that sexual offenders, as a class, are liars.

The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.

My opinion? Excellent decision. It indeed invades the providence of the jury for experts to discuss “Perpetrator Profile Testimony” in the context of jury trials. It sways jurors far too much, and leads to unfair jury trials like the one above.

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. Elkins: Officers Need Not Re-Advise Miranda in All Cases

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Self-Incrimination, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

How Long Do Miranda Rights Last? | Wallin & Klarich

In State v. Elkins, the WA Court of Appeals decided that whether the officers have scrupulously honored the defendant’ s right to silence and right to counsel under Miranda must be determined on a case -by -case basis, and that there is no bright-line rule requiring police officers to fully re-advise previously Mirandized suspects when reinitiating interrogation.

Yakima County deputies received a tip that defendant Eugene Elkins had killed his girlfriend Kornelia Engelmann. Yakima County deputies arrived and arrested him. He was advised of his Miranda rights. For those who don’t know, police officers must inform defendants of their Miranda rights once police place a defendant in custody and/or conduct investigations via questioning the defendant. The Miranda rights are stated as follows:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Miranda protects a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, and may incline defendants to stop talking and/or immediately seek the advice of an attorney. Once a defendant asserts their Miranda rights, the police MUST stop questioning the defendant. And, generally speaking, police must repeat and re-inform defendants of their Miranda rights if questioning continues at a later time; and/or defendants change their minds and want to speak to the police.

Here, at around 3;30 p.m., Yakima County deputies advised Elkins of his Miranda rights before arresting him. Elkins declined to make a statement, and the Yakima County deputies did not question him further. They took him into custody.

Later, the police again attempted to interview Elkins at about 8: 30 PM. Although they did not re-advise Elkins of his Miranda rights, police asked Elkins if he had been advised of these rights, if he remembered them, and if he understood those rights were still in effect. After Elkins confirmed that he recalled being advised of his Miranda rights and that he understood those rights were still in effect, Elkins agreed to talk to the deputies. In short, he informed the police that he and Ms. Engelmann had a verbal argument which led to a physical altercation.

When the deputies commented on the extensive bruising on Engelmann’ s body and asked Elkins if he had kicked her, hit her with something, or hit her with a closed fist, Elkins said that he did not want to talk to the deputies any longer and requested an attorney. The deputies ended the interview.

On June 7, the very next day, Elkins gave a full written statement to police after they re-advised him of his Miranda rights. In the statement, he admitted to killing Engelmann. Elkins was subsequently charged with Murder in the Second Degree.

The case proceeded to a jury trial. Before trial, Elkins moved under CrR 3.5 to suppress the statements he made to the police on June 6 and June 7. However, the trial court admitted all of Elkins’ statements. At trial, Elkins was found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. He appealed his conviction to the WA Court of Appeals Division II.

In rendering its decision, the Court acknowledged that fully re-advising a suspect of his Miranda rights is clearly the best practice when resuming questioning of a suspect who has asserted his right to silence. However, the Court also said there is no bright-line rule that law enforcement officers must always fully re-advise a defendant of his or her Miranda rights. In addition, they said that the issue of whether a defendant’ s rights have been scrupulously honored must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Court further reasoned that under the totality of the circumstances, Elkins statements were not coercively obtained by police. The facts show that ( 1) the Yakima deputies ceased questioning Elkins immediately when he asserted his right to silence, (2) no law enforcement officer attempted to interrogate Elkins for a significant period of time, five hours, before his subsequent contact with the police, ( 3) no law enforcement officer engaged in any coercive tactics, and (4) the police did not interrogate Elkins until after they confirmed that he had been read his rights, that he recalled those rights, and that he understood those rights were still in effect. The court also said the following:

“[T]he subsequent interrogation is proper if the State has shown that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights given the totality of the circumstances, not whether the subsequent contact was preceded by law enforcement fully re-advising the defendant of his or her Miranda rights. When this and the other factors . . . are met, the officers have scrupulously honored the defendant’ s rights.”

Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Elkins’ June 6 waiver was knowing and voluntary under the circumstances. They also reasoned that his statements made during transport and June 7, 2014 statements were also admissible because Elkins initiated the relevant conversation following his assertion of his right to counsel and then knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.

My opinion? My heart goes out to the victim’s friends and family. I sincerely hope they find comfort in the Court of Appeals’ decision. However, I disagree with the decision. When it comes to protecting people’s constitutional rights, bright-line rules work best. And its always been a time-tested rule that police MUST re-advise suspects of their Miranda rights, especially under circumstances like this.

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. Flores: WA Court of Appeals Decides Frisk for Gun Was Unconstitutional

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Evidence, felony, Firearm, law enforcement, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

 

In State v. Flores, Division III of the WA Court of Appeals UPHELD the suppression of a gun that officers found on an individual who was walking with a known-gang member and fugitive who had just threatened another person with a firearm. The reason for the suppression? There were no grounds to frisk the defendant because he made no furtive movements, had no known violent propensities, and was compliant with all of the officer’s directions.

Here, Moses Lake police were responded to an anonymous report that Giovanni Powell held a gun to somebody’s head. Dispatch also reported an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Powell. He was a known gang member and a fugitive.

The defendant, Cody Flores, was with Powell. Although Flores had no warrants for his arrest and did not point a firearm at anyone, Flores did, in fact, possess a firearm on his person. Unfortunately, he possessed the firearm unlawfully because a prior felony conviction barred his possession.

Police apprehended both Powell and Flores. Although Flores complied with officers, had no known violent propensities and was compliant with all of the officer’s directions, Flores was nevertheless frisked. Officers found his firearm. He was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree in violation of RCW 9.41.040(1)(a). However, Flores’ his defense attorney prevailed in a 3.6 Motion to suppress the firearm due to an unlawful search.

Among other findings, the trial court found that the officers lacked individualized articulable suspicion to suspect Cody Flores of criminal activity. The trial court granted Cody Flores’ motion to suppress evidence of the gun found on his person and dismissed the charge against him. The State filed an appeal.

The WA Court of Appeals sided with the trial court’s suppression. It reasoned that the Washington Constitution, not the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is the controlling law. Article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution provides that “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” The Court reasoned that WA’s protection encompasses and exceeds the protection guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Court further reasoned that, as a general rule, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. There are five exceptions to the warrant requirement. They include (1) exigent circumstances, (2) searches incident to a valid arrest, (3) inventory searches, (4) plain view searches, and (5) Terry investigative stops. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that a warrantless seizure falls into a narrow exception to the rule. “This is a strict rule.” said the Court. “Exceptions to the warrant requirement are limited and narrowly drawn.

“Merely associating with a person suspected of criminal activity does not strip away the protections of the constitution,” said the Court. “In order for police to lawfully seize an otherwise innocent individual present with an arrestee, the arresting officer must articulate an ‘objective rationale’ predicated specifically on safety concerns.”

Finally, the court reasoned that automatically authorizing the search of non-arrested individuals because those individuals happen to be associated with the arrestee, or within the vicinity of the arrest, would distort the narrow limits of the warrant exceptions and offend fundamental constitutional principles. Because the privacy interest of a non arrested individual remains largely undiminished, full blown evidentiary searches of non-arrested individuals are constitutionally invalid even when officers may legitimately fear for their safety. “A generalized concern for officer safety has never justified a full search of a non-arrested person,” said the court.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges against Cody Flores.

My opinion? This is a well-reasoned case. It’d be different if the defendant was doing something unlawful, being uncooperative and/or raising safety concerns with the police. Here, the situation was purely mathematics. Again, there can search incident to arrest if there is no arrest. And there can be no arrest without probable cause. Here, there was no probable cause to arrest and search Mr. Flores. Period.

Good opinion!

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

State v. E.J.J.: Exercising Freedom of Speech is NOT Obstructing.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Due Process, Jury Trial, Juvenile, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Obstructing, police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Student Press Law Center | Know your rights when covering a protest

Excellent opinion.

In State v. E.J.J., the Washington Supreme Court  held that a juvenile offender, who called the officers abusive names, yelled, and used profanity toward the officers while the officers were engaged in a criminal investigation, CANNOT be convicted of Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer. The words the juvenile directed at the officers are protected by the First Amendment. The obstruction statute is also not violated by a citizen’s presence at a scene, provided the citizen does not physically interfere with police. 

Here, juvenile defendant E.J.J. was charged with Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer under RCW 9A.76.020(1). Under this law, a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. Obstructing is a gross misdemeanor punishable up to 1 year in jail and a $5,000.00 fine.

This case began as a call for police assistance to E.J.J. ‘s house to help with his intoxicated, out-of-control sister, R.J. (a juvenile at the time). The police responded and began their intervention by escorting R.J. out of the house 10 to 15 feet away from the front door, where the officers attempted to calm her down. E.J.J. grew concerned when he saw an officer reach for what he perceived to be a nightstick. E.J.J. exited the house and stood on the porch, telling the officers that R.J. was his sister and that they should not use the nightstick. The officers advised him that they were in the middle of their investigation and instructed him multiple times to leave the scene and return to the house.

Initially, E.J.J. did not comply, questioning why he had to return to the house. When, eventually, he did return to his home, he stood in the open doorway and continued his verbal interaction with the officers. The house had double doors: a wrought iron screen door, through which someone could see out and communicate through, and a second, solid wood door.

The officers directed E.J.J. multiple times to close the solid wood door and to withdraw further into the home, but E.J.J. refused, stating that he wanted to supervise the scene from the doorway ( 10 to 15 feet away from the other officers and R.J.) to make sure that R.J. was not harmed. E.J.J. continued to stand behind the closed wrought iron door. Multiple times, an officer reached into the home to close the solid door. E.J.J. would immediately reopen it. At this point, E.J.J. was irate, yelling profanities and calling the officers abusive names. An officer warned E.J.J. that he could be arrested for obstruction. After E.J.J. continued to reopen the solid door, an officer put him under arrest for obstruction of a law enforcement officer. The entire interaction lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

E.J.J. was found guilty at trial. he appealed his conviction to the WA Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals upheld E.J.J.’s conviction. The case was again appealed, only this time to the WA Supreme Court.

 The WA Supreme Court reasoned that many court cases have consistently and strongly held that people cannot be held liable when exercising their right to speak. “While E.J.J. ‘s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous, and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected.”

The Court further reasoned that our cases have consistently required conduct in order to establish obstruction of an officer. “In other words, a conviction for obstruction may not be based solely on an individual’s speech because the speech itself is constitutionally protected. This review is also consistent with the approach established by the United States Supreme Court’s See Street v. New York.”

The WA Supreme Court had many reasons for disagreeing with the WA Court of Appeals. First, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J .J.’ s physical approach toward the officers was sufficient evidence of conduct to support his conviction: “E.J.J. did not physically interfere with or touch either the police or his sister. Furthermore, the trial court’s findings of fact provide that E.J.J. did not make any threatening movements toward the officers at any time.”

Second, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J.J.’s presence at the scene escalated the situation: “E.J.J. ‘s mere presence at the scene cannot constitute conduct. E.J.J. had every right to stand on his own property, provided he did not physically interfere with police.”

Third, the WA Supremes disagreed that E.J.J.’s refusal to obey the officers’ repeated requests to leave the scene was sufficient evidence of conduct: “This exchange is so intertwined with E.J.J.’s protected speech that we find insufficient evidence of E.J.J. ‘s conduct to support his conviction on this basis.”

Finally, the WA Supremes disagreed there was evidence of obstruction because an officer was eventually required to escort E.J.J. back to the home, thus delaying officers: “Inconvenience cannot, taken alone, justify an arrest for obstruction.” The Court concluded with the following:

“Where individuals exercise their constitutional rights to criticize how the police are handling a situation, they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction. Such a conviction is not permitted under the First Amendment. After a comprehensive review of the record and the trial court’s findings, the decision of the trial court is reversed and charges are dismissed.”

My opinion? EXCELLENT decision. I’ve had many, many clients charged with Obstructing simply because they voiced a heated opinion with law enforcement officers during an investigation. Although it’s never okay to be disrespectful toward law enforcement, obstructing requires conduct – plain and simple. I’m pleased our Washington Supreme Court made the right 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. Hardtke: Court Limits Costs of Pretrial Monitoring

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Court Fines, Domestic Violence, Due Process, felony, Pretrial Investigations, Probation, Property Crimes, Rape, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Electronic Monitoring | Electronic Frontier Foundation

In State v. Hardtke, the WA Supreme Court decided that although a trial court has the authority under RCW 10.01.160 and CrR 3.2 to impose the cost of pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring, the amount is capped at $150.00.

Here, Mr. Hardtke was charged with two counts of Rape in the Second Degree, one count of Assault Second Degree, two counts of Assault Fourth Degree, and Malicious Mischief Third Degree. All were alleged to be acts of domestic violence that took place while Hardtke claimed he was blacked out from alcohol abuse.

At arraignment, the trial court imposed conditions that Hardtke not consume alcohol. To ensure his compliance with this condition, Hardtke was required to wear a transdermal alcohol detection (TAD) electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial. Hardtke objected multiple times to paying for the cost of the bracelet, but he nevertheless wore the bracelet as a condition of his release.

Eventually, Hardtke pleaded guilty to amended charges, and as part of his sentence he was ordered to reimburse the county for the cost of the alcohol monitoring; which totaled $3,972.00. Hardtke objected and appealed the court’s ruling. The case ended up in the WA Supreme Court.

In reaching its decision, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that RCW 10.01.160 authorizes courts to impose “pretrial supervision” costs on both convicted and non-convicted defendants; however, it expressly limits pretrial supervision costs to $150. The court further reasoned that paying the costs was unreasonable:

Hardtke himself did not arrange for the TAD monitoring and did not agree to pay a third-party company for the service. On the record before us, the sentencing court imposed a cost on Hardtke for pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring in order ensure compliance with the release condition that he not consume alcohol. We find no support for the State’s argument under CrR 3.2.

The court further reasoned that TAD monitoring falls under the plain meaning of “pretrial supervision.” This includes work release, day monitoring, or electronic monitoring. The court emphasized that TAD monitoring operates like other monitoring devices, such as GPS (global positioning system) monitoring. It ensures compliance with the pretrial release conditions by supervising Hardtke’s conduct and reporting his blood alcohol levels. This monitoring, the court said, is functionally analogous to requiring a defendant awaiting trial to physically check in with the court or county probation officer to demonstrate that pretrial release conditions have been complied with.

The court concluded that RCW 10.01.160 limits the court’s authority to impose costs for pretrial supervision to $150. “Because we hold that the TAD monitoring costs imposed on Hardtke were for pretrial supervision, and because those costs were greater than $150, the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing nearly $4,000 for Hardtke’s pretrial supervision.” The Court remanded Hardtke’s case back to the trial court with instructions that costs for pretrial supervision in this matter not exceed $150.00.

My opinion? Good decision. Defendants should not pay an arm and a leg simply to be monitored by courts, ESPECIALLY if there’s statutory authority stating that pretrial supervision shall not exceed $150. Getting access to justice is difficult enough. Good, straightforward opinion.

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

State v. Wisdom: Unlawful Search of Zipped Shaving Kit Bag

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Dismissal, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, Exigent Circumstances, felony, law enforcement, Miranda, police, Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Interesting opinion. In State v. Wisdom, the WA Court of Appeals Division III decided the removal and warrantless inspection of a zipped shut shaving kit bag found in the front seat of a stolen vehicle the defendant was driving was not a lawful search incident to arrest because  the defendant sat handcuffed in the patrol car at the time of the seizure and search of the toiletry bag. The methamphetamine found in the zipped shut shaving kit is not lawful pursuant to the impound inventory doctrine, as unzipping the kit exceeded the lawful scope of an impound.

Defendant Heath Wisdom drove a Chevrolet pickup truck with an ATV in its back. Someone earlier reported both vehicles as stolen. Yakima County Sheriff Deputy Nate Boyer, while on patrol, passed the pickup, and Boyer’s automated license plate reader identified the pickup as stolen. Officer Boyer pulled Wisdom over and arrested him for possession of a stolen vehicle. Boyer handcuffed Wisdom, searched his body, and escorted him to the patrol vehicle. Officer Boyer found on Wisdom’s body a pipe that Wisdom admitted he used for smoking methamphetamine.

Deputy Nate Boyer advised Heath Wisdom of his Miranda rights. Officer Boyer asked if there were drugs in the truck, and Wisdom replied that methamphetamine lay on the front seat. Officer Boyer looked inside the cab of the truck and saw filters, some cleaner, and a black “shaving kit type” bag. Officer Boyer concluded that the bag contained the methamphetamine. The toiletry bag was closed, but Boyer spied money through the mesh side of the bag.

After photographing the truck, Deputy Boyer removed the bag from the vehicle, opened it, and found methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and two thousand seven hundred dollars in cash. Heath Wisdom told Deputy Boyer that he owned the black bag. Deputy Boyer had not asked Wisdom if he owned the black bag before searching inside the bag.

Deputy Boyer never obtained a warrant for his search, nor did he request Heath Wisdom’s consent before opening the black bag. Law enforcement impounded the truck and ATV, since the legal owner could not be located.

The State of Washington charged Heath Wisdom with three counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1) (cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin) and one count of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver under RCW 69.50.401(1) (methamphetamine). Wisdom moved under CrR 3.6 to suppress all evidence found in the black toiletry bag. However, the trial court denied Heath Wisdom’s motion to suppress. The WA Court of Appeals accepted review of this case.

First, the Court reasoned that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement did NOT excuse police from obtaining a search warrant before unzipping and perusing the inside of the shaving kit bag. The court’s opinion was quite lengthy in explaining the need for society to trust police, and that doing so required officers to obtain search warrants in cases like this, and that failure to do so violates a defendants rights under article I, section 7 of the WA Constitution as well as the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court emphasized how the caselaw treats “luggage and other closed packages, bags, and containers” as unique for purposes of police searches. Washington courts recognize an individual’s privacy interest in his closed luggage, whether locked or unlocked. Indeed, the Court gave a very colorful analyses on this subject:

A person does not rummage through a woman’s purse, because ofsecrets obtained therein. A man’s shaving kit bag can be likened to a woman’s purse. The kit bag could obtain prescription drugs, condoms or other items the owner wishes shielded from the public. The bag is intended to safeguard the privacy of personal effects. Literature, medicines, and other things found inside a bag may reveal much about a person’s activities, associations and beliefs.

The Court further reasoned that Washington allows a few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement, which include exigent circumstances, searches incident to an arrest, inventory searches, plain view searches, and Terry stops. Furthermore, under Arizona v. Gant, a warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest is authorized when the arrestee would be able to obtain a weapon from the vehicle or reach evidence ofthe crime of arrest to conceal or destroy it. Here, Heath Wisdom sat handcuffed in the patrol car at the time of the seizure and search of the toiletry bag. He lacked access to the bag.

Furthermore, under State v. Snapp, the Court reasoned the WA Constitution disapproves expansive application of the search-incident-to arrest exception to the period of time after the arrestee is secured and attendant risks to officers have passed. When a search can be delayed without running afoul of concerns for officer safety or to preserve evidence of the crime of arrest from concealment or destruction by the arrestee, and does not fall within another applicable exception, the warrant must be obtained. The police officer can prevent destruction of evidence by holding the bag as a sealed unit until obtaining a warrant.

Finally, the Court ruled that the police officer’s inventorying of the pickup’s contents did NOT excuse the need to obtain a search warrant. Inventory searches, unlike other searches, are not conducted to discover evidence of crime. Although a routine inventory search does not require a warrant, a police department policy should not, however, justify an unconstitutional search. The permitted extent of an inventory search pursuant to police department policy must be restricted to effectuating the purposes that justify the exception warrant clause.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals held the warrantless search inside of Mr. Wisdom’s black bag was not justified by either a search incident to arrest or an inventory search. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Wisdom’s motion to suppress evidence, reversed his four convictions, and dismissed all charges filed against him.

Good opinion.

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

State v. Howerton: Citizen 911 Call Supports Terry Stop

911 Call, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Property Crimes, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

terry stop | Nevada Public Radio

In State v. Howerton, the WA Court of Appeals held that a citizen informant’s 911 call was reliable enough to support a Terry stop. The citizen informant provided her name, address, and telephone number to the dispatch, included a statement that she had just witnessed the crime, objective facts that indicated criminal rather than legal activity, and an offer to speak with the police if they needed to contact her.

On September 29, 2013, at 2:00 a.m., Laura Parks called 911 from her cell phone to report that she just witnessed someone break into a van parked across the street from her house. She provided her name, address, and telephone number to the dispatcher. Parks described the suspect as a black male, average build, five feet seven inches tall, wearing a baggy black leather jacket and baggy pants. She stated he left the area on foot and was heading south on Second Avenue in Burien, Washington.

Police responded to the call and began searching the area for the subject. They contacted a man identified as Delante Howerton matching the description. Howerton was handcuffed. Police noticed a blade sticking out of Howerton’s sleeve. When searched Howerton for weapons, police officers found a foot-long bread knife and a screwdriver on Howerton’s person.

Ms. Parks confirmed that Howerton was the individual she saw break into the van earlier.

Howerton was charged with attempted Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Making or Possessing Vehicle Theft Tools, and Intimidating a Public Servant. The trial court later dismissed the charge of intimidating a public servant. Howerton moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the investigatory detention. Specifically, Howerton argued Hutchinson lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to detain him when Hutchinson’s only source of information was from a named but unknown telephone informant. After a CrR 3.5 and CrR 3.6 hearing, the trial court denied Howerton’s motion to suppress.

A jury convicted Howerton of misdemeanor second degree attempted taking of a motor vehicle without permission and making or having vehicle theft tools. He appealed.

The Court of Appeals upheld Howerton’s conviction and ruled his stop/arrest was lawful under Terry v. Ohio. They reasoned that an investigatory Terry stop is permissible if he investigating officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. A reasonable suspicion is the substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred or is about to occur. A reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to establish probable cause.

The Court further reasoned that an informant’s tip can provide police with reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory Terry stop if the tip possesses sufficient “‘indicia of reliability.'” Courts employ the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an informant’s tip possessed sufficient indicia of reliability to support reasonable suspicion.

When deciding whether this indicia of reliability exists, the courts will generally consider several factors, primarily “(1) whether the informant is reliable, (2) whether the information was obtained in a reliable fashion, and (3) whether the officers can corroborate any details of the informant’s tip.” Known citizen informants are presumptively reliable.

Here, the Court further reasoned that Parks’s 911 call demonstrated a sufficient factual basis to provide reasonable suspicion for the seizure:

Here, Parks unequivocally indicated to the 911 dispatcher that she was an eyewitness. When she called 911, she told the dispatcher, “I just saw a robbery.” She provided her full name, her address, and her telephone number. She indicated that she was willing to speak with police if they needed to contact her. She told the dispatcher the incident occurred “directly across the street” from her house and that it “just now happened.” She stated that an individual “broke into a car.” She said she actually saw him enter the car.

She gave a detailed description of the suspect—black male, average build, short hair, five feet seven inches tall, wearing a baggy black leather jacket and baggy pants. The dispatcher immediately broadcast this description via radio to officers. Parks stated that the suspect just left the scene heading south on Second Avenue. She also accurately described the street location. Further, Parks reported objective facts that indicated criminal rather than legal activity.

The court further elaborated that Ms. Parks reinforced her factual basis for these allegations by stating that the incident “just now happened” and that the car was directly across the street from her house. Parks reported facts she personally observed. The Court decided the information was reliably obtained and that the police corroborated the information from Ms. Parks’ tip.

Consequently, the totality of the circumstances supported Howerton’s  Terry stop. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.

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

State v. Reis: Search & Seizure in Medical Marijuana Case

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, Plain View, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

In State v. Reis, the WA Supreme Court decided that although medical marijuana use is a defense, police officers can still obtain search warrants and search people’s homes if sufficient probable cause of criminal activity exists.

In 2012, Detective Thomas Calabrese received an anonymous tip from an individual living in the Shorewood area of Burien, informing him that a man named “William” was actively growing marijuana in a house in that neighborhood. The informant, who feared retaliation by Reis, declined to provide any additional information. Detective Calabrese began investigating.

He conducted stakeout surveillance of the home and watched the defendant William Reis tending to numerous marijuana plants growing in the backyard. The detective also heard a distinct humming sound coming from the northwest side of the target home and observed black plastic covering the daylight basement window. Detective Calabrese also noticed condensation on this window.

Detective Calabrese also discovered Mr. Reis had a prior DV conviction and, during that arrest, officers discovered significant evidence of a marijuana grow operation, as well as a rifle and $18,000 cash hidden in the attic. Additional searches of Reis’s financial records in 2005 connected him to a large marijuana grow operation in California. Detective Calabrese also learned that Reis had been arrested in 2011 for possession of 1.3 grams of marijuana.

Based on this information, Detective Calabrese put all of this information in an affidavit of probable cause to support a search warrant of Reis’s home. Judge Eide granted a search warrant, finding probable cause to believe that Reis was violating Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, RCW 69.50. A search of Reis’s home pursuant to the search warrant revealed plants, scales, ledgers, sales receipts, and tools indicative of a marijuana grow operation. The search also revealed 37 plants and 210.72 ounces of cannabis.

Reis moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that officers lacked probable cause to search his home. The trial court denied his motion. The WA Court of Appeals granted review. They decided the authorized use of medical marijuana under RCW 69.51A.040 does not stop an officer from searching a home for criminal activity. Although compliant use of medical marijuana under the statute is an affirmative defense, it does not negate probable cause required for a search warrant. State v. Reis, 180 Wn.App. 438, 322 P.3d 1238 (2014). The WA Supreme Court  granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

The WA Supremes reasoned that RCW 69.51A.040, as passed, does not decriminalize the medical use of marijuana. Instead, the plain language of the statute establishes a limited exception to the general prohibition against marijuana that existed at the time that the search warrant in this case issued. The Court summarized it best here:

The legislature may have intended to create heightened protections for qualifying patients who registered. However, because registration is currently impossible, the statute provides qualifying patients with only an affirmative defense until the legislature is able to establish a registry. Therefore, we reject Reis’s argument and affirm the Court of Appeals.

The Court describes how the “Medical Marijuana Defense” works under RCW 69.51A.040.

There are six required “terms and conditions” contained within RCW 69.51A.040. Subsection (1) places limits on the quantity of cannabis that a qualifying patient or designated provider may possess. Subsections (2) and (3) require registration with the Department of Health-now impossible in light of the governor’s veto-and require that the patient keep their registration within their home and present it to inquiring investigating officers. Subsections (4 ), (5), and (6) require that the investigating officer not possess evidence that the qualifying patient or designated provider is converting marijuana for their own use or benefit, or otherwise violating distribution requirements or registration requirements. If a qualifying patient or designated provider complies with all of these requirements, including registration, the use of marijuana does not constitute a crime.

Here, the search was valid because the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent lead to the conclusion that a user or possessor of cannabis may raise only an affirmative defense.

My opinion? Hate to say, but the reasoning makes sense. After all, assaulting people in the street is still a crime. One must prove a defense – hypothetically speaking, self-defense – by a preponderance of the evidence in order to be found not guilty of the crime of assault. The same reasoning applies here. The medical use of marijuana does not decriminalize marijuana use – it only provides a defense if one is charged with marihuana-related crimes. Police officers can still investigate citizens and apply for search warrants if probable cause exists that a crime is being committed.

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. Fuentes & Sandoz: Are Terry Stops Legal in High-Crime Areas?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, police, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Joyce Carol Oates revisits past in 'High Crime' tales

The WA Supreme Court consolidated two search & seizure cases with very similar facts. Both cases involve Terry stops of a defendants who entered a high-crime areas and visited homes occupied by suspected drug dealers.

TERRY STOPS

 Generally, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of Washington’s constitution, an officer may not seize a person without a warrant. However, exceptions exist. A Terry investigative stop is one of the exceptions.

For those who don’t know, a “Terry stop” is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. Picture an officer walking up to you and asking for your I.D. The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity. Also, police may conduct a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk.”

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

State v. Fuentes

In this case, police officers were conducting a stakeout of a known drug house. They saw Marisa Fuentes park her car across the street from the apartment. She walked up to the apartment, entered, stayed for about five minutes, and returned to her car. She opened the trunk of her car and removed a small plastic bag. The bag contained something about the size of a small football. Then Fuentes reentered the apartment, stayed for about five minutes, and returned to her car with a bag that had noticeably less content than when she entered the apartment.

Based on what officers observed, police stopped Fuentes’ car on suspicion of narcotics activity. An officer advised Fuentes that he needed to talk with her. For safety reasons, the officer requested that Fuentes come to the police vehicle, which she did. The officer read Fuentes her Miranda rights. Fuentas waived those rights and admitted she delivered marijuana to Fenton’s apartment.

The State charged Fuentes with Delivery of Marijuana. Fuentes moved to suppress evidence uncovered from the investigative stop of her car, including her statement about delivering marijuana, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop of her vehicle. The trial court concluded that officers had reasonable   suspicion to stop the vehicle and therefore denied the motion to suppress. Fuentes was subsequently convicted of delivery of marijuana at a stipulated facts trial. She appealed.

The WA Supreme Court decided the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity particularized to Fuentes before the stop occurred.

The officers in this case. They knew about past drug activity at Fenton’s apartment. Police made controlled buys from Fenton and conducted a search of the apartment 11 months before and found drugs. The officers also testified they had recent information from individuals arrested on drug-related charges that Fenton was still dealing drugs. Additionally, officers observed foot traffic that morning (10 visits between 10 p.m. and midnight) that suggested ongoing drug transactions.

Additionally, officers could reasonably infer that Fuentes participated in the ongoing drug transactions: Fuentes entered the apartment briefly, then returned to her car. She then carried a plastic bag into the apartment, and she left with a bag that had noticeably less content. Her stay lasted approximately five minutes. From these observations, officers could form a reasonable suspicion that Fuentes made a delivery at the apartment.

The WA Supremes affirmed the Court of Appeals in Fuentes because, under the totality of circumstances, the officers had individualized reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

State v. Sandoz

In this case, around 11:30 p.m., Officer Chris Pryzgocld drove his patrol car past a six-unit apartment building in SeaTac. A high number of documented criminal incidents occurred in the area of this apartment building, including drug-related activity.

He saw a white vehicle parked illegally. The driver of the Jeep slumped down, as if to hide from the officer’s view, as the officer drove by. The officer parked his marked patrol car about 20 yards away. After waiting, he made contact with the slumped-over driver.

The officer observed Steven Sandoz leaving the apartment. The officer asked Sandoz what was going on. Sandoz replied that his friend gave him a ride to collect $20 from a friend. After more conversation, Sandoz admitted that he had a drug problem and said that he had a crack pipe in his pocket. Sandoz took out the pipe, and the officer arrested Sandoz for possession of drug paraphernalia. During a search incident to arrest, the officer felt something in Sandoz’s groin area. The officer read Sandoz his Miranda rights, and Sandoz admitted that he had two small envelopes of cocaine in his underwear.

Sandoz was arrested and charged with Possession of Cocaine. Although he tried suppressing the evidence at pretrial, the Judge denied the motion for the following reasons: (1) the officer knew the area had extremely high drug activity based on 911 calls and drug dealing investigations, (2) the officer knew that the apartment Sandoz exited belonged to Ms. Meadows, who had numerous drug-related convictions, including possession with intent to deliver, (3) the officer had express authority from the complex owner to trespass nonoccupants for “loitering” at the complex, (4) the Jeep did not belong to any of the tenants at the complex, (5) the driver of the Jeep slouched down when the officer drove past, (6) the driver and Sandoz had conflicting stories for why they were in the area, (7) Sandoz looked surprised when he saw the officer, and (8) Sandoz visibly shook and looked pale when the officer talked to him.

Sandoz was found guilty at a bench trial he appealed. The WA Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the WA Supreme Court ruled that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity individualized to Sandoz to justify his Terry stop. First, Sandoz’s surprise at seeing the officer did not suggest criminal behavior. Next, the driver’s story did not conflict with Sandoz’s story. The driver said that his friend called him for a ride, and Sandoz said his friend gave him a ride to the apartment to collect $20. Rather than conflict, the stories confirmed one another.

Furthermore, as to Sandoz’s physical appearance, the officer did not attribute Sandoz’s pallor or shaking to drugs or to any illicit conduct. Thus, this fact does not add to circumstances that suggest criminal activity. The fact that the officer did not recognize the Jeep might justify the officer’s contact with the driver, but the oflicer did not connect this fact with anything the officer observed about Sandoz.

Additionally, Sandoz did not loiter or trespass. “Loiter” means “to remain in or near a place in an idle or apparently idle manner.” Sandoz did not remain idle: he left the apartment and walked immediately to the Jeep without stopping. Although the individuals in the Jeep may have loitered, that issue is not before the court. Similarly, Sandoz did not appear to trespass: he entered a tenant’s apartment, stayed inside at least 15 minutes without any known discord, and left directly to the Jeep. The facts suggest that Sandoz was an invited guest of Ms. Meadows, and as the officer stated, simply going into an apartment does not equal wrongdoing.

Finally, the Court reasoned that although Sandoz was visiting the apartment of a suspected drug dealer late at night in a high-crime area, this fact by itself does not justify a Terry stop. Other facts must exist to suggest criminal behavior. An officer’s hunch does not justify a stop. The totality of the circumstances in this case do not justify a Terry stop.

The WA Supremes concluded officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Sandoz engaged in criminal activity and reversed the Court of Appeals decision affirming his guilt.

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.