Category Archives: Washington Court of Appeals

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.

 

State v. Carneh: Why Defense Attorneys Should Seek Dismissals WITH Prejudice

Dismissal, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Dismissed with Prejudice – The Civilian

In State v. Carneh, the WA Court of Appeals decided the Prosecution could refile charges on a defendant after previously dismissing the case without prejudice. 

Typically, prosecutors dismiss cases in one of two ways: with prejudice, or without prejudice.   Dismissing a case with prejudice means prosecutors cannot refile future charges against the defendant.  However, dismissing  without prejudice means the prosecutor may, in the future, refile charges at time if (1) statute of limitations has not expired, (2) jurisdiction still exists, and (3) prosecutors develop substantial probable cause to refile. 

In this case, the State charged Carneh with four counts of aggravated murder in March 2001.  After extensive and periodically successful competency restoration treatment, the trial court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because it found Carneh was incompetent to stand trial at that time.  The State refiled charges after learning that Carneh had shown signs of improvement.  The trial court ordered further competency restoration.

RCW 10.77.086 provides that if competency restoration efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, “the charges shall be dismissed without prejudice, and either civil commitment proceedings shall be instituted or the court shall order the release of the defendant.”  After a trial court dismisses charges without prejudice pursuant to this statute, it loses the criminal jurisdiction and with it the authority to order competency evaluation or restoration.  But the statute reserves the prosecutor’s ability to refile charges and makes clear that the bar against trying incompetent defendants lasts only so long as such incapacity continues.

The prosecutor’s ability to refile is not unfettered; rather, the prosecutor must have a good faith basis to believe that competency has or will likely be restored.  In this case, the prosecutor received a letter from Western State Hospital indicating that Carneh’s condition had improved.  The letter was sufficient good faith basis to refile.  The trial court thereby reacquired criminal jurisdiction and with it the authority to order further competency restoration.  Ouch!!

My opinion?  Division II made a painfully reasonable  decision.  Competent defense attorneys should know that prosecutors may refile charges at any time if a case is dismissed without prejudice.  The remedy?  Whenever possible, defense attorneys should seek dismissals with prejudice. 

True, our knee-jerk reaction is, quite simply, to take a dismissal in any form or fashion.  We’re grateful to get them for our clients, and nobody wants to look a gift horse in the mouth.   Still, a dismissal without prejudice obviously comes with strings attached.  Indeed, worst-case scenario like State v. Carneh could arise. 

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. Ramos: Excellent Separation of Powers Case

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Theory Of Separation Of Powers - Political Science

In State v. Ramos, the defendant was convicted in 1993 of sexual exploitation of a minor.  At the time, Washington did not require sex offenders to register with the State.   The law was changed after Ramos’ release and he registered in 2001.  The law changed again to require Level II sex offenders to report in person every 90 days.  Ramos failed to do so.  he was prosecuted for failing to report.

The WA Court of Appeals held that the authority to define crimes and set punishments rests squarely with the legislature.  Not the prosecutor, not the sheriffs, but the legislature.  It reasoned it is unconstitutional for the legislature to transfer its power to others.  Because the sex offender reclassification statute does not provide any guidance to local law enforcement agencies, Ramos’ delegation was improper, and his conviction cannot stand.

My opinion?  Great decision.  It reaffirms the debate regarding the wrongful  application of newly formed criminal laws.  In Washington, defendants can only be charged with violating laws in existence  at the time of arrest.  Unless a newly formed statute specifically provides for retroactive application, defendants cannot be found to have violated the new statute.  It isn’t fair.  Unconstitutional.  Again, great 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. Dingman: Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Search and Seizure, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

What Is A Discovery Request? Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

In State v. Dingman, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant at the time of arrest.

Here, the authorities seized Mr. Dingman’s computers while investigating him for Theft and Money Laundering.  The State created mirror image copies of the computers’ hard drives using a program called EnCase.  Dingman asked for direct access to his computer.  The Court refused, and instead ordered copies be provided using Encase, a program the defense neither had not knew how to use.

Applying court rules/procedures, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant.  The computer hard drives were tangible objects obtained from the defendant.  Defense counsel should be allowed to examine the hard drives.  Therefore, it was error not to give the defense access to the hard drives.

My Opinion?  Great decision. Division II gave an excellent decision regarding the violation of a defendant’s right to review evidence. The defendant should ALWAYS have access to materials the prosecutor wants to use at trial.  Indeed, it’s a blatant violation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights to deny access.  Providing evidence to the other side is also, quite simply, a professional courtesy.

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. Brooks: WA Court Rightfully Dismisses Criminal Charges Because Prosecution Withheld Evidence

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Dismissal, Due Process, Evidence, felony, Jury Trial, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Prosecutorial Misconduct / Mishaps In FCPA Cases - FCPA Professor

In State v. Brooks, the WA Court of Appeals dismissed a criminal case due to prosecutorial mismanagement and withholding  of evidence.

My opinion?  It’s about time!  The prosecutors, God bless ’em, usually have the upper hand with judges.   Typically, judges won’t sanction prosecutors or dismiss cases due to prosecutorial misconduct, mismanagement, or withholding of evidence (trust me, I’ve tried).

This opinion opens the door for judges to exercise more discretion in dismissing poorly managed cases.  In this case, the prosecutor withheld a a 60-page victim statement from the defense until the day of trial.   Unbelievable!

Imagine this: your attorney has geared up for trial.  They agonizingly prepped the case from start to finish.  Attorney has their theme, theory, motions in limine, opening statement, closing statement, voir dire questions, direct exam questions, and cross exam questions fully prepared before entering the court.  All of the sudden, prosecutor plops a huge pamphlet of papers in front of defense attorney’s face.

“Sorry you have no time to review this new statement, but go ahead and cross examine my witness on this.”  Unbelievable.  We have no idea what the statement contains.  If admitted to evidence, this unread statement could, by itself, utterly throw your case theory out the window.

The Court of Appeals has boldly decided these “Hide the Ball” shenanigans are going to get cases dismissed.  That governmental mismanagement materially affects a defendant’s right to a fair trial.  Good.  I understand that prosecutors work hard.  Their caseloads are huge.  But hey, let’s be real, people’s lives and liberty are at stake.  Constitutional rights are at risk.  Consequently, cases should be dismissed when poorly handled and/or mismanaged.

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.