King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg announced on September 25, 2008 that some felony level drug, property, and ID theft charges will be diverted from Superior Court to district and municipal courts due to budget cuts. Defendants will be charged with misdemeanors, with sentences up to 1 year in jail and fines up to $5000 instead of felonies with the possibility of years in prison and higher fines.
State v. Bee Xiong, Washington Supreme Court, filed September 11, 2008.
Police went to Kheng Xiong’s residence with a warrant for his arrest and a black & white picture of Kheng Xiong to assist in identifying him. Officers observed a minivan pull up to the residence and believed the passenger was Kheng Xiong, although he was actually Bee Xiong, Kheng’s brother.
Police immediately handcuffed Bee and performed a pat-down frisk. Bee told officers his name was Bee Xiong and that he was Kheng’s brother. He did not have identification, but he showed officers a tattoo on his arm of the letter “B”. The officers were unable to determine from the photograph if the man was Kheng Xiong.
One of the officers had previously noticed a bulge in Bee’s front pocket. He asked if there was something in his pocket that could hurt the officers and Bee responded, “No.” Bee told the officers that he did not want to be searched. The officer squeezed the bulge in Bee’s pocket and conferred with the officers, telling them he thought there was a “potential weapon” in Bee’s pocket. An officer reached into Bee’s pocket and pulled out a glass pipe that appeared to contain residue that the officers believed was a controlled substance.
State v. Adams, Court of Appeals Division I, filed September 2, 2008.
Police observed a man sitting in his parked car outside a casino. The registered owner of the vehicle had an outstanding arrest warrant for a revoked driver’s license. The driver matched the registered owner’s description, so the police officer turned around to contact the driver. The driver drove away and the police officer followed. The driver turned into a Taco Bell driveway and parked. The police officer turned on its emergency lights and pulled in behind the car.
The driver, Mr. Adams, stepped out of his vehicle, stood in the open car door, and yelled at the officer that the stop was racial profiling. The police officer instructed Mr. Adams to get back in his car, but Mr. Adams kept yelling. The officer called for back-up. Mr. Adams slammed the car door, locked it, and stepped four to five feet away into the adjacent parking lot, where he continued to yell at the police officer and raise his arms in an agitated manner.
State v. Rose, Court of Appeals Division II, filed August 26, 2008.
Ms. Rose was arraigned on drug charges relating to a marijuana grow operation. Ms. Rose’s only criminal history was a conviction for driving with a suspended license from 1989. She had no history of failing to appear for court and she had a stable address and employment. The Court released Ms. Rose on her own personal recognizance, but imposed “standard drug conditions” such as weekly UA’s, no possession or use of non-prescribed drugs, no consumption of alcohol, and no entering locations where alcohol is the principal item for sale.
In a series titled “American Exception” The New York Times examines the American exclusionary rule in “Should Suspects Go Free When Police Blunder?” The exclusionary rule was originally outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and mandates suppression of evidence in certain instances when police violate a suspect’s constitutional rights.
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the case of Bennie Dean Herring of Birmingham, Alabama on October 7, 2008. The Court will consider whether drugs and a gun should have been suppressed where police mistakenly searched Mr. Herring after believing he had an outstanding arrest warrant due to poor record-keeping at another police department.
State v. Tonelli-Prado, Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, filed July 7, 2008.
Mr. Tonelli Prado was stopped as he was exiting I-5 at James Street in Seattle, WA. The police officer had observed Mr. Tonelli Prado’s car cross an 8 inch white line dividing the exit lane from the adjacent lane by approximately 2 tire widths for 1 second. Mr. Tonelli Prado was investigated and arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Mr. Tonelli Prado’s motion to suppress for an unlawful seizure was denied, he was convicted, and he appealed.
State v. Houvener, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, filed June 26, 2008.
Around 5:45 AM on February 11, 2006, campus police responded to a reported burglary on the third floor of a dormitory complex on the campus of Washington State University. The officer learned that the resident’s laptop computer and acoustic guitar had been stolen. Campus police initiated a search of the dormitory complex. Campus police started on the top of the complex, either the 12th or 13th floor, and walked the halls, eventually reaching the 6th floor.
Mr. Houvener and another person were in Mr. Houvener’s room on the 6th floor and the campus police heard voices and music which seemed suspicious around 6 AM. The police listened at the threshold and heard someone say he was paranoid they were going to be caught and a second voice say he didn’t think the victim would call the cops. The campus police officer put his finger over the peephole and tried a ruse to gain entry. The residents ignored the ruse until the officer identified himself as a police officer and ordered them to open the door. Mr. Houvener opened the door. The officer, dressed in his police uniform and armed, asked Mr. Houvener to step into the hallway and down the hall with him. Mr. Houvener complied. Campus police asked Mr. Houvener questions and he made incriminating statements that some of the items in the room didn’t belong to him.
State v. Dorey, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, filed June 26, 2008.
Police received a complaint of a disturbance involving a black man and another man in a black shirt and arrived at the location. The disturbance was alleged to have occurred 5-10 minutes before the police officer arrived. Nothing was at the intersection. The officer went to a convenience store that was in the direction that one of the males had run and saw a car in the stall of a car wash and a male in a black shirt. The officer spoke to the clerk of the store, who knew nothing of the disturbance. The officer pulled his patrol car up to the man in the black shirt, Mr. Dorey, who was getting in his car to leave. The officer yelled at Mr. Dorey to hold on a minute and indicated that he wanted to talk to him. Mr. Dorey stopped his car and got out to speak to the officer.
Continue reading ‘Seizure of witness unlawful without exigent circumstances’
State v. Ibarra-Raya, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, filed July 1, 2008.
Around 2:00 AM, police received 911 call of noise from a vacant house. Police went out to investigate and saw lights on and heard party noises, but nothing alarming. Police saw a truck without a license plate, but with a temporary permit. Police learned thought the vehicle was stolen from California after processing the VIN number. When police knocked on the front door, the lights in the living room turned off. Another officer was on the side of the house and saw two men go into a room, come out of the room, and then open the back door. Police ordered the men to stay inside the house. Police followed the men inside the house and performed a protective sweep of the house, observing marijuana and cash. Officers also learned that only the license plates from the truck were stolen and that Mr. Ibarra-Raya was subleasing the house. Based on what the police saw during the protective sweep, police obtained a search warrant and later found cocaine, over $400,000 in plastic bags, and marijuana.