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.
Continue reading ‘Pat-down frisks must be supported by objectively reasonable facts that suspect is armed and presently dangerous’
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.
Continue reading ‘Urinalysis is warrantess search; Mandatory urine testing as condition of pretrial release is inappropriate as there is no evidence that it increases likelihood of appearance for court’
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. Grande, Washington Supreme Court, filed July 17, 2008.
Mr. Grande was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for having very dark tinted windows. When the officer pulled the vehicle over, he detected the moderate smell of marijuana coming from the car. He arrested both the driver and Mr. Grande, the passenger. He handcuffed and searched them. He found a marijuana pipe that contained a small amount of marijuana on Mr. Grande. In the car, the officer found a burnt marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. The driver claimed the cigarette as her own. Both the driver and Mr. Grande were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. Mr. Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.
Continue reading ‘Smell of marijuana in general area is insufficient for probable cause to arrest’
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.
Continue reading ‘Warrantless search of dorm hallway unlawful absent consent; residents have reasonable expectation of privacy in floor hallway’
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.
Continue reading ‘Protective sweep unlawful; no exigent circumstances when investigating “noise at vacant house”’
State v. Vanderpool, Court of Appeals, Division III, Docket No. 26402-5, decided June 10, 2008
Police officer performed random check of vehicle’s license observed driving in a parking lot, licensing records indicated that registered owner’s husband’s license was suspended. Police officer thought the driver was registered owner’s husband. The driver parked the vehicle, the police officer pulled behind the parked car, and asked the driver if he was the registered owner’s husband. He said he was not and gave his correct name, Mr. Vanderpool, and provided his ID. He told the officer that he didn’t have a driver’s license. Records showed that Mr. Vanderpool’s driver’s license was suspended. The police officer arrested Mr. Vanderpool and found methamphetamine search incident to the arrest.
Continue reading ‘Officer’s request for name in a parking lot not a seizure, but contact in public place’
State v. Setterstrom, Washington Supreme Court, Docket No. 79690-4, filed May 22, 2008
Mr. Setterstrom and another friend were in the lobby of Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), a government agency. Someone had complained to the police that a person was sleeping in the DSHS lobby and another was under the influence of drugs. Mr. Setterstrom was next to the person asleep on the lobby bench and was filling out a benefits application. Police approached Mr. Setterstrom, saw that he had filled out the application with his name, and asked if that was his name and how to spell it. Initially, he said yes, but then he changed his mind and said it was for his friend. When his friend awoke, police asked what his friend’s real name was, and Mr. Setterstrom blurted out a different name. Police believed Mr. Setterstrom was under the influence of methamphetamine because his behavior was fidgety, but didn’t stand up or put his hands in his pockets.
Continue reading ‘Frisk of suspect in DSHS lobby unlawful; no reason to believe suspect was armed or dangerous’
State v. Harrington, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, Docket No. 25497-6, filed May 13, 2008
A police officer in patrol observed Mr. Harrington walking at 11:00 PM and parked in a driveway ahead of him. The police officer got out of his car and asked to speak to Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington agreed and the officer told him that he was not under arrest. The officer asked what Mr. Harrington was doing and observed several items in Mr. Harrington’s pockets. Mr. Harrington first said that he had visited his sister, but when asked where she lived, he said he didn’t know. Mr. Harrington kept putting his hands in his pockets, despite the officer’s requests to not do so. The police officer asked to check Mr. Harrington’s pockets and he agreed. The officer did a pat down of the outside of the pocket and felt a hard cylindrical object. Mr. Harrington said it was a meth pipe. The officer told Mr. Harrington that he was under arrest. A small amount of methamphetamine was discovered during the search incident to arrest.
Continue reading ‘No seizure where no “show of authority” by police officer on foot towards pedestrian’