Seattle Criminal Attorney | Case News 10/24/09
Another week, one more analysis of DUI cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle criminal attorney, it is imperative to stay on top of this data so you can be fully prepared to argue your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of significance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a vehicle incident to an arrest; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are interesting and worth noting, so I’ll recap, and as customary, provide a tiny speck of my own criminal lawyer examination.
Search Incident to arrest – State v. Patton
This is one of the foremost in a what will be a long string of cases dealing with searching vans after somebody has been seized (also acknowledged as search incident to apprehension). It is one of the exceptions to police needing a warrant for arrest, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we Seattle criminal lawyers had recognized for a long time – the police were abusing this decree by searching vehicles incident to the capture of someone when the seizure formed no basis for the search. Here is the standard instance: somebody is detained for driving while their license is suspended. The person is captured and placed into the cop car. After that the cops search the vehicle, “incident to the capture.” Quandary is, there is no support to find for driving while license revoked. The evidence is already in the custody of the cops (the driver’s license records).
Facts of State v. Patton – Patton had an unresolved felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could apprehension him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the vehicle and someone matching the portrayal of Patton out rummaging around in the van. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the car and ran into the motorhome. After support arrived, they went into the trailer and detained Patton.
After apprehending him, the cops searched Patton’s vehicle, discovering methamphetamine and cash. Patton was charged with possession of methamphetamine. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the verification for being illicitly seized. The trial court approved the motion and the State appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the court sided with the prosecution, who argued that because when Patton was approached he was beside car that it was appropriate to be searched incident to his seizure.
Breakdown – The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unjust. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search should fall into one of more than a few enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are restricted to the conditions that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to chip away at the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant prerequisite is the automobile search incident to apprehension. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an auto is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that proof connected to the offense which predicated the apprehension will be lost or smashed.
In this case, Patton’s argument is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the limited confines of the exception to the directive. He also points out that he was not seized in his vehicle, but in his home, that he was never in his vehicle during the argument, and that he was captured for an remaining warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the vehicle.
The Court primary looked to determine when it was that Patton was under capture. The court noted that:
an apprehension takes place when a duly authorized police officer of the law manifests an intention to take a individual into supervision and actually seizes or detains the person. The existence of arrest depends in each case upon an impartial appraisal of all the surrounding conditions.
Here, the cop had seized Patton for all intents and purposes when he pulled up behind him in the driveway with his lights activated and told him he was under capture and not to move. It makes sense for several reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from cops to change the place of detention and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that detention. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under seizure when he was at his automobile for purposes of the more analysis.
The next question is whether or not the search incident to the detention Patton was right. original, a search incident to arrest is not legitimate just because the capture happened closely to the automobile. A more detailed examination is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to arrest] is permitted only to get rid of any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist detention or effect an escape and to circumvent obliteration of evidence by the arrestee of the felony for which he or she is seized…
This law has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to capture in a automobile happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search.”
Analysis of these facts under the set of laws establishes that this search was unfair and beyond of the search incident to capture exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the truck when he was apprehended. There was no relationship between his detention, which was for the warrant for failing to appear in court, and a search of the truck. Also, there were no safety concerns for the officers related to anything in the truck – Patton was never in the vehicle, he was detained outside of the van, and when the vehicle was searched Patton was no where near the automobile (officer well being in a way presumes that Patton would be able to grasp something in the car and use it to damage the cops).
Conclusion – the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the support is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
Drunk driving lawyers perception – Clearly I think they got this one right. The cops improperly searched the van, found some drugs, and then tried to get the support admitted by trying to generate a condition that allowed their unlawful search. As a Seattle criminal lawyer these are the types of situations I see all the while that I am happy are now being handled suitably. And, I must also include that I am pleased to witness that somebody has in fact acted suitably when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his vehicle, which while and period again gets people in trouble.
It was also exciting to see the Washington Supreme Court effectively negate a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense attorneys and making it extremely hard to get evidence obtained illegally from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to reverse much of their case law, probably much to their chagrin. This case, like Gant, is critical for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what officers can and can’t do when detaining you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended – Court of Appeals – State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a statutory plan set up by the government to allow, in specified circumstances, people that have committed a misdemeanor to take care of the misdemeanor by paying damages to the injured party. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received damages and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For criminal defense lawyers in Seattle, particularly those that deal with burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad decision to take care of it without having a smudge on their history. In this case, the State challenged whether or not a compromise of misdemeanor could be executed for a hit and run attended (a hit and run case where someone was in the van when it was hit, as opposed to a parked vehicle).
Facts – Stalker was charged with drunk driving and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the driving under the influence but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court substantiation that the victim was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the indictment pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.
Issue – can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have power to direct restitution because it is not a direct consequence of the charge (fleeing the area after an accident has occurred)?
Analysis – Precedent counts for a lot. The legal scheme is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to have an effect on examination of present legal inquiries) and precedent is not set aside lightly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is appropriate for compromise. This decision, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor statute. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “offer restitution to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of slight offenders.”
Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor law have determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had many opportunities to particularly keep out hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has disqualified different crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to exclude hit and run attended. This shows the court that they do not feel like hit and run attended should be outside the compromise of misdemeanor law.
Holding – the trial court’s determination to permit the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
DUI Lawyer’s Analysis – not much for me to say on this one. The result is pretty apparent. One thing I find attention-grabbing about this, and something I stumble upon from time to while out there in the world of criminal defense, are prosecutors that are opposed to a compromise of misdemeanor, like they have a say in whether or not one created or one is granted. These things were created to reduce the work load of prosecutors and give people the chance to move past a stupid decision without having to pay for it for a long period. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an arrangement has been reached between defendant and injured party?
Stay tuned to the Criminal Attorney Seattle Blog for more information.
Related Posts:
