Seattle Criminal Attorney | Drug Possession – Illegal Search
Here we go again, an additional run down of the criminal defense jurisprudence cases determined in the last week in Washington State. As with previous week, the number of decisions released is mimimal – possibly it has a little to do with the holidays or something, so this post might not be that extensive (although I doubt it).
And keep in mind, as usual, that although I am a Seattle criminal attorney, I would not suggest you receive my outline of these cases and my breakdown of these cases as gospel as you amble into court to talk to the judge. If you in reality require the assistance of one of these cases to help you, do the brainy thing and read the state of affairs. That way you can be rest certain that what you are speaking is right – or better yet, call up a DUI attorney to facilitate – you’ll be happy you did.
The first criminal state of affairs on the Criminal Attorney Seattle Blog docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of verification, namely 404(b). Here we go.
State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of state of affairs a drunk driving defense lawyer cherishes because the verification was poor. It is not the variety of state of affairs a drunk driving lawyer enjoys because the prosecutor employed some new theories of utilizing the rules of verification that seemed to be dubious upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to declare.
Facts – The victim was awakened in his dwelling by gunshots. He peered outside and saw someone firing out of a red vehicle. The sports car was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A independent victim heard the equivalent thing, and afterward located bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. later the cops searched the dwelling of Hartzell’s buddy, who admitted to shooting a revolver at a different time. According to ballistics, the handgun was that used during the firing described above.
The police were then later on called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The cops showed up, spotted a bullet hole in a sedan, and brought a search dog to attempt to find the handgun that was used. The dog smelled inside the vehicle, then went out and located the gun a few hundred yards away from the sports car. This pistol also matched the bullets shot at the first described place.
Issues – Hartzell challenged the search of his car as illegal and that previous incidents were wrongly admitted to show that the defendants had a predisposition to commit handgun crimes.
Breakdown – First, on the topic of the search issue. The Washington State constitution protects people from gratuitous searches of their person and their confidential things. This stipulation is not dishonored if no search happens. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s private affairs. In general, a search does not arise if an police officer is able to uncover something using one of his senses from a non-intrusive point of view.
With regard to dog sniffs, a search occurs depending on the circumstances. Prior decisions have held that a search does not transpire if the sniff occurs in a area the individual would not have a logical expectation of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the automobile when the sniff occurred and the dog didn’t get into the car. The search was practical.
Second, concerning the 404(b) verification topic. ER 404(b) provides:
evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The analysis for admitting facts under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) unearth by a preponderance of the evidence that a crime happened; (2) identify the point for which the verification is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the verification is related to conclude the element of a offense charged; and (4) balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this case, there was a practical deduction that the pistol located 100 yards from Hartzell’s vehicle was owned by him, particularly because the dog discovered the pistol after sniffing Hartzell’s car. Ammunition from the firearm was also found on Hartzell and in the car driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that evidence not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that may perhaps demonstrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the equivalent, but that it was possible the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were located in control of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these facts, the court found that verification to be important. And in conclusion, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the proof was sensible since it reasoned the lack of data about the occurrence would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle criminal defense attorney’s breakdown – This isn’t the finest case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their limitations to attempt to get this in. Do I believe the fact that these guys are discovered with the guns afterward have any impact on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one witnessed anything it is out of the question to identify who was utilizing those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing inference upon conclusion to reach their preferred conclusion – that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t make out in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the proof wasn’t here) was any proof that they committed the crimes alleged. As a driving under the influence lawyer in Seattle, I can certainly see why this situation was brought to trial – the proof just isn’t there.
Next we have State v. Bliss, a state of affairs on the subject of possession of methamphetamine, search and seizure, and automobile stops.
State v. Bliss is a state of affairs about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the vehicle and the discovery of meth. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search occurrence to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s read on and see what happens.
Facts – Bliss was driving around one night when a cop got behind her and checked the registration on her motor vehicle. The police officer found that Bliss had unresolved misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, established Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the van, finding a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of methamphetamine. The police officer completed a property inventory before having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense lawyer moved to suppress the facts on two grounds: (1) the officer didn’t have good reason to stop the automobile; and (2) the cop couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court located the officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.
Just before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the premise that the search was not incident to the arrest. The court discovered the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.
Issues – Was the search legal?
Scrutiny – Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a rational suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a realistic suspicion that crime is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person stopped such that the stop and investigation is rational under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.
In this situation when the police officer stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the person driving the van at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant breakdown, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the van. This issue is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.
Drunk driving attorney in Seattle scrutiny – This was probably the right thing to do here. If the question wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court could have the information it needs to decide if the search was legal. One thing I did find interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the sports car was impounded, which suggests the automobile would have been searched to inventory the vehicle. Whether that includes a search of the inside of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for driving under the influence defense lawyer’s to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search occurrence to arrest. I guess we’ll see…
Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Cops’ Questions
Comments are closed.