Protective sweep unlawful; no exigent circumstances when investigating “noise at vacant house”

by

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.

[Read more…]

Officer’s request for name in a parking lot not a seizure, but contact in public place

by

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.

[Read more…]

Private search doctrine doesn’t allow repairman to consent to police search

by

State v. Eisfeldt, Washington Supreme Court, Docket No. 79947-4, issued June 5, 2008

A repairman was called by a homeowner to repair a diesel spill in the home’s living room. A key was left under the mat for the repairman. The repairman went to the attached garage to ventilate the fumes, noticed sealant around the garage door, and broke the sealant to gain entry to the garage. He noticed what he believed was evidence of a marijuana grow operation, became suspicious, and contacted the police. He showed detective the diesel spill in the living room and the suspicious items in the garage. The detectives stopped the search and obtained a search warrant for the home. The police found what they believed was evidence of a marijuana grow operation.

[Read more…]

Frisk of suspect in DSHS lobby unlawful; no reason to believe suspect was armed or dangerous

by

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.

[Read more…]

No seizure where no “show of authority” by police officer on foot towards pedestrian

by

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.

[Read more…]