If you truly need the benefit of one of these cases to aid you, do the intelligent thing and read the situation. That way you can be rest certain that what you are saying is right - or better yet, call up a criminal defense attorney in Seattle to aid - you’ll be pleased you did.
The initial driving under the influence case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of facts, 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 variety of situation a drunk driving defense attorney loves because the verification was slim. It is not the type of case a criminal defense attorney loves because the prosecutor employed some original theories of using the rules of proof that appeared to be suspicious upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to declare.
Facts - The victim was awakened in his abode by gunshots. He peered outside and saw a person firing out of a red sports car. The automobile was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A unconnected victim heard the similar thing, and later located bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. later the police searched the abode of Hartzell’s friend, who admitted to shooting a pistol at a different time. According to ballistics, the firearm was that used in the firing described above.
The cops were then afterward called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The police showed up, spotted a bullet hole in a vehicle, and brought a search canine to attempt to locate the revolver that was used. The canine smelled inside the van, then went out and discovered the gun a few hundred yards away from the sports car. This revolver also matched the bullets shot at the first described location.
Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his truck as illegal and that previous incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to execute gun crimes.
breakdown - First, on the subject of the search issue. The Washington State constitution protects people from gratuitous searches of their individual and their private things. This provision is not violated if no search occurs. A search occurs when the state interferes with a individual’s confidential dealings. Usually, a search does not arise if an police officer is able to reveal something utilizing one of his senses from a non-intrusive point of view.
With regard to canine sniffs, a search happens depending on the conditions. Prior decisions have held that a search does not occur if the sniff happens in a place the individual would not have a reasonable belief of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the car when the sniff happened and the dog didn’t get into the vehicle. The search was logical.
Second, regarding the 404(b) facts question. ER 404(b) provides:
facts of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to demonstrate 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 experiment for admitting verification under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) find by a preponderance of the proof that a crime happened; (2) distinguish the point for which the evidence is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the verification is pertinent to determine the element of a offense charged; and (4) ponder the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this occurrence, there was a reasonable deduction that the gun discovered 100 yards from Hartzell’s sedan was owned by him, particularly since the dog found the firearm after sniffing Hartzell’s automobile. Bullets from the firearm was also discovered on Hartzell and in the van driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was trying to use that proof not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that may perhaps illustrate the first offense and the offense alleged were the similar, but that it was probable the defendants committed the crimes because they were discovered in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these particulars, the court found that evidence to be important. And to end with, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the evidence was sensible since it reasoned the lack of data about the occasion would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle DUI attorney’s breakdown - This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their boundaries to try to get this in. Do I believe the fact that these guys are found with the guns later on have any impact on what occurred under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one viewed anything it is not possible to see who was utilizing those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing inference upon conclusion to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t notice in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any evidence that they committed the crimes alleged. As a Bellevue criminal attorney, I can certainly see why this case was taken to trial - the facts 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 car stops.
State v. Bliss is a case about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the van and the discovery of meth. It brings up a hot topic these days, the search event to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s study 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 officer found that Bliss had unsettled 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 meth. The cop completed a property record before having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle drunk driving defense attorney moved to suppress the verification on two grounds: (1) the cop didn’t have good reason to stop the van; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court located the officer was correct 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 event to the arrest. The court located the search was simultaneous 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 question here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a logical suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is reasonable 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 state of affairs when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the automobile at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant analysis, 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 car. This question is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.
criminal defense 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 may possibly have the information it needs to decide if the search was legal. One thing I did uncover interesting in this opinion was the fact that afterward the car was impounded, which suggests the vehicle 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 criminal defense 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 occasion to arrest. I guess we’ll see…
Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Corpus Delicti
Seattle Criminal Attorney | DUI Consequences
