Search Incident to seizure - State v. Patton
This is one of the foremost in a what will be a long string of cases dealing with searching trucks after an important person has been apprehended (also identified as search incident to apprehension). It is one of the exceptions to law enforcement needing a warrant for detention, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we DUI defense attorneys in Seattle had recognized for a long while - the cops were abusing this law by searching automobiles incident to the arrest of someone when the detention formed no basis for the search.
Here is the typical illustration: somebody is captured for driving while their license is suspended. The individual is arrested and positioned into the cop car. After that the police search the automobile, “incident to the arrest.” Trouble is, there is no evidence to find for driving while license revoked. The verification is already in the possession of the cops (the driver’s license records).
Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an unsettled felony warrant. The cops knew where he was at and where waiting for him to come out so they could capture him on the warrant. It was night, and after a bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the car and someone matching the account of Patton out digging around in the car. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his cranium out of the van and ran into the motorhome. After support arrived, they went into the motorhome and seized Patton. After apprehending him, the cops searched Patton’s auto, locating meth and money.
Patton was charged with custody of methamphetamine. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the support for being illegally 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 eligible to be searched incident to his apprehension.
Breakdown - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unwarranted. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search should fall into one of a number of enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are restricted to the circumstances that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant obligation is the auto search incident to detention.
That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the possibility that evidence connected to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be misplaced or destroyed.
In this case, Patton’s argument is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the restricted confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not detained in his car, but in his house, that he was never in his vehicle during the altercation, and that he was seized for an remaining warrant, for which no proof of the “crime” would exist in the car.
The Court first looked to decide when it was that Patton was under capture. The court noted that:
an arrest takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an objective to take a person into custody and actually seizes or detains the individual. The existence of arrest depends in each case upon an unbiased evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.Here, the police officer 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 seizure 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 seizure and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that arrest. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under apprehension when he was at his automobile for purposes of the extra examination.
The next issue is whether or not the search incident to the seizure Patton was justifiable. foremost, a search incident to arrest is not legitimate just because the apprehension happened closely to the automobile. A more detailed examination is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to capture] is allowable only to get rid of any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist capture or effect an escape and to evade destruction of support by the arrestee of the misdemeanor for which he or she is seized…This directive has been freshly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court decided that a search incident to capture in a van occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”
Study of these particulars under the set of laws establishes that this search was unreasonable and outside of the search incident to seizure exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the automobile when he was apprehended. There was no relationship between his capture, which was for the warrant for failing to appear in court, and a search of the van.
Also, there were no safety concerns for the officers related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the van, he was apprehended outside of the van, and when the vehicle was searched Patton was no where near the vehicle (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the van and use it to damage the officers).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the verification is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
Driving under the influence attorneys point of view - Clearly I think they got this one right. The police unlawfully searched the car, found some drugs, and then tried to get the proof admitted by trying to create a state of affairs that allowed their illegal search. These are the types of situations the Criminal Attorney in Seattle Blog sees all the while that I am happy are now being handled properly. And, I must also include that I am happy to witness that someone has in fact acted properly when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his bus, which while and period again gets people in trouble.
It was also exciting to see the Washington Supreme Court in effect negate a lot of case law that had for years been dogging dui defense attorneys and making it extremely complicated to get support obtained illegitimately from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s declaration in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to wipe out much of their case law, most likely much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is important for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what police can and can’t do when arresting you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legislative plan set up by the governing body to allow, in specific circumstances, people that have committed a wrong to take care of the crime by paying damages to the victim. If the compensation 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 dui defense attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with theft, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smudge on their record. 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 auto when it was hit, as opposed to a parked van).
Facts - Stalker was charged with driving under the influence and hit and run attended. He plead guilty to the drunk driving but moved to have the hit and run attended dismissed pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. After providing to the court verification that the victim was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the accusation pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.
Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have permission to instruct restitution because it is not a direct product of the allegation (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal system is founded on precedent (using earlier decisions of law to shape examination of current legal questions) and precedent is not set aside nonchalantly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise. This conclusion, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was created to: “grant reimbursement to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of trivial offenders.”
Since court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had several opportunities to particularly exclude hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has excluded an assortment of crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to eliminate 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 statute.
Holding - the trial court’s evaluation to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
drunk driving Lawyer’s Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The conclusion is pretty clear. One thing I find remarkable about this, and something I encounter from while to time 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 decrease the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a foolish choice without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an settlement has been reached between defendant and sufferer?
Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Probable Cause
Seattle Criminal Attorney | You Should Know One
