One more week, another review of DUI cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a
Seattle criminal attorney, it is vital to stay on top of this information so you can be entirely outfitted to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of notice: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the exploration of a van incident to an detention; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are fascinating and worth noting, so I’ll sum up, and as typical, give a slight morsel of my own criminal defense lawyer analysis.
Search Incident to capture - State v. Patton
This is one of the primary in a what will be a extensive string of cases dealing with searching vans after somebody has been detained (also known as search incident to seizure). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for detention, and recently the United States Supreme Court clarified what we criminal defense lawyers had acknowledged for a long period - the law enforcement were abusing this decree by searching trucks incident to the arrest of somebody when the detention formed no rationale for the search.
Here is the typical illustration: somebody is apprehended for driving while their license is revoked. The human being is arrested and positioned into the cop van. After that the cops search the automobile, “incident to the detention.” Trouble is, there is no substantiation to find for driving while license suspended. 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 detention him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the vehicle and someone matching the portrayal of Patton out digging around in the auto. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his skull out of the auto and ran into the trailer. After backup arrived, they went into the trailer and seized Patton.
After seizing him, the cops searched Patton’s vehicle, locating methamphetamine and cash. Patton was charged with control of meth. At trial, Patton's Seattle DUI lawyer moved to eliminate the confirmation 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 automobile that it was qualified to be searched incident to his seizure.
Analysis - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unfair. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search must fall into one of numerous enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are limited to the conditions that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to undermine the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant condition is the auto search incident to apprehension. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an van is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the chance that substantiation connected to the misdeed which predicated the arrest will be misplaced or destroyed.
In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s vehicle does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the decree. He also points out that he was not seized in his vehicle, but in his dwelling, that he was never in his automobile during the dispute, and that he was captured for an outstanding warrant, for which no confirmation of the “crime” would exist in the automobile.
The Court essential looked to decide when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:
an capture takes place when a duly authorized police officer of the law manifests an intent to take a individual into custody and in fact seizes or detains the individual. The existence of detention depends in each case upon an objective appraisal of all the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the police officer had apprehended 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 a number of reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from law enforcement to change the place of detention and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that capture. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under apprehension when he was at his car for purposes of the further study.
The next issue is whether or not the search incident to the apprehension Patton was justifiable. essential, a search incident to capture is not valid just because the capture happened closely to the auto. A more detailed examination is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to arrest] is acceptable only to confiscate any weapons the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape and to circumvent annihilation of support by the arrestee of the offense for which he or she is arrested…
This regulation has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to detention in a automobile happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”
Examination of these particulars under the regulations establishes that this search was unfair and outside of the search incident to apprehension exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the vehicle when he was apprehended. There was no connection between his capture, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the vehicle.
Also, there were no safety concerns for the cops related to anything in the van - Patton was never in the van, he was detained outside of the truck, and when the truck was searched Patton was no where near the car (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the car and use it to harm the officers).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the substantiation is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
Criminal attorney's viewpoint - Obviously I, a
Seattle DUI lawyer, believe they got this one correct. The officers inappropriately searched the van, found some drugs, and then tried to get the verification admitted by trying to create a situation that allowed their illegal search. As a
Seattle criminal attorney these are the types of situations I see all the time that I am happy are now being handled suitably. And, I must also add that I am happy to witness that someone has in fact acted appropriately when dealing with the police and did not sanction to a search of his vehicle, which while and time again gets people in trouble.
It was also stimulating to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact reverse a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense lawyers and making it exceptionally hard to get evidence obtained unlawfully from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gant, the Washington courts had no option but to cancel out much of their case law, probably much to their disappointment. This case, like Gant, is important for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what officers can and can’t do when seizing you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legislative scheme set up by the government to allow, in precise circumstances, people that have committed a misdeed to take care of the felony by paying compensation to the sufferer. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received payment and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For criminal defense attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with robbery, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows citizens that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a mark on their background. 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 somebody was in the van when it was hit, as opposed to a parked auto).
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 verification that the sufferer was fully remunerated, the court dismissed the indictment pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor statute.
Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have authority to order compensation because it is not a direct result of the allegation (fleeing the location after an collision has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal scheme is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to shape analysis of existing legal questions) and precedent is not set aside without due consideration. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise. This result, 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: “present restitution to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of inconsequential offenders.”
Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise of misdemeanor, the government has had numerous opportunities to specifically eliminate hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has excluded assorted 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 beyond the compromise of misdemeanor law.
Holding - the trial court’s evaluation to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
Criminal Lawyer’s Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The conclusion is pretty unambiguous. One thing I find fascinating about this, and something I come across from period to while out there in the world of DUI 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 established to reduce the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a unintelligent choice without having to pay for it for a long period. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an understanding has been reached between defendant and injured party?
Related Posts:
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Don't Talk to Cops
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Plea Bargaining
