Seattle Criminal Attorney | Case Decisions 10/24/09

A new week, an additional analysis of criminal cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a driving under the influence defense lawyer, it is key to stay on top of this information so you can be entirely equipped to make a case your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of importance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the examination of a van incident to an capture; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are interesting and worth noting, so I’ll summarize, and as usual, provide a slight speck of my own Seattle criminal attorney examination.

Search Incident to apprehension – State v. Patton

This is one of the primary in a what will be a extensive string of cases dealing with searching automobiles after an important person has been captured (also known as search incident to apprehension). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for detention, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we criminal defense attorneys had known for a long period – the law enforcement were abusing this rule by searching trucks incident to the detention of someone when the detention created no basis for the search. Here is the classic example: somebody is detained for driving while their license is revoked. The person is apprehended and placed into the cop vehicle. After that the police search the van, “incident to the capture.” Problem is, there is no verification to find for driving while license suspended. The support is already in the custody of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton – Patton had an unresolved 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 auto and somebody matching the picture of Patton out digging around in the automobile. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his skull out of the van and ran into the motorhome. After backup arrived, they went into the trailer and captured Patton. After arresting him, the cops searched Patton’s car, discovering meth and currency. Patton was charged with custody of meth. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the verification for being illegitimately 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 suitable to be searched incident to his detention.

Analysis – The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unjust. 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 destabilize the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant condition is the vehicle search incident to detention. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an auto is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the opportunity that evidence related to the misdeed which predicated the capture will be misplaced or smashed.

In this case, Patton’s argument is that the search of Patton’s truck does not fall into the limited confines of the exception to the directive. He also points out that he was not apprehended in his automobile, but in his residence, that he was never in his automobile during the altercation, and that he was captured for an remaining warrant, for which no substantiation of the “crime” would exist in the vehicle.

The Court original looked to decide when it was that Patton was under apprehension. The court noted that:

an arrest takes place when a duly authorized officer of the law manifests an intent to take a person into custody and actually seizes or detains the person. The existence of arrest depends in each case upon an impartial assessment of all the surrounding circumstances.

Here, the cop 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 quite a lot of reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from cops 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 detention when he was at his car for purposes of the extra scrutiny.

The next topic is whether or not the search incident to the capture Patton was justified. first, a search incident to detention is not valid just because the detention happened closely to the car. A more detailed examination is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is permissible only to remove any guns the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist capture or effect an escape and to avoid obliteration of proof by the arrestee of the misdemeanor for which he or she is apprehended…

This law has been freshly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to seizure in a vehicle 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 unjust and beyond of the search incident to apprehension exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the car when he was detained. There was no association between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the vehicle. Also, there were no security concerns for the cops related to anything in the car – Patton was never in the vehicle, he was arrested outside of the van, and when the automobile was searched Patton was no where near the bus (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to clutch something in the automobile and use it to damage the officers).

Conclusion – the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s judgment is upheld, the proof is suppressed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.

Criminal lawyer’s perspective – Obviously I think they got this one correct. The police improperly searched the auto, located some drugs, and then tried to get the evidence admitted by trying to generate a state 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 appropriately. And, I must also include that I am pleased to witness that somebody has in fact acted appropriately when dealing with the law enforcement and did not consent to a search of his vehicle, 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 challenging to get support obtained unlawfully from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s declaration in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to reverse much of their case law, most likely much to their disappointment. This case, like Gant, is critical for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when detaining you.

Compromise of Misdemeanor and Hit & Run Attended – Court of Appeals – State v. Stalker

As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a statutory idea set up by the governing body to permit, in specific circumstances, people that have committed a felony to take care of the offense by paying compensation to the injured party. If the payment is paid, and the victim acknowledges in open court that they have received compensation and they are okay with the charges being dismissed, that the charges are dismissed with prejudice. For criminal defense lawyers in Seattle, particularly those that deal with burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows citizens that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smudge on their history. 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 car).

Facts – Stalker was charged with driving under the influence 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 substantiation that the sufferer was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the indictment pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Issue – can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have authorization to command repayment because it is not a direct product of the allegation (fleeing the scene after an collision has occurred)?

Analysis – Precedent counts for a lot. The legal structure is founded on precedent (using previous decisions of law to influence examination of existing legal inquiries) 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 choice, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “present compensation to crime victims and to elude prosecution of slight offenders.”

Seeing as court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor law have determined that hit and run attended is appropriate for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had several opportunities to particularly prohibit hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has disqualified an assortment of crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to exclude 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 choice to permit 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 result 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 established to lessen 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 accord has been reached between defendant and victim?

Related Posts:

Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining

Seattle Criminal Attorney | Welcome