Another week, an additional analysis of dui cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a
Seattle DUI attorney, it is key to stay on top of this data so you can be totally ready to argue your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of importance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a truck 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 attention-grabbing and worth noting, so I’ll summarize, and as common, provide a modest morsel of my own DUI lawyer analysis. Off we go with some more great info from the
DUI Attorney Seattle Blog!
Search Incident to arrest - State v. Patton
This is one of the first in a what will be a long line of cases dealing with searching cars after someone has been seized (also recognized as search incident to apprehension). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for capture, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we driving under the influence defense attorneys had acknowledged for a long period - the law enforcement were abusing this rule by searching cars incident to the apprehension of someone when the arrest created no grounds for the search.
Here is the classic illustration: someone is apprehended for driving while their license is revoked. The person is seized and placed into the cop van. After that the cops search the automobile, “incident to the arrest.” Quandary is, there is no confirmation to find for driving while license suspended. The substantiation is already in the custody of the cops (the driver’s license records).
Facts of State v. Patton - Patton had an remaining 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 night, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the vehicle and someone matching the picture 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 automobile and ran into the trailer. After support arrived, they went into the motorhome and apprehended Patton. After apprehending him, the cops searched Patton’s automobile, finding meth and cash. Patton was charged with custody of meth. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the support for being illicitly detained. The trial court granted 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 vehicle that it was suitable to be searched incident to his arrest.
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 several enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are limited to the circumstances that brought them into being. They shouldn’t be used to undermine the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant obligation is the car search incident to capture. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an van is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that substantiation related to the offense which predicated the seizure will be misplaced or smashed.
In this case, Patton’s reason is that the search of Patton’s vehicle does not fall into the limited 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 disagreement, and that he was apprehended for an remaining warrant, for which no evidence of the “crime” would exist in the car.
The Court essential looked to decide when it was that Patton was under capture. The court noted that:
an seizure takes place when a duly authorized police officer of the law manifests an intent to take a human being into confinement and in fact seizes or detains the individual. The existence of capture depends in each case upon an unbiased evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the cop had captured 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 detention and not to move. It makes sense for quite a few reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from law enforcement to change the place of capture 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 additional breakdown.
The next subject is whether or not the search incident to the capture Patton was right. first, a search incident to capture is not valid just because the seizure happened closely to the car. A more detailed study 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 detention or effect an escape and to avoid destruction of proof by the arrestee of the crime for which he or she is arrested…
This rule has been freshly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to apprehension in a car occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search.”
Examination of these facts under the set of laws establishes that this search was unreasonable and outside of the search incident to apprehension exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the truck when he was detained. There was no connection between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the truck. Also, there were no safety concerns for the officers related to anything in the truck - Patton was never in the van, he was detained outside of the automobile, and when the automobile was searched Patton was no where near the vehicle (officer wellbeing in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the vehicle and use it to harm the police).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the confirmation is suppressed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
DUI attorney's viewpoint - Clearly I think they got this one correct. The cops inappropriately searched the auto, found some drugs, and then tried to get the evidence admitted by trying to create a state of affairs that allowed their illegal search. As a Seattle DUI lawyer these are the types of situations I see all the period that I am happy are now being handled properly. And, I must also add that I am pleased to see that somebody has really acted correctly when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his bus, which period and time again gets people in trouble.
It was also thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact undo a lot of case law that had for years been dogging DUI defense lawyers and making it enormously hard to get support obtained illegitimately from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to negate much of their case law, probably 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 arresting you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legal format set up by the government to permit, in specific circumstances, people that have committed a felony to take care of the misdemeanor by paying damages to the injured party. If the payment 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 burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a spot 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 car when it was hit, as opposed to a parked auto).
Facts - Stalker was charged with DUI 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 evidence that the victim was fully remunerated, the court dismissed the charge pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor statute.
Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have ability to direct compensation because it is not a direct result of the indictment (fleeing the scene after an smash has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal organization is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to have an effect on analysis of contemporary legal questions) and precedent is not set aside without due consideration. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is appropriate for compromise. This choice, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor statute. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “grant reimbursement to crime victims and to elude prosecution of small offenders.”
Since court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is entitled for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had several opportunities to particularly exclude hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has excluded diverse crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to keep out 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 statute.
Holding - the trial court’s decision to allow the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
driving under the influence attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The assessment is pretty plain. One thing I find attention-grabbing about this, and something I come across from period to while 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 decrease the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a stupid choice without having to pay for it for a long period. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an settlement has been reached between defendant and injured party?
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Saturation Patrols
Seattle DUI Attorney | Boating Under the Influence
