Here we go again, a new run down of the drunk driving law cases ruled in the previous week in Washington State. As with preceding week, the quantity of decisions out is small - possibly it has something to do with the holidays or something, so this article might not be that lengthy (although I doubt it). And bear in mind, as usual, that though I am a
Seattle DUI attorney, I would not propose you take my outline of these cases and my analysis of these cases as gospel as you amble into court to chat to the judge. If you really require the benefit of one of these cases to facilitate you, do the brainy thing and read the state of affairs. That way you can be rest secure that what you are uttering is accurate - or better yet, phone a drunk driving defense lawyer in Seattle to assist - you’ll be pleased you did.
The initial drunk driving state of affairs on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of facts, namely 404(b). Thanks for coming back to the
Seattle DUI Attorney Blog!
State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the type of case a driving under the influence defense attorney enjoys because the evidence was poor. It is not the variety of situation a driving under the influence attorney loves since the prosecutor employed some fresh theories of using the rules of proof that appeared to be suspect upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to state.
Facts - The victim was awakened in his abode by gunshots. He looked outside and witnessed someone shooting out of a red car. The automobile was moving as the firing was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A unconnected victim heard the identical thing, and afterward found bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. afterward the cops searched the house of Hartzell’s friend, who admitted to shooting a revolver at a different time. According to ballistics, the handgun was that used in the shooting described above.
The cops were then later called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The police showed up, viewed a bullet hole in a automobile, and brought a search dog to try to uncover the gun that was used. The canine smelled within the vehicle, then went out and found the gun a few hundred yards away from the sedan. This handgun also matched the bullets fired at the first described site.
Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his van as illegal and that previous incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to execute gun crimes.
breakdown - First, concerning the search question. The Washington State constitution protects citizens from unwarranted searches of their individual and their confidential things. This proviso is not violated if no search occurs. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s private dealings. Usually, a search does not arise if an police officer is able to notice something utilizing one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.
With regard to canine sniffs, a search occurs depending on the conditions. Earlier decisions have held that a search does not happen if the sniff happens in a location the individual would not have a practical expectation of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the canine sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the vehicle when the sniff occurred and the canine didn’t get into the van. The search was rational.
Second, on the topic of the 404(b) proof issue. ER 404(b) provides:
evidence 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 test for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) come across by a preponderance of the facts that a crime occurred; (2) distinguish the point for which the proof is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the facts is relevant to decide the element of a offense charged; and (4) evaluate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this situation, there was a reasonable deduction that the revolver found 100 yards from Hartzell’s car was possessed by him, particularly since the dog found the gun after sniffing Hartzell’s van. Ammunition from the firearm was also discovered on Hartzell and in the automobile driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that facts not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that could demonstrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the same, but that it was probable the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were found in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these specifics, the court discovered that proof to be relevant. And to end with, the trial court’s breakdown of the admission of the facts was sensible since it reasoned the lack of information about the incident would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle criminal attorney’s analysis - This isn’t the greatest case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their limitations to attempt to get this in. Do I feel the fact that these guys are located with the guns later have any influence on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one saw anything it is not possible to see who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t make out in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any proof that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can unquestionably see why this situation was brought to trial - the evidence just isn’t there.
Next we have State v. Bliss, a situation concerning
possession of meth, search and seizure, and vehicle stops.
State v. Bliss is a case about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the vehicle and the discovery of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search occurrence to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s look at on and see what happens.
Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a cop got behind her and checked the registration on her car. The police officer discovered 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 car, discovering a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of meth. The police officer completed a property inventory before having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle drunk driving defense attorney moved to suppress the verification on two grounds: (1) the police officer didn’t have justification to stop the automobile; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court discovered the officer was correct in the stop and the search was legal.
Just before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the theory that the search was not occurrence to the arrest. The court located the search was contemporaneous 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 topic here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a rational suspicion that driving under the influence activity is afoot. Under this exception, the cop must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The realistic suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is realistic 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 situation when the officer 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 examination, 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 motor vehicle. This issue is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the question under Gant.
DUI attorney in Seattle scrutiny - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the topic wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court may perhaps have the information it needs to determine if the search was legal. One thing I did unearth interesting in this opinion was the fact that later on the sports car was impounded, which suggests the automobile would have been searched to inventory the van. Whether that includes a search of the within of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for Seattle DUI defense attorneys 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 DUI Attorney | Don't Run From Cops
Seattle DUI Attorney | It's Okay to Know What to Do
