One more week, an additional evaluation of drunk driving cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a
Seattle DUI attorney, it is imperative to stay on top of this data so you can be totally ready to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of attention: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a automobile incident to an arrest; 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 usual, provide a little morsel of my own criminal lawyer investigation.
Search Incident to apprehension - State v. Patton
This is one of the primary in a what will be a long string of cases dealing with searching automobiles after an important person has been apprehended (also known as search incident to arrest). It is one of the exceptions to cops needing a warrant for detention, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we criminal defense attorneys had acknowledged for a long time - the police were abusing this rule by searching trucks incident to the apprehension of somebody when the capture created no cause for the search. Here is the standard instance: someone is arrested for driving while their license is suspended. The person is arrested and positioned into the cop vehicle. After that the cops search the auto, “incident to the seizure.” Trouble is, there is no support to find for driving while license revoked. The substantiation is already in the control 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 apprehension him on the warrant. It was night, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the van and somebody matching the portrayal of Patton out rummaging around in the van. 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 motorhome. After backup arrived, they went into the motorhome and seized Patton. After arresting him, the cops searched Patton’s vehicle, discovering meth and cash. Patton was charged with custody of meth. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the proof for being illegally 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 van that it was eligible to be searched incident to his detention.
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 more than a few enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are limited to the circumstances that brought them into existence. They shouldn’t be used to chip away at the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant prerequisite is the van search incident to detention. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that verification related to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be mislaid or smashed.
In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s truck does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not apprehended in his truck, but in his home, that he was never in his van during the dispute, and that he was captured for an unsettled warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the car.
The Court primary looked to settle on when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:
an seizure takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an intention to take a person into confinement and actually seizes or detains the person. The existence of detention depends in each case upon an detached evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the cop had detained 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 arrest and not to move. It makes sense for several reasons, one of which is the Court does not want to condone running from police to change the place of apprehension and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that apprehension. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under apprehension when he was at his car for purposes of the more investigation.
The next subject is whether or not the search incident to the capture Patton was justified. foremost, a search incident to seizure is not legitimate just because the seizure happened closely to the van. A more detailed study 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 detention or effect an escape and to evade annihilation of confirmation by the arrestee of the felony for which he or she is apprehended…
This law has been recently clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to detention in a van occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the period of search.”
Analysis of these particulars under the set of laws establishes that this search was unfair and outside of the search incident to capture exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the automobile when he was arrested. There was no link between his capture, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the car. Also, there were no security concerns for the officers related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the automobile, he was detained outside of the car, and when the van was searched Patton was no where near the automobile (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take hold of something in the vehicle and use it to damage the cops).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, the trial court’s judgment is upheld, the support is suppressed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
DUI lawyers perception - Obviously I believe they got this one correct. The officers inappropriately searched the car, located some drugs, and then tried to get the substantiation admitted by trying to generate a state of affairs that permitted their illegal search. As a Seattle drunk driving lawyer 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 pleased to see that somebody has really acted appropriately when dealing with the police and did not sanction to a search of his automobile, which while and period again gets people in trouble.
It was also exciting to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact wipe out a lot of case law that had for years been dogging driving under the influence defense lawyers and making it enormously difficult to get verification obtained illegitimately from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, the Washington courts had no alternative but to reverse much of their case law, probably much to their chagrin. 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 Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legal method set up by the legislature to allow, in specified circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdemeanor to take care of the crime by paying damages to the victim. 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
DUI attorneys in Seattle, particularly those that deal with robbery, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a smear 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 somebody was in the car 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 DUI 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 rewarded, the court dismissed the allegation pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.
Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have permission to charge repayment because it is not a direct result of the charge (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal organization is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to influence analysis 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 appropriate for compromise. This judgment, 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: “give compensation to crime victims and to get out of prosecution of small offenders.”
Because court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor law have determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had several opportunities to expressly eliminate hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has excluded various 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 law.
Holding - the trial court’s conclusion to grant the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
Criminal attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The assessment is pretty obvious. One thing I find fascinating about this, and something I come across from period to time 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 created to reduce the work load of prosecutors and give people the chance to move past a brainless decision without having to pay for it for a long while. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an arrangement has been reached between defendant and injured party?
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Traffic Stops
Seattle DUI Attorney | Pretextual Stops
