Search Incident to capture - State v. Patton
This is one of the essential in a what will be a lengthy string of cases dealing with searching cars after an important person has been captured (also recognized as search incident to capture). It is one of the exceptions to law enforcement needing a warrant for detention, and lately the United States Supreme Court clarified what we criminal lawyers had acknowledged for a long while - the police were abusing this regulation by searching automobiles incident to the detention of someone when the detention created no rationale for the search.
Here is the classic illustration: somebody is arrested for driving while their license is suspended. The person is seized and positioned into the cop van. After that the cops search the automobile, “incident to the arrest.” Trouble is, there is no substantiation to find for driving while license suspended. The support is already in the control 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 capture him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the automobile and someone matching the description of Patton out digging 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 support arrived, they went into the motorhome and detained Patton.
After detaining him, the cops searched Patton’s van, discovering meth and money. Patton was charged with possession of methamphetamine. At trial, Patton moved to exclude the evidence for being illegally detained. 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 apprehension.
Breakdown - The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unfair. 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 existence. They shouldn’t be used to chip away at the need for a warrant.
One exception to the warrant prerequisite is the vehicle search incident to apprehension. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an vehicle is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the opportunity that confirmation related to the misdemeanor which predicated the capture will be mislaid or damaged.
In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the limited confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not captured in his car, but in his home, that he was never in his truck during the argument, and that he was detained for an unresolved warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the truck.
The Court first looked to decide when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:
an arrest takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an objective to take a person into supervision and in fact seizes or detains the person. The existence of apprehension depends in each case upon an detached assessment of all the surrounding conditions.Here, the police officer 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 apprehension 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 cops to change the place of seizure and the activities that are allowed pursuant to that arrest. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under capture when he was at his automobile for purposes of the added analysis.
The next topic is whether or not the search incident to the detention Patton was justifiable. primary, a search incident to arrest is not valid just because the seizure happened closely to the car. A more detailed investigation is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to capture] is permissible only to remove any guns the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape and to circumvent obliteration of proof by the arrestee of the offense for which he or she is seized…This decree has been recently clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to seizure in a car occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”
Study of these details under the rules establishes that this search was unwarranted and beyond of the search incident to seizure exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the car when he was apprehended. There was no relationship between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to appear 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 car, he was seized outside of the automobile, and when the van was searched Patton was no where near the bus (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the car and use it to harm the police).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the evidence is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
Seattle criminal defense lawyer's point of view - Obviously I believe they got this one correct. The officers inappropriately searched the car, located some drugs, and then tried to get the verification admitted by trying to generate a condition that permitted their unlawful search.
These are the types of situations we see all the time at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog and I am happy they are now being handled appropriately. And, I must also add that I am glad to see that someone has really acted suitably when dealing with the cops and did not sanction to a search of his automobile, which time and period again gets people in trouble.
It was also thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court in effect cancel out a lot of case law that had for years been dogging drunk driving defense lawyers and making it enormously complicated to get evidence obtained unlawfully from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to reverse much of their case law, most likely much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is imperative for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when capturing you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legal idea set up by the governing body to allow, in specified circumstances, citizens that have committed a wrong to take care of the offense by paying compensation to the victim. If the compensation 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 drunk driving defense lawyers in Seattle, particularly those that deal with shoplifting, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows people that have made a bad choice to take care of it without having a blotch 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 someone was in the automobile when it was hit, as opposed to a parked vehicle).
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 proof that the victim was fully remunerated, the court dismissed the accusation pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor statute.
Issue - can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have authority to charge compensation because it is not a direct consequence of the indictment (fleeing the scene after an crash has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal structure is founded on precedent (using earlier decisions of law to form examination of contemporary legal questions) and precedent is not set aside carelessly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is qualified for compromise. This judgment, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor statute. The compromise of misdemeanor was created to: “present compensation to crime victims and to avoid prosecution of slight 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 prohibit hit and run attended from eligibility. While the government has disqualified various crimes from eligibility for compromise of misdemeanor, including crimes of domestic violence, they have not chosen to prohibit 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 conclusion to permit the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.
DUI Lawyer’s Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The assessment is pretty apparent. One thing I find attention-grabbing about this, and something I encounter from period to period 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 created to lessen 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 time. Why can’t prosecutors just go with the flow when an understanding has been reached between defendant and sufferer?
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Take the Breath Test?
Seattle DUI Attorney | Stop and Frisk
0 comments:
Post a Comment