This week we have two cases of significance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the search of a car incident to an seizure; the other is a case about compromise of misdemeanor as it pertains to hit and run attended charges. Both cases are fascinating and worth noting, so I’ll recap, and as usual, present a petite morsel of my own Seattle criminal lawyer analysis.
Search Incident to detention - State v. Patton
This is one of the foremost in a what will be a lengthy line of cases dealing with searching automobiles after somebody has been seized (also known as search incident to capture). It is one of the exceptions to police needing a warrant for seizure, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we dui defense attorneys had known for a long period - the police were abusing this regulation by searching vehicles incident to the capture of someone when the arrest formed no reason for the search.
Here is the classic illustration: someone is arrested for driving while their license is revoked. The person is apprehended and positioned into the cop van. After that the cops search the car, “incident to the apprehension.” Quandary is, there is no support to find for driving while license revoked. The evidence is already in the custody 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 capture him on the warrant. It was nighttime, and after a while the cop saw the dome light come on in the van and someone matching the description of Patton out rummaging around in the van. 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 motorhome and seized Patton.
After arresting him, the cops searched Patton’s van, finding methamphetamine and money. Patton was charged with control of meth. At trial, Patton moved to exclude the proof 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 automobile that it was eligible 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 must fall into one of a number of enumerated exceptions. These exceptions are restricted to the conditions that brought them into being.
They shouldn’t be used to weaken the need for a warrant. One exception to the warrant requirement is the auto search incident to seizure. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an automobile is permissible when the officer’s security is at issue or there is the opportunity that evidence correlated to the wrong which predicated the arrest will be misplaced or ruined.
In this case, Patton’s contention is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the regulation. He also points out that he was not arrested in his vehicle, but in his home, that he was never in his truck during the disagreement, and that he was arrested for an remaining warrant, for which no verification of the “crime” would exist in the truck.
The Court essential looked to decide when it was that Patton was under apprehension. The court noted that:
an seizure takes place when a duly authorized cop of the law manifests an intention to take a individual into supervision and in fact seizes or detains the individual. The existence of apprehension depends in each case upon an unprejudiced assessment of all the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the cop had arrested 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 more than a few 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 seizure. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under arrest when he was at his van for purposes of the extra study.
The next subject is whether or not the search incident to the seizure Patton was reasonable. foremost, a search incident to seizure is not valid just because the seizure happened closely to the vehicle. A more detailed analysis is required. Case law has prescribed:
[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is permissible only to remove any weaponry the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist seizure or effect an escape and to elude obliteration of proof by the arrestee of the misdeed for which he or she is seized…This regulation has been newly clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court determined that a search incident to arrest in a automobile happens “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the period of search.”
Investigation of these details under the set of laws establishes that this search was unwarranted and beyond of the search incident to detention exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the car when he was arrested. There was no association between his apprehension, which was for the warrant for failing to show in court, and a search of the automobile.
Also, there were no safety concerns for the cops related to anything in the car - Patton was never in the vehicle, he was detained outside of the truck, and when the truck was searched Patton was no where near the vehicle (officer security in a way presumes that Patton would be able to take something in the auto and use it to damage the officers).
Conclusion - the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s evaluation is upheld, the evidence is concealed, and the charges against Patton should be dismissed.
DUI attorney's perception - Obviously I believe they got this one right. The officers inappropriately searched the auto, found some drugs, and then tried to get the confirmation admitted by trying to generate a state of affairs that allowed their unlawful search. As a Seattle drunk driving attorney these are the types of situations I see all the while that I am happy are now being handled correctly. And, I must also add that I am pleased to see that somebody has actually acted appropriately when dealing with the police and did not consent to a search of his vehicle, which while and while again gets people in trouble.
It was also thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court in fact cancel out a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense lawyers and making it tremendously arduous to get substantiation obtained illegally from being concealed. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to wipe out much of their case law, probably much to their annoyance. This case, like Gant, is vital for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what cops can and can’t do when apprehending you.
Compromise of Misdeanor and Hit & Run Attended - Court of Appeals - State v. Stalker
As background, a compromise of misdemeanor is a legislative method set up by the government to allow, in specified circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdeed to take care of the felony by paying costs to the injured party. 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 criminal 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 decision 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 car when it was hit, as opposed to a parked automobile).
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 rewarded, 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 permission to command compensation because it is not a direct product of the charge (fleeing the location after an accident has occurred)?
Analysis - Precedent counts for a lot. The legal system is founded on precedent (using previous decisions of law to influence analysis of existing legal questions) and precedent is not set aside lightly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is eligible 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: “offer reimbursement to crime victims and to elude prosecution of insignificant 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 government has had many opportunities to specifically keep out hit and run attended from eligibility. While the legislature has disqualified assorted 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 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.
driving under the influence attorney's Analysis - not much for me to say on this one. The conclusion is pretty apparent. One thing I find interesting about this, and something I stumble upon from while 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 established to diminish the work load of prosecutors and give people the opportunity to move past a unintelligent 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 | License Punched Now What?
Seattle DUI Attorney | Watch Out for DUI Patrols
