Seattle DUI Attorney Blog

Seattle DUI Attorney – Case Update 10/24/09

Posted on November 4, 2009. Filed under: Seattle DUI Case Law | Tags: DUI attorneys Seattle |

One more week, a new review of driving under the influence cases handed down by the Washington Courts of Appeals. As a Seattle DUI attorney, it is important to stay on top of this data so you can be wholly outfitted to contend your client’s cause. This week we have two cases of importance: one is a Supreme Court case that discusses the examination of a automobile 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 attention-grabbing and worth noting, so I’ll go over, and as common, supply a little crumb of my own DUI attorney examination.

Search Incident to seizure – State v. Patton

This is one of the foremost in a what will be a extensive line of cases dealing with searching cars after an important person has been detained (also acknowledged as search incident to detention). It is one of the exceptions to police needing a warrant for detention, and of late the United States Supreme Court clarified what we driving under the influence defense attorneys had acknowledged for a long time – the cops were abusing this law by searching automobiles incident to the detention of somebody when the arrest formed no grounds for the search.

Here is the common instance: someone is detained for driving while their license is suspended. The individual is seized and positioned into the cop van. After that the cops search the vehicle, “incident to the apprehension.” Problem is, there is no to find for driving while license suspended. The evidence is already in the control of the cops (the driver’s license records).

Facts of State v. Patton – Patton had an outstanding 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 bit the cop saw the dome light come on in the vehicle and someone matching the report of Patton out rummaging around in the automobile. The cop pulled up with his lights activated. After telling Patton to stop, Patton pulled his skull out of the automobile and ran into the trailer.

After backup arrived, they went into the motorhome and detained Patton. After seizing him, the cops searched Patton’s van, finding meth and cash. Patton was charged with custody of methamphetamine. At trial, Patton moved to eliminate the confirmation for being illegitimately seized. 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 auto that it was suitable to be searched incident to his arrest.

Breakdown – The state constitution provides that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. For a warrantless search to be upheld the search must 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 requirement is the car search incident to detention. That exception holds that the warrantless search of an auto is permissible when the officer’s safety is at issue or there is the possibility that proof correlated to the wrong which predicated the seizure will be lost or destroyed.

In this case, Patton’s argument is that the search of Patton’s automobile does not fall into the narrow confines of the exception to the directive. He also points out that he was not seized in his vehicle, but in his dwelling, that he was never in his vehicle during the quarrel, and that he was seized for an outstanding warrant, for which no evidence of the “crime” would exist in the car.

The Court primary looked to determine when it was that Patton was under arrest. The court noted that:

an apprehension takes place when a duly authorized police officer of the law manifests an intention to take a human being into supervision and in fact seizes or detains the person. The existence of seizure depends in each case upon an neutral assessment of all the surrounding circumstances.

Here, the police officer 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 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 detention. Because of this, the Court finds that Patton was placed under detention when he was at his automobile for purposes of the supplementary investigation.

The next question is whether or not the search incident to the capture Patton was justifiable. primary, a search incident to arrest is not valid just because the arrest happened closely to the vehicle. A more detailed analysis is required. Case law has prescribed:

[a] warrantless search [incident to detention] is allowable only to remove any guns the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape and to avoid demolition of verification by the arrestee of the misdemeanor for which he or she is seized…

This decree has been recently clarified by the Supreme Court in Gant where the court decided that a search incident to apprehension in a vehicle occurs “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the while of search.”

Analysis of these particulars under the set of laws establishes that this search was unwarranted and beyond of the search incident to capture exception to the warrant requirement. Patton wasn’t in the car when he was captured. There was no relationship between his arrest, which was for the warrant for failing to appear in court, and a search of the car. Also, there were no safety concerns for the cops related to anything in the car – Patton was never in the truck, he was captured outside of the automobile, and when the car was searched Patton was no where near the truck (officer safety in a way presumes that Patton would be able to grasp something in the vehicle and use it to damage the police).

Conclusion – the Court of Appeals decision is overturned, the trial court’s decision is upheld, the evidence is suppressed, 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, located some drugs, and then tried to get the verification admitted by trying to generate a state that permitted their illegal search. As a Seattle DUI attorney these are the types of situations I see all the period that I am happy are now being handled appropriately. And, I must also add that I am happy to glimpse that someone has actually acted correctly 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 thrilling to see the Washington Supreme Court effectively negate a lot of case law that had for years been dogging criminal defense attorneys and making it tremendously hard to get evidence obtained unlawfully from being suppressed. With the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gant, the Washington courts had no choice but to wipe out much of their case law, most likely much to their chagrin. This case, like Gant, is important for Washington citizens, as it clarifies, for now at least, what police can and can’t do when capturing you.

Compromise of Misdemeanor 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 certain circumstances, citizens that have committed a misdemeanor to take care of the felony by paying compensation to the sufferer. 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 Seattle criminal lawyers, particularly those that deal with burglary, malicious mischief, and hit and runs, this law allows citizens 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 vehicle when it was hit, as opposed to a parked auto).

Facts – Stalker was charged with driving under the influence 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 proof that the sufferer was fully rewarded, the court dismissed the charge pursuant to the compromise of misdemeanor law.

Issue – can hit and run attended be compromised when the court does not have permission to order restitution because it is not a direct consequence of the indictment (fleeing the scene after an collision has occurred)?

Analysis – Precedent counts for a lot. The legal scheme is founded on precedent (using past decisions of law to shape analysis of current legal inquiries) and precedent is not set aside nonchalantly. In this case, case law has determined that hit and run attended is suitable for compromise. This decision, however, is based less on case law history and more on the language of the compromise of misdemeanor law. The compromise of misdemeanor was established to: “give reimbursement to crime victims and to avoid prosecution of inconsequential offenders.”

Seeing as court decisions handed down interpreting the compromise of misdemeanor statute have determined that hit and run attended is eligible for compromise of misdemeanor, the legislature has had several opportunities to specifically 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 prohibit 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 evaluation to permit the compromise of misdemeanor for hit and run attended is upheld.

Drunk driving attorney’s Analysis – not much for me to say on this one. The evaluation is pretty plain. One thing I find fascinating 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 created to diminish the work load of prosecutors and give people the chance 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 | Burglary

Seattle DUI Attorney | The Traffic Stop

Make a Comment

6 Responses to “Seattle DUI Attorney – Case Update 10/24/09”

Comments RSS Feed

Where's The Comment Form?