Seattle DUI Attorney | Possession of Drugs and Illegal Search
Here we go again, another run down of the criminal defense jurisprudence cases ruled in the preceding week in Washington State. As with last week, the quantity of decisions out is mimimal – possibly it has a bit to do with the holidays or something, so this article might not be that lengthy (although I doubt it). And keep in mind, as always, that though I am a Seattle DUI attorney, I would not recommend you receive my outline of these cases and my breakdown of these cases as gospel as you amble into court to chat to the judge. If you really need the assistance of one of these cases to facilitate you, do the brainy thing and read the case. That way you can be rest certain that what you are saying is correct – or better yet, telephone a criminal defense attorney to aid – you’ll be happy you did.
The first drunk driving situation on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of proof, namely 404(b). Here we go.
State v. Hartzell is a situation about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of state of affairs a drunk driving defense lawyer enjoys because the facts was slight. It is not the kind of state of affairs a drunk driving attorney enjoys because the prosecutor employed some novel theories of utilizing the rules of proof that seemed to be odd upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to pronounce.
Facts – The victim was awakened in his home by gunshots. He looked outside and spotted a person shooting out of a red sports car. The sedan was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A independent victim heard the equivalent thing, and later on discovered bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were pulled from the bed. later on the police searched the house of Hartzell’s companion, who admitted to shooting a handgun at a different time. According to ballistics, the pistol was that used during the shooting described above.
The police were then later called to a reported crime where Hartzell was. The police showed up, witnessed a bullet hole in a sedan, and brought a search canine to attempt to unearth the firearm that was used. The canine smelled in the car, then went out and found the handgun a few hundred yards away from the automobile. This firearm also matched the bullets fired at the first described location.
Issues – Hartzell challenged the search of his van as illegal and that earlier incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a inclination to execute firearm crimes.
examination – First, concerning the search topic. The Washington State constitution protects people from needless searches of their individual and their private things. This provision is not dishonored if no search happens. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s personal dealings. Usually, a search does not occur if an cop is able to perceive something using one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.
With regard to dog sniffs, a search occurs depending on the situation. Previous decisions have held that a search does not happen if the sniff happens in a spot the individual would not have a practical expectation of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the motor vehicle when the sniff occurred and the dog didn’t get into the sedan. The search was reasonable.
Second, on the topic of the 404(b) proof topic. 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 experiment for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) come across by a preponderance of the proof that a crime occurred; (2) identify the purpose for which the verification is sought to be introduced; (3) determine whether the facts is relevant to determine the element of a crime charged; and (4) evaluate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this situation, there was a logical inference that the gun located 100 yards from Hartzell’s van was owned by him, particularly since the canine discovered the firearm after sniffing Hartzell’s vehicle. Ammunition from the revolver was also discovered on Hartzell and in the car driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was trying to use that verification not to show that the crimes created an identity that could illustrate the first crime and the crime alleged were the identical, but that it was possible the defendants committed the crimes because they were found in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these particulars, the court located that verification to be relevant. And finally, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the verification was sensible since it reasoned the lack of data about the happening would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle criminal attorney’s analysis – This isn’t the finest state of affairs I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well inside their boundaries to try to get this in. Do I believe the fact that these guys are found with the guns later have any bearing on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one spotted anything it is not possible to distinguish who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon conclusion to attain their preferred conclusion – that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t spot in any of this scrutiny (and granted, all of the verification wasn’t here) was any evidence that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can absolutely see why this case was taken to trial – the evidence just isn’t there.
Next we have State v. Bliss, a case on the subject of possession of methamphetamine, search and seizure, and truck stops.
State v. Bliss is a state of affairs about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the automobile and the discovery of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search happening 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 cop 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 truck, finding a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of methamphetamine. The officer completed a property account before having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense attorney moved to suppress the proof on two grounds: (1) the cop didn’t have good reason to stop the truck; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the truck when Bliss drove by him. The trial court found the police officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.
Very soon before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the hypothesis that the search was not occasion 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 issue here, is when an police officer stops a individual briefly to investigate a logical suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Under this exception, the cop must have a practical suspicion that crime is afoot. The realistic suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person 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 state of affairs when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the sedan at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant breakdown, 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 automobile. This topic is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.
DUI defense lawyer in Seattle scrutiny – This was probably the right thing to do here. If the issue 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 locate interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the car was impounded, which suggests the van would have been searched to inventory the car. Whether that includes a search of the inside of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for drunk driving defense attorney’s 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 occurrence to arrest. Stay tuned to the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog to find out…
Related Posts:
[...] or fate, please consult a Seattle criminal lawyer. Every circumstances is special, and you need a DUI defense attorney in Seattle to calculate your specific case to recognize just what to [...]
How to Get Through a Seattle Driving Under the Influence Stop from a Seattle DUI Attorney « Seattle DUI Attorney
December 5, 2009