City of Tacoma v. Harris
| Decision Date | 01 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | 39258,Nos. 39257,s. 39257 |
| Citation | 73 Wn.2d 123,436 P.2d 770 |
| Parties | CITY OF TACOMA, Respondent, v. Loreali HARRIS and Paul W. Heck, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Hugh E. Fountain, Jr., Tacoma, for appellants.
Marshall McCormick, City Atty., John J. Majeres, Robert R. Hamilton, Bradford M. Gierke, Asst. City Attys., Tacoma, for respondent.
This is a consolidated appeal by defendants (appellants), Loreali Harris and Paul W. Heck, who were convicted in the Superior Court for Pierce County, respectively, of interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest.
The testimony discloses that prior to October 22, 1965, Mrs. Harris had commenced divorce proceedings against her husband. On the evening of the 22nd, Mrs. Harris obtained the services of a 16-year-old girl as a baby-sitter for her two small children. Early that evening before her departure, Paul W. Heck, her boyfriend, arrived. He tried to persuade her not to go out that night and they quarreled. Mrs. Harris left the house and Heck stayed. Mrs. Barrett, a neighbor, discovered Heck's presence in the Harris house when the baby-sitter used her telephone. The baby-sitter's mother, upon being advised by Mrs. Barrett over the telephone that Heck was in the Harris house, requested Mrs. Barrett to ask Heck to leave. Mrs. Barrett did as requested, and found Heck drinking champagne from one of two bottles he had with him. Heck did leave but returned, and Mrs. Barrett and an aunt of the baby-sitter revisited the Harris house and the aunt asked Heck to leave, stating 'either you go or we will call the police.' Mrs. Barrett thereupon called the police and reported an unwanted guest at the Harris house. The children and the baby-sitter were then removed by the aunt and Mrs. Barrett to her home. Heck attempted to prevent them from taking the children and threatened to throw lighter fluid upon Mrs. Barrett and to burn down the house. Mrs. Barrett again called the police.
At about 10:30 p.m., in response to Mrs. Barrett's complaint, Officers Christensen and Anderson of the Tacoma Police Department drove by the Harris house and found everything quiet. At about 11:01 p.m., some other officers checked the street and found no evidence of a disturbance.
About 2 a.m. the following morning, Mrs. Barrett saw Heck carrying a gas can around the outside of the Harris house. She again called the police and reported an arson attempt, and three patrol cars and six police officers arrived at close intervals. When the first officers arrived, Heck was standing in the doorway of the Harris residence with a bottle in his hand. When Mrs. Harris returned home she saw Mrs. Barrett talking with police officers on the sidewalk across the street from the Harris residence, and she joined them. She told the officers she would take care of the situation. She ran across the street, yelling to the defendant Heck, and entered her house.
The officers then heard loud talking and yelling coming from the Harris residence. They heard the angry voices of a woman and a man. Six officers approached the house. Christensen, accompanied by Anderson and two other officers, went to the front door and knocked. It was slightly ajar and swung open. What then transpired is in dispute. Officer Christensen testified that he saw Heck and Mrs. Harris confronting each other. Heck shouted that he had a gun and would shoot any cop who came into the house. He was brandishing a bottle in one hand and had his other hand in his pocket. Officer Christensen and two other officers rushed Heck and took away the bottle. They arrested and searched him; no gun was found. In the meantime, two other officers had entered the house from the back door. Heck struggled violently with the officers and managed, at one time, to momentarily seize another bottle. Mrs. Harris yelled at the officers as they struggled with Heck and tried to pull them away from him. She was repeatedly warned not to interfere, and when she persisted, was arrested. Heck continued to resist as he was brought out of the house to the patrol car.
The defendants' version was that Heck had made no threats; that Mrs. Harris had been protesting the entry of the officers without a warrant; and that the officers employed unnecessary violence in arresting Heck and Mrs. Harris.
Defendant Heck was charged on three counts: (1) breach of the peace, (2) using force and violence against the person of another (Officer Christensen), and (3) resisting arrest. The jury found him not guilty on the first two counts and guilty on the third count. Mrs. Harris was found guilty of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duty, and not guilty of resisting arrest. This consolidated appeal followed from the judgments entered upon the jury verdicts.
Prior to trial the defendants moved for suppression of the officers' testimony on the ground that the arrest was unlawful, under the rule that evidence which has been obtained in violation of the law is inadmissible. Tacoma v. Houston, 27 Wash.2d 215, 177 P.2d 886 (1947). The denial of this motion is the primary issue raised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fordyce v. City of Seattle
...participants, and infers from the known circumstances, as well as what he personally sees the arrested person do. Tacoma v. Harris, 73 Wash.2d 123, 126-27, 436 P.2d 770 (1968); Sennett v. Zimmerman, 50 Wash.2d 649, 651, 314 P.2d 414 (1957). The Washington Supreme Court has Police officers s......
-
State v. Melrose
...is committed in the presence of the arresting officer. State v. Greene, 75 Wash.Dec.2d 533, 451 P.2d 926 (1969); City of Tacoma v. Harris, 73 Wash.2d 123, 436 P.2d 770 (1968); State v. Wilson, 70 Wash.2d 638, 424 P.2d 650 We need not consider whether the defendant's conduct, which does not ......
-
City of Seattle v. Cadigan
...only be made if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe the offense is being committed in his presence. Tacoma v. Harris, 73 Wash.2d 123, 436 P.2d 770 (1968). See also RCW 10.31.100. 3 Probable cause exists for a warrantless arrest where the facts and circumstances within the ar......
-
State v. Hernandez
...Schroeder, Warrantless Misdemeanor Arrests and the Fourth Amendment, 58 Mo. L.Rev. 771, 788–89 (1993); see also City of Tacoma v. Harris, 73 Wash.2d 123, 126, 436 P.2d 770 (1968). The purpose for the common law rule was to allow an officer to prevent a breach of the peace: “The common law d......