STATE OF WASHINGTON v. MONROE, 39928-4-I

• Decision Date: 12 April 1999
• Docket Number: NO. 39928-4-I,39928-4-I
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. LLOYD JUNIOR MONROE, APPELLANT.

[1]
[2]	STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT,; v.; LLOYD JUNIOR MONROE, APPELLANT.
[3]	NO. 39928-4-I
[4]	Washington Court of Appeals
[5]	Source of Appeal: Appeal from Superior Court of Whatcom County Docket No: 95-1-00655-1 Judgement or order under review Date filed: 12/13/1996 Judge signing: Hon. David S. Nichols
[6]	April 12, 1999
[7]	Counsel: Counsel for Appellant(s) Thomas M. Kummerow Washington Appellate Project 1200 5th Ave Ste 1201 Seattle, WA 98101 Washington Appellate Project 1201 Ibm Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Counsel for Respondent(s) Laura D. Hayes Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office Whatcom County Pros Ofc 311 Grand Ave Bellingham, WA 98225
[8]	The opinion of the court was delivered by: Coleman, J.
[9]	Judges: Authored by H. Joseph Coleman Concurring: Walter E. Webster C. Kenneth Grosse
[10]	Unpublished Opinion
[11]	Lloyd Monroe appeals his conviction for aggravated first degree murder, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence seized incident to his arrest on a different matter and statements he made shortly after his arrest. Monroe also raises several additional evidentiary challenges and contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury. We find that evidence relating to the murder investigation was lawfully seized incident to Monroe's arrest and that the trial court correctly concluded that no additional corroborating testimony was required to determine whether Monroe had been readvised of his rights. Because Monroe's remaining contentions are without merit, we affirm.
[12]	FACTS
[13]	On December 28, 1994, Michelle Smith arrived at work late, her face noticeably bruised and swollen. When her supervisor asked her what had happened, Smith became emotional and stated that the appellant, Lloyd Monroe, had hit her. The supervisor told Smith to call 911, but she refused, stating that if she called the police Monroe would come back and kill her. When the supervisor called 911, Smith panicked and stated that Monroe had forced his way into her apartment that morning and had beaten and sexually assaulted her. The police later arrested Monroe and recovered a set of Smith's keys.
[14]	Monroe was incarcerated pending his March trial date but was mistakenly released on Wednesday, February 22, 1995. The jail notified Smith that Monroe had been released. That night, Smith received numerous hang-up calls at home. The following day, Smith contacted the police and her supervisor helped her obtain an unlisted telephone number. Monroe called Smith at work, but she spoke only briefly with him and she told the receptionist she would not take any more calls from him.
[15]	On Friday, February 24, Smith changed her telephone number again. She made an appointment with her doctor for the following morning and arranged to meet a girlfriend at a bar after work. Smith's former husband took their daughter, Marlena, to his parents' for the weekend. That night at the bar, Smith showed the bouncer a picture of Monroe and asked the bouncer to watch for him. Smith did not consume any alcohol at the bar. She appeared nervous throughout the evening and constantly watched the door. Smith left the bar between 1 and 1:30 A.M.
[16]	Smith did not appear at the doctor's office the next morning. Her supervisor attempted to call her at home several times over the weekend, but there was no answer. She also went to Smith's apartment twice and noted that although Smith's car was there, it appeared that no one was home. On Sunday night, Smith's former husband returned Marlena to the apartment, but no one appeared to be home and Marlena could not get into the apartment.
[17]	When Smith did not come to work on Monday, her supervisor called the police. The police found Smith's body in her apartment face down on a couch, clothed, and partially covered by a blanket. The cause of death was ligature strangulation. She had also suffered blunt trauma to her head prior to death. The medical examiner found sperm in Smith's vaginal vault and concluded that sexual intercourse had occurred near the time of the beating and strangulation. A window in the back of the apartment had been broken and was partially open, and a forensic scientist from the state patrol's crime lab later concluded that the window had been broken from the outside.
[18]	Several hours after the police discovered Smith's body, Monroe was arrested on a bench warrant in connection with his release from jail. The police impounded Monroe's clothes shortly after his arrest and obtained a warrant to test them for evidence relating to Smith's murder. Glass fragments found on Monroe's jacket matched the broken window in Smith's apartment. The police also found fibers, hair, and blood on the clothes that connected Monroe to Smith's murder. While incarcerated, Monroe provided the police with an account of his whereabouts the weekend of Smith's death that was partially contradicted at trial. Testing on the sperm found in Smith's body identified Monroe as a probable donor,*fn1 and Monroe did not contest that he and Smith had intercourse prior to her death. Monroe was convicted of aggravated first degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole.
[19]	ISSUES
[20]	Seizure Incident to Arrest
[21]	In a CrR 3.6 hearing, the trial court concluded that the police had probable cause to believe Monroe's clothes contained evidence linking him to Smith's murder and that they were properly seized incident to his arrest pending issuance of a warrant for further testing. The "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a police officer to search the arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate control in order to remove any weapons and to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. State v. Roberts, 31 Wn. App. 375, 379-80, 642 P.2d 762 (1982). Searches and seizures that could be made at the time of arrest may legally be conducted later when the arrestee arrives at the place of detention. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 803, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974), citing Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960).
[22]	The appellant concedes that the seizure of his clothes was proper under Edwards and other cases that address the scope of Fourth Amendment protection in the context of a lawful custodial arrest. See, e.g., State v. McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. 573, 577-78, 712 P.2d 319 (1986). However, he argues that article 1 section 7 of our state constitution affords greater protection in this context and prohibits the seizure of evidence relating to a different charge, citing State v. Ringer, 100 Wn.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983), for support. We have repeatedly rejected that argument and that interpretation of Ringer. See State v. Gammon, 61 Wn. App. 858, 861-62, 812 P.2d 885 (1991) (upholding the search of a pill vial incident to the defendant's arrest for shoplifting), citing State v. LaTourette, 49 Wn. App. 119, 129, 741 P.2d 1033 (1987); see also State v. White, 44 Wn. App.

...