State v. Budd
Decision Date | 03 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 31638–6–III.,31638–6–III. |
Citation | 347 P.3d 49,186 Wash.App. 184 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Michael Allen BUDD, Appellant. |
Brent Adrian De Young, De Young Law Office, Moses Lake, WA, for Appellant.
Edward Asa Owens, Kiel Rigby Willmore, Grant County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Ephrata, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Exchange between Georgia's United States Senator Herman Talmadge and former White House Counsel John Ehrlichman, United States Senate Watergate Committee hearings, July 25, 1973.
¶ 2 The Washington high court, in State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998), held that, before entering a citizen's home without a warrant, a law enforcement officer must ask the citizen for consent, inform the citizen that he can revoke consent at any time, and notify the citizen that he can limit the scope of the entry into the home. We are asked today to decide whether the Ferrier holding applies when the law enforcement officer fails to give all Ferrier warnings before entering the home, but delivers all warnings before searching the home.
¶ 3 Appellant Michael Allen Budd was convicted of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He contends that the trial court erred in its denial of his CrR 3.6 motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of his residence by the officers investigating the case. He argues (1) the Ferrier warnings provided by the detective prior to entering his home were insufficient, and (2) the detective's statement that she “could and would obtain a warrant” if Budd refused to consent to the search, vitiated his consent. The first issue requires us to examine whether the officer uttered all Ferrier warnings before entering the home, and, if not, whether providing all admonitions inside the house before searching the house complies with Ferrier and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Based on the trial court's findings, we rule that the detective did not voice all Ferrier warnings before entering the home. We also hold, based on the language of Ferrier and other decisions, and based on the purposes behind the Ferrier warnings, that a law enforcement officer must deliver all cautions before entering the residence. Therefore, we do not address Budd's second argument. We reverse the denial of the CrR 3.6 motion and dismiss the charge against Budd.
¶ 4 Washington State Patrol's Missing and Exploited Children Task Force received an anonymous “cybertip” from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 4. The anonymous source declared that Michael Allen Budd communicated with young girls on Yahoo! Messenger and Windows Live Messenger, both free online chat services. The informant stated that, in these chats, Budd talked about molesting his nine-and-a-half-year-old daughter and about engaging in sex with his communicants. The source volunteered that Budd's daughter did not live with him. The anonymous source stated that he or she had seen child pornography on Budd's computer and estimated the amount of pornography to be more than 15 Gb. The informant also provided Michael Budd's Gmail and Yahoo! email addresses, the addresses' respective passwords, and the usernames and passwords for two other profiles associated with the same username as Budd's e-mail addresses, guinness2012.
¶ 5 The Washington State Patrol's Missing and Exploited Children Task Force assigned, for investigation, the Michael Budd inquiry to Lakewood Police Department Detective Kim Holmes. Detective Holmes served a search warrant on Yahoo! and Google and determined that, based on Budd's internet protocol address, he resided in Ephrata.
¶ 6 On March 11, 2009, Detective Kim Holmes travelled to Ephrata to perform a “knock and talk” and assuage her concerns that Michael Allen Budd's daughter might be in danger. In law enforcement, a “knock and talk” is an investigative technique where one or more police officers approaches a private residence, knocks on the door, and requests consent from the owner to search the residence. Law enforcement performs the “knock and talk” when criminal activity is suspected, but officers lack probable cause to obtain a search warrant. State Patrol Officers Tony Doughty and Jesse Rigalotto accompanied Holmes to Budd's residence. When the three officers arrived, Budd's girlfriend informed them that Budd remained at work. The officers waited in a car for Budd to arrive.
¶ 7 Michael Allen Budd returned home 15 minutes later, and the officers greeted him halfway down his driveway. Kim Holmes identified herself and the other officers, told Budd that they received a tip that he kept child pornography on his computer, and expressed concern for his daughter. Budd insisted that he was not touching or harming his daughter. Budd stated, nevertheless, that he was not surprised that the officers had come. He added: “if you do it long enough, you get caught.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 13. Detective Holmes interpreted Budd's comment to concede he viewed child pornography.
¶ 8 The outcome of this appeal turns on what happened next. In her police report, Detective Kim Holmes wrote that, after Michael Allen Budd admitted to possessing child pornography, she:
explained to him knowing this, he could give us consent to [preview] his computer or I could and would obtain a search warrant. Budd gave us consent to seize his computer as he explained he did not want us previewing it in front of his girlfriend. Budd signed a WSP consent form and his rights were explained to him.
CP at 4–5. (emphasis added). The report lacked any mention of Holmes' informing Budd that he had a right to decline consent to enter the home, limit the scope of the search, and revoke consent at any time. The report implied that Holmes misrepresented that a court would authorize a search warrant.
¶ 9 Detective Kim Holmes testified during the suppression hearing. Under direct examination, Holmes testified that she gave Michael Allen Budd a proper Ferrier warning:
¶ 10 Kim Holmes, during the suppression hearing, testified that Michael Budd invited the officers into his home. Despite her initial testimony, Holmes later, in answer to a question from the trial court, stated she is unsure as to whether Budd invited the three into the home for the purpose of reviewing the written form.
¶ 11 In cross-examination during the hearing, Kim Holmes conceded that she would place in her police report everything that has evidentiary value. Upon looking at the report, she further testified that she placed into the report all necessary evidence and she would not wish to change the report.
¶ 12 During cross-examination at the suppression hearing, Kim Holmes' testimony grew vague as to what warnings she gave before entering the house.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Budd
...the Ferrier warnings before entering his home. The Court of Appeals, Division Three, reversed in a split decision. State v. Budd, 186 Wash.App. 184, 207, 347 P.3d 49 (2015). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court necessarily found that Budd was not given the Ferrier warnings bef......
-
State v. Reeder
...in Washington also routinely obtains warrants for digital data stored with internet service providers. E.g., State v. Budd, 186 Wash.App. 184, 189, 347 P.3d 49 (describing detective serving search warrant on Yahoo! and Google in order to obtain suspect's Internet protocol address), review g......
-
State v. Taylor
...with resolving issues of credibility and weighing evidence, and we give great deference to its factual findings. State v. Budd, 186 Wash. App. 184, 196, 347 P.3d 49 (2015), aff'd, 185 Wash.2d 566, 374 P.3d 137 (2016). The ultimate determination of whether those facts constitute a seizure is......
-
State v. Smith
... ... possess a key constitutes a negative finding on the factual ... questions. The absence of a finding on a material issue is ... presumptively a negative finding entered against the party ... with the burden of proof. State v. Budd , 186 Wn.App ... 184, 199, 347 P.3d 49 (2015), aff'd , 185 Wn.2d ... 566, 374 P.3d 137 (2016) ... We note ... that the trial court, in finding of fact 20, set forth the ... allegations of Vatsana Muongkhoth concerning her permission ... to enter the ... ...