State v. Davis, 2571--I
| Decision Date | 04 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2571--I,2571--I |
| Citation | 12 Wn.App. 32,527 P.2d 1131 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Donald Ray DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Snure & Gorham (court appointed), James L. Varnell, Des Moines, for appellant.
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty., William Bailey, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Donald Ray Davis, charged with the unlawful and felonious possession of a controlled substance and narcotic drug, cocaine, appeals his conviction. The matter was tried to the court without a jury.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the evidence for the reason that it was obtained in violation of Davis' rights as guaranteed under article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution and the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution.
On April 23, 1973 Davis a passenger in an automobile which was being driven in an erratic manner by another party. When stopped, the driver had a valid Washington state operator's license but was unable to produce registration on the vehicle. Neither she nor her passenger, Davis, owned the car. The window on the driver's side was out and had been partially replaced with a viscuyne plastic material. After waiting a disputed period of time for the driver to produce the registration, the officer turned to the passenger and asked him for his identification. Davis, whom the officer recognized, produced an identification card that did not correctly identify him. He was then asked by the officer to exit the vehicle and produce further identification. He stated that he had no other identification; the officer asked him to look a little closer, which he did. The officer saw a green piece of paper resembling a traffic citation in Davis' wallet and asked to see it, whereupon Davis threw the wallet into a field beside the roadway. A warrants check revealed certain outstanding traffic warrants for which Davis was arrested. The wallet was recovered, inventoried and found to contain a packet of cocaine.
The initial stop and questioning of the driver of the car is not attacked on appeal. It is recognized that the officer followed the usual and proper procedure in response to the erratic movement of a car on a public road. The question is whether the investigation properly shifted to Davis. Everything to which Davis objects flowed from the officer's request for his identification.
In determining whether a particular inquiry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we must
'focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen,' for there is 'no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search (or seize) against the invasion which the search (or seizure) entails.' Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534--535, 536--537, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1879, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1967).
A momentary intrusion into a person's privacy for questioning can be justified on grounds which would not constitute probable cause to arrest, but in either instance the burden is upon the state to
(justify) the particular intrusion . . . (by pointing) to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.
(Footnote omitted.) Terry v. Ohio, Supra at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880; see also United States v. Nicholas, 448 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1971); United States v. Harflinger, 436 F.2d 928 (8th Cir. 1970). The standard governing a court's consideration of the justification is an objective one; do the facts "warrant a man of reasonable caution . . ." to believe 'that the action taken was appropriate?' Terry v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Larson
...high burglary area at 3:00 a. m. in the morning. Thus, they were justified in asking the people in the car for ID. State v. Davis, 12 Wash.App. 32, 527 P.2d 1131 (1974).5 The reasonableness of a request for identification is not dispositive of the question whether a person may be required t......
-
State v. Thompson, 6280-I
...424, 518 P.2d 703 (1974); State v. Clark, 13 Wash.App. 21, 533 P.2d 387, Review denied, 85 Wash.2d 1018 (1975); State v. Davis, 12 Wash.App. 32, 527 P.2d 1131 (1974). Citing State v. Gluck, supra, this court in State v. Sinclair, 11 Wash.App. 523, 529, 523 P.2d 1209, 1214 An officer, follow......
-
State v. Serrano
...measure. Once it was abandoned, it was likewise admissible. See State v. Loran, 62 Wash.2d 4, 380 P.2d 733 (1963); State v. Davis, 12 Wash.App. 32, 527 P.2d 1131 (1974). The conviction is PETRIE, C.J., and REED, J., concur. 1 The driver was 16; the passenger, Serrano, was 20.2 At this point......
-
City of Bellevue v. Miller
...Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1967); State v. Gluck, 83 Wash.2d 424, 518 P.2d 703 (1974); State v. Davis, 12 Wash.App. 32, 527 P.2d 1131 (1974). In the case at bar, the defendant's apprehension and subsequent arrest were premised on a finding by the officer that ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...(detention in police car for eight minutes so victim could arrive and identify suspect was proper); State v. Davis, 12 Wash. App. 32, 35, 527 P.2d 1131, 1133 (1974) (officer who reasonably suspected that an automobile was stolen could request identification from each occupant); State v. Sin......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...(detention in police car for eight minutes so victim could arrive and identify suspect was proper); State v. Davis, 12 Wash. App. 32, 35, 527 P.2d 1131, 1133 (1974) (officer who reasonably suspected that an automobile was stolen could request identification from each occupant); State v. Sin......