State v. Greene, 40288

Decision Date13 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 40288,40288
Citation451 P.2d 926,75 Wn.2d 519
PartiesThe STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Phillip Edward GREENE, Appellant.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Jack A. Richey, Seattle, for appellant.

Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., James B. Gorham, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.

WEAVER, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence entered after the trial court had found him guilty of violating the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, and a subsequent trial by jury had determined that he was an habitual criminal. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, pursuant to RCW 9.92.090.

The principal thrust of defendant's appeal is that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress and admitted into evidence the nacotics found upon the person of defendant when he was searched at the time of his arrest. Defendant contends that his arrest was illegal because he was taken into custody without a warrant and the alleged commission of the misdemeanor did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer.

August 28, 1967, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Mr. and Mrs. E. R. Warrick and a friend, Mr. Jack Howard, who lived in a residential neighborhood of Seattle, were preparing to leave for work in the Warrick automobile. Mr. Howard first saw defendant across the street inside the yard of a private home. Defendant 'ducked down and up' three times, jumped a fence, approached Mr. Howard, and asked for a match. He then asked Mr. Warrick for a match and attempted to enter the car. When he was refused a ride, defendant made a gesture at the two men with his finger as though he were shooting a pistol. When Mr. Warrick started to leave the car, defendant ran between two houses, down an alley, vaulted a 6-foot-fence, and was last seen running through a flower bed.

Defendant wore sunglasses, a short-sleeved shirt, and was dirty and barefoot.

A Seattle officer responded to Mrs. Warrick's telephone call to the police. After a 15-or-20-minute search of the neighborhood, the officer observed defendant appear from behind a large shrub and come into the street. He 'ran like a deer,' waving his arms and screaming continuously. He vaulted another fence, crossed private property, and collapsed when he reached an alley. As the officer approached, defendant said he had been shot 3 times in his right leg. When the officer started to handcuff him, defendant claimed his arm was broken. There was no evidence of gunshot wounds or of a broken arm. Defendant then hit the officer on the side of the head and made an unsuccessful attempt to grab his gun. Defendant was held at gunpoint until further assistance arrived. Narcotics were found on defendant's person when he was searched.

The officer testified that he took defendant into custody for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. The trial judge found, and his finding is amply sustained by the evidence, that the search by the officer 'was made incident to a lawful arrest for either disturbing the peace, trespass, or assault in the third degree.'

The evidence does not support defendant's contention that he was arrested for a misdemeanor committed out of the presence of the arresting officer. In view of defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 15 d4 Dezembro d4 1983
    ...382 P.2d 497 (1963). Since a habitual offender proceeding is properly viewed as part of the original felony case ( State v. Greene, 75 Wash.2d 519, 521, 451 P.2d 926 (1969)), we hold that it is subject to speedy sentencing requirements. To constitute a violation of the constitutional right ......
  • State v. Bonds
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 10 d3 Novembro d3 1982
    ...not arrest a person for a misdemeanor committed outside the presence of the officer, unless the officer has a warrant. State v. Greene, 75 Wash.2d 519, 451 P.2d 926 (1969). This was the basis of our more recent decision in State ex rel. McDonald v. Whatcom County Dist. Ct., 92 Wash.2d 35, 5......
  • State v. Starrish
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 11 d4 Dezembro d4 1975
    ...the habitual criminal proceeding, does not create a new crime but prescribes increased punishment for recidivists. State v. Greene, 75 Wash.2d 519, 521, 451 P.2d 926 (1969); State v. Bryant, 73 Wash.2d 168, 173, 437 P.2d 393 (1968). In Greene at 521, 451 P.2d at 928, the court commented tha......
  • State v. Melrose
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 8 d1 Junho d1 1970
    ...a breach of the peace or not, unless the misdemeanor 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 cons......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 11-03, March 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 1128 (1st Cir. 1978), cert, denied, 440 U.S. 958 (1979); State v. Greene, 75 Wash. 2d 519, 521, 451 P.2d 926, 928 (1969). See generally 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 4.3 Arrest with Warrants The principles governing the procurement and execution of ......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 9-01, September 1985
    • Invalid date
    ...in officer's presence). See also United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 1128 (1st Cir. 1978); State v. Greene, 75 Wash. 2d 519, 521, 451 P.2d 926, 928 (1969). See generally 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.1(c), at 4.3 Arrests with Warrants The principles governing the procurement and exec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT