State v. Halverson, 2841-II
| Decision Date | 07 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2841-II,2841-II |
| Citation | 21 Wn.App. 35,584 P.2d 408 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Larry Dean HALVERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Lawrence W. Moore, Tacoma, for appellant.
Donald F. Herron, Pros. Atty. for Pierce County, J. D. Mladinov, Deputy Pros. Atty., Tacoma, for respondent.
Defendant, following a case tried to the court, was convicted of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The only issue on appeal is the admissibility of certain drugs which were found in his possession. Defendant contends the drugs seized were the products of an illegal search.
On the afternoon of July 20, 1976, Judge Thomas Swayze of Pierce County authorized the issuance of a search warrant. The warrant described the place to be searched as 11021-107th St. in Pierce County, and authorized the search of all persons who may be present on those premises at the time of its execution. The following evening at 11:35 p.m., five deputy sheriffs of the Pierce County Sheriff's office and two police officers from the City of Tacoma executed this warrant at the above-described premises.
Deputy King knocked on the door to the residence. When an occupant opened the door, King announced their identity and also their purpose of executing a search warrant for drugs. The law officers entered the premises and moved quickly to the living room where they found six individuals. Defendant was observed kneeling in front of a coffee table upon which rested a weighing scale. Deputy King told the occupants to stand up and place their hands against the walls. It was Deputy King's testimony that they intended to frisk for weapons so as to secure the premises before conducting a search of the persons for contraband.
As the defendant stood up, King noticed that both of defendant's hands were closed into fists. Although it did not appear to King to be in a defensive or threatening position, he suspected that the defendant might be concealing something in his hands and, unsure as to whether it might be a weapon, requested defendant to reveal what he had in his hands. When defendant complied with this request, a vial of cocaine was found in one hand and a "slip" of amphetamines in the other. The deputy testified that he had also thought that perhaps the defendant was concealing drugs in his closed fists. In any event, he felt that the search of defendant's hands was necessary for his own safety.
Defendant has contended that no probable cause existed so as to justify the warrant's authorization of a search of all persons present on the premises. It is his contention that the issuing court had no reason to believe that Any person who might be present would necessarily be connected with the criminal activity. From this premise, he argues that the warrant was invalid, the search of his person was illegal and the evidence should have been suppressed. We disagree with the conclusions urged upon us by defendant and affirm the conviction.
Even if we assume arguendo that the authorization to search all the persons present was without probable cause, it does not follow that the evidence was seized illegally from defendant. If a warrant separately and distinctly describes two targets and it thereafter is determined that probable cause existed for issuance of the warrant as to one but not the other, the warrant may be treated as severable and upheld as to the one target only. People v. Hansen, 38 N.Y.2d 17, 377 N.Y.S.2d 461, 339 N.E.2d 873 (1975) (). Aday v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 55 Cal.2d 789, 13 Cal.Rptr. 415, 362 P.2d 47 (1961) (). If distinctly described, we see no reason why the targets may not be a place and a person.
Defendant has never contended that the warrant lacked the necessary probable cause for the search of the residence. 1 Therefore, assuming a partial invalidity of the warrant, we find it to be severable and uphold the valid portion of the warrant which permitted the search of the residence. People v. Hansen, supra; People v. Russell, 45 Ill.App.3d 961, 4 Ill.Dec. 579, 360 N.E.2d 515 (1977).
Having found that the residence portion of the warrant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Giresi
...State v. Sagner, 12 Or.App. 459, 506 P.2d 510, 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 281 N.W.2d 412, 416 (S.D.1979); State v. Halverson, 21 Wash.App. 35, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978). 18 We agree with People v. Mangialino, supra, 348 N.Y.S.2d at 338-39, that many federal courts have, albeit implicitly, a......
-
State v. Garcia, 25349-0-III.
...severed, and a court may uphold one portion of the warrant even if the other is later determined to be defective. State v. Halverson, 21 Wash.App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408 (1978). Where the portion of a warrant permitting the search of a specific location remains valid, the police are properly ......
-
Com. v. Smith
...Carney v. State, Miss., 525 So.2d 776, 784-785 (1988); State v. Horsey, Mo.Ct.App., 676 S.W.2d 847, 853 (1984). State v. Halverson, 21 Wash.App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978). While Johantgen, supra, does not discuss redaction as such, we think that it is in accordance as only the clause......
-
State in Interest of L.Q.
...See State v. Sims, 75 N.J. at 352-355, 382 A.2d 638; Patton v. State, 148 Ga.App. 793, 252 S.E.2d 678 (1979); State v. Halverson, 21 Wash.App. 35, 584 P.2d 408 (1978). In the present case, one police report has L.Q. trying to leave the premises when he sees the police. We need not say wheth......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...not to the other, the warrant may be treated as severable and upheld as to the one target only. State v. Halverson, 21 Wash. App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978); see 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.6(f), at In determining initially whether a description is adequate, reference is made to ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...but not to the other, the warrant may be treated as severable and upheld as to the one target. State v. Halverson, 21 Wash. App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978); see 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § The initial determination of whether a description is adequate is made with reference to the......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...but not the other, the warrant may be treated as severable and upheld as to the one target. State v. Halverson, 21 Wash. App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 4.6(f), at 582-83 (3d ed. 1996). On the other ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...warrant as to one target, but not the other, the warrant may be treated as severable and upheld as to the one target. State v. Halverson, 21 Wn. App. 35, 37, 584 P.2d 408, 409 (1978); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.5(c), at 588-92 (4th ed. 2004). On the other hand, the s......