State v. Hashman
Decision Date | 11 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 8291-8-II,8291-8-II |
Citation | 729 P.2d 651,46 Wn.App. 211 |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jerry K. HASHMAN, Appellant. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
G. Saxon Rodgers, Ditlevson, Rodgers & Jarrett, P.S., Olympia, for appellant.
John S. Bumford, Deputy Pros. Atty., Olympia, for respondent.
*
Jerry Hashman appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his rented home, claiming that the police illegally used a ruse to enter the house and that the warrant, based upon information obtained during the entry, was defective. He also claims that the findings of fact do not support the conclusions of law. We affirm.
Hashman was renting a house that Thurston Youth Services (TYS) was considering for use as a group home. On May 7, 1984, TYS representatives, including a Lacey police officer, visited the home to inspect it. The officer, Walt Berggren, attended only in a civilian capacity. While touring the home, he smelled a musty odor that he thought was marijuana coming from a locked room that allegedly contained auto parts and tools. A week later Berggren observed Hashman's house from a nearby driveway. He noticed that the window in the locked room was covered, but that there was a halo of bluish light around the window, which he associated with a marijuana growing operation.
Another week later Berggren reported his findings to Officer Suessman, who was a member of Thurston County's Drug Enforcement Unit. The week delay was due to the fact that Suessman was on vacation during the time Berggren visited and observed Hashman's home.
Suessman was concerned that Berggren's information would be stale because Hashman could have moved from the residence or moved the marijuana. With permission from the landlord (owner) of the house, he went to the house and contacted Hashman and told him he was a contractor and needed to look at the residence for minor renovation work. Hashman agreed to the visit and gave Suessman and a fellow officer a tour of the home. Suessman smelled the distinct odor of fresh growing marijuana and noticed mold and mildew along the ceiling of the wall adjacent to the locked room. Suessman walked outside the house and observed the covered window and moisture that appeared to be coming from the inside. Based on these findings, Suessman obtained a telephonic search warrant, returned to the house, and seized marijuana plants and records.
Hashman argues that the seized evidence should be suppressed because it was illegal for Suessman to use a ruse to enter the house to obtain probable cause for the warrant. The State contends that Hashman consented to Suessman's entry and tour through the house.
Both the United States and Washington constitutions protect a citizen's privacy interests. U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV, Washington Constitution, Article 1, § 7. The protection covers areas where the citizen has an expectation of privacy, so long as it is an expectation that society recognizes as reasonable. United States v. Roberts, 747 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir.1984). Without question, the home is accorded the full range of Fourth Amendment protections. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S.Ct. 424, 427, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966).
The Washington State Constitution affords individuals greater protections against warrantless searches than does the Fourth Amendment. The provision "no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law" is unlike any provision in the federal constitution and explicitly protects the privacy rights of Washington citizens and these privacy rights include the freedom from warrantless searches absent special circumstances. State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 148, 720 P.2d 436 (1986).
A warrantless search is constitutional when valid consent is granted. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 9-10, 102 S.Ct. 812, 818, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 787 (1982). A valid consensual search requires that: (1) the consent be "voluntary"; (2) the consent be granted by a party having authority to consent; and (3) the search be limited to the scope of the consent granted. Utter, Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law, 9 U. Puget Sound L.R. 1, 112 (1985). The issue of whether consent to a search was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 229, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-48, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 862-63 (1973); State v. Williamson, 42 Wash.App. 208, 710 P.2d 205 (1985). The use of deception by a police officer does not necessarily affect the voluntariness of a consent to search. State v. Myers, 102 Wash.2d 548, 553, 689 P.2d 38 (1984). In Myers, the police used a ruse to enter a home to serve a valid warrant. Although the issue of using a ruse to enter a home to establish probable cause for a search warrant is one of first impression in Washington, it has been addressed in other jurisdictions.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that an entry by ruse must be grounded on a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot. State v. Ahart, 324 N.W.2d 317 (Iowa, 1982). In Ahart, two officers pretended to have car trouble and knocked on the defendant's door asking to use the phone. While pretending to place a credit card call, the officer observed marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the room. After leaving the house, the officer obtained a search warrant based on his observations while in the home. The court found the search unreasonable, stating that State v. Ahart, 324 N.W.2d at 319.
The Iowa court's reasoning has been followed by Michigan and Alaska. The Michigan Court of Appeals stated "[W]e cannot condone the random selection of private homes as targets of ruses designed by the police to obtain entry for the purpose of generally looking around for any signs of criminal activity where there is no probable cause to support such an entry." People v. Catania, 366 N.W.2d 38, 44 (Mich.App.1985). The Alaska Supreme Court, in finding no constitutional violation in an entry by ruse, noted that "this was not a random canvass of the homes in the neighborhood where the moose remains had been found." The court noted that the officer had received enough information pointing to the defendant to support the ruse. Guidry v. State, 671 P.2d 1277, 1282 (Alaska 1983).
Other courts have found ruses to be valid by reasoning that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 582 (1967). Arizona has allowed the police to pose as prospective home buyers to enter the rented home of the defendant. State v. Poland, 645 P.2d 784 (Ariz.1982). During the tour of the home the officers noticed a number of firearms and two motorcycles, and a search warrant was then obtained. The court said that the only limitation appears to be that the agent is limited to conduct which would be normal for one adopting the guise used in seeking entry. State v. Poland, 645 P.2d at 792. A similar search was upheld in Louisiana, where an officer posing as a cousin of the defendant's friend entered the home and spotted marijuana seeds. State v. McCommons, 398 So.2d 1100, 1101 (La.1981). The court cited Katz to validate the warrant obtained after the officer's visit.
The recognition of the necessity for undercover police activity has been the basis to support an officer's use of a ruse. Officers in Michigan, who received a tip about the defendant, pretended to have car trouble and went to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Johnson
...suspects or witnesses. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 208-09, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966) ; State v. Hashman, 46 Wash. App. 211, 216, 729 P.2d 651 (1986). Indeed, courts have repeatedly accommodated the legitimate law enforcement interest in employing subterfuge or untruths. ......
-
Brown v. State
...sometimes invoking their own State law to justify that limitation. See State v. Ahart, 324 N.W.2d 317 (Iowa 1982); State v. Hashman, 46 Wash. App. 211, 729 P.2d 651 (1986); State v. Johnson, 253 Kan. 356, 856 P.2d 134 (1993); People v. Ramirez, 193 Misc.2d 181, 747 N.Y.S.2d 711 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.......
-
State v. Johnson
...41. Myers, 102 Wash.2d at 555, 689 P.2d 38; State v. Nedergard, 51 Wash.App. 304, 307-08, 753 P.2d 526 (1988); State v. Hashman, 46 Wash.App. 211, 214, 729 P.2d 651 (1986). 42. 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 43. See State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432, 437, 688 P.2d 136 (1984) (probable cause ......
-
State v. McCrorey
..."The use of deception by a police officer does not necessarily affect the voluntariness of a consent to search." State v. Hashman, 46 Wash.App. 211, 214, 729 P.2d 651 (1986), review denied, 108 Wash.2d 1021 (1987). The Hashman court held that if an officer had a "justifiable and reasonable ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...permission of the occupant. State v. Williamson, 42 Wash. App. 208, 710 P.2d 205 (1985); see also State v. Hashman, 46 Wash. App. 211, 729 P.2d 651 (1986) (Officer used ruse to gain entry in order to obtain probable cause to support a search warrant. Court held that police may use ruse to g......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...expectation of privacy in the residence where undercover officers had purchased cocaine); State v. Hashman, 46 Wash. App. 211, 216, 729 P.2d 651, 655 (1986) (a police officer disguised as a building contractor gained entry into a residence after another officer, who had lawfully been within......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...the interests underlying the statute are well served by an entry gained with permission of the occupant. Id.; see also State v. Hashman, 46 Wn. App. 211, 216, 729 P.2d 651, 655 (1986) (holding that, where officer used ruse to gain entry in order to obtain probable cause to support a search ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update
...constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in the residence where undercover officers had purchased cocaine); State v. Hashman, 46 Wn. App. 211, 216, 729 P.2d 651 (1986) (a police officer disguised as a building contractor gained entry into a residence after an-other officer, who had......