State v. Jackman

• Decision Date: 04 January 2018
• Docket Number: No. 48742-0-II,48742-0-II
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SHANE R. JACKMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SHANE R. JACKMAN, Appellant.

No. 48742-0-II

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

January 4, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUTTON, J. — Shane R. Jackman appeals his convictions for two counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, one count of theft of a motor vehicle, and one count of possession of stolen property in the third degree. Jackman argues that because the search of his curtilage was unlawful, all of his convictions should be dismissed. He also argues that the charging document for the two counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle was deficient. We hold that the officer's search was lawful, that Jackman's statement of additional grounds (SAG) claims have no merit, and that the charging document for both counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle was insufficient. Thus, we affirm his convictions for theft of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property in the third degree. However, we reverse and remand to the trial court to dismiss both convictions of possession of a stolen motor vehicle without prejudice because the charging document was constitutionally deficient.

FACTS

Sgt. Pernsteiner and Deputy Newman from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office received a report of a stolen phone, which had been in an Acura Integra that had been stolen. The owner used a software application to track the phone to Jackman's property. Sgt. Pernsteiner and Deputy Newman went to Jackman's property to contact him about the stolen phone, and discovered a stolen vehicle along with the stolen phone.¹ They spoke with Jackman, who confessed to them that he stole the vehicle, the phone, and other property. Jackman was charged with two counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, one count of theft of a motor vehicle, and one count of possession of stolen property in the third degree.

Jackman moved to suppress all the evidence and his statements to Sgt. Pernsteiner and Deputy Newman, asserting that Sgt. Pernsteiner conducted an unlawful and warrantless search of his property.

After conducting a CrR 3.6 hearing, the trial court entered the following relevant findings of fact:

7. The residence at 304694 US 101 [Jackman's residence] has a circular gravel driveway that forks shortly before connecting with US 101. As seen from US 101, the driveway continues up straight to the main residence. This part of the driveway is steep. The driveway also branches to the south (which is left as seen from the highway). The driveway travels in front of the garage/ADU [Accessory Dwelling Unit] before circling around behind the garage/ADU to connect with the part of the drive that heads straight to the house. The part of the driveway that heads south is less steep and branches again near a parking area in front of the garage to service another residence behind 304694 US 101.8. Deputy Newman has been to this residence numerous times. Based on his prior observations, the typical traffic flow is for cars to pull into the driveway and then turn south so that the circular driveway is traversed in a clockwise fashion.

. . . .

10. As the deputies approached the garage/ADU, they noticed one car parked along the portion of the driveway that heads south and two additional cars in a parking area in front of the garage door. One of the cars was an Acura Integra, similar to the car that was reported stolen. The other car was a green Honda Accord.

11. The garage door on the ADU faces south and the sliding glass door faces east toward US 101.

. . . .

17. The garage that the cars were parked in front of had a security light activated by motion sensor. Immediately beneath the light was a "No Trespassing" sign.

18. The deputies activated the security light as they approached the vehicles. Neither deputy observed a "No Trespassing" sign.

19. The front of the Honda Accord was facing the garage.

20. SGT Pernsteiner walked from the shared driveway up the length of the Honda Accord until he could view the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) through the windshield using the light provided by the security light

21. SGT Pernsteiner wrote down the VIN and then reported it [to] dispatch. Dispatch informed SGT Pernsteiner that the VIN belonged to a car that had been reported stolen.

22. SGT Pernsteiner turned around and walked back down the shared driveway to a small set of stairs that led to the sliding glass door on the ADU.

. . . .

27. SGT Pernsteiner asked the Defendant if he would step outside so he could talk to him. The Defendant complied and spoke to SGT Pernsteiner about [the] cars in the parking area in front of the garage door. The Defendant was cooperative, admitted that the car was stolen, and informed the deputies of some other stolen items that were on the premises. The Defendant was then placed under arrest.

28. The deputies indicated that they intended to go to the garage/ADU to inquire about the phone regardless of whether or not any vehicle had been present in the driveway.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 136-140

Based on its findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the search was lawful and denied Jackman's motion to suppress the evidence. Jackman waived his right to a jury trial and the parties stipulated to the facts for a bench trial. The trial court found Jackman guilty on all charges. Jackman appeals his convictions.

ANALYSIS

Jackman challenges the trial court's conclusion that Sgt. Pernsteiner's viewing of the VIN through the windshield was not a substantial and unreasonable departure from a non-intrusive area. Jackman argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence because the search of the home's curtilage was unlawful.² The State argues that Sgt. Pernsteiner and Deputy Newman accessed Jackman's home as would a reasonable, respectful citizen and did not make a substantial or unreasonable departure from an open public access route. We agree with the State. However, because neither party adequately briefed whether a Gunwall³ analysis was required, we address below this threshold issue.

A. WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION

Gunwall held that there are six, nonexclusive criteria to determine whether our state constitution affords broader rights to its citizens in a particular context than does the United StatesConstitution.⁴ Jackman's failure to argue, sufficiently cite to authority, and brief these criteria means that the parties have not sufficiently argued the matter, and thus, we may not consider it. State v. Wethered, 110 Wn.2d 466, 472, 755 P.2d 797 (1988).

"Whether the Washington Constitution provides a level of protection different from the federal constitution in a given case is determined by reference to the six nonexclusive Gunwall factors." (Italics ours.) State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 179, 867 P.2d 593 (1994). Where the Gunwall factors are not adequately briefed by the parties, this court will not consider whether the state constitution provides greater protection than that provided by the federal constitution under the circumstances presented.

State v. Cantrell, 124 Wn.2d 183, 190 n.19, 875 P.2d 1208 (1994) (citations omitted). "A determination that a given state constitutional provision affords enhanced protection in a particular context does not necessarily mandate such a result in a different context." State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 58, 882 P.2d 747 (1994) (citing State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 576, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990)).

This historical rule has been repeatedly iterated and reaffirmed recently in Blomstrom v. Tripp, ___ Wn.2d ___, 402 P.3d 831 (Oct. 5, 2017).

Generally speaking, "[i]t is . . . axiomatic that article 1, section 7 provides greater protection to an individual's right of privacy than that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment." State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 493, 987 P.2d 73 (1999) (plurality opinion); City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 267, 868 P.2d 134 (1994) ("It is by now commonplace to observe Const. art. 1, § 7 provides protections for the citizens of Washington which are qualitatively different from, and in some cases broader than, those provided by the Fourth Amendment."). Unlike our state constitution, the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly protect a citizen's "private affairs." State v. Jones, 146 Wn.2d 328, 332, 45 P.3d 1062 (2002); McCready, 123 Wn.2d at 267. But this enhanced protection depends on the context in question.

Blomstrom v. Tripp, 402 P.3d at 842 ¶ 47 (emphasis added) (some citations omitted).

The issue in Blomstrom was, "whether the petitioners' urinalysis testing requirements violate either article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The parties also ask[ed] that we determine whether Washington Constitution article I, section 7 is more protective than—and should be interpreted separately from—the Fourth Amendment in this context." Blomstrom, 402 P.3d at 841-42 ¶ 46 (emphasis added). The parties were required to and did brief and analyze the Gunwall factors.

We agree with the dissent here that the law is well settled, however, we depart with the dissent in how the law should be applied to the facts of this case. The dissent fails to recognize this long line of cases and even cites to State v. Jorgenson⁵ to support its position. However, Joregenson performed a Gunwall analysis. The dissent also cites to State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 158 P.3d 595 (2007). However, although the court stated that a Gunwall analysis was not necessary, the court nonetheless undertook one. In determining the protections of article I, section 7 in a particular context, "the focus is on whether the unique characteristics of the state constitutional provision and its prior interpretations actually compels a particular result." McCready, 123 Wn.2d at 267. "This involves an examination of the constitutional text, the historical treatment of the interest at stake as reflected in relevant case law and statutes, and the current implications of recognizing or not...