State v. Knudsvig
| Decision Date | 30 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 35169-6-III,35169-6-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. COREY K. KNUDSVIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Corey K. Knudsvig appeals after his stipulated bench trial conviction of possession of a controlled substance—heroin. He argues the trial court erred when it denied his suppression motion. He contends he was unlawfully seized when an officer ordered him out of a car and asked his name. We conclude that the officer had justifiable safety reasons for her actions and that her actions were in furtherance of a lawful criminal investigation. We therefore affirm the trial court's order denying suppression.
Deputy Clay Hilton was on routine patrol one evening in Spokane Valley, Washington. He saw a white minivan parked in the driveway adjacent to a suspected drug house. The area is a high crime area.
Deputy Hilton drove past the house and ran the minivan's license plate. He determined that the registered owner of the minivan was Justin Millette, who had outstanding arrest warrants.
Deputy Hilton returned to the minivan. He got out of his patrol car and approached. He saw a man standing near the driver's side door and asked the man if he owned the minivan and for his name. The man responded that he did, and that he was Justin Millette.
Because there were multiple occupants in the minivan, Deputy Hilton requested backup so he could safely arrest Millette. As deputies began to arrive, Deputy Hilton handcuffed Millette and walked him to his patrol car. As he was doing this, a minivan occupant opened the back sliding door and stepped out to walk away. Deputy Hilton heard a thud and saw that a handgun had fallen out of the minivan and was on the ground under the sliding door. At that time, he could not tell if the gun was real.
After seeing the gun, no one in the minivan was free to leave. Deputy Hilton testified that officers are trained, "[w]here there's one weapon, there's two, and until we pat search the people we're dealing with to make sure they're not armed, nobody [is] free to leave." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jan. 26, 2017) at 28.
Deputy Hilton walked to the gun, picked it up, and placed it on the hood of his patrol car. Because many things were happening at once—arresting Millette, a minivan occupant trying to walk away, and backup arriving—Deputy Hilton did not inspect the gun at that time. Deputy Hilton then ordered a female occupant out of the minivan, identified her, and searched her for weapons.
A second deputy identified and searched the man who had attempted to walk away. The deputies identified and searched the occupants "to make sure there were no other weapons," and "to see if people have a concealed weapons permit [and to] know who we're dealing with basically." RP (Jan. 26, 2017) at 19.
Deputy Veronica Van Patten arrived to assist. She arrived after Deputy Hilton had placed the handgun on his patrol car. She noticed the gun on the patrol car and saw other deputies detaining people associated with the minivan. Based on what she saw, she correctly inferred that there was an officer safety issue and that an investigation was taking place.
Deputy Van Patten could not see into the back of the minivan because the windows were tinted and it was dark outside. She asked the female if there was anyone in the back of the minivan, and she answered there was. Deputy Van Patten then ordered the unseen person out. After the person stepped out, the deputy asked him his name. He gave his correct name, Corey Knudsvig. Deputy Van Patten ran his name through dispatch and learned that Knudsvig had an active warrant for his arrest.
Deputy Van Patten searched Knudsvig incident to arrest and found a small "baggie" in his coin pocket. The contents of that baggie later tested positive for heroin.
The deputies' search revealed pocket knives and other weapons, but no additional firearms. After the search for weapons, Deputy Hilton examined the handgun. It was at this time he realized it was a BB gun.
The State charged Knudsvig with possession of a controlled substance—heroin. Knudsvig moved the trial court to suppress evidence of the heroin. He contended that because he was only a passenger in the minivan, his seizure was unconstitutional.
Deputy Hilton and Deputy Van Patten testified at the suppression hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court analyzed the facts and law and ruled that Knudsvig's seizure was lawful for officer safety concerns. The case proceeded to astipulated facts bench trial before a different judge. That judge found Knudsvig guilty of the charged crime.
Knudsvig appealed.
This court reviews a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion to determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's challenged findings of fact, and if so, whether the findings support the trial court's conclusions of law. State v. Radka, 120 Wn. App. 43, 47, 83 P.3d 1038 (2004). When the appellant does not challenge the findings, as in this case, the findings are verities on appeal. State v. Lohr, 164 Wn. App. 414, 418, 263 P.3d 1287 (2011). This court reviews conclusions of law de novo. Radka, 120 Wn. App. at 47.
Knudsvig argues the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the evidence because officer safety concerns do not extend to asking vehicle occupants their identities. The State counters that the circumstances of this case justified ordering Knudsvig out of the minivan and asking him for his name. We agree.
When presented with arguments under both the state and federal constitutions, this court first analyzes the Washington Constitution because it offers more protection than the federal constitution. State v. Hinton, 179 Wn.2d 862, 868, 319 P.3d 9 (2014). Under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." This provision protects citizens from governmental intrusion into their private affairs without the authority of law and comes from a broad right to privacy in Washington. Hinton, 179 Wn.2d at 868. The analysis under article I, section 7 requires this court to determine whether the State unreasonably intruded into the defendant's private affairs. State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 219, 970 P.2d 722 (1999).
"[A] warrantless search or seizure is considered per se unconstitutional unless it falls within one of the few exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d 689, 695, 92 P.3d 202 (2004). The recognized exceptions include "consent, exigent circumstances, searches incident to a valid arrest, inventory searches, plain view searches, and investigative stops." State v. Chacon Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284, 292, 290 P.3d 983 (2012). "If police unconstitutionally seize an individual prior to arrest, theexclusionary rule calls for suppression of evidence obtained via the government's illegality." State v. Harrington, 167 Wn.2d 656, 664, 222 P.3d 92 (2009).
This court first determines whether a warrantless search or seizure has taken place and, if so, whether it was justified by an exception to the warrant requirement. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d at 695. A rationale predicated on officer safety concerns is satisfactory. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 219. Where an officer's conduct is connected to safety concerns, courts are reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of the officer. State v. Collins, 121 Wn.2d 168, 173, 847 P.2d 919 (1993).
Here, the parties agree that law enforcement seized Knudsvig when Deputy Van Patten ordered him out of the minivan and requested his identity. The question then is whether officer safety concerns justified the seizure. "A police officer should be able to control the scene and ensure his or her own safety, but this must be done with due regard to the privacy interests of the passenger, who was not stopped on the basis of probable cause by the police." Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 220. An officer must "be able to articulate an objective rationale predicated specifically on safety concerns . . . for ordering a passenger to stay in the vehicle or to exit the vehicle." Id. An officer's objective rationale should be evaluated based on the circumstances present at the scene of the traffic stop, including: "the number of officers, the number of vehicle occupants, thebehavior of the occupants, the time of day, the location of the stop, traffic at the scene, affected citizens, or officer knowledge of the occupants." Id. at 220-21.
In this case, the objective rationale articulated by the officers justifies the seizure for officer safety concerns. Deputy Hilton saw the minivan in a high crime area at night in front of a suspected drug house known for frequent contact with law enforcement. The van had dark tinted windows, and officers were not sure how many people were in the minivan but knew it contained several occupants. When one occupant stepped out of the minivan to walk away, an item that appeared to be a handgun dropped onto the ground. At that point, law enforcement had valid safety concerns in accordance with their training: "[W]here there's one weapon, there's two weapons, and until you can confirm for yourself if a person is not armed, you would assume they are, for safety reasons." RP (Jan. 26, 2017) at 24. The wisdom of this training was proved correct; knives and other weapons were found on the occupants and inside the minivan.
After these safety concerns manifested, Deputy Van Patten ordered Knudsvig out of the minivan. We will not substitute our judgment for reasonable officer training. Collins, 121 Wn.2d at 173. We conclude that Deputy Van Patten lawfully seized Knudsvig when she ordered him out of the minivan.
Knudsvig argues that officers should not be permitted to search...
To continue reading
Request your trial