State v. McReynolds, 20863-0-III, 20887-7-III, 21222-0-III, 21240-8-III.
Decision Date | 10 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 20863-0-III, 20887-7-III, 21222-0-III, 21240-8-III.,20863-0-III, 20887-7-III, 21222-0-III, 21240-8-III. |
Citation | 117 Wash.App. 309,71 P.3d 663 |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Amy Jo McREYNOLDS, Appellant. State of Washington, Respondent, v. Randy D. McReynolds, Appellant. In the Matter of the Application for Relief from Personal Restraint of: Randy D. McReynolds, Petitioner. In the Matter of the Application for Relief from Personal Restraint of: Amy Jo McReynolds, Petitioner. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
David N. Gasch, Spokane, Anna K. Nordtvedt, Newport, for Appellants.
Allen C. Nielsen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Colville, for Respondents.
John D. Blair-Loy, Washington Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Spokane, for Amicus Curiae.
These consolidated appeals and personal restraint petitions renew the challenges by Randy D. McReynolds of his convictions and sentence on multiple counts of possession of stolen property and stolen firearms and unlawful possession of firearms, and by Amy Jo McReynolds of her convictions and sentence on multiple counts of possession of stolen property. The primary issues here are (1) whether the fifth of five search warrants was valid despite the invalidity of the first four; (2) whether a new trial is required because evidence obtained from the invalid warrants was admitted in the original trial; and (3) whether the multiple convictions for possession of stolen property violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The facts of the case are explained in our decision in State v. McReynolds, 104 Wash. App. 560, 17 P.3d 608 (2000), review denied, 144 Wash.2d 1003, 29 P.3d 719 (2001). We held there that the first of five search warrants issued in the case was invalid and remanded to the trial court for additional findings on the question whether subsequently obtained evidence was tainted by the initial, unlawful search. Id. at 568-72, 17 P.3d 608. On remand, the State stipulated that Warrants 2, 3, and 4 were tainted by Warrant 1. However, the State contended that Warrant 5 remained untainted.
The trial court held that "[t]he taint of the unlawful search was attenuated, or dissipated such that it did not taint the evidence obtained [from a U-Haul truck under Warrant 5]." Randy Clerk's Papers (RCP) at 82; Amy Clerk's Papers (ACP) at 58. The court noted that Warrants 1 and 5 were four days apart and held they were "not in close temporal proximity." RCP at 82; ACP at 58. The court noted that both defendants' admissions were knowing and voluntary, two and three days after Warrant 1 was served, and that the officers' search of the McReynoldses' car was consensual. The court found the officers' conduct was not egregious, because they sought and received warrants, which only later were found to be unlawful, rather than conducting searches without authority.
Finally, the court held that "[a] number of meaningful intervening circumstances" occurred between Warrant 1 and the search of the U-Haul truck under Warrant 5:(1) an anonymous tip about the McReynoldses' use of a rented storage unit; (2) an interview with the owner of the storage unit; (3) an interview with the person who rented the Haul to Amy Jo McReynolds; (4) an interview with a man who lived on the same property as the McReynoldses; (5) the questioning of Amy Jo McReynolds and her subsequent consent to a search of her vehicle; (6) the arrest of Randy McReynolds; (7) the questioning of Randy McReynolds after his arrest; (8) the location of the U-Haul truck; and (9) interviews with two others who lived on the same property as the McReynoldses. RCP at 83; ACP at 59.
The court found that large portions of the officers' affidavit in support of Warrant 5 were tainted by the earlier searches, and it redacted them from the affidavit. The redacted affidavit provided:
On 12/09/07 a search warrant was served at 362 Aladdin Road, Colville. Residing at that location is Harold and Donna Sears who have rented the property, as well as their stepson Randy McReynolds and his wife Amy Jo along with 3 small children, Donna Sears brother Eugene McReynolds and his wife Susan, Harold and Donna's son Jeff Sears, daughter Angie Moen with 2 kids and residing in a camper on the property was a Leonard Wolf, a friend of the family. Eugene McReynolds and Leonard Wolf were in custody in the Stevens County Jail at the time of the Search Warrant service, however Randy McReynolds had just bailed out of jail and had returned to the residence.
Detective Caruso and Deputy M. George were sent to the residence to maintain surveillance and to attempt to locate the U-Haul truck identified as rented by them. Upon initially checking the area, both the car and the pickup appeared to be gone from the residence, and no U-Haul truck was observed, however while maintaining surveillance of the residence, both the pickup and car returned. Detective Caruso and Deputy George made contact with the people at the residence and interviewed Amy Jo McReynolds. McReynolds gave them permission to search the vehicle's [sic] which were registered to her, and further advised that her husband Randy was at the Hilltop Restaurant at Addy with the U-Haul truck and that "not all of the items in the truck were stolen, some of them were theirs". Amy Jo further advised that she had the key to the U-Haul truck and that it was the only key to the truck and that Randy was awaiting her return. Detective Caruso called Det. Paramore and advised him of the above statement and that there were 4 guns in the U-Haul and advised caution because the weapons were in an unknown location. Upon conducting the search of the vehicles, registered to Amy Jo McReynolds specifically identified as an Oldsmobile, License # 850DYY and a Chevy pickup with Washington License # A80909A, items were seized which Amy Jo advised Detective Caruso and Deputy George did not belong to them.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Barboza-Cortes
...the three checks stolen from the backpack) encompass the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Relying on State v. McReynolds , 117 Wash. App. 309, 340, 71 P.3d 663 (2003), he contends that simultaneous possession of various items of property stolen from multiple owners constitutes one......
-
State v. Smith
...illegality and the evidence or (2) the evidence was discovered through a source independent from the illegality. State v. McReynolds, 117 Wash.App. 309, 322, 71 P.3d 663 (2003) (quoting Le, 103 Wash.App. at 361, 12 P.3d 653).B. Independent Source ¶ 27 The State argues that the victims' test......
-
Callen v. State
...v. State, 504 So.2d 347, 352 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986).In a similar fact situation, the Washington Court of Appeals in State v. McReynolds, 117 Wash.App. 309, 71 P.3d 663 (2003), stated: "The [defendants] apparently contend the analysis of the application for Warrant 5 must be limited to the f......
-
State v. Ibarra–cisneros
...(citing Nardone, 308 U.S. at 341, 60 S.Ct. 266)); see also State v. Tan Le, 103 Wash.App. 354, 12 P.3d 653 (2000); State v. McReynolds, 117 Wash.App. 309, 71 P.3d 663 (2003). In our most recent case on the topic, we specifically applied the factors of Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.C......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...State v. Warner, 125 Wn.2d 876, 888, 889 P.2d 479, 484 (1995) (relying on federal precedent); State v. McReynolds, 117 Wn. App. 309, 324, 71 P.3d 663, 669 (2003); State v. Richman, 85 Wn. App. 568, 570, 933 P.2d 1088, 1090 (1997) (applying the inevitable discovery rule after conducting a de......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update
...beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 808, 92 P.3d 228 (2004); State v. McReynolds, 117 Wn. App. 309, 326, 71 P.3d 663 (2003); State v. Spotted Elk, 109 Wn. App. 253, 261, 34 P.3d 906 (2001). A constitutional error is harmless if the appellate court is convinced b......