State v. Murphy, 052120 WACA, 36295-7-III
| Opinion Judge | Pennell, C.J. |
| Party Name | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER LEE MURPHY, Appellant. |
| Judge Panel | WE CONCUR: Korsmo, J. Fearing, J. |
| Case Date | May 21, 2020 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Pennell, C.J.
Christopher Murphy appeals his conviction for second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. He argues the firearm should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS1
Richland police responded to a Motel 6 after a clerk called 911. The clerk reported a man and woman were refusing to leave the property after being denied a room. The pair was associated with a distinctive pickup truck pulling a flatbed trailer. By the time the police arrived, the man and woman were no longer at the motel. However, their truck was observed across the street in a parking lot. Officers went to make contact.
As law enforcement approached, the man from the truck started walking toward the officers in an aggressive manner. The man was wearing baggy clothes and his hands were in his pockets. Officers tried to keep their distance. The man was instructed to stop and to keep his hands out of his pockets. The man stopped, but continued to move his hands in and out of his pockets. The man was asked for his name and he stated he was Christopher Murphy. At some point, the motel clerk called back to 911 and reported the police were talking to the right person.
Officers ran Mr. Murphy's name through dispatch. They discovered he had no warrants, but his driver's license was suspended and he had a prior felony conviction rendering him ineligible to possess firearms. Officers began talking to Mr. Murphy about the Motel 6 incident and other subjects, including his truck. Officers believed the truck was similar to a suspicious vehicle reported the evening before, and possibly stolen. Various items in the truck bed and an attached trailer were suggestive of stolen property. During the interaction with the officers, Mr. Murphy was fidgety and continued to dig around in his pockets despite repeated instructions to keep his hands out.
Mr. Murphy's repeated behavior of placing his hands in his pockets caused the officers to be concerned for their safety. Mr. Murphy was advised that if he continued to disobey instructions to keep his hands visible, he would be handcuffed. Mr. Murphy did not heed this warning. Officers then placed Mr. Murphy in handcuffs and performed a pat-down search. This search occurred approximately 19 minutes after the initial police contact. The pat-down uncovered a firearm and Mr. Murphy was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. The State later filed charges.
Prior to trial, Mr. Murphy filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing the firearm had been unlawfully seized. The parties agreed Mr. Murphy "was detained and was not free to leave within seconds of the initial contact" with the officers. Clerk's Papers at 53. The issue, therefore, was whether the 911 call and Mr. Murphy's initial reaction to law enforcement was sufficient to justify a seizure.
The trial court denied Mr. Murphy's suppression motion. It held that reasonable suspicion justified the initial police stop. In addition, Mr. Murphy's continued noncompliance with instructions and suspicious behavior provided adequate grounds for prolonging the scope of the stop. The court subsequently found Mr. Murphy guilty of unlawful firearm possession at a stipulated facts bench trial.
Mr. Murphy timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
Initial seizure
Mr. Murphy contends he was illegally seized because officers lacked reasonable suspicion that he committed trespass, or any other crime, at the Motel 6. We disagree.
Law enforcement may perform warrantless stops when faced with reasonable suspicion that a person "has been or is about to be involved in a crime." State...
To continue reading
Request your trial