State v. Peck
| Decision Date | 26 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 96069-1 (consolidated with No. 96073-9),96069-1 (consolidated with No. 96073-9) |
| Citation | 194 Wash.2d 148,449 P.3d 235 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Michael Nelson PECK, Respondent. State of Washington, Petitioner, v. Clark Allen Tellvik, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Gregory Lee Zempel, Carole Louise Highland, Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney, 205 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 213, Ellensburg, WA 98926-2887, for Petitioner.
Candy K. Powers, Attorney at Law, 707 N. Pearl Street, Suite A, Ellensburg, WA 98926-2938, Tanesha La Trelle Canzater, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 29737, Bellingham, WA 98228-1737, Christopher Taylor, C.R. Taylor Law PS, 203 4th Avenue E, Suite 407, Olympia, WA 98501-1148, for Respondents.
Antoinette M. Davis, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, 901 5th Avenue, Suite 630, Seattle, WA 98164-2086, Douglas B. Klunder, Attorney at Law, 102 Viewcrest Road, Bellingham, WA 98229-8967, for Amicus Curiae (American Civil Liberties Union of Washington).
Rita Joan Griffith, Attorney at Law, 4616 25th Avenue NE, PMB 453, Seattle, WA 98105-4523, Teymur Gasanovich Askerov, Black Law PLLC, 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1111, Seattle, WA 98104-1720, for Amicus Curiae (Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers)
González, J. ¶1 We are asked to answer two questions under article I, section 7 of our state constitution: first, whether defendants have standing to challenge the scope of a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle when that vehicle is stolen and, second, whether a proper inventory search extends to opening an innocuous, unlocked container of unknown ownership found in a stolen vehicle associated with defendants who were apprehended while burglarizing a home. We hold that the defendants have automatic standing to challenge the search and that the search of the innocuous container was lawful under these circumstances. We reverse the Court of Appeals and uphold the denial of the motion to suppress.
FACTS
¶2 On Friday, January 23, 2016, Michael Peck and Clark Tellvik were seen on a security camera, burglarizing a home. The owner of the home was demonstrating her home’s new surveillance system to a friend on her phone when she saw the crime in progress. She called 911, and officers arrived at the home within minutes.
¶3 When officers arrived, a Dodge Dakota pickup truck was stuck in the snow in front of the house. Peck and Tellvik were outside the truck, trying to free it from the snow. The officers contacted Peck and Tellvik, frisked them, and detained them. Additional responding officers arrived within minutes, ran the registration of the vehicle, and discovered it was stolen. At this point, it was about 1:21 a.m. The officers arrested Peck and Tellvik for possession of a stolen vehicle.
¶4 After Peck and Tellvik were read their Miranda1 rights, Peck agreed to speak with an officer. Peck said he had been picked up earlier in the day in the Dodge Dakota pickup by Tellvik. Peck told the officer that he had never seen Tellvik drive the pickup and that Tellvik started it with a screwdriver.
¶5 The officer asked if Peck and Tellvik had gone in any of the buildings or the house. Peck assured the officer that they had not. The officer also asked Peck if he had anything in the vehicle. After some equivocation, Peck said that a cell phone, a car battery, and a small bag of tools belonged to him. Peck told the officer that the vehicle was not running well, so they brought the battery and tools just in case the truck broke down. Peck told the officer nothing else in the truck belonged to him.
¶6 Soon after the officer was done talking with Peck, the homeowner arrived. She confirmed with the police officers that she did not know either Peck or Tellvik and that they did not have permission to be on her property. She also confirmed that her outbuilding, which was open, had been locked when she left. When asked about the battery and the bag of tools Peck claimed, the homeowner said they were hers and that they had been stored in the outbuilding. The officers found a pry bar in the snow beneath the Dodge Dakota’s driver’s side door and it appeared from the latch and door of the outbuilding that it had been pried open. The officers accompanied the homeowner into the outbuilding and determined that somebody had been inside.
¶7 Peck and Tellvik were taken from the scene. Because the pickup was stolen and stuck on private property, the officers impounded the vehicle and called for a tow truck. Before the tow truck arrived, an officer conducted an inventory search. When asked at trial why he inventoried the vehicle, the officer testified:
Verbatim Transcript of Proceedings (VTP) (May 10, 2016) at 104-05. When asked if searching for something specific, the officer responded:
A: No. The main thing with one of these searches is to make sure you haven’t got something dangerous that can go back to the owner. A good example is a case they had in Seattle recently where a stolen Jeep was returned to the owner, and it’s full of used hypodermic needles. The last thing I want is to hop into my rig and reach down-seats and get-poked by somebody’s (inaudible). And I’d feel the same way-any vehicle that we return to an owner.
Id. at 107. During the inventory search, the officer discovered that the ignition was punched out. The officer saw a "black zippered nylon case" that seemed to hold CDs (compact disks), and opened it. Id. at 418. When asked why he opened it, he responded, "No telling what could be in it." Id. at 108. And he further testified that Id. at 109.
¶8 Inside the black zippered nylon case was packaged methamphetamine, an electronic scale, and a smoking pipe. The State charged Peck and Tellvik with several crimes, including possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Peck and Tellvik moved to suppress the contents of the black zippered nylon case. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the inventory search to be proper and finding no evidence of pretext. See id. at 191-92 (oral CrR 3.6 ruling) ("I didn’t see anything out of the ordinary here that would make me think that [the officer] was trying to use the inventory search to try to-bypass a warrant requirement."). Peck and Tellvik were subsequently convicted. Both appealed their controlled substance convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. We granted review.
ANALYSIS
¶9 Peck and Tellvik challenge the proper scope of a warrantless inventory search, and the State challenges their ability to make such a claim. This case presents only questions of law, which we review de novo. State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761, 767, 224 P.3d 751 (2009) (citing State v. Carneh, 153 Wash.2d 274, 281, 103 P.3d 743 (2004) ).
AUTOMATIC STANDING
¶10 First, we must decide whether the defendants have standing to challenge the search. The State argues Peck and Tellvik do not have standing because a thief should have no privacy interest that overrides that of the true owner. But in our state, a defendant has automatic standing to challenge a search if (1) possession is an essential element of the charged offense and (2) the defendant was in possession of the contraband at the time of the contested search or seizure. State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 175, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980) (plurality opinion). And a defendant has automatic standing to challenge the legality of a seizure " ‘even though he or she could not technically have a privacy interest in such property.’ " State v. Evans, 159 Wash.2d 402, 406-07, 150 P.3d 105 (2007) (quoting Simpson, 95 Wash.2d at 175, 622 P.2d 1199 ).2 The rule applies to searches as well as seizures. See, e.g., State v. Allen, 93 Wash.2d 170, 172-73, 606 P.2d 1235 (1980).
¶11 Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the inventory search. The first prong of the test is satisfied because both were charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See RCW 69.50.401(1). The second prong is satisfied because Peck and Tellvik were in possession of the truck up until the time of the search. As such, Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the warrantless inventory search of the black zippered nylon case. The dissent claims that we "eviscerate[ ] automatic standing." Dissent at ––––. We do not. Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the admission of evidence found during the inventory search. Because we find Peck and Tellvik have automatic standing to challenge the inventory search, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Denham
...by article I, section 7 of our constitution] are more extensive than those provided under the Fourth Amendment.’ " State v. Peck , 194 Wash.2d 148, 169, 449 P.3d 235 (2019) (quoting State v. Valdez , 167 Wash.2d 761, 772, 224 P.3d 751 (2009) ). For a warrant to properly issue in Washington,......
-
State v. Denham
...I, section 7 of our constitution] are more extensive than those provided under the Fourth Amendment.'" State v. Peck, 194 Wn.2d 148, 169, 449 P.3d 235 (2019) (quoting State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761, 772, 224 P.3d 751 (2009)). For a warrant to properly issue in Washington, we have long requi......
-
State v. Giberson
... ... of the Washington State Constitution to challenge a search ... when (1) possession is an essential element of the charged ... offense and (2) the defendant was in possession of the item ... searched at the time of the challenged search. State v ... Peck, 194 Wn.2d 148, 154, 449 P.3d 235 (2019) ... Here, ... possession is an essential element of the offense of ... possession of heroin with intent to distribute. RCW ... 69.50.401(1)[1]. And the State assumes for the sake of ... argument that Giberson ... ...
-
State v. Tellvik
...part sub nom. State v. Peck, 194 Wn.2d 148, 161, 449 P.3d 235 (2019). The Supreme Court's decision in its consolidated review of Tellvik and Peck became final on issuance of a mandate on 31, 2020. On February 14, 2020, Mr. Tellvik filed a motion for relief of judgment under CrR 7.8. The mot......