State v. Randall

• Decision Date: 07 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 31718-1-I,31718-1-I
• Citation: 868 P.2d 207,73 Wn.App. 225
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joshua Edward RANDALL, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 225

73 Wn.App. 225

868 P.2d 207

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joshua Edward RANDALL, Appellant.

No. 31718-1-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 1.

March 7, 1994.

Jeffrey Erwin Ellis, The Defender Ass'n, Seattle, for appellant.

Norm Maleng, Pros. Atty., and Ethan S. Rogers, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.

GROSSE, Judge.

Joshua Edward Randall appeals the order of disposition sentencing him to 3 months of community supervision and 8 hours of community service for violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act ("VUCSA") (possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana).

Randall contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized and his statements to police officers made during an investigatory stop. Finding that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that Randall had just committed an armed robbery, we hold that the investigatory stop was reasonable and affirm the trial court.

At approximately 9 p.m. on October 29, 1991, Officer Michael Stone of the University of Washington Police Department was patrolling the 3700 block of Brooklyn Avenue N.E. At about that time, university police dispatch reported an armed robbery in the 4200 block of University Way. The dispatch provided a description of the two suspects and described the gun used in the robbery as a small caliber handgun.

Approximately 10 minutes after the broadcast, Officer Stone saw Randall, who matched the description of one of the suspects, about 5 blocks south and 1 block west of where the robbery allegedly occurred. Randall was standing in a park with another male and the two men immediately left when they saw Officer Stone approach in his marked patrol car.

Randall parked his car and eventually found the two men in the University's Academic Computer Center. Officer Stone approached Randall, identified himself, and told Randall he fit the description of a robbery suspect. Officer Stone asked Randall if he was carrying a weapon. Randall said he was not carrying a weapon but was carrying a pipe. At that point, Randall reached for his right front coat pocket and Officer Stone frisked him. The officer felt a hard, L-shaped object through Randall's heavy coat, stopped the frisk, and read Randall his Miranda rights, which Randall stated he understood. Officer Stone opened Randall's pocket and saw a pipe and a plastic sandwich bag "wrapped in a manner which based on [his] training and experience led [him] to believe that that was a container used to carry substances such as marijuana." Officer Stone removed the pipe and bag from Randall's pocket and saw a substance in the bag he believed to be marijuana. ¹ Officer Stone asked Randall if he knew what the substance was and Randall said it was his dope. The officer took Randall to a more secure area, found two more baggies in the inside pocket of Randall's jacket, and formally arrested him.

Randall moved to suppress the evidence and his statements to Officer Stone. At a combined motions and fact-finding hearing, the trial court denied both motions and found Randall guilty of one count of VUCSA. At the disposition hearing, the court ordered 3 months of community supervision and 8 hours of community service.

Randall contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Officer Stone lacked sufficient information to make an investigatory stop. Upon independent evaluation of the evidence, State v. Daugherty, 94 Wash.2d 263, 269, 616 P.2d 649 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 958, 101 S.Ct. 1417, 67 L.Ed.2d 382 (1981), we disagree.

It is well settled that under certain circumstances the police may make an investigatory stop without a warrant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Lesnick, 84 Wash.2d 940, 530 P.2d 243, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 891, 96 S.Ct. 187, 46 L.Ed.2d 122 (1975). An investigatory stop can be justified on the basis of information supplied to the police by another person. Lesnick, 84 Wash.2d at 943, 530 P.2d 243 (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)).

[N]o single rule can be fashioned to meet every conceivable confrontation between the police and citizen. Evaluating the reasonableness of the police action and the extent of the intrusion, each case must be considered in light of the particular circumstances facing the law enforcement officer.

Lesnick, 84 Wash.2d at 944, 530 P.2d 243. This analysis, requiring an examination of the totality of the circumstances in determining the validity of an investigatory stop based on information supplied to the detaining officer by another person, is consistent with the analysis used by the United States Supreme Court to ascertain the validity of an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).

We recognize that in State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432, 688 P.2d 136 (1984), the Washington Supreme Court rejected the United States Supreme Court's "totality of the circumstances" analysis to determine whether an informant's tip created probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, ² and reaffirmed its adherence to the 2-pronged Aguilar -Spinelli test for probable cause. ³ However, a determination of probable cause requires a more demanding level of suspicion than that required to justify an investigatory Terry stop. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). An officer may make a Terry stop based upon a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is engaged in criminal activity, which is less than what is required to find probable cause. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416. Accordingly, since a finding of probable cause entails a different inquiry than a finding of reasonable suspicion, we are not bound to follow Jackson and apply the Aguilar- Spinelli test where the validity of an investigatory stop is at issue. We hold that where an investigatory stop is based on information given the detaining officer by another person, the stop is valid if under the totality of the circumstances the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity.

Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors--quantity and quality--are considered in the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture," United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 [, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621] (1981), that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion.

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416; accord State v. Rowe, 63 Wash.App. 750, 822 P.2d 290 (1991).

An important factor comprising the totality of circumstances which must be examined is the nature of the suspected crime. The Washington Supreme Court recognized the significance of this factor in Lesnick, where it affirmed the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to an anonymous tip that ...