State v. Swaite
| Decision Date | 27 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 10898-1-I,10898-1-I |
| Citation | 656 P.2d 520,33 Wn.App. 477 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Walter O'Neil SWAITE, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Russell B. Juckett, Snohomish County Pros. Atty., Asa Glazer, Deputy Pros. Atty., Everett, for respondent.
The defendant, Walter Swaite, appeals the judgment and sentence entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of burglary in the second degree and theft in the first degree.
On May 15, 1981, a city of Edmonds police officer (first officer) arrived on the scene of a reported residential burglary. The homeowner advised the officer that when he returned to his residence, after an absence of approximately 15 minutes, he discovered a broken window in the door of his home but did not think that anything was missing from inside. The homeowner further related that when he initially left his home he observed an individual, whom he had never seen before, walking nearby. The homeowner then furnished the first officer with a detailed description of that individual.
Shortly thereafter, another officer (second officer) who was patrolling the area in a police car, observed the defendant who matched the homeowner's description. The After removing a "buck" knife from the defendant's belt, the first officer conducted a pat down search for additional weapons. In the course of that search, the officer felt two hard cylindrical objects, about 3 to 4 inches in length, in the defendant's rear pocket. The officer removed the objects and discovered that they were two carved ivory cigarette holders. The first officer then advised the defendant of his constitutional rights.
defendant, apparently upon seeing the second officer, hopped over a fence into some bushes and disappeared from view. The first officer then drove to the area, located the defendant and required him to stop.
While the first officer detained the defendant, the second officer returned to the scene of the reported burglary with the two cigarette holders. The homeowner, however, stated that the holders did not belong to him.
Before the second officer returned, the first officer questioned the defendant about his identity and presence in the area. The defendant gave the officer a name, said his car had run out of gas and admitted that he had been previously arrested in Seattle for assault. The defendant also said that he had purchased the cigarette holders from "Pier 70 Imports" on the Seattle water front. The first officer then attempted to confirm some of this information through police channels. Before the record check was completed, however, the second officer returned with the cigarette holders and related the fact of the homeowner's negative identification. In addition, another officer located the defendant's car and discovered, contrary to defendant's explanation, that the car had half a tank of gas and was operable.
Subsequently, the record check was completed and it showed that the defendant had given the officers a false name. The first officer, retaining possession of the cigarette holders, placed the defendant under arrest for "obstructing" and transported him to the police station. At the station the defendant's wallet was examined, his true identity was established and an outstanding traffic warrant and The cigarette holders were later identified as having been stolen from another residence in the same neighborhood which had been burglarized that same day. Further, a search of the bushes around the fence which the defendant had jumped across uncovered a jewelry box which was later identified as having been stolen from the same residence from which the cigarette holders had been taken.
misdemeanor warrant were discovered.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as having resulted from an unlawful arrest. The trial court found that defendant's arrest for "obstructing" was lawful and denied the motion.
At the defendant's jury trial, the cigarette holders, various statements of the defendant and other information obtained subsequent to his arrest were admitted into evidence along with the jewelry box. Further, a police sergeant testified that the soles of the defendant's boots were similar to a partial footprint found outside the burglarized residence. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of second degree burglary and first degree theft.
The defendant's appeal presents one ultimate issue.
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of his arrest and dismiss the State's case against him?
CONCLUSION. The investigatory stop of the defendant was lawful as it was premised on a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the defendant had been involved in criminal activity. The arrest of the defendant for obstructing, however, was invalid since it was based on a statute which the State Supreme Court subsequent to the trial of this case held to be unconstitutionally vague. No other justification for the defendant's arrest having been shown, it must now be held that the trial court erred to the extent that it did not suppress the evidence which resulted from that unlawful arrest. Since the tainted evidence may be excised out, however, leaving evidence which if believed by the trier of the fact would be legally sufficient, the case will not be dismissed but will be remanded for a new trial.
A police officer having a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that an individual has committed or is committing a crime may make a brief investigatory stop of that person and ask him for identification and an explanation of his activities even though probable cause for an arrest is lacking. State v. Thompson, 93 Wash.2d 838, 840-41, 613 P.2d 525 (1980); State v. Selvidge, 30 Wash.App. 406, 409, 635 P.2d 736 (1981). Once detained, the officer may properly conduct a self-protective pat down search if he has a reasonable belief that the suspect is presently armed and dangerous. State v. Hobart, 94 Wash.2d 437, 446, 617 P.2d 429 (1980); State v. Wakeley, 29 Wash.App. 238, 243, 628 P.2d 835 (1981). The fact that the suspect is not free to leave does not, in and of itself, transform a valid investigatory detention into a traditional arrest with its requirement of probable cause. State v. Wakeley, supra at 240, 628 P.2d 835.
In the present case, the first officer was aware that a serious offense, burglary or attempted burglary, had just occurred in a neighborhood which was then experiencing a rash of residential burglaries. The homeowner gave the officer a detailed description of a suspicious individual whom he had seen just prior to the commission of the crime and the defendant matched that description. Further, in apparent response to seeing the second officer, the defendant fled by jumping a fence into some bushes in an attempt to evade the police. Under these facts and circumstances, the first officer acted reasonably in stopping the defendant and asking him to identify himself and explain his presence in the area. See State v. Selvidge, supra 30 Wash.App. at 410, 635 P.2d 736; State v. Wakeley, supra 29 Wash.App. at 242, 628 P.2d 835.
Once detained, it was not unreasonable for the police to conduct a pat down search of the defendant. In light of the serious nature of the crime under investigation and the presence of the "buck" knife on the defendant's belt and in plain view, the officer was justified in a belief that other weapons might be concealed on the defendant's person. It was permissible for the officer to take the cigarette holders from defendant's rear pocket and examine them, since their shape and hardness give rise to a reasonable belief the objects were potential weapons. See State v. Hobart, supra 94 Wash.2d at 446, 617 P.2d 429; State v. Wakeley, supra.
Nor was it improper for the first officer to briefly detain the defendant while the second officer returned to the scene with the cigarette holders for identification.
Prompt efforts at identification by a victim or witness and determination of the culpability or innocence of the person detained are appropriate factors in considering the reasonableness of the investigative technique. LaFave states:
If the matter is susceptible to quick resolution in this manner, then certainly resort to such procedures is to be preferred over other techniques which are likely to be less conclusive and to require more extended detention.
State v. Gardner, 28 Wash.App. 721, 727, 626 P.2d 56 (1981), quoting 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2, at 43 (1978).
Once the second officer returned with the information that the cigarette holders were not stolen from the homeowner, it would appear that the principle purpose of the investigatory detention had ended and that the officers did not, at that time, have probable cause to arrest the defendant for burglary. 1 The State argues, however, that the police retention of the cigarette holders was nonetheless lawful because the defendant was properly arrested for "obstructing" pursuant to RCW 9A.76.020(2) which prohibits the making of any "knowingly untrue statement to a public servant". 2
Subsequent to the trial of this case, the State Supreme Court in State v. White, 97 Wash.2d 92, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982), held that "RCW 9A.76.020 is invalid as to sections 1 and 2" on the grounds of vagueness. State v. White, supra at 101, 640 P.2d 1061. In that decision, the Supreme Court further held that evidence obtained as a direct result of an arrest under either section 1 or 2 of the obstructing statute must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. State v. White, supra at 104, 640 P.2d 1061.
On the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision, therefore, we must conclude that the defendant's arrest for "ob...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...subsection (3) was intended to prohibit conduct. State v. Hoffman, 35 Wash.App. 13, 16–17, 664 P.2d 1259 (1983); State v. Swaite, 33 Wash.App. 477, 482–83, 656 P.2d 520 (1982). ¶ 13 Following our declaration that subsections (1) and (2) of former RCW 9A.76.020 were unconstitutional, the leg......
-
State v. Rose
...and an explanation of his activities even though probable cause for an arrest is lacking.” State v. Swaite, 33 Wash.App. 477, 481, 656 P.2d 520 (1982). During the stop, an officer may perform a protective pat-down search based upon a reasonable belief that the detained individual is armed a......
-
State v. Samsel, 5969-III-3
...the officers' actions were justified by a reasonable belief that the defendants were armed and dangerous. See State v. Swaite, 33 Wash.App. 477, 481, 656 P.2d 520 (1982); State v. Smith, 9 Wash.App. 279, 281, 511 P.2d 1032 (1973); State v. Berkins, supra 2 Wash.App. at 917, 471 P.2d The off......
-
State v. Sweet
...that may be considered along with other factors in determining whether an investigatory stop is justified. See State v. Swaite, 33 Wash.App. 477, 481, 656 P.2d 520 (1982) (fact that person matching description of possible burglary suspect, upon seeing police officer, jumped into bushes just......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...555-56 (1970). A search or seizure is also unlawful if it is based solely on a law subsequently held unconstitutional. State v. Swaite, 33 Wn. App. 477, 483, 656 P.2d 520, 524-25 (1982) (law subsequently held void for vagueness). See generally State v. Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d 373, 393, 5 P.3d 668,......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update
...search is inadmissible when the identification of the object is established by use of the illegally seized object. State v. Swaite, 33 Wn. App. 477, 484 n.4, 656 P.2d 520 (1982). Third, suppression may depend on the officer's intent and prior knowledge of the existence of the witnesses. if ......