State v. Templeton
| Decision Date | 19 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 71502-5, No. 71529-7. |
| Citation | 148 Wn.2d 193,148 Wash.2d 193,59 P.3d 632 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. John D. TEMPLETON, Benjamin Marginean, James Marsh, and Richard Post, Respondents. State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mark D. Dunn, Sygrid Wright, and Michael L. Roesch, Petitioners. |
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, James Whisman, Deputy, Seattle, WA, Darol Tuttle, Attorney at Law, Tacoma, Kenneth Fornabai, Attorney at Law, Auburn, for Petitioner.
Gerald Horne, Pierce County Prosecutor, John Hillman, Deputy, Tacoma, William Bowman, Jon Fox, Attorneys at Law, Bellevue, WA, Robert Porter Asst. Tacoma City Attorney, Tacoma, Kay Lee, Attorney at Law, Seattle, for Respondents.
In consolidated cases Petitioner Washington State seeks review of a decision of the Courts of Appeals, Divisions One,1 and Petitioners Mark D. Dunn, Sygrid D. Wright, and Michael L. Roesch seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Two,2 relating to suppression of results of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) breath tests and advisement of rights.3 Finding that the advisement of right to counsel was defective under Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 3.1 but that the error was harmless in these cases, we affirm the Court of Appeals, Division Two, and reverse the Court of Appeals, Division One.
In State v. Templeton the Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed a decision of the King County Superior Court which suppressed the results of defendants' BAC breath tests because the State did not properly advise them of their right to counsel under CrRLJ 3.1. The Court of Appeals held that promulgation of CrRLJ 3.1, providing for the right to counsel as soon as feasible after arrest, was a proper exercise of the Supreme Court's rule-making authority, and the State's advisement of rights from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) driving under the influence (DUI) arrest report form violated CrRLJ 3.1 constituting prejudicial error requiring suppression of the BAC Verifier DataMaster results.4
In State v. Dunn the Court of Appeals, Division Two, upheld a decision of the Pierce County Superior Court which denied the motions of Petitioners Dunn and Wright to suppress the results of their BAC breath tests, but reversed suppression in the case of Petitioner Roesch. Despite its conclusion that the State's advisement of the right to counsel was defective under CrRLJ 3.1, the court concluded the error was harmless and that therefore the results of the BAC breath test were admissible.5
The questions presented in these cases are (1) whether promulgation of CrRLJ 3.1 exceeded this court's rule-making authority, and (2) whether the State's violation of CrRLJ 3.1 requires suppression of the results of a defendant's BAC breath test.6
The cases of State v. Templeton, State v. Marginean, State v. Marsh, and State v. Post came before the Court of Appeals, Division One, as consolidated cases on appeal.7
On three separate occasions, Washington State Patrol troopers stopped and arrested for DUI Respondent John D. Templeton on April 19, 1998, Respondent Benjamin Marginean on February 2, 1998, and Richard Post on April 22, 1998.8 Respondent James P. Marsh was stopped and arrested by a Washington State Patrol trooper for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs under the age of 21 years on May 16, 1998.9 The arresting officers advised Respondents of their constitutional rights upon arrest as required under Miranda v. Arizona.10 After transporting Respondents to police stations, the officers, reading from the WSP DUI Arrest Report form, advised them of their rights.11 The advisement form read:12
1. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
2. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.
3. IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A JUVENILE COURT PROSECUTION FOR A JUVENILE OFFENSE AND CAN ALSO BE USED AGAINST YOU IN AN ADULT COURT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF THE JUVENILE COURT DECIDES THAT YOU ARE TO BE TRIED AS AN ADULT.
4. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS.
5. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING.
6. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, ONE WILL BE APPOINTED TO YOU WITHOUT COST, BEFORE OR DURING QUESTIONING, IF YOU SO DESIRE.
7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE RIGHTS?
Respondents signed the form acknowledging that they understood their rights and did not wish to exercise them at that time.13 They also signed the implied consent warning form and submitted to the breath test.14 Prior to the breath test, the officers asked and Respondents answered a series of preliminary questions.15 Following questioning, the officers administered the BAC breath test to Respondents which in each instance indicated an alcohol concentration over the then legal limit of 0.10.16
Respondents Templeton, Marginean and Post were formally charged in the King County District Court with driving while under the influence.17 Respondent Marsh, being under the age of 21 years, was charged with minor driving after consuming alcohol.18 Hearings were held in the King County Northeast District Court and Seattle District Court.19 In each case, Respondents moved to suppress all evidence obtained after their arrests.20
On September 3, 1998 the King County Northeast District Court, the Honorable David A. Steiner, granted the motions of Respondents Templeton and Marginean, ordering suppression of only the breath test in the Templeton case and ordering suppression of all the evidence after arrest in the Marginean case because the State did not comply with CrRLJ 3.1.21
On May 29, 1998 the King County Northeast District Court, the Honorable Peter L. Nault, granted the motion of Respondent Marsh to suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to the advisement of rights given him after his arrest.22 The State appealed those decisions to the King County Superior Court.23 On September 13, 1999 the Superior Court, Judge Nicole MacInnes, affirmed the District Court's order suppressing the results of the BAC breath test, but reversed the suppression of statements made by Respondents.24
On January 11, 1999 the King County Seattle District Court, the Honorable Barbara L. Linde, denied Respondent Post's motion, finding the State's advisement of rights complied with CrRLJ 3.1.25 Respondent Post stipulated to a bench trial and proceeded to trial on the stipulated facts in the police report.26 On February 5, 1999 the court found him guilty as charged.27 Respondent Post appealed to the King County Superior Court, which reversed his conviction, ruling that the District Court erred by not suppressing the breath test results.28
The State appealed each decision to the Court of Appeals, Division One. The court consolidated the cases and designated the matter as State of Washington v. John D. Templeton, Benjamin Marginean, James Marsh and Richard Post. Upon review, the Court of Appeals, the Honorable Anne L. Ellington writing, concluded the Supreme Court did not exceed its rule-making authority in adopting CrRLJ 3.1 requiring advisement of the right to counsel before administration of the alcohol breath test, and that the officers' warnings did not comply with CrRLJ 3.1, which constituted prejudicial error requiring suppression of the breath test results.29 The State appealed the decision to this court.30
During traffic stops on December 21, 1997 Petitioner Mark D. Dunn was arrested by a Washington State Patrol trooper; on April 30, 1998 Petitioner Michael L. Roesch was arrested by a Tacoma Police officer; and on October 23, 1998 Petitioner Sygrid D. Wright was arrested by a Pierce County Deputy Sheriff for suspicion of driving while under the influence.31 Upon arrival at police stations, petitioners were read their constitutional rights from the WSP DUI Arrest Report form, the same form used in State v. Templeton.32 Petitioners Dunn and Wright signed the form indicating they understood the warnings and waived their right to speak with an attorney at that time.33 Petitioner Roesch did not sign the form because he was "handcuffed." Petitioners subsequently agreed to submit to alcohol breath analysis tests in which each tested over the then legal limit of 0.10 blood alcohol concentration.34 The State filed criminal complaints in the Pierce County District Court charging Petitioners Dunn and Wright with one count of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.35 The City of Tacoma filed a criminal complaint in the Tacoma Municipal Court charging Petitioner Roesch with one count of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.36
Prior to trial in each case, Petitioners moved to suppress the alcohol breath test results on grounds that the advisement of rights on the WSP DUI Arrest Report form did not comply with the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1.37 On October 30, 1998, the Honorable Ronald E. Culpepper, Pierce County District Court, denied Petitioner Dunn's motion, finding that the warning given him was easily understandable to the average arrested person and did not result in confusion or prejudice.38 On January 26, 1999, the Honorable David M. Kenworthy, Pierce County District Court, denied Petitioner Wright's motion, concluding that the Miranda warnings given met the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1.39 On November 12, 1998, the Tacoma Municipal Court, the Honorable Elizabeth Verhey, denied Petitioner Roesch's motion, concluding that the constitutional rights read to him satisfied the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1.40 The cases proceeded to trial and all Petitioners were found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.41
Petitioners in each case appealed to the Pierce County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arbaugh
...mechanical operations of the courts by which substantive law, rights, and remedies are effectuated." State v. Templeton, 148 Wash.2d 193, 213, 59 P.3d 632, 642 (2002) (quoting State v. Smith, 84 Wash.2d 498, 501, 527 P.2d 674, 677 (1974)). See also Opinion of the Justices, 141 N.H. 562, 572......
-
Louk v. Cormier
...and remedies are effectuated. Arbaugh, 215 W.Va. at 139, 595 S.E.2d at 296 (Davis, J., dissenting) (quoting State v. Templeton, 148 Wash.2d 193, 213, 59 P.3d 632, 642 (2002)). In the instant case, we have no difficulty in finding the provisions of W. Va.Code § 55-7B-6d are procedural in nat......
-
State v. Booth
...1446.93 556 U.S. at 162, 129 S.Ct. 1446.94 State v. Robinson, 153 Wash.2d 689, 697, 107 P.3d 90 (2005) (citing State v. Templeton, 148 Wash.2d 193, 220, 59 P.3d 632 (2002) ).95 State v. Aljaffar, 198 Wash. App. 75, 86, 392 P.3d 1070 (2017) (quoting State v. Cunningham, 93 Wash.2d 823, 831, ......
-
State v. Bennett
...S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). This court has the inherent power to prescribe rules of procedure and practice. State v. Templeton, 148 Wash.2d 193, 212, 59 P.3d 632 (2002). This stems from the constitutional provision that all judicial power of the State is vested in the Supreme Court an......
-
The Undersigned Attorney Hereby Certifies: Ensuring Reasonable Caseloads for Washington Defenders and Clients
...Standards,supra note 32, at Standard 5. 183. Letter from Spitzer, supra note 155. 184. Id. (citing State v. Templeton, 148 Wash. 2d 193, 59 P.3d 632 (2002)). 185. Id. at 1. 186. The Standards do not mention funds, but if jurisdictions need to hire more public defenders, they arguably mandat......