State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 22 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 45037,45037 |
| Citation | 580 P.2d 635,90 Wn.2d 245 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. George Warren WILLIAMS, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
John A. Strait, Tacoma, for petitioner.
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty., Charles S. Hamilton, III, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Defendant was charged with two counts of violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. His motion to suppress evidence, i. e., the drugs, was granted by the trial court. The state appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Williams, 17 Wash.App. 186, 562 P.2d 651 (1977). We granted review and affirm the Court of Appeals on one limited ground.
The Court of Appeals dealt with two issues: (1) the scope of a search warrant and (2) the right to make a warrantless arrest in a defendant's home absent exigent circumstances. We address only the first issue which is dispositive.
The search warrant in question is set out in the appendix. The issue is whether it authorized a search of defendant's person in spite of the fact that the word "person" was not mentioned in the command portion of the warrant.
The warrant in question states that it appears to the issuing judge that "there is probable cause to believe that the crime of violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe evidence material to the investigation of said crime is presently concealed in, about and upon 207 9th Ave # 119 Seattle King County Washington and the person of George Williams if he be located therein."
Reading the search warrant in its entirety, we conclude that it was not unreasonable to search defendant's person. We emphasize that the judge found and stated probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime was concealed in, about and upon specifically described premises and the person of George Williams, the defendant.
It would be hypertechnical to insist that the command portion of the warrant repeat the term person. The command of "place and premises" is adequate to include the person when the warrant recites that the magistrate has found probable cause that there is evidence of crime upon specific premises and upon the person of the defendant.
It is this fact which distinguishes this case from Tacoma v. Mundell, 6 Wash.App. 673, 495 P.2d 682 (1972), and State v. Eisele, 9 Wash.App. 174, 511 P.2d 1368 (1973). Neither of those cases had the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Browne
...v. Chambers, supra, 88 Wash.App. at 640, 945 P.2d 1172, and State v. Williams, 17 Wash. App. 186, 562 P.2d 651 (1977), aff'd, 90 Wash.2d 245, 580 P.2d 635 (1978), both of which rely on the principle that "[a] grudging and overly technical requirement of elaborate specificity has no place in......
-
State v. Turner
...arrest even though there are no exigent circumstances. State v. Williams, 17 Wash.App. 186, 192, 562 P.2d 651 (1977), aff'd in 90 Wash.2d 245, 580 P.2d 635 (1978) (without reaching warrantless arrest issue.) 5 Here, although defendant may properly assert that entry was not made pursuant to ......
-
State v. Delarosa
...you are commanded to search said Vehicle within 10 days from the date of hereof.' CP at 13. In a similar case, State v. Williams, 90 Wn.2d 245, 580 P.2d 635 (1978), the question was whether a warrant authorized a search of the defendant's person despite the fact that the word `person' was n......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...that person even though the command portion of the warrant mentions only "places and premises." State v. Williams, 90 Wash. 2d 245, 246, 580 P.2d 635 (1978); cf. State v. Cottrell, 12 Wash. App. 640, 643-44, 532 P.2d 644, 646-47 (1975) (when warrant authorized search of premises and persons......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...§§ 1.4(a), 4.7(a), 4.9, 5.27, 5.28 State v. Williams, 16 Wash. App. 868, 560 P.2d 1160 (1977) § 5.2(a) State v. Williams, 90 Wash. 2d 245, 580 P.2d 635 (1978) § 3.8(a) State v. Williams, 94 Wash. 2d 531, 617 P.2d 1012 (1980) §§ 1.6, 5.9(a), 7.0 State v. Williamson, 42 Wash. App. 208, 710 P.......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...allows a search of that person even though the command portion of the warrant mentions only "places and premises." State v. Williams, 90 Wn.2d 245, 246, 580 P.2d 635, 635 (1978). Second, a search may be conducted incident to arrest. State v. Cottrell, 86 Wn.2d 130, 133, 542 P.2d 771, 773 (1......