Seattle Attorneys Blog
A defendant recently challenged his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (“UPF”). The convictions arose from a traffic stop, which the defendant argued was pretextual. He also challenged his UPF conviction on constitutional grounds.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, a police officer on patrol saw a parked vehicle pull out without signaling. The bumper obscured the front plate and the rear plate light was not working. He stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the defendant.
The officer saw drug paraphernalia in an open bag on the seat. The defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked that consent. The officer obtained a warrant and seized evidence from the vehicle, including a handgun, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia.
Motion to Suppress
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence. At the hearing, the officer testified he was previously a corrections officer and the defendant had been in jail during that time. He learned the defendant was involved with drugs. He knew the defendant usually drove a white truck belonging to a relative. He had also heard from other officers that the defendant drove around with a firearm.
While on patrol, the officer would park in high-crime areas or near known-drug houses. He also monitored traffic speeds and looked for violations of the law. He had patrolled in the neighborhood of the traffic stop on multiple occasions and knew drivers frequently sped there.
The officer saw the defendant’s vehicle parked near the residence of someone known to be involved with drugs. When the vehicle drove by, the officer made a U-turn to get behind it and stopped the defendant for failing to signal, an obstructed license plate, and a malfunctioning license plate light.
The defendant said he knew the officer because he had been in jail multiple times while the officer was a corrections officer. He said they had an argument while he was in jail, and the officer told him he would get him when the officer became a cop.
The trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.
A jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed.
Challenged Findings of Fact
The defendant argued certain findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.
One of the challenged findings stated the officer was on patrol and observed a white Chevrolet truck leave a parking spot near a specific intersection. The defendant argued the officer was not just on patrol but was also acting in a high crime area. The appeals court, however, concluded substantial evidence supported the finding. The defendant conceded that the officer was also on routine patrol and the acts the officer performed are part of the duties of a patrol officer.
The defendant also challenged the finding that the officer initiated the traffic stop “[b]ased on these traffic infractions.” The appeals court also determined substantial evidence supported this finding. The officer testified he initiated the stop because of the traffic infractions. Nothing in the record indicated he would have stopped the defendant if the traffic violations did not occur.
Constitutionality of the Traffic Stop
Warrantless traffic stops are constitutional pursuant to the Washington Constitution, but case law holds that pretextual traffic stops are not. A pretextual traffic stop occurs when an officer relies on a legal authorization as a pretext to avoid a warrant when the real reason for the seizure would require a warrant. Courts consider the totality of the circumstances and the officer’s subjective intent and the objective reasonableness of his actions. If the search or seizure is unconstitutional, then the evidence uncovered as a result must be suppressed. State v. Ladson.
A traffic stop is not unconstitutional if there are mixed motives. If the officer makes a conscious, appropriate, and independent determination the stop is reasonably necessary to further traffic safety and the general welfare, the stop is not considered pretextual, even if the officer has other motivations that would alone be insufficient to justify a traffic stop. Courts consider whether an illegitimate motivation exists in determining if the officer made the stop for a legitimate and independent reason, but must focus on whether there was an actual, conscious and independent legitimate reason to make the stop. State v. Chacon Arreol.
The trial court considered both the illegitimate motivations and legitimate and independent reasons for the traffic stop and made credibility determinations. There was substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding the officer stopped the defendant for legitimate reasons. The officer had stopped others for the same infractions. The appeals court determined there were mixed motives for the stop, but the trial court’s findings supported its legal conclusions. The appeals court found no error in the court’s denial of the suppression motion.
The defendant also argued the stop was unconstitutional because of its scope and duration. An officer may detain a person at a traffic stop for the reasonable time necessary to identify them, check for warrants, check their license status, check their insurance card, check their registration, and issue the traffic ticket. RCW 46.61.021. A related investigation may also affect the stop’s scope and duration. State v. Chacon Arreol.
The investigation was expanded when the officer observed drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. The appeals court concluded the scope and duration of that investigation was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Second Amendment Challenge to UPF Conviction
The defendant argued his UPF conviction was unlawful. He argued the statute barring him from legally possessing a firearm was unconstitutional because the predicate crime was a nonviolent offense.
The Second Amendment does not preclude prohibitions on felons possessing firearms. U.S. v. Heller. The appeals court noted the U.S. Supreme Court has not distinguished between violent and nonviolent felons with regard to the possession of firearms. State v. Ross. The appeals court also pointed out that courts have upheld prohibitions on nonviolent felons possessing firearms.
The appeals court concluded the defendant’s conviction was not unconstitutional because the predicate offense was nonviolent.
State v. Blake
The defendant also argued his UPF conviction should be reversed and vacated due to State v. Blake. He argued Blake invalidated the possession conviction that led to his community custody sentence, and therefore the escape from community custody conviction should also be vacated.
The appeals court rejected this argument, noting the validity of an escape conviction under RCW 72.09.310 did not depend on the constitutionality of the conviction that gave rise to the community confinement.
The appeals court affirmed the convictions, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to strike the crime victim penalty assessment because the defendant was indigent when sentenced.
Call a Seattle Lawyer
Although the appeals court upheld the convictions in this case, different facts could lead to a different result. If you are being charged with a drug crime, an experienced Washington criminal defense attorney can help you fight for your rights. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562. We can work with you to identify any constitutional violations or other factors to support your case.