Mainsail
Regular Member
imported post
Two WA Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy:
The Washington State Supreme court has weighed in on privacy issues. While these are not firearms decisions, they do address our privacy laws.
STATE v Day
*Remember this part
OK, notice here that they are pointing out how the US Constitution differs from ours. Our privacy laws are actually much stricter than the federal.
*Remember this part too.
They then point out the differences between a traffic infraction and a parking infraction, and how Terry is applied to both situations.
The two parts I asterisked above are important when you read the final message on the court’s decision. The officer said he was investigating a parking violation:
Two WA Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy:
The Washington State Supreme court has weighed in on privacy issues. While these are not firearms decisions, they do address our privacy laws.
STATE v Day
Benton County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Hayter was driving on patrol one Sunday morning. The deputy saw a car backed into shrubbery along the Yakima River in an "improved access facility," where parked vehicles are supposed to display parking permits. Deputy Hayter testified he approached the car to check whether there was a permit.* As Deputy Hayter approached, he saw Charlie Day sitting in the car with his head moving as if he was looking for something. As Deputy Hayter got closer, he started to suspect the car were associated with drug use because it was cluttered with cigarette lighters and rubber gloves, among other things. Of immediate interest to Deputy Hayter, however, was an empty handgun case on the floor near Day's feet.
Deputy Hayter asked Day if there was a gun in the car. Day said there was. Day was cooperative but Deputy Hayter (he later testified) nonetheless became concerned for his safety and asked Day to step out of the car. Day did. Deputy Hayter frisked Day, handcuffed him, and asked where the gun was. Day said it was behind the passenger seat where his wife was sitting. Deputy Hayter then asked Alice Day2 to exit the vehicle and frisked her as well, while telling both Days they were not under arrest. After another officer arrived, Deputy Hayter searched the car and found the handgun under the passenger seat.
Dispatch reported the gun was stolen and there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Alice Day. Deputy Hayter arrested the couple, conducted a search incident to arrest, and discovered evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing in the vehicle. Based on that evidence, Day was charged and convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine.
Day argues that the officer exceeded his authority under the Washington State Constitution by stopping and searching him merely on suspicion of a parking infraction and, therefore, that the fruits of that search must be suppressed and his conviction vacated for lack of lawful evidence.
*Remember this part
Whether the officer acted with authority of law turns on whether the Terry3 exception to the warrant requirement, which allows an officer to stop and frisk a person without a warrant or probable cause under certain limited circumstances, applies to these circumstances. The Court of Appeals found it did and affirmed Day's conviction.
The right to be free from searches by government agents is deeply rooted into our nation's history and law, and it is enshrined in our state and national constitutions. The United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; our state constitution goes further and requires actual authority of law before the State may disturb the individual's private affairs.
A Terry investigative stop only authorizes police officers to briefly detain a person for questioning without grounds for arrest if they reasonably suspect, based on "specific, objective facts" that the person detained is engaged in criminal activity or a traffic violation.
The State does not argue that, outside of the relatively relaxed standards of a Terry search, Deputy Hayter had objectively reasonable fear for his safety that justified the search. Accordingly, we do not reach whether, given the acknowledged gun, the likely parking infraction, the rubber gloves, the cigarette lighters, and the furtative movement would support a search on that basis. We think it highly unlikely, however, that the lawful possession of a gun could be the basis for a lawful search without burdening rights under article I, section 24 of our constitution.
Washington's adoption of the Terry investigative stop exception is grounded upon the expectation of privacy. Our constitution protects legitimate expectations of privacy, "those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant." Myrick, 102 Wn.2d at 511. Whether the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is in issue, a detaining officer must have "a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based on specific objective facts, that the person seized has committed or is about to commit a crime."
OK, notice here that they are pointing out how the US Constitution differs from ours. Our privacy laws are actually much stricter than the federal.
Under the Fourth Amendment, whether the officer had grounds for a Terry stop and search is tested against an objective standard. Johnson, supra, at 598. (pretextual traffic stops do not violate the Fourth Amendment). By contrast, under article I, section 7, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the officer's subjective belief. See State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 358-59, 979 P.2d 833 (1999); Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d at 6. Our constitution does not tolerate pretextual stops.* Ladson, 138 Wn.2d at 352.
*Remember this part too.
They then point out the differences between a traffic infraction and a parking infraction, and how Terry is applied to both situations.
CONCLUSION
When officers merely suspect a civil infraction has been committed, there is no ground for a Terry stop. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d at 182. Since there was no ground for a Terry stop, there was no ground for a Terry frisk. We reverse the trial court's admission of the evidence seized from Days' vehicle, vacate his conviction without prejudice, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The two parts I asterisked above are important when you read the final message on the court’s decision. The officer said he was investigating a parking violation:
The incident was recorded by a camera mounted in Deputy Hayter's patrol car. The Day vehicle was parked so that the back of the vehicle was in the shrubbery. The record reflects that the improved access facility permits are usually affixed to the back of the vehicle. The videotape fails to show that Deputy Hayter ever attempted to look at the back of the vehicle to see if it was properly permitted.