State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. v. Aaron Michael Thomas, App/cross-res.
73711-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Officers Bennett and Stewart investigated a stolen GMC van parked directly in front of a residence known to be associated with stolen vehicles and other criminal activity.
- The van was full of property except the driver and front passenger seats; motorcycle helmets, gloves, and men’s and women’s clothing were visible, and court paperwork bearing the name "Shyla Gypin" was inside.
- Thomas (male) and a woman emerged from the residence; the woman initially identified herself as Shyla and was later confirmed to be Shyla Gypin.
- Officer Bennett noticed Thomas wearing a motorcycle jacket and, after asking for identification, dispatch confirmed outstanding warrants; Thomas was arrested.
- A search of Thomas incident to arrest produced plastic bags later confirmed to contain methamphetamine; Thomas was charged with possession and moved to suppress.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion based on unchallenged findings that the officers had specific and articulable facts supporting a Terry stop; Thomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop under Terry | Thomas argued the facts (motorcycle jacket, being with a woman, presence at the residence) were innocuous and insufficient for reasonable suspicion | State argued officers had multiple specific and articulable facts (van location, van contents, empty front seats, matching motorcycle gear, paperwork with Gypin’s name, officers’ familiarity with area/equipment) supporting reasonable suspicion | Court held the unchallenged factual findings, viewed in totality, supported reasonable suspicion and affirmed denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d 149 (discusses standards for reviewing CrR 3.6 suppression rulings and Terry stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigative stop standard)
- State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1 (explains "substantial possibility" standard for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Moreno, 173 Wn. App. 479 (addresses evaluation of officer knowledge at inception of stop)
- State v. Tijerina, 61 Wn. App. 626 (held certain innocuous facts insufficient for reasonable suspicion; distinguished by facts here)
- Mueller v. Wells, 185 Wn.2d 1 (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)