State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. v. Travis Lee Rife, App/cross-res., 74217-5

At 3:30 a.m., Edmonds officer Haughian saw Travis Rife in a wheelchair, knew Rife had outstanding warrants, arrested and handcuffed him, and searched Rife incident to arrest, finding a pipe in his pants pocket.
Rife's backpack was slung over the back of his wheelchair behind him and was not directly reachable while seated; officer searched the backpack before reading Miranda warnings because he intended to transport Rife and his belongings to jail.
During a pre-Miranda exchange, Haughian asked whether anything in the pack could "stick" him; Rife replied there would be "a few rigs" and explained "rigs" were needles; the officer then searched the pack and found methamphetamine, rigs, pipes, and a knife.
After the search, Haughian read Miranda warnings; Rife then admitted the substance was methamphetamine and the pipes were for drugs; officer field-tested the substance as methamphetamine.
Rife moved to suppress the backpack evidence and his postarrest/pre-Miranda statements; the trial court denied the motion, and after a stipulated bench trial Rife was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless search of backpack was a lawful search incident to arrest	Rife: backpack not part of his person because hung behind him and not reachable while seated	State: backpack was immediately associated with Rife and transported with him to jail, so searchable incident to arrest	Search valid; backpack was part of person and items transported with arrestee are within scope of search incident to arrest
Whether postarrest but pre-Miranda statements (about "rigs") were admissible	Rife: statements made in custody before Miranda should be suppressed	State: officer's question addressed officer safety, invoking the public-safety exception	Statements were taken in custody before Miranda and should have been excluded; public-safety exception did not apply because no urgent danger shown
Whether admission of the pre-Miranda statements was harmless error	Rife: error not harmless because it contributed to inference of drug possession	State: other untainted evidence (pipe in pocket; drugs and pipe in backpack; post-Miranda admissions; field test) overwhelmingly established guilt	Error was harmless; untainted evidence would inevitably produce the guilty verdict

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (scope of search incident to arrest: area within arrestee's immediate control)
State v. Byrd, 178 Wn.2d 611 (an item is "immediately associated" with person if in actual possession at time of arrest)
State v. Brock, 184 Wn.2d 148 (personal items transported with arrestee to jail are within search-incident-to-arrest scope)
State v. MacDicken, 179 Wn.2d 936 (duffel and laptop bags in exclusive possession searchable as personal effects)
State v. Heritage, 152 Wn.2d 210 (Miranda protects against custodial interrogation and involuntary statements)
State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (public-safety exception requires objectively reasonable need to avert immediate danger)
State v. Lane, 77 Wn.2d 860 (public-safety exception upheld where officers reasonably believed suspect was armed)
State v. Richmond, 65 Wn. App. 541 (public-safety exception upheld in response to an ongoing violent incident)
State v. Spotted Elk, 109 Wn. App. 253 (public-safety exception inapplicable where no urgency or apparent threat)