State of Washington v. Alberto Luna Martinez, 40519-2

Background

Martinez was convicted of fentanyl possession with intent to deliver, second degree unlawful firearm possession, psilocybin possession, driving without a valid license, and failure to transfer title, and he appealed multiple suppression and evidentiary rulings. 1
Officers stopped Martinez’s Hyundai for expired tabs after learning he lacked a license and was associated with suspected drug activity. 2
During the stop, Detective Beyer saw weapons in the car, frisked Martinez, saw an ammunition box in his pocket without further manipulation, and later arrested him for driving without a license. 3
A warrant later authorized a search of the Hyundai, and officers recovered a loaded pistol, drugs, paraphernalia, and a notebook referencing fentanyl pricing. 4
Martinez moved to suppress, sought a Franks hearing, and challenged trial testimony about a wallet and Detective Bump’s opinions; the trial court denied relief and the jury convicted on all but methamphetamine possession. 5
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the frisk and warrant rulings were proper, the Franks showing failed, the container issue was unpreserved, and the challenged testimony was admissible. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Terry frisk exceeded its lawful scope 7	Martinez said Beyer manipulated his pocket and unlawfully searched beyond a protective frisk.	State said Beyer only saw ammunition without further manipulation and seized it incident to arrest.	No suppression; the frisk was lawful and no evidence was seized from it. 8
Whether the vehicle warrant lacked probable cause and nexus 9	Martinez said the affidavit lacked probable cause for drug-delivery evidence and firearms.	State said the drugs, weapons, ammunition, and history created probable cause and nexus.	Warrant valid as to firearm evidence and simple possession, but not intent to deliver. 10
Whether Martinez was entitled to a Franks hearing 11	Martinez claimed Beyer intentionally omitted the extent of pocket manipulation from the affidavit.	State said there was no material or intentional omission.	No Franks hearing; Martinez failed to show a material intentional omission. 12
Whether the cylindrical container search could be reviewed 13	Martinez challenged the search of the locked container on his person.	State said the issue was waived because it was not raised below.	Issue unpreserved and not reviewed. 14
Whether Detective Bump’s wallet and cash testimony was improper 15	Martinez argued confrontation, relevance, and opinion-on-guilt violations.	State said the testimony was based on Bump’s experience and was relevant.	Testimony admitted properly; no confrontation or evidentiary error and no opinion on guilt. 16

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (authorizes limited investigative stops and protective frisks 17)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (governs hearings based on intentional or reckless warrant-affidavit omissions 18)
State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (Wash. 2009) (suppression review standard and Terry frisk requirements 19)
State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118 (Wash. 1997) (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal 20)
State v. Day, 161 Wn.2d 889 (Wash. 2007) (reasonable suspicion standard for Terry stops and frisks 21)
State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133 (Wash. 1999) (probable cause requires facts linking crime to place searched 22)
State v. Maddox, 152 Wn.2d 499 (Wash. 2004) (probable cause is a probability, not prima facie proof 23)
State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2002) (warrant review gives deference and resolves doubts in favor of issuance 24)
State v. Neth, 165 Wn.2d 177 (Wash. 2008) (trial and appellate review of probable cause is limited to the affidavit’s four corners 25)
State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454 (Wash. 2007) (material, reckless warrant-affidavit inaccuracies or omissions can invalidate a warrant 26)
State v. Atchley, 142 Wn. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (defines the substantial preliminary showing needed for a Franks hearing 27)
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (Wash. 2008) (framework for evaluating improper opinion testimony on guilt 28)
City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (testimony is permissible if not a direct comment on guilt and helpful to the jury 29)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause bars testimonial hearsay absent prior cross-examination 30)