State of Washington v. Anthony Ray Aguilar, 33329-9

On March 11, 2015, Detective Trujillo stopped Anthony Aguilar for blocking the roadway and, after dispatch advised of a warrant, arrested and searched him.
During the search, Trujillo found a small plastic baggie containing white crystals and said aloud, “this looks like Meth.” Aguilar responded, “Yes, it is, sir.” No Miranda warnings had been given.
Laboratory testing confirmed the substance was methamphetamine; Aguilar was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
At a CrR 3.5 hearing the trial court found Trujillo’s remark was a general, spontaneous remark not designed or likely to elicit an incriminating response, so Aguilar’s admission was admissible.
Aguilar was convicted on stipulated facts; the trial court imposed fines and $660 in discretionary LFOs (including a $600 appointed counsel fee and a $60 sheriff’s fee) after a brief inquiry into employment; the judgment contained boilerplate that Aguilar had ability to pay.
The State conceded error on the adequacy of the trial court’s inquiry into Aguilar’s ability to pay discretionary LFOs; Aguilar also sought waiver of appellate costs but failed to comply with the court’s procedural requirements for claiming continued indigency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Aguilar)	Held
Whether post-arrest admission was product of custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings	Trujillo’s aloud remark was not interrogation; it was a general, spontaneous comment not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response	The remark was functionally equivalent to questioning and elicited Aguilar’s admission, so Miranda warnings were required	Court affirmed: remark was not interrogation under Miranda/Innis; Aguilar’s response admissible
Whether trial court erred by imposing $660 in discretionary LFOs without adequate inquiry into ability to pay	State concedes the sentencing inquiry was inadequate and agrees remand is required	Trial court failed to make individualized ability-to-pay inquiry before imposing discretionary LFOs	Court accepted State’s concession and remanded for an individualized inquiry into ability to pay
Whether appellate costs should be waived	State requested costs as the substantially prevailing party	Aguilar asked to waive costs due to indigency, procedural errors, and policy arguments but did not comply with court order requiring updated declaration of indigency	Court tentatively awarded appellate costs to State but allowed Aguilar 14 days to file a compliant declaration to seek waiver; otherwise costs stand subject to procedure

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required where custody plus interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (interrogation includes words or actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (statements that are the functional equivalent of questioning can trigger Miranda; applies a primarily subjective-susceptibility and evocative-comment analysis)
State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898 (nonresponsive incriminating statements are not interrogation)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (discusses collateral consequences and ability-to-pay considerations for LFOs)