State of Washington v. Carl R. Moore, Jr.
34327-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- June 4, 2015: Task force detectives stopped a pickup after observing Shannon Grove (a known informant) leave a suspected drug supplier's home as a passenger; Detective Coe questioned Carl Moore, who produced baggies containing methamphetamine and a pipe and was handcuffed and told he'd be released if he cooperated.
- Moore was released shortly after the June arrest without charges because detectives were sequestered in a separate officer-involved shooting and probable-cause paperwork could not be completed; Moore did not follow up to cooperate and was transient.
- October 7, 2015: Detective Coe re-encountered Moore at a known drug house, arrested him, and during a search incident to arrest found methamphetamine; probable cause reports were later completed for both incidents.
- Moore was charged with two counts of possession (one for each incident); a pretrial suppression motion arguing the October arrest was fruit of an unlawful June stop was denied; at trial Detective Coe was the sole witness and the baggies and lab reports were admitted without objection; Moore was convicted on both counts.
- Moore appealed, arguing (1) the October arrest/search should be suppressed because re-arrest after a warrantless arrest without a judicial probable-cause determination within 48 hours is unconstitutional; (2) trial court commented on evidence; (3) ineffective assistance for failure to object to prejudicial testimony; and (4) LFOs imposed without an ability-to-pay inquiry. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from October arrest should be suppressed as impermissible re-arrest after a warrantless arrest without a timely judicial probable-cause determination | Re-arrest was lawful because probable cause existed in October and CrR 3.2.1 concerns were not raised below | June warrantless arrest required a judicial probable-cause determination within 48 hours; beyond that, re-arrest on same evidence required a warrant (citing Watkins/Holmes) | Issue not preserved; on merits court found no constitutional violation because combined detentions did not exceed 48 hours and re-arrest was distinguishable from Watkins/Holmes; counsel’s failure to raise novel argument was not deficient |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly commented on the evidence (Washington Const. art. IV, §16) | Comment was harmless and not a factual comment influencing the jury | Court’s “superfund cleanup” remark improperly commented on evidence | No reversible error: remark was jocular and did not remove disputed factual issues (identity/chain-of-custody was the defense issue) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to allegedly irrelevant/prejudicial testimony (including references to transience, daycare proximity, prior involvement) | Testimony was relevant to explain delays, context of surveillance, and supported investigative narrative | Testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial, and should have been excluded under ER 404(b) | No ineffective assistance: many answers plausibly tactical, objections would likely not have changed outcome given strong physical evidence and admissions |
| Whether LFOs were improperly imposed without an on-the-record ability-to-pay inquiry | LFOs valid because no timely objection below | Trial court failed to make individualized inquiry per Blazina; error requires review | Claim not preserved; majority declines to review unpreserved LFO challenge; judgment and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (judicial determination of probable cause required promptly following arrest to justify continued detention)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (generally 48-hour rule for prompt probable-cause determinations)
- Watkins v. State, 399 So. 2d 153 (La. 1981) (re-arrest immediately after release without judicial determination creates unconstitutional "revolving door")
- United States v. Holmes, 452 F.2d 249 (7th Cir. 1971) (re-arrest of person on same charge while on bail may be unlawful if it serves no purpose beyond harassment)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (requirement to inquire into defendant's ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)