State Of Washington v. Carlos T. Brown
75305-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- Deputies detained Carlos Brown at a Lynnwood drugstore on suspicion of shoplifting after a loss prevention report; no unpaid merchandise was found on him.
- During a frisk for weapons, Deputy Koster felt and removed a pipe from Brown’s jacket pocket, which Koster recognized as a methamphetamine pipe based on his training and experience.
- Brown was arrested after the pipe was removed; a search incident to arrest produced a bag of methamphetamine on Brown.
- Brown was charged with possession of methamphetamine, moved to suppress the drug evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest, and stipulated to a bench trial on documentary evidence after the suppression motion failed.
- The trial court convicted Brown; on appeal, Brown argued the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest him for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, making the search incident to arrest unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Brown for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use | The State: the pipe’s distinctive shape and officers’ experience made it reasonable to believe Brown intended to use it to ingest methamphetamine | Brown: mere possession (a pipe that can be legitimately sold/marketed) is insufficient to infer intent to use | No probable cause; mere possession of a pipe, even one commonly used for meth, does not establish intent to use |
| Whether the subsequent search incident to arrest was lawful | The State: search was valid because arrest for paraphernalia with intent was supported by probable cause | Brown: arrest lacked probable cause, so the search was unlawful | Search was unlawful because arrest lacked probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1 (discusses warrantless arrest and probable cause requirement)
- State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30 (probable cause review is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- State v. Gaddy, 152 Wn.2d 64 (defines probable cause as reasonably trustworthy facts that would lead an officer to believe a crime occurred)
- State v. Fisher, 132 Wn. App. 26 (possession plus additional facts—used pipe with burnt residue and no plausible explanation—supported probable cause to infer intent to use)
Outcome: Conviction reversed; evidence obtained in search suppressed.