State of Washington v. Dillon Dwayne Armstrong, 37699-1

Deputy stopped Dillon Armstrong after an unsafe lane change; Armstrong showed signs of stimulant intoxication (dilated pupils, shaking, sweating) and admitted recent methamphetamine use.
During the stop Armstrong gave inconsistent statements about a broken pipe in the car (initially denied, later said there might be shards near the driver’s seat; at one point called it a marijuana pipe, later admitted it was a meth pipe).
Armstrong limited consent to a search of the cab (front and back seats), refused consent to search the trunk, then revoked consent entirely; officers seized the vehicle and sought a search warrant.
The deputy’s affidavit reported Armstrong’s admissions and observed signs of drug use; a warrant was apparently issued but the actual warrant and signed affidavit are not in the appellate record.
Officers searched the vehicle pursuant to the warrant, pried open a locked safe in the trunk, and recovered 96 grams of methamphetamine.
At suppression hearing Armstrong’s counsel withdrew a pretext-stop challenge and stipulated that probable cause supported the warrant; on appeal Armstrong raises for the first time (1) lack of nexus to trunk/safe, (2) material omissions (Franks claim), and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to litigate these issues.

Issue	State's Argument	Armstrong's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit supported probable cause to search the trunk/locked safe	Affidavit gave probable cause to search the vehicle for drug evidence	Affidavit lacked nexus showing evidence would be in trunk or safe	Court declined to decide on appeal; record inadequate (warrant not in record); affirmed conviction
Whether officers made material omissions requiring a Franks hearing	No reckless or intentional omission shown; Franks requires substantial preliminary showing	Affidavit omitted that shards were near the driver’s seat, which would limit scope	Court declined to rule; record insufficient to show omissions or state of mind; issue better raised in personal restraint petition
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not challenging the warrant / requesting Franks	Counsel may have had tactical reasons; record does not show deficiency	Counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial	Court declined to resolve ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal due to incomplete record; suggested PCR/PRP to develop record

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to hearing where affidavit contains deliberate or reckless material misstatements or omissions)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (a vehicle search for particular evidence authorizes opening containers that could hold the evidence)
State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133 (1999) (probable cause for a warrant requires nexus between criminal activity, the evidence, and the place to be searched)
State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454 (2007) (omissions or inaccuracies in an affidavit that are material and made with reckless disregard can invalidate a warrant)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (standards for raising new issues on appeal and manifest error analysis)
State v. Lyons, 174 Wn.2d 354 (2012) (probable cause requirement under state and federal constitutions)
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (2009) (standards for ineffective-assistance review)