State Of Washington v. Jean Paul Kirkpatrick
75255-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- In a downtown Seattle lobby on Jan 8, 2016, Jean Paul Kirkpatrick asked for the time, grabbed Avdikadir Ali’s cell phone when Ali produced it, and fled.
- A security guard (Cole) and others chased Kirkpatrick into a cordoned construction area; people yelled that the runner had stolen a phone.
- Off-duty and on-duty officers converged; Officer Smith ordered “Seattle Police, stop,” grabbed Kirkpatrick’s arm, had him sit to prevent flight, and Officer Grayson later handcuffed him.
- Kirkpatrick made statements while detained indicating (1) he was being chased by a man with a gun and (2) the phone was in his pocket and he regretted taking it.
- Kirkpatrick was charged with first degree theft, moved to suppress the stop, search, and statements; the trial court denied suppression and a jury convicted. He appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Kirkpatrick's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of initial stop (Terry) | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him when they grabbed him | Officers had reasonable suspicion based on sprinting through cordoned construction area, pursuit, horns, and bystanders yelling that a phone was stolen | Stop was reasonable under Terry; suppression denied |
| Scope of detention (force, sit-down, handcuffs) | Officers exceeded Terry scope by forcing him to sit and handcuffing him | Sitting was reasonable to prevent flight; handcuffing within stop scope given officer observations and safety concerns | Actions did not exceed proper Terry scope |
| Admissibility of statements / Miranda | Statements made during detention required Miranda warnings and should be excluded | Statements were spontaneous or noncustodial (Terry stop) so Miranda not required | Statements admissible; no Miranda violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel erred by not moving to suppress based on excessive scope | Motion would have been unfounded; failing to move was reasonable strategy | No ineffective assistance; both prongs not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop reasonable-suspicion standard)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Acrey, 148 Wn.2d 738 (review of suppression hearing conclusions of law)
- State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509 (discusses Terry stop framework under Washington law)
- State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1 (statements during noncustodial Terry stops are non-Miranda custodial)