State of Washington v. Pavel Kanyushkin, 37446-7

On Oct. 18, 2018 Marilyn Dhaenens was struck and killed walking on Country Vista Drive; no eyewitnesses to the collision.
Surveillance showed a speeding, lifted red pickup with items in the bed and a distinctive rear-window sticker near the scene; plastic grill clips were found near the body.
Police identified Pavel Kanyushkin’s red pickup as a possible match; officers contacted him at a job site after he called and volunteered an alibi.
After a prolonged on-scene conversation in which Kanyushkin hesitated because he needed the truck for work and his parents urged cooperation, he agreed to let officers take the truck; it was towed and a warrant obtained the next day.
Forensic testing linked grill clips and plastic on the truck to items at the scene; Kanyushkin later admitted driving through the intersection, thought he hit debris, and did not stop; cell‑phone searches after police contact were also recovered.
Kanyushkin was convicted of vehicular homicide and failure to remain; he appealed, contesting suppression rulings for the truck seizure and the cell‑phone search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kanyushkin voluntarily consented to seizure of his truck	State: Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; officers did not coerce and accurately stated they could obtain a warrant	Kanyushkin: Consent was involuntary — no Miranda, not told he could refuse, youth/immigrant status, misrepresentation, repeated requests, threat to seize truck	Court: Consent was voluntary. No custodial Miranda required; officer’s statements about a warrant were not coercive; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness
Whether cell‑phone evidence should have been suppressed for lack of probable cause and, if so, whether admission was harmless	State: Warrant issues conceded; but cell‑phone evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect contested elements	Kanyushkin: Warrant lacked probable cause; evidence from phone should be suppressed and was prejudicial	Court: Although warrant validity not defended, admission of phone evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — the phone evidence tended to favor Kanyushkin and did not undermine the verdict

State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793 (Wash. 2004) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement)
State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (Wash. 2003) (State bears burden to prove consent was voluntary; totality of circumstances test)
State v. Cherry, 191 Wn. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (accurate statements about warrant authority do not automatically negate consent)
State v. Smith, 115 Wn.2d 775 (Wash. 1990) (discusses limits on law enforcement statements affecting consent)
State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350 (Wash. 2018) (framework for constitutional harmless‑error analysis)
State v. Watt, 160 Wn.2d 626 (Wash. 2007) (State must prove constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required only in custodial interrogation)