State Of Washington v. R.d.a.
75451-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Late-night robbery at Cal Anderson Park: victim Eleuterio Orazon was assaulted and an iPhone 6S Plus was stolen; witnesses later provided descriptions of two suspects (one described as an 18–20 yo light-skinned/Native American male in a white shirt with long black ponytail; another as a teenage black male in a black sweater).
- Officer Ducre (plainclothes) had earlier encountered a group in the park he believed intended to rob him and later thought two individuals he saw matched that group.
- Around 2:23 a.m., officers encountered Randy Andrews (15) and Timmothy Miller near the bar district; both appeared underage and matched multiple aspects of the suspect descriptions.
- Officers detained and frisked them; Miller had an iPhone 6S Plus in his pocket and another phone in hand and said he "found" the phone.
- A show-up identification (later suppressed as unduly suggestive) resulted in victim IDs of Andrews and Miller; officers handcuffed the men and arrested them after concluding probable cause existed; Andrews was convicted of first-degree robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Andrews (Terry stop) | Andrews: stop lacked reasonable suspicion; court improperly relied on post‑seizure evidence and unsupported findings | State: combined pre‑stop facts (description, Ducre's prior encounter, location/time, underage presence) provided reasonable suspicion | Court: affirmed — totality of pre‑stop facts gave reasonable articulable suspicion to detain |
| Whether racial/age/clothing matches may be used in building suspicion | Andrews: reliance on perceived race and imperfect age/clothing match renders suspicion insufficient | State: race, age, hairstyle, clothing, and accompaniment were descriptors that together created a close match | Court: affirmed — perceived race was one among several matching, supporting suspicion |
| Whether the detention exceeded Terry scope (handcuffs, 40–45 min) | Andrews: handcuffing and prolonged detention made stop a de facto arrest without probable cause, so evidence should be suppressed | State: once probable cause existed (phone matching stolen type and Miller's statement), detention could convert to arrest and continued detention was lawful | Court: held detention became custodial after handcuffing but probable cause supported arrest; suppression not warranted for evidence obtained thereafter |
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest before show‑up | Andrews: officers lacked probable cause at time of handcuffing; later evidence was tainted by an unlawful stop | State: facts known (matching description, Ducre recognition, underage presence, Miller possessing iPhone 6S Plus and saying he "found" it) provided probable cause | Court: probable cause existed once phone matching the stolen model was found and Miller’s explanation was not credible; arrest lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop reasonable‑suspicion standard)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509 (reviewing totality of circumstances for investigatory stop)
- State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (State’s burden to justify warrantless search by clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Gaddy, 152 Wn.2d 64 (probable cause defined by objective standard)
- State v. Williams, 102 Wn.2d 733 (conversion of Terry stop to custodial arrest when probable cause develops)