State Of Washington v. Stephanie Keen
49055-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- On Sept. 26, 2015, Stephanie Keen locked herself in a gas-station men’s restroom and called 911 claiming someone was chasing and shooting at her; earlier she had been dropped off nearby and appeared delusional.
- Officer Murphy forced entry, found Keen alone with a purse about six inches from her, handcuffed and arrested her for obstructing a police officer, placed her in the patrol car, and set her purse on the trunk.
- Officer Murphy searched the purse before transport and found methamphetamine; medical personnel cleared Keen and she was booked for possession.
- Keen moved to suppress the purse search arguing it was not a valid search incident to arrest, was a pretext to find evidence, and was not supported as a weapons frisk; the State defended under Brock, weapons-search, and community-caretaking rationales.
- The trial court denied suppression, concluding the purse was part of Keen’s person under State v. Brock and that the search was incident to arrest; Keen waived jury trial, was convicted after a stipulated-facts bench trial, and sentenced.
- At sentencing the court imposed $2,800 in LFOs, inquired briefly into Keen’s ability to work, set $25 monthly payments, and checked that it had inquired into ability to pay; Keen appealed suppression and the discretionary LFOs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of purse search (search incident to arrest) | Keen: purse not in actual physical possession at arrest; search was pretext for evidence and not justified as weapons frisk | State: under Brock, items that will travel to jail are part of the person and searchable; officer searched for weapons/ID and planned to transport purse with Keen | Court: affirmed denial of suppression — although purse not physically on Keen at arrest, circumstantial evidence showed she had possessed it immediately before arrest and Brock permits search incident to arrest |
| Adequacy of factual finding re: officer’s intent (finding 1.30) | Keen: insufficient evidence to support finding that officer intended to take purse to hospital/jail | State: officer testified he assumed purse was Keen’s and intended to transport it for ID/safety and to take it to jail if not committed | Court: substantial evidence supports finding 1.30 |
| Applicability of Byrd / Brock distinction (actual possession vs. immediately preceding possession) | Keen: Byrd/Brock do not justify searching items not in actual possession at arrest | State: Brock clarifies that items that will go to jail remain functionally part of the person even if not on the person at arrest | Court: Brock controls; the ‘‘immediately preceding’’ possession test satisfied by circumstances, so search lawful |
| Imposition of discretionary LFOs without adequate inquiry | Keen: court failed to make sufficient individualized inquiry into present/future ability to pay per Blazina | State: (at sentencing) represented LFO requests; court asked defendant and counsel about ability to work and accepted $25/month plan | Court: reversed and remanded LFOs — inquiry was inadequate under Blazina; remand for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brock, 184 Wn.2d 148 (2015) (personal items that will go to jail with an arrestee are functionally part of the person and searchable incident to arrest)
- State v. Byrd, 178 Wn.2d 611 (2013) (search-incident-to-arrest rule extends to personal property immediately associated with the arrestee, but limited to items in actual and exclusive possession at or immediately preceding arrest)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (trial court must make an individualized inquiry into present and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)