State of Washington v. Todd Robert Michal, 34744-3

In October 2014, 15‑year‑old Wendy Oldham ran away from home and was missing until January 25, 2015, when she contacted family and later moved to Idaho; she disappeared again February 27, 2015. Her parents did not consent to her being with Todd Michal.
Spokane law enforcement, investigating a report Oldham may have been with Michal, warned Michal by phone to notify police if he learned Oldham's location and referenced possible criminal exposure for "harboring a runaway."
On March 19, 2015, Deputy Dutton stopped Michal's truck at night and observed Oldham lying on the front bench seat, a position not visible from outside unless standing; Michal identified the passenger as "Wendy."
Oldham was taken into custody as a runaway; Michal said he would drive her to a store so she could call her mother and had a cell phone in his possession.
Michal was tried by the court (bench trial) on several counts; two counts were dismissed at trial start, and he was convicted of unlawful imprisonment. The trial court concluded Michal restrained Oldham while driving and need not have known her age for that offense.
On appeal Michal challenged sufficiency of evidence that he knowingly restrained Oldham; the Court of Appeals reversed the unlawful imprisonment conviction and ordered dismissal of that charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Michal)	Held
Whether transporting a passenger in a moving vehicle constitutes "restraint" sufficient for unlawful imprisonment	Presence in a moving vehicle can substantially interfere with liberty because driver could prevent exit (vehicle movement makes egress unsafe)	Mere transport in a vehicle, without evidence of force, threats, refusal to stop, or victim objection, is not a substantial interference with liberty	Reversed: mere transportation in a moving vehicle, without evidence the driver prevented exit or otherwise confined the passenger, is not unlawful imprisonment under the statute
Whether the State must prove defendant knew the victim was under 16 to establish unlawful imprisonment by acquiescence exception	Trial court held knowledge of victim’s age not required	Michal argued state must still prove restraint element independent of parental non‑consent; appellate court avoided deciding age knowledge because restraint was not proven	Not reached (court declined to decide because restraint was not established)

State v. Billups, 62 Wn. App. 122 (1991) (held that enticing minors into a vehicle could constitute restraint for purposes of kidnapping/child‑secreting)
State v. Dillon, 163 Wn. App. 101 (2011) (reversed kidnapping conviction where prosecution offered no evidence defendant would have prevented minor from exiting vehicle)
State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42 (2006) (upheld unlawful imprisonment where defendant used force and prevented victim from leaving vehicle)
State v. Robinson, 20 Wn. App. 882 (1978) (defines "substantial interference" as a real or material interference, not mere petty annoyance)