349 P.3d 909
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- A.A., a 15-year-old runaway, was detained by Officer Escamilla under Washington’s Family Reconciliation Act (RCW 13.32A) after A.A.’s mother requested police transport him to a Crisis Residential Center (CRC).
- Officer Escamilla performed a search prior to placing A.A. in the patrol car; a pat-down revealed no weapon, but the officer searched A.A.’s pants pockets and found methamphetamine and marijuana.
- A.A. moved to suppress the drugs as the product of an unlawful warrantless search; the trial court denied suppression and convicted A.A. after a stipulated-facts bench trial.
- The State justified the search as necessary because the CRC requires searches of youth before admission and invoked community caretaking/emergency-search analogies.
- A.A. conceded authority to detain and to perform a weapons frisk but argued pocket search exceeded any warrant exception given he did not pose a danger.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of suppression, holding the State failed to prove an exception to the warrant requirement justified searching A.A.’s pockets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless search of A.A.’s pockets was lawful under an exception to the warrant requirement | A.A.: search exceeded a weapons frisk and no emergency existed to justify broader intrusion | State: search was impliedly authorized because A.A. was being taken to CRC which requires searches; analogized to search-incident-to-arrest or community caretaking/emergency exception | Search of pockets was not justified; only a protective pat-down for weapons was permissible absent emergency or other exception; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits limited protective frisk for weapons during investigatory stop)
- State v. Dempsey, 88 Wn. App. 918 (1997) (search incident to civil commitment upheld where detainee posed imminent danger; broader search than Terry permitted)
- State v. Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d 373 (2000) (community caretaking analysis; noncriminal investigations must be strictly relevant and cautiously applied)
- People v. Dandrea, 736 P.2d 1211 (Colo. 1987) (civil protective custody generally permits only pat-downs; privacy interests weigh heavily)
- R.A.S. v. Florida, 141 So. 3d 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (juvenile detained for truancy: weapons pat-down allowed but full search not authorized)