State v. Barnes, 243 P.3d 165

Barnes was arrested for felony harassment after threatening to return with a gun and shoot people at a bank.
Officers observed a gun box and related items in Barnes's car from a public vantage point while Barnes was in custody.
The gun box contained a Taurus 9 mm handgun; officers opened the box and found ammunition and other items inside the car.
The trial court suppressed the gun-case evidence as unlawfully seized, suppressing the gun box and related items during a vehicle search incident to arrest.
The State sought admission of the gun evidence under Gant, the Washington Constitution, or the open-view exception; Barnes cross-appelled challenging the factual finding that the gun case was unlocked and argued dismissal with prejudice was improper.
The Court of Appeals reversed the suppression order, holding the gun case was in open view, supported by probable cause to arrest, and the search valid, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the gun case was admissible under Gant or article I, section 7	Barnes argues suppression was proper under Patton; the gun case lacked exigent justification under Gant and Patton.	State argues gun case is admissible under Gant or open-view exception, and under Patton's framework.	Gun case admissible; suppression reversed
Whether the open-view observation justified seizure without a warrant	Barnes contends Ozuna/Patton require exigent circumstances for warrantless open-view seizures.	State asserts the gun case was in open view, with probable cause to believe it was evidence of the crime, justifying seizure.	Open-view seizure supported; suppression rejected
Whether Patton controls vehicle search after arrest	Barnes relies on Patton to limit vehicle searches absent nexus to crime of arrest.	State distinguishes Patton as involving different facts; Barnes's vehicle was Barnes's own car with probable-cause linkage to the crime.	Patton distinguishable; search permissible
Whether the trial court properly dismissed the felony harassment charge without prejudice	Barnes cross-appeal contends dismissal without prejudice should be with prejudice if suppression occurred.	State argues dismissal without prejudice was appropriate if suppression impaired proof; on remand this issue may be reconsidered.	Not resolved; remanded with suppression reversed

State v. Kilburn, 151 Wash.2d 36 (2004) (true threats under RCW 9A.46.020 require context-specific interpretation)
State v. Patton, 167 Wash.2d 379 (2009) (vehicle searches require nexus to the crime of arrest; differs from open-view logic)
State v. Ozuna, 80 Wash.App. 684 (1996) (distinguishes open-view from plain-view and relevance of exigent circumstances)
State v. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d 898 (1981) (open-view principles in evaluating non-intrusive observations)
State v. Perez, 41 Wash.App. 481 (1985) (distinguishes plain-view from open-view observations)
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) (vehicle-search authority tied to evidence within reach or within vehicle)
State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 (2009) (vehicle-search incident to arrest requires warrant absent exigent circumstances or other exceptions)
State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144 (1986) (older standard on openness of evidence later modified by Valdez)
State v. Young, State v. Young, 28 Wash.App. 412 (1981) (diminished privacy expectations in automobile contents)
State v. Kilburn, 151 Wash.2d 36, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004) (true threats under RCW 9A.46.020; freedom of speech considerations)