State v. Cruz, 93732-0

Officer McCormick observed Eric Cruz illegally "snag" salmon on the Similkameen River, arrested him, handcuffed and searched him, finding no weapons on his person.
Cruz truthfully told the officer he had firearms in his truck; Cruz was secured in the patrol car and could not reach the truck when the officer retrieved the guns.
McCormick removed three firearms from Cruz’s truck without a warrant, later learning Cruz had a felony that made firearm possession unlawful; officer retained guns as evidence.
The State charged Cruz with three counts of second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm; Cruz moved to suppress the firearms and the trial court granted suppression under Arizona v. Gant.
The trial court found the suppression order effectively terminated the case and entered a dismissal with prejudice at the State’s request; the State appealed the suppression order but did not initially assign error to the dismissal.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review but dismissed it because the State invited and did not challenge the dismissal order, making effective relief impossible.

Issue	State's Argument	Cruz's Argument	Held
Whether Gant or Terry/Long governs a warrantless vehicle search here	Search permissible under Terry/Long (protective frisk for vehicle) or other exceptions; Gant not controlling	Gant controls search-incident-to-arrest limits and bars search because arrestee was secured and could not reach vehicle	Court did not decide substantive rule: dismissed review on procedural grounds (State failed to challenge dismissal)
Whether the appealable suppression order provides relief despite trial court dismissal	Appeal of suppression should proceed; attempted to amend notice of appeal to include dismissal	Suppression order was appealable but dismissal terminated case; suppression ruling alone insufficient if dismissal stands	Dismissed: State failed to assign/brief error as to dismissal it requested, so no effective relief available
Whether invited error / failure to assign or brief dismissal bars review	Argued amended notice cured defect	Argued suppression order appealable under RAP 2.2(b)(2) and amended notice suffices	Held that invited error, failure to assign error, and failure to brief dismissal govern; prior precedent requires dismissal
Whether mootness exception for issues of public importance applies	Sought review despite mootness based on Fourth Amendment significance	Emphasized constitutional issue but relied on procedural defaults	Rejected exception: prior cases (Fortun/Pam/Perry) preclude review when State invited or failed to challenge dismissal

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle search incident to arrest when arrestee is secured and cannot access passenger compartment)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may frisk a stopped person for weapons based on reasonable, articulable suspicion of danger)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (extends Terry frisk to vehicle compartments when suspect may gain immediate control of weapons)
State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177 (2012) (Washington discussion of search-incident-to-arrest doctrine)
State v. Fortun, 94 Wn.2d 754 (1980) (State cannot appeal suppression order when it invited and failed to challenge its own dismissal)
State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507 (1984) (invited error and failure to appeal dismissal bars review)
State v. Perry, 120 Wn.2d 200 (1992) (same; dismissal required where State failed to assign error to dismissal it sought)
State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315 (1995) (distinguishes situations where State appeals dismissal rather than suppression)
State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (2012) (doctrine that ineffective relief makes case moot)
State v. Beaver, 184 Wn.2d 321 (2015) (constitutional issues are public in nature but do not override procedural defaults)