State v. Duncan, 185 Wash. 2d 430

Around midnight in Yakima (2009) someone shot into a house; a resident was grazed. Callers described the shooter’s car as white. Police stopped Duncan’s white Ford Taurus and removed and handcuffed Duncan and two passengers.
Officers opened the car without a warrant, observed shell casings and a gun between the front passenger seat and door, seized the gun, and later obtained a warrant for a more thorough search. Passengers told police Duncan fired and discarded the gun.
Duncan was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree assault and unlawful possession of a firearm; sentenced to the top of the standard range (1,159 months). The trial court imposed various legal financial obligations (LFOs) without discussing or inquiring into Duncan’s ability to pay.
On appeal Duncan, for the first time, challenged imposition of LFOs for lack of an ability-to-pay inquiry; the Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue and affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court stayed review pending Blazina and then granted review.
The Court considered two main questions: (1) whether Duncan could challenge LFOs for the first time on appeal and whether remand/resentencing was required, and (2) whether the pre-warrant search/seizure of the gun from the vehicle was lawful given occupants were secured in patrol cars.

Issue	Duncan's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of LFOs imposed without an ability-to-pay inquiry	LFOs invalid because trial court made no individualized inquiry into present/future ability to pay; challenge may be raised on appeal	LFO challenge was waived by failure to object below; if error, remand for a hearing suffices	Court exercised RAP 2.5 discretion in line with Blazina and remanded for resentencing with proper ability-to-pay inquiry
Legality of warrantless vehicle search/seizure of gun	Search exceeded permissible protective sweep because occupants were handcuffed and secured in patrol cars; evidence should be suppressed	Search justified by officer safety/impending tow (community caretaking) and plain view/inventory analogies	Search was upheld under a limited community caretaking exception: officers may sweep when there is reasonable suspicion of an unsecured weapon and the vehicle has been or will be impounded/towed; plain view and inventory justifications rejected

State v. Barklind, 87 Wn.2d 814 (discusses constitutional limitations on court-ordered LFOs)
State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (requires individualized ability-to-pay consideration before imposing LFOs)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (remanded for resentencing where courts failed to inquire into ability to pay)
State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177 (limits search-incident-to-arrest authority for vehicles after occupants are secured)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (reexamined vehicle searches incident to arrest; foundational to Snapp)
State v. Houser, 95 Wn.2d 143 (describes narrow exceptions to warrant requirement and cautions against pretextual searches)
State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61 (places burden on State to show warrant or applicable exception)