State v. Fuentes, 183 Wash. 2d 149

Two consolidated Washington cases challenge warrantless Terry stops after individuals visited apartments suspected of drug activity: State v. Sandoz and State v. Fuentes.
Sandoz: Officer observed an unfamiliar Jeep parked illegally outside a six-unit, high-crime complex; saw Sandoz exit a tenant’s apartment (tenant had prior drug convictions), walk to the Jeep, appear surprised and pale/shaky; officer asked Sandoz to exit the vehicle, Sandoz admitted possessing a crack pipe and later cocaine was found. Trial court denied suppression; conviction was affirmed below.
Fuentes: Officers surveilling Fenton’s apartment (past controlled buys and a prior search finding drugs) observed ~10 short visits over two hours; Fuentes made a short 5‑minute visit, was seen carrying a plastic bag into the apartment and later leaving with the bag noticeably lighter; officers stopped her car, she admitted delivering marijuana. Trial court denied suppression; conviction was affirmed below.
The legal question in both cases: whether the totality of circumstances supplied individualized reasonable suspicion to justify Terry stops.
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed de novo the legal issue and substantial-evidence for factual findings, and reached different outcomes for the two defendants.

Issue	State’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Sandoz	Presence in a high‑crime complex, tenant’s drug history, unfamiliar vehicle behavior, Sandoz’s surprise, conflicting stories, pallor/shaking, and trespass/loiter authority justified stop	Stop lacked individualized suspicion; facts were consistent with lawful guest behavior and officer relied on a hunch	No — Terry stop of Sandoz was unjustified; evidence suppressed
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Fuentes	Past controlled buys and a search at Fenton’s apartment, observed short‑stay traffic, plus Fuentes’ brief visit carrying a bag that was lighter on exit created individualized suspicion of drug delivery	Mere proximity to a suspected drug house and carrying a bag are insufficient; seizure lacked individualized suspicion and was akin to Doughty	Yes — Terry stop of Fuentes was supported by individualized reasonable suspicion; conviction affirmed

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigative stop standard requiring reasonable suspicion)
State v. Doughty, 170 Wn.2d 57 (2010) (presence at suspected drug house and short stay alone do not supply reasonable suspicion)
State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1 (1986) (short‑stay traffic plus corroborating information can support a stop)
State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509 (1991) (totality‑of‑circumstances and specific/articulable facts requirement for stops)
State v. Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d 534 (2008) (surprised/startled reactions to police do not alone create reasonable suspicion)
State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (2009) (standard of review for suppression rulings)