320 P.3d 142
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jessica Hamilton was arrested after officers, called to serve a protective order, were shown a partially open purse by her husband Travis; officers then searched the purse and found a meth pipe and methamphetamine.
- Travis had brought the purse out of the house at officers’ suggestion and held it open for them; the purse contained Hamilton’s wedding rings.
- Hamilton at times told officers the purse was not hers but also allegedly said she had found it in her car, decided to keep it, and had put her rings in it.
- At the suppression hearing Hamilton argued the search of the house was unlawful (that Travis acted as the officers’ agent); she did not argue the purse search itself was an unlawful warrantless search.
- Trial counsel did not move to suppress the methamphetamine on the ground the purse search was an unlawful warrantless search; Hamilton was convicted and appealed, raising the purse-search argument for the first time.
- The court considered the unraised search argument only via an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, concluding counsel performed deficiently and Hamilton was prejudiced because the search was likely unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hamilton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hamilton preserved claim that meth was obtained via an unlawful warrantless search of the purse | She now argues the purse search was a warrantless search and no exception justified it | State: claim was not raised below and is unpreserved; appellate review therefore barred | Claim unpreserved; reviewed only as ineffective assistance of counsel issue |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress meth on purse-search grounds | Counsel was deficient for failing to move; no reasonable tactical reason; prejudice likely because suppression would have been granted | State: suppression motion would have been inconsistent with Hamilton’s trial theory and testimony; filing it could be unethical or judicially estop her | Court: counsel’s failure was deficient (no legitimate tactical reason) and prejudicial (suppression likely) |
| Whether Hamilton had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the purse | She had a possessory interest (placed rings in it, decided to keep it, left it in her house) so she had subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy | State: she disclaimed ownership of the purse, so no privacy interest; alternatively, she abandoned it or Travis could consent | Court: Hamilton had a reasonable expectation of privacy; disclaiming ownership did not amount to abandonment; Travis lacked authority to consent |
| Whether any warrant exception (abandonment, third-party consent, judicial estoppel) justified the search | Abandonment and consent do not apply; judicial estoppel inapplicable | State: abandonment, Travis’s consent, or judicial estoppel defeat suppression | Court: abandonment exception inapplicable; Travis had no authority to consent; judicial estoppel inapplicable in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Evans, 159 Wn.2d 402 (privacy interest can exist in nonowned containers; abandonment and expectation-of-privacy analysis)
- State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (standards for deficient performance and prejudice under Washington law)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (prejudice assessed by whether court likely would have granted suppression)
- State v. Bravo Ortega, 177 Wn.2d 116 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable under article I, section 7)