State v. Louthan
242 P.3d 954
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Louthan was stopped on a flooded highway closure for traffic control violations and suspected of DUI under former RCW 46.61.502.
- Officer Hayden observed Pupillary constriction and other indicia of intoxication, plus Louthan produced tax return as proof of insurance instead of a license.
- From outside the car, Hayden saw a device behind Louthan’s seat later identified as drug paraphernalia (an orange juice container bong).
- Hayden arrested Louthan, performed a vehicle search, and found methamphetamine and heroin, among other items, with field tests supporting the findings.
- Louthan moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest violated RCW 69.50.412(1) and the local ordinance; the trial court denied suppression.
- The Court of Appeals addressed whether the arrest was lawful and whether the vehicle search incident to arrest was proper under Gant, Patton, and Valdez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for DUI arrest | Louthan contends there was no probable cause for DUI arrest. | State asserts there was probable cause based on observed DUI indicators. | Probable cause to arrest for DUI existed; arrest lawful. |
| Search incident to arrest scope | Louthan preserved only the arrest issue, not the scope of the search. | State argues the search was justified; preservation concerns are separate. | Open preservation defect; court upheld search as valid given probable cause and Gant framework. |
| Open view seizure of paraphernalia | Argues seizure of bong was improper; not protected by open view. | Seizure was permissible under open view doctrine (no search) and contraband forfeiture laws. | Seizure of bong was lawful under open view; no violation. |
| Gant/Valdez/Patton applicable rules | Argues Patton/Valdez limit searches when arrestee not driver or recent occupant. | Majority applies Gant for evidence related to the offense of arrest; Patton inapt here. | Gant applied; Patton not controlling; search for evidence of DUI offense did not violate. Valdez distinguished. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huff, 64 Wash.App. 641, 826 P.2d 698 (Wash. App. 1992) (arrest supported by probable cause not invalidated by police relying on different offense)
- State v. O'Neill, 148 Wash.2d 564, 62 P.3d 489 (Wash. 2003) (open view and search incident principles in context of arrest)
- State v. Gaddy, 152 Wash.2d 64, 93 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2004) (probable cause standards for arrest; objective test)
- Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- State v. Patton, 167 Wash.2d 379, 219 P.3d 651 (Wash. 2009) (state constitution limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761, 224 P.3d 751 (Wash. 2009) (scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest under state constitution)
- State v. Snapp, 153 Wash.App. 485, 219 P.3d 971 (Wash. App. 2009) (Gant-based warrantless search of vehicle for evidence of arrest offense)
- State v. Millan, 151 Wash.App. 492, 212 P.3d 603 (Wash. App. 2009) (preservation and review of suppression issues in light of new rules)