State v. Louthan
242 P.3d 954
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- bench trial on stipulated facts; Louthan convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine (RCW 69.50.4013(1)).
- arresting officer observed potential drug paraphernalia in open view behind Louthan’s seat while he was stopped on a flooded highway closure.
- officer seized the orange juice-container bong and later found methamphetamine and heroin in the car; Louthan moved to suppress the evidence as arrests based on unconstitutional basis.
- court denied suppression; on appeal, issues include arrest legality, search-incident-to-arrest scope, and application of Gant/Patton/Valdez; panel affirmed the conviction.
- court applied open-view and exigent-circumstances reasoning to uphold seizure and search, holding probable cause supported the arrest for DUI and that the search was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause supported Louthan’s arrest for DUI rather than paraphernalia possession | Louthan contends no probable cause under state law for a DUI arrest; the paraphernalia charge is unconstitutional | State argues probable cause existed to arrest for driving under the influence, validating the arrest despite the paraphernalia basis | Probable cause existed to arrest for DUI, validating the arrest |
| Whether the vehicle search incident to arrest complied with Gant/Patton/Valdez | Louthan asserts the search exceeded permissible scope under state constitutional standards | State contends the search was permissible under Gant as evidence of the crime of arrest | Search upheld; scope preserved as evidence related to the offense of arrest; Patton/Valdez distinctions discussed but not controlling here |
| Whether the bong seizure was lawful under open-view and exigent circumstances | Argues open-view seizure requires exigent circumstances or a warrant | Argues open-view seizure valid; exigency existed due to flooding and roadblock context | Open-view seizure permissible; exigent circumstances supported seizure |
| Whether Louthan properly preserved challenges to the search for appellate review | Failure to object to search scope precluded review | Preservation was insufficient in the absence of specific grounds | Issue not preserved for review; affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huff, 64 Wn. App. 641, 826 P.2d 698 (1992) (Wash. App. 1992) (probable cause may justify an arrest even if based on a different offense than the one prosecuted)
- State v. McKenna, 91 Wn. App. 554, 958 P.2d 1017 (1998) (Wash. App. 1998) (probable cause focus; officer’s belief measured by objective grounds)
- State v. Gaddy, 152 Wn.2d 64, 93 P.3d 872 (2004) (Wash. 2004) (probable cause standard; objective evaluation of facts known to officer)
- State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 62 P.3d 489 (2003) (Wash. 2003) (search incident to arrest requires lawful arrest as prerequisite)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 335 (2009) (U.S. 2009) (retrospective application of new rule; search incident to arrest scope for vehicle)
- State v. Snapp, 153 Wash. App. 485, 219 P.3d 971 (2009) (Wash. App. 2009) (searches related to crime of arrest under Gant)
- State v. Patton, 167 Wash. 2d 379, 219 P.3d 651 (2009) (Wash. 2009) (state constitutional limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- State v. Valdez, 167 Wash. 2d 761, 224 P.3d 751 (2009) (Wash. 2009) (scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest under state constitution)
- State v. Afana, 169 Wash. 2d 169, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (Wash. 2010) (recent state constitutional treatment of exclusionary rule)
- State v. Millan, 151 Wash. App. 492, 212 P.3d 603 (2009) (Wash. App. 2009) (preservation/appeal of suppression issues)