State v. Morgan, 440 P.3d 136

Background

Fire at David Morgan's home; his ex-wife Brenda severely injured; both transported to hospitals with clothing removed by staff.
Firefighters and medics observed blood and gasoline odors on clothing; hospital staff placed Morgan's clothing in plastic bags and left them on a counter.
Officer Breault was sent to Morgan's hospital room to obtain information and was later instructed by a supervisor to collect Morgan's clothing; Breault seized the bagged clothing and a utility knife with dried blood nearby.
Morgan was charged with attempted murder, first-degree arson, and assault and moved to suppress the clothing seizure; trial court denied suppression (found exigent circumstances), Court of Appeals reversed.
Supreme Court held exigent circumstances were not established but concluded the seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine, rejecting inadvertence as a required separate element.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure of clothing	State: contamination risk and evidentiary loss justified immediate seizure	Morgan: officers showed no urgency; clothing sat hours on counter so no exigency	No — State failed to prove exigent circumstances by clear and convincing evidence
Whether plain view doctrine authorized seizure of bagged hospital clothing	State: officers lawfully present and could reasonably conclude clothing was evidentiary from surrounding facts	Morgan: seizing officer did not personally observe incriminating signs (smell/visible blood) and lacked immediate probable cause	Yes — seizure lawful under plain view; inadvertence not a separate required element
Whether inadvertence is a distinct element of plain view	State: plain view applies without requiring inadvertence	Morgan: plain view requires the seizing officer to have immediately perceived incriminating nature (includes inadvertence)	Inadvertence is not a separate requirement; it is common but not necessary
Whether collective or communicated officer knowledge can support plain view seizure	State: supervisor’s knowledge and context justified Breault’s seizure	Morgan: seizing officer must personally have immediate awareness of incriminating nature; cannot rely on uncommunicated third‑party observations	Court permitted reliance on surrounding circumstances (including supervisor direction) so long as seizure was not pretextual and incriminating nature was immediately apparent under context

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343 (discussing warrant requirement and exceptions under article I, § 7)
City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wash.2d 260 (constitutional authority of law principle)
State v. Garvin, 166 Wash.2d 242 (State must prove warrant exception by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Baird, 187 Wash.2d 210 (exigent‑circumstances standard requires compelling need and impracticality of obtaining warrant)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (inadvertence common but not necessary for plain‑view seizures)
State v. Hatchie, 161 Wash.2d 390 (plain view elements articulated)
State v. Kull, 155 Wash.2d 80 (prior Washington articulation including inadvertence language)
State v. Hudson, 124 Wash.2d 107 (when objects are "immediately apparent" under plain view)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (limits on manipulating items to establish probable cause under plain view)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (warrant requirement and exceptions; caution against ends‑justify‑means seizures)