State v. Robinson, 171 Wash. 2d 292

Millan and Robinson were appealing trials completed before Gant but on direct appeal when Gant was decided; Gant narrowed the vehicle search incident to arrest rule.
Washington prior decisions allowed warrantless vehicle searches incident to arrest even when arrestee was secured, leading to a conflict with Gant.
Millán argued the vehicle search was unconstitutional under Gant; the Court of Appeals held the issue was waived for failure to object at trial.
Robinson challenged the search on appeal after Gant; the Court of Appeals initially affirmed, citing pre-Gant law.
This Court held that Gant and Patton apply retroactively and that issue preservation does not bar first-time on-appeal challenges under those circumstances; cases were remanded for suppression hearings to develop the record.
Suppression hearings were ordered to determine if the searches were lawful under Gant/Patton or other exceptions and, if inadmissible, whether the remaining evidence sufficed to sustain the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a defendant challenge a vehicle search for the first time on appeal after a new controlling interpretation?	Millan/Robinson rely on retroactivity of Gant/Patton.	State contends preservation rules barred new on-appeal claims.	Yes; retroactive application allows challenge on appeal.
Are issue-preservation rules applicable when the controlling interpretation is retroactive and the trial record is incomplete?	Retroactive change allows review despite trial record gaps.	Preservation should still apply to pre-change records.	No; preservation does not bar review under these circumstances; remand for suppression hearings.
What remedy is appropriate when record is insufficient to resolve the legality of searches on direct review?	Record is incomplete; suppression hearing needed.	Remand unnecessary if substantial evidence already shows illegality.	Remand for suppression hearings to develop the record.

State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144 (1986) (prior permissive scope of search incident to arrest under Stroud (pre-Patton/Gant))
State v. Ringer, 100 Wn.2d 686 (1983) (Chimel-based standard for search incident to arrest under Washington Constitution)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (immediate control standard and vehicle search scope discussed in Chimel context)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (establishes scope of search incident to arrest (immediate control))
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits automobile search incident to arrest to certain circumstances)
State v. Patton, 167 Wn.2d 379 (2009) (applies ChimeI-like rationale to vehicle searches; retroactivity discussed)
In re Personal Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321 (1992) (retroactivity principle for new rules in direct review)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (retroactivity framework for new rules)
State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818 (2009) (manifest error standard under RAP 2.5(a))
McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (manifest constitutional error standard; waiver concepts)
State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144 (1986) (pre-Gant expansion of vehicle search scope; later overruled by Patton/Valdez)