279 P.3d 917
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rape occurred at night in a Bellingham park; victim described assailant as Hispanic man with a stocking cap and mustache and knife used during assault.
- Police tracked the suspect after the victim reported the rape; canine unit led to Salinas in a sleeping bag, he fled and was chased and restrained.
- Officers identified Salinas, learned of a felony warrant, and arrested him on that warrant at the scene and then at the station.
- A search incident to arrest was conducted on Salinas’ clothing, which was later tested; DNA from jacket, underwear, and rape kit linked Salinas to the crime.
- Salinas moved to suppress identification and DNA evidence obtained from his clothing; trial proceeded with dog-tracking evidence and in-court identification of Salinas.
- Judgment: Salinas convicted of three counts of first-degree rape and one count of first-degree kidnapping; sentenced to life without parole as a persistent offender; on remand, kidnapping conviction to be vacated and a same-criminal-conduct determination to be decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arrest was custodial and valid for a search incident to arrest | Salinas contends the search occurred before a custodial arrest | State argues custodial arrest existed, authorizing search | Custodial arrest found; search incident to arrest valid under WA law |
| Whether the warrantless seizure and examination of clothing was permissible | Salinas asserts scope exceeded for evidence collection | State asserts clothing seizure was within incident-to-arrest authority | Warrantless seizure/examination of clothing proper under search incident to arrest |
| Whether RCW 10.31.030 applies to this seizure before booking | Rule requires bail opportunity before inventory search | Seizure was incident to arrest, not inventory search | RCW 10.31.030 inapplicable; bail provision not triggered |
| Admissibility and weight of dog-tracking evidence | Challenge to foundation and lack of corroboration | Foundational testimony sufficient; corroboration required | Foundational; corroboration required; no reversible error; weight for jury |
| Whether the two other sentencing issues require jury finding or affect same-criminal-conduct analysis | Requests jury finding on same-criminal-conduct and persistent-offender specifics | No requirement for jury finding on persistent-offender determination | Same-criminal-conduct determination to be decided on remand; kidnapping to be vacated; persistent offender sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (2003) (narrows search-incident-to-arrest under WA Constitution)
- State v. Patton, 167 Wn.2d 379 (2009) (arrest authority and custody considerations)
- State v. Rivard, 131 Wn.2d 63 (1997) (custody determination is objective)
- State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126 (2004) (objective custody test for arrest)
- State v. Radka, 120 Wn. App. 43 (2004) (detention vs arrest indicators)
- State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144 (1986) (reinstates Ringer principles; common-law origins)
- State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 (2009) (reaffirmed Ringer-based scope)
- State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177 (2012) (return to common-law origins of search incident to arrest)