State v. Weber
247 P.3d 782
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Trooper observed Weber driving out of a residential complex at 2:53 a.m. and noted speeding (47 mph in a 35 mph zone) and failing to stop before a crosswalk.
- Trooper Shiflett stopped Weber, observed bloodshot/watery eyes, and detected the odor of alcohol; Weber submitted to field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
- Breath tests showed alcohol levels of .115 and .118; Weber was cited for DUI but not for traffic infractions.
- Weber moved to suppress the post-stop evidence, arguing the stop was pretext to investigate DUI.
- District court ruled the stop was pretextual, suppressing the evidence; superior court reversed, finding not a pretext stop.
- This court affirms the superior court, concluding the stop was valid and there was no pretext; remands for trial on the merits of the suppression issue, with the traffic stop upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court applied the correct standard of review in RALJ review. | Weber argues the proper test is substantial evidence supporting district findings, not reversal standard. | Weber’s position relies on incorrect application of RALJ 9.1; the court should review for errors of law with deference to district findings. | Not pivotal; merits of suppression addressed; panel agrees standard governs review and addresses the pretext issue on the merits. |
| Whether the stop was a pretextual traffic stop under Washington law. | Weber contends the stop was motivated by DUI investigation, not traffic enforcement. | Weber argues the trooper’s conduct shows enforcement of traffic code as the actual purpose. | The stop was not pretextual; it was a valid traffic stop based on observed violations; suppression affirmed is reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343 (1999) (pretext; weighs subjective and objective factors; failure to cite is not dispositive)
- State v. Nichols, 161 Wash.2d 1 (2007) (pretext stops; patrol duties; no warrantless seizure when driving offense is the basis for stop)
- State v. Minh Hoang, 101 Wash.App. 732 (2000) (patrol stop not pretextual where traffic enforcement is the basis; timing and context matter)
- State v. Montes-Malindas, 144 Wash.App. 254 (2008) (totality of the circumstances; subjective intent and objective reasonableness; probative value of considering motive)
- State v. Ford, 110 Wash.2d 827 (1988) (standard of review in appellate review of district court decisions)