State v. Weber
159 Wash. App. 779
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Trooper Shiflett observed Weber commit traffic violations (failing to stop at sidewalk, speeding) in a residential area around 2:53 a.m. and paced the vehicle for about three blocks.
- Weber showed bloodshot, watery eyes and odor of alcohol; he consented to field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI after breath tests of 0.115 and 0.118.
- Weber moved to suppress the evidence, contending the stop was a pretext to investigate DUI rather than enforce traffic laws; district court held the stop pretextual and suppressed the evidence.
- The district court made five factual findings and concluded the stop was not for traffic enforcement, but for a pretext to pursue DUI; the district court suppressed all evidence.
- The superior court reversed the district court, ruling there was sufficient evidence to reverse and that no pretext stop occurred; the written order did not clearly state the standard applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review in RALJ review | Weber argues the superior court applied the wrong standard (de novo) rather than substantial-evidence review. | Weber contends the RALJ framework requires deference to district findings; the superior should review for errors of law with substantial-evidence support. | Superior court applied correct standard; merits addressed |
| Whether the stop was pretextual | Weber asserts the traffic violations were a pretext to investigate DUI and suppressible. | Shiflett argues the stop was for traffic violations observed during normal patrol and not a pretext. | Stop was not pretextual; traffic stop valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343 (1999) (pretext stops require both subjective intent and objective reasonableness)
- State v. Nichols, 161 Wn.2d 1 (2007) (pretext stop doctrine established; traffic stop to pursue unrelated criminal activity is invalid)
- State v. Montes-Malindas, 144 Wn. App. 254 (2008) (advises evaluating officer’s subjective and objective conduct; admissions are probative)
- State v. Minh Hoang, 101 Wn. App. 732 (2000) (patrol stops may enforce traffic code if that is the actual reason; not a pretext)
- Ford v. State, 110 Wn.2d 827 (1988) (standard of review for appellate review of district court judgments)