*1 January 7, 43141. En Banc. 1975.] [No. Petitioner, Edward of Washington, v. Charles State Lesnick, Respondent.
Henry Prosecuting Attorney, Warme, E. James R. Dunn, Deputy, Billberg Falken- H. and Robert and James P. Chief Deputies, petitioner. stien,
Barry Mertsching, Don- (of Husemoen, J. Dahl Walstead, *2 respondent. Barlow), aldson & for appeals his con- J.—The defendant Brachtenbach, possession gambling
viction of the crime of
De-
of
devices.
sought suppression
punchboards
fendant
certain
and
of
gambling paraphernalia
being
product
other
of an
the
Appeals
unlawful
of
re-
his vehicle. The Court of
versed the trial court’s
of
into evi-
admission
those items
dence but affirmed the trial
order of
court’s
destruction
gambling
fully explored
devices,
the
as will
later.
be more
App. 281,
State v.
10 Wn.
The facts are from the opinion Appeals. Depart- of the Court of The Kelso Police telephone advising ment received a call that there was in city pulling a described van driver of trailer, attempting city. “punchboards” which was to sell supplied plate The caller also The caller license number. identify completely anonymous, refusing remained him- any providing self and not as to source of information knowledge. sergeant participated chief and a in a search private soon located the described van trailer in They parking blub lot. drove to within a distance of short subject vehicle, and observed that its number license given by though was similar to that the informer, some transposed. parked numerals were The officers their car on adjacent city street and remained to observe the vehicle. .Shortly parking thereafter, the van was driven from the lot the street. The officers followed the vehicle for a block .onto pulled lights. Up a half, then it over with siren and time, traffic they observed neither violations. nor
other activity indications of criminal on the part driver.
The driver produced his chief driver’s license and the then walked to the front of the van to the license check plate, observed gambling paraphernalia through driver’s window. Defendant then under arrest placed possession devices gambling pursuant RCW 9.47.030, Sess., 1st Ex. ch. repealed Laws 23. § vehicle Defendant’s was towed station and A to a number of pursuant searched warrant. large gam- devices, merchandise, certain were seized. bling plus The State makes two discov- main contentions: (1) ery of the contraband within falls gambling paraphernalia initial “plain view” doctrine and (2) that defendant’s automobile was a de- permissible “investigative Ohio, tention” Terry within the doctrine 392 U.S. *3 L. Ed. 2d 88 Ct. 1868 (1968). S. into when only comes play
The view doctrine plain have in a that the officer “has a to be right position (1971). 490 P.2d Cagle, view.” State v. App. Wn. had a the police issue is whether determinative Hence the and, thereby, put automobile defendant’s stop right the contraband. view in a position themselves court, Court, this Supreme United States The a delicate is to make necessary have that acknowledged of its enforcement of of in the society the interest balancing against protection individual’s right the laws against Fourth under the and seizures searches unreasonable Williams, Adams v. Ohio, supra; v. Terry Amendment. State (1972); 2d 92 S. Ct. Ed. 143, 32 L. P.2d 703 424, 518 Gluck, 83 Wn.2d something confirms Terry premise, a threshold As may constitute arrest under a person of placing short “It of Fourth Amendment. meaning within seizure officer accosts whenever a police recognized must away, freedom to walk he and restrains an individual Terry Ohio, supra Indeed, has ‘seized’ that at 16. person.” the chief of here that after defendant was police admitted investi he was free to leave until officers’ stopped, gation interrogation were completed. Terry
The holding second in is our step reasoning in- that any constitutionally protected intrusion this terest must be to the reasonableness evaluated as circumstances. particular in light particular seizure Terry frisk” in based on “stop activities suspicious officers’ observations personal justified further activity criminal possible suggested investigation.
Terry justify alone would not the investi standing gative case since here made stop personal observations of justi the defendant any activity However, fying stop. out in the Court pointed Ap peals opinion, the United States Court has Supreme gone step further and authorized investigative infor mation supplied by another This is the person. holding v. Williams, But Adams supra. Adams very explicit requiring that must some tip informer’s demonstrate indicia of reliability. This harkens back to the objective imposed by Terry. standard of reasonableness In the words of the Adams opinion:
Some completely tips, lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or fur- require ther investigation before forcible stop of suspect would be authorized. Adams v. Williams, supra at 147. Obviously, we are bound by the holdings both Terry and Adams.
Our own case of State v. Gluck, supra, is consistent with the approach of the United States Court Supreme since it a requires well-founded an suspicion justify investigative stop.
The fact that the anonymous tipster accurately described the defendant’s is vehicle not such corroboration or indicia of reliability to make reasonable the officers’ action. This
'944 Whiteley holding
is the diréct of Warden, 401 U.S. (1971). fact that 28 L. Ed. 2d S. Ct. 1031 Nor is the constitutionally stop discovered contraband was after the justified by subsequent A seizure what a sufficient. is Henry United L. States, discloses. 361 U.S. Ct. 168 Ed. 2d 80 S. controlling aptly Appeals summarized
The Court principle and conclusion: “completely tip It to conceive more is difficult reliability” provided
lacking completely taining certain individual the one than in indicia anonymous informer, con- and unidentifiable conclusionary that a assertion no more than a activity. engaged in While is criminal tips duty investigate police which have suggesting the absent circumstances reasonable, sound informant’s reliability, observation or some corroborative activity presence suggests of criminal either ain reliable that the information was obtained informer’s solely upon informa- such fashion, a forcible based permissible. tion not supra Lesnick,
State v. at 285. essentially point opinion followed To this our has analysis Appeals. now We and rationale of the Court importance. emphasize State, its a matter of some petition alleges will no review, that law enforcement inquir- longer be able to make even reasonable and limited tips possible ies into criminal conduct based holding. informants. not at result of this Such is all the Terry emphasize single can Both no rule and Adams every be- confrontation be fashioned to meet conceivable Evaluating the reasonableness tween the and citizen. intrusion, each of the and the extent action particular light circum- case must be considered facing case, law enforcement officer. In this stances posed suspected gross crime was misdemeanor. It society physical violence or harm to or the threat only activity which it involved Indeed so officers. openly areas that taxes tolerated some were collected *5 persons quite the business of such as defendant. This is tips involving hypothetical a different matter from the bombings or murder threatened school which were used argument purported the State its illustrate result holding Appeals. ob- Court of we are While viously emphasize passing upon matters, we do such they necessarily be that if and will when other cases arise very judged particular light of which is the facts, their Terry premise of Adams. clear, basic and cross-appeal, adopt holding On the we State’s Appeals, language Lesnick, State the Court of supra 285: at cross-appeals from the order of the trial
The state
directing the
to defendant of certain mer-
court
return
gambling
along with the
from his
chandise seized
devices
position
is that
vehicle. The
of the state
this merchandise
prizes
gambling
activities,
could be used as
or awards
destroyed
authority
and thus that
of former
under the
it should
provides:
9.47.110,
RCW
disposition
gambling
Seizure and
It
devices.
shall
duty
peace
be the
of all
officers to search for and seize
tables,
machines,
all
slot
or other article, machine, de-
apparatus
commonly
gam-
vice or
bling,
of the kind
used for
operated
winning
money
losing
or
for
or
property,
any representative
upon any
either,
contingent
prop-
chance or uncertain or
event,
all
erty
operation
useful in the
or maintenance
aof bucket
shop,
magistrate.
and take the
same before
If in the
judgment
magistrate any
may
may
of such
of such articles
any
be useful as evidence in the trial of
case, he
order the same held for such trial or delivered to the
prosecuting attorney; otherwise, he shall order the
destroyed.
same to be
hearing
forthwith
After the final
any
disposition
case in which
of said arti-
cles
be held or used as evidence, whether such
acquittal,
case result in
or
magistrate
a conviction or
judge having jurisdiction
of such case shall forth-
destroyed.
with
all
order
such articles
agree
We
being penal
with defendant that
statute,
strictly
in nature,
Boyer,
should be
construed. State v.
App.
Wn.
73,
Hale, I would of it. only evidence truth, Facts are but the truth. What I would the than more evidence suppress the evidence court suppresses the facts are the in case? identity unknown, the Kelso
Someone, police telephoned the of a van duty station and told the officer on that driver city. the to in attempting punchboards and trailer was sell its of the van and license description He the gave police identify himself the source number, but refused to plate of his information.
Chief were and Thorpe Sergeant Eby police Kelso officers in other the station when the call came in. Two van, to the city section of the look for were sent one Sergeant and Thorpe trailer and Chief punchboards, the described van They took another area. found Eby its club, saw that in lot of a parking private trailer the numerals, was transposed for some number, except license caller. anonymous Parking by the reported similar to that street, the officers city kept adjacent car on an their and, shortly there- when observation van and under trailer onto the from the lot parking driven rig after followed it in their car. The street, the officers two officers and, block and a half it for a using drove behind the van’s driver lights, signaled flasher over siren and the officers saw to the moment Nothing up the curb. any indication of the gave van commission stopping or otherwise. offense, traffic Now come the to see the critical facts. The chief asked Then, license, driver’s it for him. and the driver produced while van to check its license walking the front the driver’s window plate, the chief looked through officer saw the in it. What load punchboards is as evidence suppressed saw the window is what through now.
One the many constitu- strange principles of so-called tional emerge law 15 or 20 is that a years last police officer, on a cannot look standing street, the windows an automobile on the through public street its contents he has give evidence unless received some vehicle has evidence is been used being crime. If the commission of a attention policeman’s drawn to the automobile other accident, than he is held accountable some kind of misbehavior or violation of constitutional principles, and should he auto- observe *7 mobile such curious things bloody a submachine a gun, with corpse a wound in the of or head, marijuana, bag container a substance the holding having appearance heroin or other constitution, said, contraband the it is drug, not only blinds policeman the his his view but seals lips at trial.
Whatever rules the to down judiciary lay now purport the brief detention automo- concerning inspection and I law, biles the public by streets sworn officers find not and the rules remotest connection between such the case constitutions. bizarre the results So are man that, every if one the sane indulges presumption law, defendant himself must be to know the the presumed anonymous the tele- readily making can be suspected himself either free out of passage call so as to assure phone or to a cer- contraband if apprehended, with his town tain if acquittal he was. say: constitutions
The the right people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, effects, against unreasonable searches shall and no warrants violated, not be seizures, shall and supported or oath upon probable cause,
issue, but place describing to particularly affirmation, and things persons to be seized. or searched, and Const, (Italics mine.) 4. amend. person private affairs, or No shall be disturbed authority invaded,
his home without of law. Const, § art. 7.
Although long departed we have since era of strict squarely philosophy construction and are committed to the of liberal construction, the fact constitu- remains that our say tions are written documents and about what courts them should have some connection—however remote —with phrases. their words and Even loosest constructionist rationally ignore cannot mention that the constitutions do writing. searches The Fourth Amendment and seizures adopted persons, houses, individuals “in their secure papers, against and sei- and unreasonable searches effects, (Italics mine.) require vaporous and zures.” It would in these refer- construction to find charters untenable equivalent automobile or truck of an ence the colonial moving standing streets. Where speaks person effects, house, and of one’s constitution protection phrases giving colonial absence words carriages, transport wagons, horses, harness such as moving standing upon roads, bags, while saddle highways, Failure intentional. must have been streets immunity think, is, I the same these chattels with clothe noteworthy. conspicuous If the founders both thought entitled to were that individuals had constitution *8 or evi- their contraband running with of town start out wagons, gave their the constitutions crime, or that dence bags kind carriages, some harness and saddle horses, observations, immunity or constables’ the sheriffs’ readily it into the constitution. written they have could to me far more sensi- they narrower and chose Instead,
949 treating even ble doctrine his castle but one’s house as allowing then seizures with all reasonable searches and respect to it. grown up country, body
What has in this thus, is judicial precedent sustaining applying the Fourth judicial agglomeration Amendment, but massive rules playing might tag, what be called it seems rules having to me in a constant state flux and ferment and nothing rights little or to do with constitutional and im- they frequently win; munities. Sometimes the lose. jury’s deteriorates, Sometimes the contest so far as the concerned, view of the evidence is into a kind of law-in- they spired they game it, now don’t. shell see —now plethora In a precedent producing of irreconcilable gross quantum judicial hair-splitting, inevitable recognize courts seem unable lack of almost total identity parked moving between one’s on or automobile along public person street, house, and one’s and effects. legislature, contrary, long recog- however, to the has many nized the difference between the two and enacted readily applicable which, automobiles, statutes while sensibly ap- not, could Amendment, under the Fourth be plied person An house, one’s effects. automobile highly anyone ought is—and will most affirm it to be—a regulated operation upon public device whose streets is closely public held to identified interest and with safety directly public one which and welfare. affects subject As regulation, a device to intense an automobile ways on the streets and should bear little relation- ship under the law of search and seizure to one’s house. Maroney This distinction was made clear in Chambers (1970), 399 48, 26 L. 42, U.S. Ed. 419, 2d Ct. 1975 S. rehearing denied, 400 U.S. L. Ed. 2d S. Ct. (1970), commenting, inter alia, the earlier case of States, Carroll v. United 69 L. Ed. 45 S. (1925), Ct. 280, A.L.R. 790 where it was said that an may be searched automobile without a warrant in circum- *9 justify or an stances that search of a house would inescapable, office a warrant. conclusion is without probable requisite, even when cause is that the standards a probable and wider lati- more liberal for cause are much than in the search a tude is allowed in the search of vehicle may an unreasonable of a house or an office. What in case of a motor be reasonable of a house (1974). P.2d 427, 518 Gluck, 83 Wn.2d car. State example, occupy For house one need not be licensed to apartment fronting upon must he street, but possession have a all times when driver’s license in his “at upon operating display the same a motor vehicle and shall Assuming any police 46.20.190. demand to officer.” RCW arguendo, statute, cannot, under that a officer determining solely stop purpose of for the a motorist license, he neverthe- would, he has a valid driver’s whether any authority stop infraction the motorist less, have amounting in the officer’s committed to a misdemeanor grounds upon that reasonable presence view, or in his Any felony. authorized has committed the driver to de- the officer said, authorizes vehicle, should be operator’s be exhibited. license mand only regulatory beginning that is But measures requiring motor for automobiles. have We statutes licensed, certificate vehicles themselves must be and a signa registration owner’s license authenticated with the “Any at all times and in the vehicle ture must be carried upon any charge person shall, vehicle demand such per . . . officer or of of the local authorities inspection registration.” mit an of such certificate of license illegally parked Thus, a search of an 46.16.260. auto RCW inspect police, registration its certificate of mobile driver, the absence of its revealed evi conducted burglary which a warrant was obtained for dence good pointing of a house was held in a case out the search under the constitution between one’s the differences house App. Woods, See State v. his automobile. Wn. And other valid measures regulatory P.2d are in to vehicular registration, capacity, effect pertaining safety devices. equipment is no
There true constitutional one’s between parallel house and his car on the public streets. Where one living *10 rented be free from premises shall searches and unreasonable if seizures, he drives a on borrowed or rented automobile the he public streets obtain or someone must must else have it obtained ownership. certificate RCW codes, 46.12.010. Aside from where building inspection the constitutions can to to deny be said the state power demand license as a condition in one’s no living house, to such the of motor vehicles. And prohibits ban licensing vehicles, on the motor one while must subject regulating mention the inevitable to be legislation providing enacted for the installation of air pollution devices and their inspec- be legislation virtually will impossible to en- tion — force under the aegis the case. instant Nor should we overlook the comprehensive legislation for the providing of vehicles stopping searching without warrant under the 75.08.170; 75.36.010; fish and code. game RCW 77.12.090. These statutes the already by are doomed ef- precedential fect of the instant opinion.
The police should have won this game Good, search. sound, cogent evidence like the truth itself should never But if suppressed. even rules the of the game control, are to they not, do as a matter of law, actually bar the evidence in this case. The court now holds the that police officers had to be the legal right streets in to juxtaposition the defendant’s van because they had its signaled driver to an basis of anonymous on the Had tip. they momentar- the without ily vehicle ostensible stopped reason and with- out it follows under the instant pretext, holding that be in a stronger would much than it prosecution position In if tip. words, now is other with while police, the van had past driving past looked it inside strolling contraband, the seizure would have been seen good, tip anonymous' having response an but so in done to telephone anonymous caller Thus, seizure is held bad. defendant immuniz- rendered a valuable service to the tip delivery ing of the so after his vehicle all search operated long without violation van as the thereafter of the traffic code. any legal put police under should not be two officers contrary,
disability by anonymous but, call they public, protect I think sworn to officers law duty respond to The' courts it. bound should be held adoption ought of a I in the nor concur foster would anonymous ignore police obliged tele- that the are rule sergeant phone the desk voice tells calls when excited very suspicious observed, or what looks conduct is being about to be committed be a has or is or is crime been unreasonably, reasonably or is fear- caller, whether identity making I bad known. think both ful of her procedure for the to answer law and bad *11 anonymous telephone they respond not to calls because will inquiries pain they of at under can make the scene suppressed, having subsequently evidence all obtained charged illegal procedures. being officers, Police with investigate law, think, I are to sworn officers of bound plausible complaints of activi- all criminal substantial and (see coming Twitchell, their ties to attention State v. (1963)), except of P.2d 444 the most Wn.2d those every infor- errant While it be better that nonsense. would identify information, and the source of his his mant himself my opinion, police not so, to do in does relieve the refusal help. responsibilities respond to for of to calls their anony- response to an Just what should make planted telephone call a bomb been in a mous has being to school; or that it looks the caller that someone is forcibly hostage into an automobile; that there taken as activity place suspicious taking outside is some or inside a investigation supermarket? initial bank or Does under- of crucial evidence seal out taken without further cause crime obtained? thereafter
Thus, in case, this it the mass even if be discerned in judicial precedent stopping car had of the the initial illegal, been seizure, should be held law- nevertheless, good (1) ful and the evidence two sound reasons: presence commission of an officer, i.e., offense in the possession gambling paraphernalia sight within (2) sound officers, two seizure of contra- plain band while it I under- view the officers. As stand the case, not concerned facts we are with probable whether van, the officers had to cause merely authority momentarily but with their to it as it having moved it, streets. Once detained they clearly good had and sufficient its con- cause seize possessing traband contents and arrest the driver for goods incriminating lay plain sight because the there in pres- officers and the defendant driver’s immediate point, ence. And on this I think the law is clear and point: momentary stopping and detention of a motor by police though vehicle even officers, involved apparent of law, violation should not be held constitute an arrest.
From legal relating precedent massive mishmash searches and seizures, there can located, think, be I a few principles straightforwardly may readily which, if stated, applied by policemen judges and trial neither and which deprive the individual of his freedom from unreasonable prevent policeman doing searches and seizures nor duty. general principle sworn First, there is the that *12 being ready automobile, and a movable device for the com- flight mission of and crime, from and concealment a does protection not have the same standards constitutional as probable does house or office.What is cause to and search proba- an seize automobile not rise to the standards of cause for the issuance ble warrant house. States, v. 267 Carroll United 69 132, 543, U.S. L. Ed. 45 S. 954 Maroney, (1925); 399 v. Chambers 790 280,
Ct. 39 A.L.R. (1970); v. 2d 90 S. Ct. State 42, 26 L. Ed. U.S. Glasper, 17, 523P.2d 84Wn.2d stopping general rule a mere
Next comes the upon momentary or a vehicle of an individual detention by legitimate police does not consti- officers streets principle Wil- is stated and restated an arrest. This tute (9th 1966), fol- as 414-15 Cir. 361 F.2d Porter, son lows: appellee’s car time was that at the it is clear
While probable exist, did pulled for an arrest not cause over every time an sounds his not officer clear that is also light flag an vehicle has down a or flashes siren arrest been appellee’s stopping initial act of made. The Granting that the constitutional an arrest. car not was against prohibition and seizures unreasonable searches without informal detention makes distinction between cause, there is a differ- arrest cause and formal without justify informal that “cause” which will ence between probable cause short arrest detention custody justify required tradi- that kind of standard tionally an concern here is what denominated arrest. Our cursory, justify degree of informal detention cause will justify an arrest, not in circumstances would particular that standard in the the officers met whether of this case. circumstances omitted.) Again, pages
(Footnotes Porter, Wilson v. at 414-15, said: it was right appellee that no We conclude was violated stopped subsequent the car and
when
officers
he
seizure of
justified
evidence
which was convicted pursuant
a to lawful
arrest.
nothing ipso
it as settled that
We take
there
facto
in the brief
unconstitutional
detention of citizens under
justifying
purposes
arrest,
circumstances
investiga-
inquiry
in the course of routine
limited
States,
tions. Rios United
80 S.Ct.
(1960); Busby
States,
v. United
L.Ed.2d
296 F.2d
1961).
(9th
A
Cir.
line between
reasonable deten-
*13
and
could
tion for routine
detention which
investigation
arbitrary
and
cannot
capricious
be characterized
necess-
due
for the practical
be drawn. But
neatly
regard
the valid-
ities of effective law enforcement
that
requires
whenever
it
be
ity
brief,
recognized
informal detention
from the
of the circumstances
that
totality
appears
for
grounds
officers could have had reasonable
detaining
necessary,
their action. A founded
that
is
all
suspicion
that
some basis
which the court can determine
detention
not arbitrary
harassing.
Brown,
United States v.
in
approved
(9th
Cir. 1970).
In United States Bonanno, (S.D.N.Y. 180 F. Supp. 1960), it was said:
While the Fourth may Amendment be construed as “seizure” of encompassing individual, an cannot be contended that every detention of an individual is such a “seizure”. If that case, were the police investigation would be dealt a blow, a crippling by imposing radical sanction for unnecessary citi- protection of free zenry. Under such theory, a policeman could not stop a person to a question standing bloody next corpse. If so, he did before having probable cause to believe that he had committed the crime, and him, then released subsequently decided basis of further checking into the individual’s was likely activities that he be murderer, policeman could testify not to the presence in suspect vicinity of the victim because it would testimony about matters an “ille- learned upon arrest”. gal
(Footnotes omitted.) and, It is clear, the mere stoppage a car aby
officer is such an act illegal would all taint evidence stemming therefrom. United States v. Bonanno, at 78, 80. supra
If “a officer may in appropriate circumstances in an manner appropriate approach person purposes possibly investigating criminal behavior though even there is cause to probable make arrest” as in was said I, Terry Ohio, 392 U.S. 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct.
(1968), Williams, and as stated Adams v. (1972), 32 Ed. 2d 92 Ct. “A L. S. brief identity suspicious individual, to determine order momentarily obtaining quo to maintain status while light of the information, more be most reasonable facts officer and if the so-called time,” known at the *14 stop-and-frisk repugnant to the Fourth statutes are not oppressively applied, follows when not then it Amendment moving public upon stopping of a vehicle that the brief occupants probable cause to believe its even without streets fleeing committing, committed, are have are violate the Fourth crime, likewise does not scene of prohibition against unreasonable search Amendment seizure. very question to the itself court addressed
This
momentary stopping of a motor vehicle mov-
whether
against
rules
upon
violates the
unrea-
ing
streets
Gluck,
in State v.
Wn.2d
and seizures
83
searches
sonable
(1974), where we said:
703
518P.2d
426,
424,
justification
challenges
legal
first
for the
Defendant
by
stopping
stop
officers. The
of vehicles for
initial
traffic
investigation
specifically
general
has been
held
States,
Lowe v. United
in nature.
407
noncustodial
to be
Jennings
1969);
(9th
United States,
v.
391
Cir.
F.2d 1391
1968).
(5th
has also been held that
Cir.
It
traffic
F.2d
may stop
for
motorists
routine
officers
enforcement
stopping
to
does not amount
an arrest
and such
checks,
stopping.
v. Bonanno,
United States
180 F.
or unlawful
1960),
grounds
(S.D.N.Y.
rev’d
Bufalino,
other
Supp.
sub
(2d
States v.
This supra Porter, at right in Wilson stated “no appellee stopped was violated when the officers the car which evidence seizure of the subsequent and that the a lawful as justified pursuant he was convicted was arrest.”' officer, car a police a
The mere stopping harass, hin- scheme systematic absence of evidence of think, not, I should annoy der or the driver passenger, evidence so to taint all illegal such an act be deemed the pub- of a vehicle upon from it. The stemming stopping States v. See United detention. lic streets is noncustodial Gluck, Bonanno, and State v. supra, supra. commonsense, to the brings application
This us on the public officers were rule. Since the plain-view them, they said to take duty their could be where streets any the commission duty another to prevent under were or to seize evi- presence in their taking place crimes Twitchell, 61 Wn.2d State v. view. plain dence crime only not course, is That, 378 P.2d glorifying qual- law but has the of constitutional principle wanting in commonsense, a characteristic frequently ity on the constitutions. latter-day dissertations in State v. to our therefore, holding adhere should, We 621, 440 (1968), P.2d 429 that: Martin, Wn.2d constitutional interdiction takes under No search evidentiary value are outside a having when items place view, they nor if are in plain sight in plain building lawfully access has been building inside LaPierre, 428 P.2d See State Wn.2d gained. therein. See also 47 Am. Jur., and cases cited (1967), Search and Seizure § 20 (1943). in State v. Regan, 331, 336, Wn.2d said again as we (1969):
It has view of falling has an officer who to be in the right position subject view are seizure and may to have that Ker v. California, in evidence. 374 23, introduced U.S.
959
United
726,
(1963);
42-43
L. Ed. 2d
83 Ct.
S.
[10
1623]
Lee,
States v.
L.
Ct.
U.S. 559
Ed.
S.
[71
Hester
States,
v. United
L.
(1927);
[68
746]
898, 44
Ed.
S. Ct.
(1924).
445]
Poe,
See also State v.
(1968);
Thus,
officer
not
only
ignore
required
items of
view
possible evidentiary value which are in plain
(State v.
a war
Glasper, supra),
but he
seize without
rant
reasona
any objects within his
that he has
plain view
Day,
are contraband. State
ble cause to believe
7 Wn.
965,
I reverse the Court accordingly, Appeals affirm the Court. judgment Superior JJ., concur with C.J. Wright, Hale, Hunter February 20, Petition for denied 1975. rehearing January 7, En Banc. 43203. 1975.] [No. Godfrey et al., Petitioners,
John A. State
Washington et al., Respondents.