State v. MooreState v. Moore
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Owens (en banc)
OWENS, J.
¶ 1 Alex Undrae Paul Moore appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a search incident to his arrest. We agree and hold that the evidence is inadmissible. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court.
FACTS
¶ 2 According to the trial court‘s unchallenged findings of fact, on April 27, 2003, Everett Police Officer Jamie French stopped a vehicle in which Moore was a passenger. Officer French recognized Moore from a previous encounter but could not recall his name. When asked, Moore told Officer French that his name was “Antoine Carver.” Clerk‘s Papers (CP) at 53. Officer French suspected that Antoine Carver was not Moore‘s true name. During the stop, Officer French observed a pit bull sitting on Moore‘s lap in the backseat. She arrested Moore for having a dangerous dog outside of an enclosure in violation of Everett Municipal Code sections 6.08.010(B)(C) and .015. She also arrested Moore for “Refusal to Give Information/Cooperate with an officer.” Id. at 54. A second officer at the scene then searched Moore and found cocaine, methadone pills, and approximately $800 in cash. Later that same day, Officer French filed a supplemental report mentioning that she had noticed that none of the passengers were wearing seatbelts when she approached the vehicle. Id. at 73.
¶ 3 The State charged Moore with possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. Before trial, Moore moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the search on the grounds that his arrest was unlawful. The trial court held that Officer French did not have probable cause to arrest Moore for having a dangerous dog outside of an enclosure because the car constituted a suitable enclosure. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Apr. 23, 2004) at 52. The court also deemed that probable cause did not exist to arrest Moore for refusal to give information/cooperate with an officer because “[g]iving false identification is not a crime in and of itself unless the person is being stopped and charged with a traffic infraction.” Id. at 50. The court explained:
In this case, Officer French hadn‘t identified any traffic infraction that [Moore] was being investigated on, and instead, apparently, was under the impression if you give false identification under any circumstance you‘re committing a misdemeanor. She‘s simply wrong on that case.
. . . Mr. Moore had no obligation to give his name in the first place, and so to arrest him for giving a wrong name is inappropriate.
Id. at 50-51. Nonetheless, the trial court held the arrest was valid, ruling that a “hidden reason” supported Moore‘s arrest. Id. at 53. Based on Officer French‘s observation that Moore was not wearing a seatbelt and belief that Moore provided false identification, the trial court reasoned that “[t]he officers didn‘t arrest Mr. Moore for a seat belt violation, but, in hindsight, it appears that they could have.” Id. at 54. The court thus concluded that Officer French “had lawful authority to ask the defendant his name for committing the traffic infraction of a seatbelt violation” and that “when the defendant provided a false name to them, officers then had probable cause to arrest” him for failing to identify himself pursuant to an investigation
¶ 4 During a bench trial, the court found Moore guilty of possessing a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. Moore appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Moore, noted at 128 Wash.App. 1017, 2005 WL 1540901, at *1, 2005 Wash.App. LEXIS 1523, at *2. We granted Moore‘s petition for review at 156 Wash.2d 1023, 132 P.3d 1094 (2006).
ISSUE
¶ 5 Was the search incident to Moore‘s arrest lawful under
ANALYSIS
¶ 6 Standard of Review. Moore does not challenge the trial court‘s findings of fact. We therefore view these findings as verities. See State v. Levy, 156 Wash.2d 709, 733, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006) (citing State v. O‘Neill, 148 Wash.2d 564, 571, 62 P.3d 489 (2003)). Instead, Moore challenges the trial court‘s conclusion that the evidence obtained in the search was admissible. We review this conclusion of law de novo. See id. (citing State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999), abrogated by Brendlin v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007)).
¶ 7 Search Incident to Arrest. The Washington Constitution mandates that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
¶ 8 “[T]he search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement is narrower” under
¶ 9 In the instant case, officers searched Moore without a warrant, incident to his arrest for having a dangerous dog outside of an enclosure and for refusal to give information/cooperate with an officer. The State does not challenge the trial court‘s finding that probable cause does not support either of these bases for Moore‘s arrest. The State nonetheless argues that Officer French had additional probable cause to support an arrest of Moore for violating former
¶ 10 The record does not support the State‘s argument that Officer French conducted an “investigation” of the seatbelt violation. The crime of failing to correctly identify one‘s self under
CONCLUSION
¶ 11 Officer French did not have probable cause to arrest Moore for failure to identify himself in violation of former
WE CONCUR: Chief Justice GERRY L. ALEXANDER, TOM CHAMBERS, CHARLES W. JOHNSON, RICHARD B. SANDERS, and JAMES M. JOHNSON, JJ.
BRIDGE, J. (dissenting).
¶ 12 The majority bases its opinion on the “objective fact” that Officer French was not investigating a traffic infraction. Labeling a fact “objective,” however, does not make it so. Because I believe the majority has implicitly based its opinion on a subjective inquiry into intent, a process rejected uniformly in our jurisprudence, I dissent.
¶ 13 Under
¶ 14 In State v. Vangen, 72 Wash.2d 548, 552, 433 P.2d 691 (1967), we addressed whether an arrest was lawful where, although the police knew of several felonies for which they could have arrested the defendant, they ultimately arrested him for an act that was not a felony. We found such arrest permissible because “the officers had knowledge, at the time of the arrest of the appellant, of felonies for which he could have been arrested.” Id. at 553, 433 P.2d 691. In Knighten we considered a similar issue, finding that even though an officer did not subjectively believe he had probable cause to arrest a suspect, the existence of probable cause in fact justified the arrest. Knighten, 109 Wash.2d at 898-900, 748 P.2d 1118. Again, we stated that “[t]he arresting officer needed only to have facts and circumstances within his knowledge sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense had been committed.” Id. at 903, 748 P.2d 1118. Although Vangen and Knighten did not consider
¶ 15 We should continue to employ a true objective inquiry to determine the existence of probable cause, wherein we examine the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer‘s knowledge at the time of the arrest. Here Officer French knew that Moore was not wearing his seatbelt. The trial court found that although Officer French “failed to recognize at the scene the appropriate charge for which probable cause existed,” she “had lawful authority to ask the defendant his name for committing the traffic infraction of a seatbelt violation; when the defendant provided a false name to them, officers then had probable cause to arrest the defendant.” Clerk‘s Papers at 59. The actions of the police officers were thus lawful under
WE CONCUR: Justice BARBARA A. MADSEN, and Justice MARY E. FAIRHURST.