State v. Wheeler

Myers, in In re set forth guided by are the considerations (1986): 257, 261, P.2d 303 105 Wn.2d if it rule, an appeal will dismiss general As a this court Bellingham, Sorenson v. 80 Wn.2d moot issues. presents Sorenson, however, 496 P.2d it to this rule "when can be exception recognized court continuing public and substantial said that matters Sorenson, must at 558. court interest are involved." requi- whether the determining three criteria consider site (1) pri- public or interest exists: degree public (2) the need for a question presented, vate nature of the public offi- guidance determination future judicial cers, likelihood of future recurrences Sorenson, 558. issue. this case contains we have determined

Because interest, in the public particularly guidance degree of high of the issue the likelihood public it officers and provides recurring, opinion will be filed. Dolliver,

Pearson, C.J., Utter, Brachtenbach, JJ., concur. Dore, Goodloe, Durham, Callow, 4, 1987.] En Banc. 52679-6. June [No. Washington, Respondent, Keith

The State of Bryan Wheeler, Petitioner. Washington Appellate K. Kallas

Paris Defender Association, petitioner. for Deborah J. Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney,

Norm Attorney, Appellate Senior respondent. Phillips, Appeals a Court challenges Dolliver, J. Defendant burglary. degree conviction for second affirming decision affirm. We afternoon, 7, 1981, two residents during the

On October report suspi- in Seattle called 911 to Street Cloverdale caller, Snyder, The first Beatrice circumstances. cious if "checking a man twice as he were walk reported seeing later, man A time the returned nearby house. short out" a Snyder in white car. green man with a second out, car, dart into a get the park watched the two Dahlen, caller, Mary Grace yard. The second neighbor's past run her a man seeing the same time reported at about pair gloves into the ran, man tossed a of As he window. can. He was wear- jacket garbage into a yard and threw stripes. with white bright blue shirt ing Smith Tim Louis Donald R. officers Seattle description and a this information Moellendorf received They were advised radio. suspects over the two the officers arrived When burglary progress. there awas suspects scene, told them one of a witness at the The officers drove on Rainier Avenue. away few blocks man, identified as saw a later indicated distance and Wheeler, case, Bryan wearing Keith in this defendant sweating The man was stripes. with white blue shirt bright breath, and out of as if he running. had been except The officers asked no questions Wheeler his name. told him he They custody suspicion held being The officers frisked him and burglary. nothing. They found handcuffed him and him car. placed patrol They Street, then him the drove two blocks back to Cloverdale where Dahlen identified him as the man she saw outside her window. The time from detention to identification was from 5 minutes. The officers learned upon return to place scene that a had in fact taken at the burglary residence, Aquino next door to the Dahlen residence on Cloverdale. Wheeler was then arrested of his and informed rights.

Other officers who had remained on scene arrested Smith, Tony driver green car, and white as he attempted to leave. The officers found various items stacked up by the door of the Aquino house as if to be picked up. Although the owner of the house indicated numerous items were missing, none of the items were found possession. Wheeler's

The following day, Detective P. L. Hill approached jail Wheeler and again advised him of his Miranda Wheeler rights. stated he rights understood his and refused them. Hill began waive then to complete a Personal Investigation Report, telling Wheeler the information was necessary for arraignment. During ques- course this Hill tioning, asked Tony Wheeler he knew Smith. Wheeler denied Hill knowing Smith. knew the information necessary was not fill report. out the After completing report, Hill asked Wheeler whether he would make a statement and he refused. charged

Both Wheeler and Smith were with second degree burglary. The two cases were severed for trial. eyewitness Wheeler's motions to suppress the identification the and he was at the time of clothing wearing the arrest were denied. trial, the first

During morning jury Wheeler left go the courtroom to to the restroom and never returned. The trial court trial in his absence. continued degree of second bur- jury the elements instructed the attempted burglary the lesser included offenses of and glary objection, counsel's trespass. criminal Over defense any draw adverse to jury also cautioned court re- testify. jury from Wheeler's failure inferences verdict. guilty turned later, when year

Sentencing approximately occurred imposed 10-year custody. The judge Wheeler was back revoked time, At the court also the same sentence. prior sentence two probation suspended Wheeler's conviction and because burglary because of the convictions burglary he left the trial. had in a 2-to-l decision. Appeals

The Court of affirmed (1986). Wheeler, App. Wn. 716 P.2d 902 State v. by court. granted this petition for review was Wheeler's (1) whether presented for review: Three issues are scope during of conduct permissible exceeded the Amend- the Fourth of defendant either stop Const, 7; (2) erred art. whether the trial court ment or § response statement made defendant by admitting a Investigation Report; on his Personal questioning instruction, cautionary over the of a giving whether counsel, not to con- jury of defense objection its testify reaching the fact defendant failed sider inwas error. verdict

I for grounds had sufficient Defendant concedes detention, Terry v. Terry stop. See or investigative Ohio, 1, 20 L. Ed. 88 S. Ct. 1868 2d Nevertheless, meth- investigation contends the defendant stop and therefore scope ods used exceeded improperly after his detention evidence obtained admitted. no cause there was

The State concedes detention, argues no but time of the initial arrest at the identification. eyewitness until after arrest was made to the formal police prior State contends the conduct Terry stop. arrest within the of a permissible scope was all Williams, In State v. 102 Wn.2d 689 P.2d 1065 in (1984), we to be enunciated three factors considered an on an individual determining per whether intrusion probable must supported by missible under or be (1) (2) cause: the of the amount of purpose stop; physi the upon liberty; length cal intrusion the suspect's the and Williams, State v. of time the at is detained. 740. Further, degree the of appropriate intrusion must also the of type investigation crime under and to the Williams, State v. dangerousness suspect. of the at 740. of purpose stop must be related to an investigation Williams, the defendant. State v. focused at 740-41. At the time of the the had stop, officers been informed police radio that a burglary was in progress given and identification which of Although matched that defendant. defendant, the officers asked no except other information of name, (which after the frisk no weapon), revealed he immediately handcuffed, placed of the backseat car, patrol and few transported a blocks to the scene of crime. agree

We with the of Appeals Court that the amount of physical intrusion in the present "significant". case was Wheeler, State v. supra at 197. We also concur with the Court that Appeals degree of intrusion was not Terry stop. was permissible excessive and under a There was no violation of either the or Fourth Amendment Const. 1, 7. art. §

First, out, of Appeals points the Court purpose stopping Wheeler to detain person description whose specifically matched of a suspicious witness to several contrast Williams where activities. This is marked no had investigation person been focused on the detained. Second, Appeals we with the Court of agree ride frisking handcuffing defendant 2-block was not burglary impermissibly back to scene Williams, supra State n.2, intrusive. While Terry stop of a stated that the context court "[d]rawn handcuffs, permissible only are when generally, guns danger", fear of the circum- legitimate have police handcuffing placing were such as to justify stances here patrol car. Such actions the backseat defendant standard, appropriate, procedures believe with and we are when is confined Department Police the Seattle Furthermore, car. car here had no in a legit- Given the separating the front and back seats. screen suspect a police safety being concern for when is imate car, of the were a the actions transported common sense. good police practice with and consistent Walker, v. 823, 828, (1979), State App. 24 Wn. 604 P.2d 514 denied, 93 Wn.2d 1017 (1980). review as to a sus Finally, disagree transporting courts whether away stopped necessarily from the place suspect pect courts, Many Terry stop a into an arrest. transforms con Appeals, Court of have including Washington dis transport suspect it is to a a short cluded reasonable an identification. State order for a witness to make tance denied, Gardner, 56, review 721, Wn. 626 P.2d App. v. 28 blocks). Many (suspect driven six 95 Wn.2d 1027 cases, however, additional factor have involved some these Bell, See, State v. e.g., transportation acceptable. making States, v. United (La. Wilkerson 1981); 427 So. 2d 805 395 (defendants to the transportation), A.2d 923 consented denied, (1981); Ill. People Lippert, cert. 89 454 U.S. 852 satisfied), (probable already 2d N.E.2d 605 cause 432 denied, (1982). cert. pro Other courts have 459 U.S. 841 cause transportation without virtually any hibited (Colo. 1984); Cobbin, People 692 P.2d 1069 for arrest. Harris, 384, 391, People v. P.2d 124 Cal. 15 Cal. 3d 540 denied, cert. (1975), U.S. 934 Rptr. proposes ground LaFave a middle between

Professor Terry stop a transportation during forbidding any freely: allowing it transpor- conclusion that because appealing

More is the is more intru- even a short distance tation of the upon it stop, dependent sive than a mere "should imper- knowledge that crime has been committed" and a suspicious when defendant's conduct was missible but "there has not been any recently of a report crime" vicinity. omitted.) (Footnotes LaFave, Search and Seizure 3 W. § 1986). 9.2, (Supp. at 26 way is a reasonable and to appropriate

We believe this transportation question Terry stop. resolve the during case facts this meet test: crime had been reported; stopped; had been transportation distance; for a short total was detention was for but than to brief time —no more 10 minutes. cir- Given the case, of the we not cumstances do think it was unreasonable the officers to ask no questions more of defendant but name, him purpose inform of the of the stop, him for handcuff their own security safety, him to transport the site of the reported scope crime. The exceeded; was stop neither the Fourth Const, Amendment nor violated; art. there § no error.

II by Defendant contends the trial court admitting erred question by Hill regarding acquaintance Detective his with the codefendant Smith. Defendant argues question violated his since right already to remain silent he had indicated his intent to refuse to make a statement. by State asserts the statement defendant denying he knew freely voluntarily. Smith was made and At no time after receiving warnings the Miranda request did defendant an attorney, so the defendant's right to counsel dis- not puted. manner,

When individual "indicates at any any prior time to or during questioning, that he wishes to silent, the interrogation remain must Miranda v. cease." Arizona, 436, 473-74, 694, 384 U.S. 16 L. Ed. 2d 86 S. Ct. (1966). 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 right to remain silent may proves be waived the State preponderance 238 voluntary,

the evidence the waiver and an knowing, was State v. Rob intelligent relinquishment of a right. known (1982). toy, 30, 36, 98 P.2d A Wn.2d 653 284 waiver of explicit may Miranda need not inferred right but be particular from North Carolina v. facts and circumstances. 286, Butler, 369, 373, 441 60 L. Ed. 2d 99 S. 1755 Ct. (1979). may freely A be found when defendant and waiver selectively initially responds police questioning to after 563, Coles, 28 rights. State v. Wn. asserting App. Miranda (1981). 567, 625 P.2d 713 validity previously of a waiver of a determining the silent, may the court consider as

asserted to remain right (1) to cut off right questioning relevant factors: whether the (2) honored; the police whether scrupulously engaged amounting interrogation words or to further actions (3) waiver; obtaining engaged before whether mind; change tactics coerce tending knowing subsequent whether waiver at n.1. voluntary. supra See State v. 37 Robtoy, asking ques- of routine recognized have Courts violate generally does not during booking process tions found in Miranda against interrogation prohibition 291, 297, L. Ed. 2d 100 Innis, 64 Island v. Rhode Menichino, F.2d (1980). v. 497 United States S. Ct. 1682 (5th Israel, & Criminal 1974); 1 J. W. LaFave 935, 941 Cir. routine 6.7, exception An Procedure § questions asked procedures arises because booking v. States response. United rarely incriminating elicit an (9th 1981); Cir. United Booth, 1237-38 F.2d (9th Cir. F.2d Mata-Abundiz, v. States 1983). allowing background, to Miranda exception

The limited booking does necessary complete questions biographical booking pro- during asked questions all encompass (1st Cir. Downing, 665 F.2d United States cess. Mata-Abundiz, supra; United 1981); States United (D.C. 1982); see also 115 Cir. F.2d 672 Hinckley, States

239 (5th 1985) Webb, United States v. 755 F.2d Cir. normally (question question asked "was not a attendant ."). custody . . As court United stated in States v. Booth, supra 1238: by recognize potential abuse law enforce- [W]e might, guise

ment officers who under seeking or "objective" information, deliberately "neutral" elicit an incriminating suspect. statement from a In the present case, Wheeler was twice advised them, Miranda rights, acknowledged he understood to give twice refused Detective Hill pro- statement. then ceeded to fill out a "Personal Investigation Report", and the course aof series of descriptive biographical ques- question tions asked the here. contested The questions Investigation contained the Personal Report are the kind questions generally of routine permit- ted. The whether question asked as to defendant knew Tony Smith, however, question was a routine not Hill booking process. question Detective conceded fill necessary report. not The implication out Wheeler, however, been could well have the opposite, since questions. it was along asked with the other again Wheeler indicated his to make a continuing refusal statement after Hill completed report Detective questioning. We find State has not sustained to prove its burden the defend- right honored, ant's to silence scrupulously and he vol- untarily waived a not to known answer the right question being Robtoy, contested. See supra. State v. remains, however,

The issue whether the error beyond trial court here was harmless a reasonable doubt. Jones, State 113, 125, See 101 Wn.2d P.2d (1984). In determining whether an error is harmless untainted "overwhelming evidence test" adopted (1985), v. Guloy, State 104 Wn.2d cert. P.2d 1182 denied, (1986), 475 U.S. 1020 the court must determine by a reasonable beyond doubt evidence tainted is, itself, overwhelming necessarily error so it leads guilt. Guloy, to a at 426. We find under this test finding admission the evidence here was harmless. over- itself, stop from the the evidence of the whelming evidence shirt, eyewitness burglary, matching identifica- to conclude the of this evidence tion lead us exclusion resulted in a different verdict. The trial would not have admitting error in the statement was harmless. court's

Ill jury contends the instruction to the to Defendant from to any testify draw inference his failure high- adverse argues the instruction lighted his from the trial. He absence requested by unless defense counsel. given should not be Supreme Court has ruled this The United States does not instruction, given objection, even over defense self-incrim against the Fifth Amendment privilege violate v. Oregon, of federal law. Lakeside 435 ination as a matter (1978). 333, 319, L. Ct. 1091 As to the Ed. 2d 98 S. 55 against self-incrimi provision constitutional Washington 1, 9, have construed it be iden nation, article section we Franco, State 96 tical in to the Fifth Amendment. scope Foster, (1982); State v. 91 816, 829, Wn.2d 639 P.2d 1320 Furthermore, (1979). this 466, 473, P.2d 789 Wn.2d 589 prejudicial is no error specifically court has held there or of the State request give this instruction either on the 901, Goldstein, Wn.2d 65 own motion. State v. the court's denied, cert. U.S. 895 400 P.2d Affirmed. JJ., Callow, Durham,

Brachtenbach, Andersen, concur. United not believe that J. do (concurring) —I

Dore, Ohio, Court decision Supreme States (1968) justifies L. Wheeler's Ed. 2d S. Ct. Nevertheless, I majority's concur original detention. on the conviction basis that Wheeler's decision affirm detaining Wheeler constituted police officer's actions valid arrest.1 individual,

In order to arrest an must have cause that a crime. individual has committed case, detention, In this at the time of Wheeler's the officers (1) (2) possible occurred; knew: that a had burglary males; suspects there were two who were both black that one of the suspects wearing bright blue shirt with stripes. they When arrived at the scene of the bur- glary, met reporter and he indicated the fol- lowing: A reporter] stated to me that he had seen a black [The wearing bright

male this blue sweater stripes with on it right

area here Rainier Avenue along (indicating). Q you response What did do then to that?

A Officer Smith and I at 4608 South Cloverdale got vehicle, back our patrol drove down Cloverdale to 50th, along South, 50th to Rainier Place then to Rainier Avenue up Rainier, South. We looked northbound on person reporter] we saw the blue sweater had seen with the bright [the it, stripes with on the black male. He was fast walking west side of the on northbound on this side would be the

street front of this right here building (indicating) which is a restaurant.

Q you What did do then? A up We drove the sidewalk here (indicating) this stopped building. individual at the northeast corner of the Q was What the condition of the individual at that time?

A The man stopped we was sweating very heavily, and he was out of breath. Report

Verbatim of Proceedings, at 67. I believe these facts constitute cause for an arrest, and I would affirm Wheeler's conviction on this basis only. stop original 1The State has never conceded that Wheeler's was not an arrest. suppression hearing, argued In the original the State and the court ruled that Terry may stop, denying detention was a valid but this court affirm the order suppress grounds. Olympia, 105,

motion to on alternative Ertman v. 95 Wn.2d 108, 621 P.2d 724 ex- majority's C.J. believe the (dissenting) —I Pearson, flaw position significant doctrine contains a with the interpretation at odds that renders our Supreme light fostered interpretation Court. it, I resulting from this error and the incorrect conclusion dissent. Police officers had a dispute.

The facts here are had committed suspicion petitioner reasonable They stopped petitioner crime. on the street and advised he being suspicion him that was held of burglary. frisk, handcuff, proceeded petitioner officers and order patrol transported peti- their car. The officers then into suspected burglary tioner several blocks to the scene of the petitioner for a witness identification. The total time was approximately detained was minutes. transportation holds that the detention and majority a lawful seizure petitioner investigative permitted Terry Ohio, 20 L. Ed. 2d 88 S. Ct. (1968). In so to follow doing, majority purports Williams, (1984). In

State 102 Wn.2d 689 P.2d Williams, suspicion officers had a reasonable had committed a burglary. They stopped Williams Wil- car, out, ordered the frisked and liams' him, him in placed patrol vehicle. This handcuffed Williams' seizure unlawful for two rea- court held that Williams, First, they not ques- sons. when seized did explain presence him him to at the house to allow tion but instead the thought burglarized, to have been utilized they investigated seizure a sort of action" while "holding as Williams, Second, not police at 740-41. the did the house. dangerous, Williams believing articulate reasons for in him or handcuffing secluding they justified thus were not Williams, at 740. patrol him in car. the virtually in instant case are iden- The material facts the tical to those Williams. suspi- in Police had a "reasonable Terry the required of under proof cion" —the level —that suspicion a crime. crime under suspect had committed Williams, case, police in burglary. instant the some the order to elicit inquiries suspect made no addition, the articu- presence. for his explanation believing dangerous; lated no reasons for the handcuffing and seclusion vehicle were procedure. routine majority any

Because the has not offered facts material Terry to the doctrine that would the instant distinguish Williams, I case from believe we must hold the seizure here However, my unlawful. dissent this case is based on more Williams. I than the court's failure to believe the follow Terry espoused by Supreme doctrine as the United States here, permit Court a seizure such as the one would First, two reasons. the Court would not consider the seizure Terry stop, species of the circumstances of regardless Second, case. particular even the seizure were of a Terry, type permitted under the Court would find that scope of the seizure was in light particular excessive of the facts known police. to the These two distinct issues —the type in general permitted Terry seizure relation between the seizure and the particular circum- stances of the case—are best explained through recapitu- Terry lation of the doctrine.

I Ohio, supra, established although Amendment applies Fourth to all seizures person, including relatively ones, require minor not all seizures proof. same level of Seizures are as intrusive as arrests cause; require however, traditional rel- certain seizures, atively unintrusive such as brief on-the-street investigatory stops, may justified by a lesser standard of proof. Terry, standard, 392 U.S. at 21-22. This lesser standard, "reasonable suspicion" is satisfied when officers point "specific can and articulable facts" which warrant a crime. See belief that is or has been engaged Brignoni-Ponce, United States v. 873, 880-81, 422 U.S. Ohio, (1975); L. supra, Ed. 2d 95 S. Ct. 2574 Hensley, see also United States v. 21-22, 28; 244 (1985).

221, 604, 227, 83 Ed. S. Ct. 675 L. 2d 105 Thus, it first justify stop, when the State seeks to had reason must establish that the officers investigating activity of criminal the suspicion able and that seizure at general relatively issue falls within the class of unintrusive met, prerequisites measures. Once these two have been test" is "balancing play. balancing called into in the requires weighing governmental test interest particular seizure before the court the intrusiveness against privacy rights of that seizure on the of the individual. Dun York, 200, 209-10, 824, L. away v. New 442 U.S. Ed. 2d (1979). governmental 99 S. The examination of the Ct. 2248 interest involves a determination of whether reasonably diligence acted and with their choice of Sharpe, States v. procedures. United 470 U.S. investigatory (1985). 675, 686-87, L. 2d 105 S. Ct. 1568 Ed then, Terry inquiry, essentially is a four-step one: 1. there a Was "seizure" as term was intended is, Fourth Amendment —that was there a forcible detention to, example, a consensual encounter? See opposed 491, 497-98, Florida v. 460 U.S. 75 L. Ed. 2d Royer, (1983) (plurality opinion); Terry, 103 S. Ct. 1319 16. seizing 2. have reasonable suspicion Did officer of minimum activity? proof, criminal Without this amount of See United States v. justifiable. Brig- no forcible is stop noni-Ponce, supra. the class

3. Did seizure within limited intru- fall of without cause? justified sions that can See 696, 708-09, Place, 77 L. Ed. United States 2d (1983); 103 S. Ct. 2637 met, have did the requirements 4. If the been preceding scope even the limited governmental justify interest of intrusion, circumstances light particular see Sharpe, supra; case? See United States v. generally 692, 696-700, 69 L. Ed. Michigan Summers, 452 U.S. 2d 340,101 S. Ct. analysis majority's

The error its coalescence inquiry. 3 and 4 of this steps Although each of these two steps seizure, focuses the intrusiveness of the the inqui- in inquiry step ries are different. is 3 whether the sei- investigative stop zure opposed is as to full-scale arrest, for a full-scale arrest can never be supported by less cause. See Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 216. The than whether, in 4 is inquiry step that assuming the seizure is limited sufficiently to be classified as a stop, the nature and stop by extent of the were justified governmental the inter- is, ests served the seizure: that did the police act in a in reasonable manner their of choice investigatory proce- See Sharpe, dures? 470 U.S. at 686-87.

Perhaps Terry analy- way the clearest to understand the sis is steps to note that 1 through 3 comprise prelimi- the this Terry stop?", nary question, "Is 4 step asks, then "Given that type this of seizure meets the minimum Terry particular this requirements seizure stop, reasonable intrusion in light the circumstances at the Thus, timel" for example, assume Terry would allow police officers to airport detain an passenger's luggage send it away several miles to be sniffed by a narcotics detection dog, even though procedure the would take more than an hour. the Suppose police in a particular case had several hours' notice that a suspect would be at the arriving air- port, and the easily officers could have arranged bring the dog airport prior to the suspect's A arrival. deci- sion to detain and transport in luggage lieu procuring the dog would constitute an unnecessary intrusion in those circumstances and thus would be an unreasonable seizure. Place, See United States v. 462 U.S. at 709-10. other words, even if an intrusion sufficiently is classify limited to as a stop, particular circumstances of a seizure See can render intrusion unjustified. United States Sharpe, (police 470 U.S. at 686-88 must use diligence, reasonable). procedures must be investigatory Terry analysis step This final has been referred to York, as the Terry balancing Dunaway test. See v. New 442 U.S. at 210. It differs from the 3 inquiry step "intrusion" a lim- already with dealing assumes we are step because par- proceeds intrusion and to focus whether ited light intrusion is reasonable ticular limited balancing test circumstances of the case. particular first whether to determine instance not used substantially than an arrest less intrusive" intrusion is "so York, Dunaway See v. New stop. as a qualify so overemphasized governmental supra. It cannot be police, of the and the and reasonableness diligence interests test, carry absolutely step balancing in the while factors of the into the limitedness weight step inquiry no only the intrusive- inquiry intrusion. The examines of the liberty rights on the and privacy ness of the seizure suspect.

A Court's cases demon- survey Supreme viability of these two distinct intru- strates the continued The Court first examines the "limitedness" inquiries. sion supported by intrusion see if the seizure can be of the probable than it decides that the seizure is less cause. Once sufficiently Terry as a the Court qualify stop, limited to in light of the intrusion examines the "reasonableness" stake and particular law enforcement interests at methods investigatory choice and intrusiveness employed. Terry's v. New York was one of the first of

Dunaway clarify that a seizure be considered an progeny to cannot is the seizure investigatory stop when intrusiveness indistinguishable from intru- important respects "in [the York, Dunaway v. New siveness a traditional arrest." of] officers had a reason- Dunaway, police 212. U.S. at in participated that the defendant had an suspicion able killing. resulted The robbery which had attempted house and neighbor's the defendant at a officers located vehicle. The officers get police him to into their ordered placed to the station and took the defendant then was not interrogation Although room. him in an he restrained, would been restrained had he have physically not told he was The defendant was attempted to leave. arrest, Dunaway, nor was he booked. 212. at in Dunaway The Court recognized the seizure was merely investigatory measure and was not necessarily prelude intended as a to the of formal filing charges. See York, Dunaway supra. held, however, New Court the seizure still on justified could less than probable cause because the intrusion on the individual's 212-13, liberty Dunaway, was substantial. 216. The defendant's seizure not "even roughly analogous to the narrowly defined intrusions involved and its prog- eny." Dunaway, at 213. carved out an exception to the general Fourth Amendment rule that searches and seizures be If the based cause. Court were to permit a as the seizure as intrusive one Dunaway to fall exception within the Terry exception, then "would threaten to general swallow rule”. Dunaway, at 213. [that] argument Dunaway State's essentially was that Terry analysis 3 in the be discarded whenever a sei- zure falls short of technical arrest. See Dunaway, at 213. The legality of the seizure would be determined through balancing the use of the test. The Supreme Court, however, expressly rejected approach. this protections by intended the Framers could all too [T]he

easily in the disappear consideration and balancing of the presented multifarious circumstances by cases, different especially when that balancing may be done the first engaged instance officers in the competi- "often enterprise tive out ferreting crime." A single, familiar officers, to guide police standard essential who have expertise limited time and only to reflect on and balance the social individual interests involved in specific the they circumstances confront.

(Citation omitted.) Dunaway, at 213-14. Terry balancing test thus comes play only into when "narrowly we are dealing with defined intrusions". Duna- 214. way, at Once we have determined an intrusion is lim- nature, in may proceed ited we to balance "the limited privacy violation of individual involved against oppos- the in ing prevention interests crime detection and the omitted.) (Citation Dunaway, at safety." officer's police substantial, "the requisite when the intrusion 209. But in centuries precedent has performed been 'balancing' 'reason- in the that seizures are principle and is embodied Dunaway, at supported by probable cause." only able' 214. suspect's substantially was

In the seizure deciding that the arrest, Dunaway the considered as an Court intrusive questioned was not at the location facts that the initially transported instead was stopped where he was but station, he was confined where car to 212. a seizure Dunaway, room. at Such interrogation to the intrusion limited roughly analogous" not "even Dunaway, 213. Terry offspring. and its at sanctioned application Terry Dunaway's limitation years several later Michi- test was reenforced balancing Summers, L. Ed. 2d 101 S. Ct. gan v. Summers, to execute a police officers about encountered the sus- suspect's warrant on a home search pect descending steps. the front The officers detained of the search. inside house course during The issue before the Court was whether detention recapitulated lawful The Court absent cause. that bal- Dunaway's and its conclusion reasoning personal privacy intrusions on applies only test ancing than the intrusions tradi- that are "so much less severe" Summers, Dunaway, 442 (citing at 696-98 tional arrests. 209). whether to follow Before it could decide probable cause standard for general standard or the detention, had to the Court assessing the lawfulness "substantially the detention was less determine whether Summers, than the traditional arrest. at 701-02 intrusive" 210). Dunaway, 442 U.S. at (quoting that deciding the Court considered in factors than substantially in Summers was less intrusive detention the detention inside a home place an arrest were took belonged being to the detained. person the home . . . suspect's] was in own the detention [the "[Blecause residence, only it minimally public could add stigma to the Summers, associated with the search itself". at 702. The search already by had been authorized a warrant and thus presented no Fourth problem, although Amendment detention during significant the search was "a on restraint suspect's] liberty," it was not of a type that most citi- [the zens Summers, would find intrusive. See overly at 701. Terry

One the next cases to illustrate the distinction between the two inquiries Royer, intrusion was Florida v. 75 L. Ed. 2d 103 S. Ct. 1319 Royer, detectives narcotics at investigating trafficking Airport developed Miami that suspicion reasonable defendant was carrying Royer, contraband in luggage. at 502. After talking briefly with the defendant and examining his airline ticket identification, and baggage the detectives retained the ticket and identification and asked the suspect accompany them. The detectives led the suspect to a small room in flight lounge attendants' approximately spot feet from the on the concourse where the suspect initially had been stopped. room, Once inside the detectives asked the if he would consent to a search of his luggage. Royer, at 494.

In a portion the plurality opinion reflecting the view of five justices, the Court held that at time the detectives requested consent to search the "the luggage detention to which suspect] was then was a subjected [the more serious intrusion his personal liberty on than is allowable on mere suspicion activity." Royer, of criminal at 502; Royer, 501; J., see also Royer, (Brennan, at at 509 result). in the concurring fact the detectives suspect's ticket luggage, retained combined with the suspect "public officers' removal of from a place", practical matter, led the Court to conclude that "[a]s [the Royer, 503; under arrest." at see at suspect] Royer, result). (Brennan, J., concurring Although Royer the Court relied 3 of the step analysis holding that the seizure was too severe to Terry, see justified Royer, the Court applied, had whether, 4: considered dicta balancing test reason- satisfied for seizure would have Royer, concluded at 504-05. The Court ableness. See Terry, even under have been unlawful the seizure would by removing the interests were not served law enforcement Royer, suspect concourse, See at and from the the sei- necessary". Royer, more intrusive than at 504. zure "was respect important note that with to the It is Royer inquiry intrusion, of the the "limitedness" the into adopt per transporting a a se rule that sus- Court did per- pect location to another is too intrusive to be from one suspect airport Terry. Bringing "from an a mitted example, private area", a more can be a concourse to for Royer, at some circumstances. See 504- limited intrusion However, of made the sus- 05. the combination facts that (1) Royer pect's and removal unlawful in were detention suspect's the airline ticket and the officers' retention of (2) baggage identification; the officers' retrieval and reten- (3) suspect's suspect's luggage; removal from tion of the the place private public room, in a alone with to confinement retaining the officers; the officers' intention of two and procured. Royer, luggage at until a search warrant could Arguably, removal would have been limited 502-03. papers agents suspect's intrusion if the had returned merely questioned briefly luggage him in the and then and room. Place, L. 77 Ed. 2d

In United States (1983), shortly Royer, Ct. 2637 decided after 103 S. Drug Place, faced a similar situation. Court (DEA) agents Administration received infor- Enforcement arriving La Air- would be at Guardia mation that a luggage. agents port carrying in his The narcotics informing approached arrival, him that after conversing suspected carrying contraband. After he suspicion developing a with reasonable the defendant carrying drugs, agents luggage DEA seized he was nearby Kennedy Airport, transported where it to subjected a "sniff test" narcotics agents bags The dog. dog positive detection manifested reaction to one of the time from seizure bags. length the initial of the until had sniffed them was bags dog approxi- Place, mately 90 minutes. at 698-99.

The Court in Place engaged inquiries: both "intrusion" first, whether the investigative procedures employed were sufficiently cause, to be permissible limited absent Place, 706-07, 709-10; second, see whether the offi- diligently cers acted in employing those see procedures, Place, at In the step inquiry, 709-10. the Court examined aspects two of the seizure: the luggage duration the sei- zure exposure and the to the luggage narcotics detection dog. Court concluded that the canine sniff species was a of search "much less typical intrusive than a search" because it "does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise remain view, would hidden from public does, example, an officer's rummaging through con- Place, tents the luggage.” Thus, of at 707. such a limited search, seizure, like a by limited could be supported less probable than cause. the in Place

Although per Court se rejected bar the Terry use of canine detection in stops, the Court concluded aspect that the other the of seizure —its luggage duration— failed to fall perimeter within the Terry outer of as required step per 3. Here the Court did set a se rule: a 90-minute airport detention of an passenger's is too luggage long seizure, to be a lawful Terry regardless the of law enforcement interests at stake or the of diligence police. the ("The Place, length at 709 of the respondent's detention of alone the luggage precludes conclusion that the seizure was cause."). in (Italics reasonable the absence of mine.) explained: The Court we

Although ures recognized have the reasonableness of seiz longer momentary Terry, than the ones in involved Williams, (1972)], Adams U.S. 143 Brignoni [v. . brevity Ponce . . the invasion of the individual's Fourth Amendment an important interests factor minimally is so intrusive whether the seizure determining suspicion. justifiable on reasonable as to be Place, engaged Royer, As in Court dicta at 709. if the and concluded that even inquiry 4 intrusion Terry, the agents' under fail- permissible been seizure had manner would have a reasonable ure to act diligently Place, any event. at 709. the seizure unlawful rendered cases, recent decided on of the Court's most Two the inquiry the distinction between day, highlight the same and the inquiry of the intrusion into the limitedness into particular in the cir- intrusion of the the reasonableness v. Sharpe, In United States of the case. cumstances (1985), S. Ct. 1568 L. Ed. 2d step 4 inquiry into was with principal concern Court's case, In that intrusion. of the the reasonableness driving while the latter was suspect stopped officer had for 20 truck, the officer detained pickup the duration argued minutes. The in Place —"alone" pre- stop stop the duration —like 683; Place, see Sharpe, at Terry. cluded under justification 462 U.S. at 709. contention, it although suspect's

The Court rejected must be stops limited principle reaffirmed the stop continues "Obviously, investigative an intrusions. longer justified no point it can indefinitely, at some at 685. But once stop." Sharpe, investigative that a detention of argument aside the Court brushed Terry, impermissible it 20 minutes duration inquiry, where it the reasonableness shifted to abruptly diligence and rea- question to a refined test 470 U.S. at Sharpe, choices. 686-87. investigative sonable the step to confuse 3 and appearing language some Despite police at 685-86 Sharpe, (examining 4 see step inquiries, in Terry), of Court no determining in limits diligence part police of the could on way suggested diligence detention, See probable absent cause. lengthy justify ever at 685. Sharpe, the outer decline to set expressly Court did Sharpe

The

253 Terry stop in of duration. at 685. Sharpe, limits of a terms "impose The Court's reluctance to time limitation" rigid [a] 685; Place, at see Terry stops, Sharpe, on also 462 U.S. at 709-10, may stem from the cannot be fact that duration from in apart aspects stop determining looked other of the limitedness of the example, intrusion. For terms of intrusiveness, a may half-hour detention aon street corner arrest, tantamount whereas a half-hour detention porch on the of may one's own home be sufficiently limited justified to be suspicion. Michigan reasonable Cf. (detention Summers, 452 supra, U.S. at 702 in one's own "substantially residence less public intrusive" than more detention). But whatever the Court's behind reasoning to set an limit refusing absolute on the duration of seizure, the Court Sharpe continued to adhere two inquiries, intrusion its affirming Dunaway, holdings Summers, Royer, Sharpe, and Place. See 470 U.S. at 684- 85. Florida, Hayes

In 470 U.S. 84 L. Ed. 2d (1985), S. Ct. 1643 decided the same day Sharpe, as Court step focused on the inquiry, of question whether the intrusion sufficiently less intrusive than an so to qualify arrest as a stop. Hayes, police had suspicion reasonable to believe the defendant had commit- ted a of burglary-rapes. series The officers went to the defendant's home and him informed if he would volunteer to return with them to the for fin- station they would him gerprinting, place arrest. agreed defendant to accompany station, officers where he was fingerprinted. Hayes Court held that the defendant's seizure removal to the station was too intrusive to be

justified absent Hayes, cause. at 816. The Court balancing none of the engaged interests characteristic inquiry, nor did it into inquire the officers' faith, diligence, or reasonableness their good choice Rather, investigatory procedures. the Court reaffirmed the York, holdings Dunaway v. New L. Ed. 254 (1979) S. Ct. 2248 and Davis 394 Mississippi,

2d 99 (1969), L. 721, 22 Ed. 2d 89 S. Ct 1394 that police] at "transportation investigative to and detention [a suspicions on the cannot be based reasonable station" Hayes, at 815. officers in the field. investigative

There is that at point no doubt some process, police procedures qualitatively quanti- can and suspect's so intrusive with to a free- tatively respect be privacy and interests as to trigger dom movement protection full of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend- 212; 460 Dunaway, Royer, ments. Florida v. [442 U.S.] opinion). U. 499 And our view (plurality S. police, the line is when the continues to be that crossed warrant, forcibly without person cause or a remove is place from his home or other which he enti- station, him tled to the where transport and detained, is briefly, investigative pur- he although poses.

Hayes, at 815-16. such seizure is unlawful emphasized

It should be that procedure employed at the sta- investigative even when the relatively The Court observed tion house is unintrusive. repeated "involves neither that fingerprinting into life and any probing private harassment nor search, marks and thoughts interrogation that often [and . . other a much less serious intrusion . than represents it] Hayes, at 814. types of searches detentions." house, however, was suffi- removal to the station "alone" seizure cient to render the defendant's unlawful.

II Terry analysis applied to the instant 4-step When case, disputes are No one steps unproblematic. the first two was "seized" when the officers encoun- petitioner him, of the Fourth Amend- protections thus the tered addition, disputes no one triggered. ment were petitioner suspicion that officers had a reasonable however, do, disagree as activity. We involved criminal I concur step step inquiries. cannot intrusion on the assumption that majority's implicit petitioner's "substantially liberty less intrusive” than arrest, Summers, Michigan see 452 U.S. at 702. And if the even intrusion somehow were permissible I assumption believe is incorrect —the intrusion —an step would fail the inquiry. Terry inquiry requires us to examine the privacy

nature of the intrusion on the suspect's liberty and stop interests. The officer's Wheeler following had the (1) attributes: Wheeler was an explanation not asked for (2) (3) presence; handcuffed; his he was he in a placed was (4) car; patrol he transported away from the location (5) initially seized; where he was the distance he was taken (6) blocks; was several the duration seizure was minutes; approximately 5 the investigative proce- dure at the conclusion of the eyewitness seizure was an identification. draw,

The first conclusion we can based on the cases dis above, cussed is that if Wheeler had been taken to the police station scene, instead of to the crime there would be question no the seizure would have been See unlawful. Florida, Hayes supra; v. v. Davis Mississippi, supra; Dun away York, v. New supra. The fact that Wheeler was not subjected to interrogation at the of his journey end but was merely presented for identification is irrelevant. Hayes See Florida, (even v. 470 U.S. at though 814-15 fingerprinting relatively is procedure unintrusive and arguably may be permitted during a stop, seriousness of in intrusion suspect bringing to any station house for investigative pur pose makes unjustifiable). Moreover, seizure transporting a suspect police is station unlawful even the entire is See Hayes, detention brief. at 816.

The Supreme Court also has told us that the intrusive- ness the removal a is no less suspect in those cases where the first police encounter the suspect somewhere other at the suspect's than home. In Royer stopped place; in a public Hayes, home; in his own Dunaway, at a home. The neighbor's Hayes Court clarified is prerequisite that cause a sus- transporting "forcibly to the pect police station when .. . from home or other he is place remove which [d] mine.) (Italics to be". Hayes, entitled 470 U.S. at 816. Nonetheless, any out Supreme Court has ruled suspect, Royer, supra, see Florida moving (removal from airport private at 504-05 concourse to more may in permissible). area some circumstances be diffi culty holding moving with this issue is that while sufficiently limited suspect may some circumstances be Terry, yet uphold intrusion to fall under the Court has the sus instance where have moved an individual Florida, See Davis v. pect. Hayes supra; Mississippi, York, Royer, Dunaway Florida v. v. New supra; supra; opinion in the instant case cites a supra. majority holding circuit and state court cases number of federal in a suspect may transported be handcuffed and However, in none of the cited did Terry. car under cases analysis or 4-step recognize the courts use the the distinc step step inquiries. 4 "intrusion" tion between Instead, only performed inquiry, using courts the justify the reasonableness officers' actions to States, See Wilkerson v. United 427 A.2d 923 intrusions. denied, (1981); v. (D.C.), People Lippert, cert. U.S. 852 454 605, denied, 171, cert. U.S. 841 Ill. 2d 432 N.E.2d 459 89 (1982).2 suffer the same defect. The cases cited Washington 56, 721, Gardner, v. 28 Wn. 626 P.2d review App. See State (1981); Walker, v. 24 Wn. denied, 1027 State 95 Wn.2d 823, (1979), denied, review 93 Wn.2d 604 P.2d 514 App. (1980). by major case not cited Washington One 1017 195, P.2d 44 722 113 Hoffpauir, App. State v. Wn. ity, transportation that (1986), involuntary dicta concluded cause, home, would fall absent to a witness' See Hayes. Davis and prohibition within the squarely event, the issue any although In Hoffpauir, at 198-99. one, affords lit- entirely precedent novel before us is not Bell, (La. 1981), majority, the defend 2In State v. cited 395 So. 2d 805 Bell, See ''voluntarily" accompanied in his 395 So. 2d at 808. the officer car. ants

257 support majority's tie for the conclusion. order for us to conclude, then, may suspect that a remove to some- station, satisfy a where other than we should our- detention, selves that the other suspect's conditions of the removal, taken with the resulted in a seizure that together "'substantially than remained less intrusive' an arrest." See Summers, Michigan 452 U.S. 702. at In Florida v. Royer, supra, suspect was walked away 40 feet approximately public from the concourse stopped. where he was first The Court seemed concerned place with the fact that he which a taken was private room a area. Because the distance was small and the Court did not find the unduly duration of the seizure I long, think that the case must be read to hold3 that lay overintrusiveness the seizure in the retention of the suspect's personal property coupled involuntary with his seclusion and See Royer, confinement. 460 U.S. 503 ("What begun had inquiry public place consensual had escalated into an investigatory procedure in a police ."). . . interrogation above, room As noted has Court upheld the removal of suspect even when the subjected was not later interrogation. See Royer, 503; Hayes Florida, U.S. at see also 811, 814-15, L. Ed. 2d S. problem Ct. 1643 then, Royer, was not was taken to be interrogated but rather that he was confined.4

The Supreme Court has not discussed use of hand- in Terry stop. cuffs has upheld self-pro- Court brief earlier, Royer, although I 3As indicated Florida v. L. 2d Ed. 4-justice plurality, justice 103 S. Ct. 1319 was a a fifth concurred portions plurality opinion (Brennan, Royer, discussed here. See at 509 J., concurring). say interrogation 4This is not to the difference between less intrusive investigatory Summers, 692, procedures Michigan is See irrelevant. v. 452 U.S. n.15, 340, (1981). However, 702 L. Ed. 69 2d 101 S. Ct. 2587 far as intru removing confining suspect concerned, siveness a is such measures Florida, may qualify Terry. Hayes themselves too intrusive to See v. 470 811, 705, (1985). U.S. 84 L. Ed. 2d 105 S. Ct. 1643 258 officers, as a part patdown, such

tection measures on 889, L. 2d Ct. Ohio, see 392 U.S. Ed. 88 S. vehicle, (1968); of his requiring a out Mimms, L. 2d Pennsylvania Ed. see (1977); drawing and an officer see gun, 98 S. Ct. 330 221, 235, L. Ed. 2d Hensley, States v. United 604, 105 None of these measures has been S. Ct. 675 momentary, more than however. disposition of these Supreme

Given the Court's cases, precedent Court any Supreme and the absence in a vehi- handcuffing, police either confinement upholding cle, I we can hold that transportation, or do not see how car, police and removal handcuffing, confinement location, "substantially less together, taken are another Davis, Hayes, in Dunaway, intrusive" than the seizures and, If Mr. Wheeler had been taken especially, Royer. most from he police just station around the corner where to a briefly, Hayes would stopped only had been and held there the seizure unlawful. hold were not sufficient Supreme precedent

Even Court in this case majority police measures persuade intrusive, Being sense should suffice. severely were common person physically helpless but only manacled not makes a additionally enormously humiliating experience. Being is an only police vehicle is because frightening confined physical police restraint but also because actions of the influ- restraining are within the vehicle unfettered more scrutiny ordinarily accompanies public ence of involuntary removal without an Finally, detentions. public family or and with- to inform one's associates opportunity and duration of the knowledge out destination event. You do not need necessarily terrifying detention that a hallmark of the recognize scholar to to be a historical of citi- has been the sudden abduction modern state zens, judicial approval. or without cause may prefer that a has been raised argument than vehicle rather and confined to be secluded public thoroughfare. on a notoriety of detention endure argument Such an suspect impliedly intimates a consents to the confinement. The record here offers no peti- indication matter, tioner granted any choice may and he preferred have having eyewitness brought to him instead of vice versa. Neither courts nor the presume should acting on a citizen's behalf opting for his handcuffing, confinement, and removal lieu of his remaining where he was initially encountered.

III Although analysis the above precludes handcuffing, con vehicle, finement in a police and removal loca another tion a procedure lawful investigatory under Terry, this interpretation Terry does not mean that police may never justifiably perform procedures such following a lawful Terry stop. example, For in some cases the suspect may consent such procedures. In suspect instances where the manner, in menacing acts a police may have probable cause they to believe are assaulted; about to be in such cases probable cause furnishes all necessary justification for See, the arrest. e.g., Holeman, State v. 37 Wn. App. (1984), 679 P.2d aff'd, 103 Wn.2d 693 P.2d 89 (1985). Similarly, a suspect's attempt to effectuate an escape arrest, would justify for the suspect would be interfering with the officer's lawful exercise of his her or 9A.76.020(3). See authority. RCW addition, In handcuffing may and seclusion if be lawful appears uncontrollable due to intoxication or a problem. 70.96A.170; mental See RCW RCW 71.05.150- (4)(b). In such cases the officer would be restraining the suspect for medical safety purposes and and for prose- not cution purposes.

Finally, Supreme open Court has left another possi- justification ble handcuffing, confining, transporting Florida, Hayes In suspect. supra, Court suggested exigent circumstances the Fourth Amendment permit might bringing to the police station based only suspicion, on a reasonable provided the seizure offi- by merely by judge was authorized independent Hayes, cer. 470 U.S. at 817. such cases as a magistrate detached would act judgment officers. well-meaning restraint but overzealous Cf. 200, 213-14, York, 442 60 L. 2d Dunaway v. New Ed. (protections intended Framers 99 S. Ct. 2248 easily test disappear" balancing "could all too seizures, when "especially balancing to all applied [the] [is] first officers in the by police engaged done instance crime.'"). of out competitive enterprise ferreting 'often Thus, recognition telephone we cannot rule out of a valid in the justification warrant as for a seizure such as the one instant case. self-pro

Terry already given ample room for has See, e.g., guns. measures such as frisks and drawn tection Ohio, States v. supra; Hensley, supra. United in new represent and seclusion this case do not handcuffing reasonably required coping for procedures enforcement of threats in modern times. types posed with new Cf. (5th 1973) 482 F.2d 1272 Cir. Skipwith, United States at indi airports metal detector searches absent (permitting Kunzig, Downing v. 454 F.2d 1230 suspicion); vidualized (6th 1972) court (holding bombings Cir. that threat of contrary, baggage inspections). On the justify houses brief of well aware of the the Framers our Constitution were liberty of and the restraint created burglary threat in The Framers decided that handcuffs and confinement. of free spite guilty persons going of the number standard, that of proof cause standard probable and lib balance between law enforcement interests proper The Fourth Amendment was erty privacy interests. prosecution; of effective crime never intended as a guaranty ” observed, nothing is new recently as Justice Scalia [T]here sometimes insulates the Constitution the realization in of a few order to us criminality protect privacy Hicks, —, 347, — L. Ed. 2d 107 S. Arizona v. all." cause, not 1149, (holding probable Ct. required is for suspicion, proof the level reasonable view). If were to objects plain seizure of discovered we Terry exception probable construe cause requirement broadly enough to allow the seizure in this case, exception general "would threaten to swallow the ordinarily required. rule" that is page cause See 247, Dunaway York, 442 quoting v. New U.S. at 213.

IV Although the seizure here was stop, even it were it would unlawful. For the handcuffing, confine- ment, and removal of petitioner fares no better under the 4 inquiry than 3. step Concededly, under the the law enforcement interest is prosecuting burglaries great. The however, question, whether the officers "diligently pur- sued means investigation" that would let them know short petitioner probably order whether had committed a See United States v. burglary. Sharpe, 84 L. Ed. 2d 105 S. Ct. 1568 The test dili- gence is not whether could have used a less investigatory intrusive procedure but whether —if a less procedure they intrusive unreasonably acted existed — failing pursue to consider and it. Sharpe, at 687. "A court making this assessment should take care to consider police acting whether the are in a swiftly situa- developing tion, and such cases the court indulge should not unrealistic second-guessing." Sharpe, at 686.

The officers here to pursue failed three ask- alternatives: ing petitioner's being transported, consent to questioning petitioner where he was first to him detained allow to explain presence, transporting peti- the witness to tioner instead of vice versa. Seeking consent creates the possibility necessary. no forcible will be detention Although questioning suspect may appear sometimes futile because police seek objective suspect's more evidence than a statements, own the possibility suspect dispel can suspicions the officer's never overlooked. In some should be may person circumstances be able summon a nearby story. Summary to corroborate his confinement and technique employed. never be first should removal Cf. Williams, P.2d 1065 State 102 Wn.2d few, justify circumstances ("Very any, exigent without privacy on a citizen's police intrusion identity, suspect's purpose ascertaining immediately crime."). in a area, possible involvement being in the (Footnote omitted.) witnesses always bringing consider

Finally, police should transporting being is held instead where the may imprac- be Admittedly in some cases this suspect. rape assault or tical, when the witness particularly will more than However, many cases witnesses be victim. case, police; in instant the witnesses to assist the

willing transporting cooperate. The consensual eager appeared nonconsen- always preferred should to the of witnesses sual removal of a detainee. only measures hindsight three alternatives are not

These Rather, should they are measures would discover. other, more intrusive measures. routinely consider before I For reasons dissent. these Tern., with J., J. Pro concur Cunningham,

Utter, C.J. Pearson, 4, 1987.] 51222-1. En Banc. June

[No. Petitioner, Forks, Bailey, Patti Town

Respondent.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Wheeler

Court Name: Washington Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 4, 1987

Citation: 737 P.2d 1005

Docket Number: 52679-6

Court Abbreviation: Wash.