The primary criminal defense case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a situation focused on the rules of facts, namely 404(b). Here we go.
State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of case a DUI attorney loves because the proof was slight. It is not the kind of state of affairs a criminal attorney loves since the prosecutor employed some original theories of utilizing the rules of proof that appeared to be odd upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to say.
Facts - The victim was awakened in his home by gunshots. He looked outside and saw a person shooting out of a red van. The van was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one person. A independent victim heard the same thing, and later discovered bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. later the cops searched the house of Hartzell’s buddy, who admitted to shooting a pistol at a different time. According to ballistics, the handgun was that used during the firing described above.
The cops were then afterward called to a reported crime where Hartzell was. The police showed up, witnessed a bullet hole in a car, and brought a search dog to attempt to find the pistol that was used. The dog smelled in the vehicle, then went out and found the gun a few hundred yards away from the car. This gun also matched the bullets fired at the first described site.
Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his vehicle as illegal and that previous incidents were improperly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a tendency to perpetrate firearm crimes.
examination - First, on the subject of the search question. The Washington State constitution protects citizens from unnecessary searches of their person and their private things. This stipulation is not dishonored if no search occurs. A search happens when the state interferes with a individual’s private dealings. Usually, a search does not occur if an cop is able to uncover something utilizing one of his senses from a non-intrusive point of view.
With regard to canine sniffs, a search occurs depending on the situation. Prior decisions have held that a search does not arise if the sniff occurs in a place the person would not have a rational expectation of privacy and the sniff was not invasive. Here, the canine sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the van when the sniff happened and the dog didn’t get into the van. The search was realistic.
Second, on the topic of the 404(b) proof issue. ER 404(b) provides:
facts of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to illustrate action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The test for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) discover by a preponderance of the proof that a offense happened; (2) identify the rationale for which the verification is sought to be introduced; (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to determine the element of a crime charged; and (4) contemplate the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this case, there was a realistic inference that the revolver found 100 yards from Hartzell’s automobile was possessed by him, particularly because the canine found the pistol after sniffing Hartzell’s vehicle. Bullets from the gun was also discovered on Hartzell and in the van driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that facts not to show that the crimes formed an identity that may perhaps illustrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the similar, but that it was likely the defendants committed the crimes for the reason that they were discovered in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter.
Because of these specifics, the court located that facts to be important. And lastly, the trial court’s examination of the admission of the proof was sound since it reasoned the lack of data about the incident would prevent the entrance of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle driving under the influence attorney’s examination - This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well inside their boundaries to attempt to get this in. Do I think the fact that these guys are located with the guns later have any influence on what occurred under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one spotted anything it is impossible to distinguish who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to arrive at their desired conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t see in any of this examination (and granted, all of the evidence wasn’t here) was any corroboration that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal lawyer in Seattle, I can absolutely see why this case was taken to trial - the verification just isn’t there.
Next at the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog we have State v. Bliss, a case on the topic of possession of meth, search and seizure, and car stops.
State v. Bliss is a situation about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the car and the discovery of meth. It brings up a hot topic these days, the search occasion to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s study on and see what happens.
Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a officer got behind her and checked the registration on her motor vehicle. The officer found that Bliss had unresolved misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, established Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the truck, locating a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of meth. The officer completed a property account prior to having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense attorney moved to suppress the proof on two grounds: (1) the officer didn’t have justification to stop the truck; and (2) the police officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the car when Bliss drove by him. The trial court discovered the officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.
Immediately before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the theory that the search was not happening to the arrest. The court discovered the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.
Issues - Was the search legal?
analysis - Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an police officer stops a person briefly to investigate a practical suspicion that criminal defense activity is afoot. Under this exception, the police officer must have a practical suspicion that offense is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person stopped such that the stop and investigation is practical under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.
In this case when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the person driving the car at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant scrutiny, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the truck. This topic is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.
Criminal defense attorney in Seattle examination - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the topic wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court may perhaps have the information it needs to conclude if the search was legal. One thing I did uncover interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the sedan was impounded, which suggests the vehicle would have been searched to inventory the automobile. Whether that includes a search of the inside of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for Seattle DUI attorneys to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search event to arrest. I guess we’ll see…
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | The Traffic Stop
Seattle DUI Attorney | Arraignment
