IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
(J> c. STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 73711-2-1 O Respondent, DIVISION ONE 1 CO 

## %•
V. AARON MICHAEL THOMAS, ) UNPUBLISHED ro o Appellant. FILED: October 3, 2016


### Cox, J. - Aaron Thomas appeals thejudgment and sentence based on the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because the trial court's unchallenged findings offact supportthe court's conclusion that police officers had specific and articulable facts to conduct an investigative Terry stop, we affirm. 

### Officer Christopher Bennett and Officer Paul Stewart ofthe Everettpolice 

### department approached a residence to investigate a stolen van parked directly in front ofthe residence. Both officers regularly patrolled the area and knew that the residence had been associated with stolen vehicles and other criminal activity. The van was filled with certain items, but the driver and passenger seats 

### remained empty. Officer Bennett recognized motorcycle helmets and gloves in 

### the van along withmen's and woman's clothing. OfficerBennett also saw court paperwork inthe van, containing Shyla Gypin's name on it.No. 73711-2-1/2 

### When these two officers approached the residence, Thomas and a woman 

### emerged, and OfficerBennett asked her for her name. She responded that her
name was Shyla, who was later identified as Shyla Gypin. The officers also noticed that Thomas wore a motorcyclejacket. 

### OfficerBennettthen asked Thomas for identification, and the police dispatch confirmed outstanding warrants for his arrest. After Officer Bennett 

### arrested Thomas, Officer Stewart searched Thomas, finding plastic bags containing what he believed to be methamphetamine. The State charged Thomas with possession of a controlled substance, 

### and the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory confirmed thatthe plastic bags contained methamphetamine. Thomas moved to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing that the police obtained it from an unlawful seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and the parties proceeded with a stipulated bench trial. The trial court found Thomas guilty ofpossession. Thomas appeals. MOTION TO SUPPRESS Thomas argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree. CrR 3.6 governs motions to suppress evidence. In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we determine whether substantial evidence 

### supports the trial court's findings offact and whetherthose findings offact 

### supportthe conclusions oflaw.1 Substantial evidence is "'evidence sufficient to
State v. Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d 149, 157, 352 P.3d 152 (2015).No. 73711-2-1/3 

### persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the matter.'"2 We review de novo the trial court's conclusions oflaw.3 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 

### I, section 7 ofWashington's Constitution, an officer may not unreasonably seize


### a person without a warrant.4 

### An investigative stop, discussed in Terry v. Ohio,5 provides an exception to a warrantless seizure.6 A Terry stop allows an officer to brieflydetain a person 

### forquestioning ifthe officerhas reasonable suspicion thatthe person stopped is 

### or is about to be engaged incriminal activity.7 An officerhas a reasonable suspicion ifthere is a "substantial possibilitythat criminal conduct has occurred
or is about to occur."8 

### An officer's reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and 

### articulable facts, taken togetherwith rational inferences fromthose facts, known

2Dep't of Labor & Indus, v. Lyons Enters., 185 Wn.2d 721, 731, 374 P.3d 

### 1097 (2016) (quoting R &G Probstv. Dep't of Labor&Indus., 121 Wn. App. 288, 293, 88 P.3d 413 (2004)). 3 Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d at 157. 4id at 157-58. 5392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L Ed. 2d 889 (1968). 6 Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d at 158.

8State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 6, 726 P.2d 445 (1986).No. 73711-2-1/4 

### to the officer at the inception of the stop.9 "An officer's hunchdoes notjustify a 

### stop."10 Ifofficers do not have reasonable suspicion ofcriminal activity under the totality ofcircumstances to supportthe stop of a suspect, the evidence 

### uncovered from the stop must be suppressed.11 In evaluating the reasonableness of an officer's suspicion, we look atthe totality of the circumstances known to the officer, which "includes the officer's training and experience, the location ofthe stop, the conduct ofthe person 

### detained, the purpose ofthe stop, and the amount ofphysical intrusion on the 

### suspect's liberty."12 Here, Officer Bennett and Officer Stewarttestified at the CrR 3.6 hearing. The trial court's unchallenged findings offact listthe reasons why the officers believed that Thomas and Gypin were associated with the stolen van: the stolen GMC van was parked directly infront of [the residence], where Thomas and Gypin emerged from; the residence
. .. had previously been associated with stolen vehicles or other criminal activity; the GMC van only had room for two people because the van was filled with property except for the driver and front passenger seat; there was motorcycle gear and clothing inside the GMC van for a male and female, and Thomas and Gypin were a male and female, respectively; Thomas was wearing a motorcycle 

### jacket; and the court paperwork inside the GMC van had the name 

### Shyla Gypin.I13] 9Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d at 158; State v. Moreno, 173 Wn. App. 479, 492, 294 P.3d 812 (2013). 10 Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d at 161. 11 Id at 158. 

### 12jd 13 Clerk's Papers at 92-93.No. 73711-2-1/5

The trial court also found that Officer Bennett was familiar with 

### motorcycles andmotorcycle equipmentdue to hisprofessional andpersonal 

### experience anddid notobserve amotorcycle near theresidence. Thus, thetrial court concluded that Officer Bennett and Officer Stewart "had specific and 

### articulablefacts pursuant toTerry, which taken with reasonable inferences, 

### justifiedtheirdetention ofThomas" by asking for his identification, even before the officerslearned Gypin's name.14 

### Thomas does not assign error tothesefindings, so they are verities on 

## appeal.15 Thus, theonlyquestion is whethertheunchallengedfacts supportthe trialcourt's conclusions of law. Based on the totality ofthe circumstances that 

### the officers observed, we hold that the unchallengedfindings offacts support the trial court's conclusions oflaw. Thus, the trial court properly denied Thomas's 

### motion to suppress the evidenceobtainedfrom thelawfulTerry stop. The officers were familiarwith the area and the residence from which 

## Thomas emerged. OfficerBennett'sfamiliaritywith motorcycleequipmentand the fact that Thomas wore a motorcyclejacket that was consistentwith the 

## motorcyclegearinsidethe stolenvan supports areasonable suspicion ofhis involvementwith the stolen van. Additionally, Thomas emergence from the 

### residence with awoman supports a reasonable suspicion ofhis involvementwith the vanbecause the vancontained men's and women's clothing. Further, the

14 Id at 93-94. 

### 15 Mueller v. Wells, 185 Wn.2d 1, 9, 367 P.3d 580 (2016).No. 73711-2-1/6 

### van's driver and passenger seat remained empty, although certain items filled the rest ofthe van, which supports a rational inference that two people were involved with the van. Thomas argues that innocuous facts led to his detention, which do not provide reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop. He relies on State v. 

### Tijerina16 and specifically argues that the fact that he was wearing a motorcycle jacket and the fact that he was with a women constitute innocuous facts. But that
case is distinguishable. 

### There, two officers stopped a vehicle after observing itcross a fog line and 

### return to the inside lane.17 The driver, Roland Tijerina, identified himselfand the 

### passenger, Roman Gonzalez.18 When Tijerinaopened the glove box to obtain the vehicle registration, one of the officers noticed several small bars ofsoap 

### inside, similarto the kind commonlygiven out at motels.19 The officers did not issue a citation but searched the vehicle, finding contraband.20 The trial court 

### denied Tijerina's motion to suppress the evidenceobtained from the search.21 To justify the stop, one of the officers testified that his suspicions were based on his observation ofthe soap, the fact thatTijerina and his companion 

### 16 61 Wn. App. 626, 811 P.2d 241 (1991). 17 id at 628. 18 id 19id 20 id 21 Id. at 627.No. 73711-2-1/7

were Hispanic, and his knowledge ofdrug activity by Hispanics in motels inthe 

### area.22 ButDivision Three of this court determined that the presence of motelsized bars of soap in a vehicle driven by Hispanics was innocuous and did not 

### evidence suspicious criminalactivity.23 Additionally, the court stated that the fact that some Hispanics were known to engage in drug trafficking in motels was not sufficient evidence to create a reasonable suspicion that Tijerina was engaged in 

### such activity.24 The court further stated thatthe officer's investigation, "after he decided not to issue a citation^exceeded the scope ofthe initial stop and was 

### improper unless Mr. Tijerina's subsequent consentto the search of his car 

### sufficiently purged the taint of the illegal detention."25 Accordingly, the court determined that the evidence should have been suppressed.26 Conversely, in this case, the officers' testimony shows that the fact that Thomas wore a motorcyclejacket and the fact that he was with a woman were 

### not the only two factors leading to the officers' reasonable suspicion. As discussed above, there were several other specific and articulable facts, and rational inferences from those facts, that led to the officers' reasonable suspicion. These facts included the location ofthe van, the van's empty driver and 

### passenger seats, and the van's contents.

22 14 at 629.

23 14
24 Id
25 14
26 Id. at 630.No. 73711-2-1/8 Similarly, Thomas argues that his presence at a residence associated with criminal activity was insufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop. But the officers' testimony shows that Thomas's presence at the residence was notthe only factor leading to the officers' reasonable suspicion. We affirm thejudgment and sentence. 

# 6fT7({lWE CONCUR:



# ;ffi£/ww^ >

8