INTHE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v.
CHRIS LAVONN MORRIS, Appellant. No. 68718-2-1 DIVISION ONE C"1

UNPUBLISHED ro -^ oorvt FILED: Julv 22. 2013 r: $5^ © B:. CO COX, J. - Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts within the 

### arresting officer's knowledge would warrant a person ofreasonable caution in a beliefthat an offense has been committed. In this case, the facts known to the 

### arresting officer provided probable cause to believe that Chris Morris possessed

a controlled substance with intent to deliver. We therefore affirm the trial court's 

### denial of Morris' motion to suppress and his conviction for possession ofcocaine with intent to deliver. 

### Based on evidence recovered followingthe surveillance, arrest, and search of Morris, the State charged him with possession ofcocaine with intent to 

### deliver. At trial, Morris moved to suppress the cocaine and currency discovered 

### during his arrest, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him.No. 68718-2-1/2 

### Following a suppression hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress and entered the following unchallenged findings of fact. On June 9, 2011, Seattle Police Officer Donald Johnson ofthe Seattle 

### Police Department surveilled an area known fornarcotics trafficking via a security
camera. The events he observed through the camera were recorded and played
at trial.OfficerJohnson observed Morris walking and talking with Susie Atkins, a known user ofcrack cocaine. Morris removed something from his pants pocket, placed it inAtkins' right hand, and received something in return. The position of their bodies prevented Officer Johnson from seeing exactly what was exchanged. Immediately afterthe exchange, Atkins peered closely at her open right hand, as ifexamining a small object. Morris placed whatever he received from 

### Atkins into his right front pants pocket. Atthe same time, Morris appeared to drop something on the ground. He picked it up and put it in his right front pants pocket. Shortly thereafter, OfficerJohnson saw Morris remove currencyfrom his 

### right front pants pocket. Morrisappeared to count it, and then returned it to his pocket. Around 18 minutes later, Mark Breithaupt, a known user ofcrack cocaine, 

### approached Morris. They spoke briefly, and then Breithauptwalked south a short distance. A few seconds later, Morris also walked south a short distance. 

### He was then approached by Denise Sellers, another known user ofcrackNo. 68718-2-1/3



### cocaine. Morris appeared to take something out of his right front pants pocket and put it into Sellers' righthand. Sellers tossed an objectfrom her righthand into her mouth. Seconds later, Breithaupt approached Morris and handed him an item that
was consistent incolor and shape with folded currency. Atthe same time, Morris appeared to give Breithaupt an objectthat Breithaupt pinched between his thumb and forefinger and placed in his mouth. Based on his training and experience, Officer Johnson knew that crack cocaine purchasers often put crack cocaine intheir mouths as a way of concealing and testing it. Morris' interactions with the known cocaine users were also typical of street level crack cocaine sales inthe downtown Seattle area. OfficerJohnson arrested Morris and searched his pockets. He found 2.3 grams ofcrack cocaine and $66 in paper currency. Indenying Morris' motion to suppress the cocaine and currency, the trial court entered the following conclusions of law: a. An officer does not necessarily have to see the object exchanged in orderto have probable cause to believe that a suspect has delivered a controlled substance. b. When considering whether probable cause existed, the court must considerthe officer's knowledge ofthe circumstances, including his training and experience. c. Based on the totality ofthe circumstances, including but not limited to the facts that the area was known to be a high narcotics trafficking area, the defendant had been approached by multiple known drugs users, the defendant had made quick exchanges with the known drug users, the defendant appeared to be providing a very small object in each exchange, and the defendant appeared in at least one exchangeNo. 68718-2-1/4 

### to be receiving money, OfficerJohnson had probable cause to arrest the defendant, 

### d. OfficerJohnson's search of the defendant's pockets after arresting the defendant was a lawful search incidentto a lawful arrest, and was therefore constitutional. 

### Morris waived his right to a jury trial and, following a bench trial, the court found him guiltyas charged. Morris appeals.
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST 

### The sole issue on appeal iswhetherthe superiorcourt erred in concluding that OfficerJohnson had probable cause to arrest Morris for possession with 

### intenttodelivercocaine. Wereview probablecause determinations de novo.1 Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances withinthe arresting officer's knowledge would warrant a person ofreasonable caution in a beliefthat
an offense has been committed.2 This standard takes into consideration the 

### special experience and expertise ofthearresting officer.3 Morris contends the facts and circumstances within Officer Johnson's knowledge were insufficientto support a beliefthat an offense had been committed. Citing State v. Fore. 56 Wn. App. 339, 343-45, 783 P.2d 626 (1989), he notes that unlike the observation officer in that case, Officer Johnson did not
see what, otherthan money, was being exchanged. It is true that the officer in Fore observed an exchange of "small plastic bags containing brownish or
1In rePet, of Petersen, 145Wn.2d 789, 800, 42 P.3d 952(2002); Statev. Louthan. 158 Wn. App. 732, 740-41, 242 P.3d 954 (2010). 2Statev. Terrovona. 105Wn.2d 632, 643, 716 P.2d 295(1986). 3Statev. Graham. 130Wn.2d 711, 724, 927 P.2d 227 (1996).No. 68718-2-1/5 

### greenish matter.. . ."4 Butthis courtin Fore expressly rejected theproposition that it is necessary for an officer to identify the object exchanged inorderto establish probable cause: 

### However, absolute certainty by an experienced officer as to the identity of a substance is unnecessary to establish probable cause.

. . . Here, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the exchanges, notthe officer's ability to identify the substance, constituted the primary basis for the probable cause 

### determination.^ Other decisions from this court reinforce this point and supportthe trial court's decision in this case. In State v. Rodriguez-Torres. 77 Wn. App. 687, 693-94, 893 P.2d 650, 653 

### (1995), a police officer in a high narcotics area saw another man hand money to 

### Rodriguez-Torres, who was holding his left hand in a cupped fashion. The man 

### picked an item out of Rodriguez-Torres' left hand and looked at it. As the officer approached, someoneyelled"police!" The man dropped the item and left. Rodriguez-Torres picked up the item and also left. The officerthen stopped and arrested Rodriguez-Torres. We held that the officer's "observations and 

### expertise provided probable cause to conclude that a drug offense had been committed."6 

### Similarly, in State v.White. 76 Wn. App. 801, 803-05, 888 P.2d 169, 171 

### (1995), wefound probablecauseto arrest based on an officer's observation of
4Fore, 56Wn. App. at343. 5la\at 345 (emphasis added). 6Rodriguez-Torres. 77 Wn. App. at 693-94.No. 68718-2-1/6

an apparent drug transaction. Using binoculars, an officerwatched as White and another man, Marek Murray, walked along a sidewalk. When they reached the corner, the men separated and stood 3 to 5 feet apart. After several minutes, a 

### man wearing a white sweat suit approached White. The two spoke briefly,and White pointed to Murray. The man inthe sweat suitwentto Murray and began 

### walking with him. White followed about 3 to 5 feet behind them. After a few steps, the man inthe sweat suit took money from his pocket and counted it. Murrayreached into his shorts and dropped something on the ground. The man 

### in the sweat suit stopped, picked up the object, looked at it, put it in his mouth for a moment, and handed money to Murray. Shortlythereafter, Murray and the man in the sweat suit walked inopposite directions. White walked ahead of 

### Murray, butMurray eventually caught up. The officer saw "handmovements," but could not tell what, ifanything, had passed between White and Murray. The officer testified that he had witnessed hundreds ofnarcotics transactions and thatWhite's actions were consistentwith those of a lookout or 

### setup person in a drug transaction. We held that the officer's observations provided probable cause to arrestWhite for a drug offense. The facts and circumstances known to the arresting officers in White and 

### Rodriguez-Torres are comparable to OfficerJohnson's knowledge in this case. OfficerJohnson observed Morris making exchanges of small objects forcurrency with known crack cocaine users in a high narcotics area. The exchanges wereNo. 68718-2-1/7



### made in a surreptitious manner and were consistentwith typical crack cocaine exchanges seen inthe area. OfficerJohnson also saw two ofthe known drug
users place the items that they received from Morris intheir mouths. Officer 

### Johnson knew from his training and experience that crack cocaine users often transport crack in their mouths to avoid detection and to test authenticity. Considering the facts and circumstances known to OfficerJohnson in light of his training and experience, the trial courtproperly concluded that he had probable cause to arrest Morris for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Likewise, the search incidentto this arrest was proper. We affirmthejudgment and sentence. 

### /rrtf 

# dw.-X

WE CONCUR: 

# <L«/e/