### FILED **APRIL 3,**  **2018 In**  **the Office**  **of the**  **Clerk of** **Court WA**  **State Court**  **of Appeals,**  **Division Ill** 

**IN THE**  **COURT OF**  **APPEALS OF**  **THE STATE**  **OF WASHINGTON** 

**DIVISION THREE**  **STATE OF**  **WASHINGTON,**

**Respondent,**
**V. JAIME**  **STEWART ANDREWS,** 

**Appellant. )** 

**) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **No. 34678-1-III** 

**UNPUBLISHED OPINION** 
**KORSMO, J.** 
**- Jaime**  **Andrews appeals**  **from his**  **conviction for** **possession of**  **methamphetamine, challenging**  **several actions**  **taken by** **the investigating**  **officers that**  **the trial**  **prosecutor rightly**  **acknowledged as**  **"incredibly sloppy**  **police work."**  **Since he**  **cannot establish that**  **he was** **prejudiced by**  **the police**  **actions, we**  **affirm. FACTS**  **Sunnyside Police**  **Department Officer**  **Christopher Sparks**  **stopped a**  **vehicle driven**  **by Mr.**  **Andrews, whom**  **he suspected**  **of driving**  **while license**  **suspended (DWLS),**  **on April**  **19, 2016.**  **Along with**  **Mr. Sparks**  **as a**  **"ride-along" passenger**  **was his**  **wife, Jerrica**  **Sparks. Ms.**  **Sparks was**  **employed as**  **a trooper**  **for the**  **Washington State**  **Patrol (WSP).**  **She was**  **not on**  **duty for**  **WSP while**  **riding with**  **Officer Sparks.** **No. 34678-1-111** 

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**While pulling**  **his car**  **over in**  **response to**  **the officer's**  **signals, Mr.**  **Andrews threw** 
**an object**  **from his**  **window. Officer**  **Sparks observed**  **the object,**  **which he**  **believed was**  **a glass**  **pipe used**  **for smoking**  **methamphetamine. The**  **officer asked**  **Mr. Andrews**  **ifhe had**  **been smoking**  **meth; Andrews**  **replied in**  **the affirmative.**  **The officer**  **arrested Andrews**  **for DWLS**  **and, in**  **a search**  **incident to**  **that arrest,**  **found a**  **small "baggie"**  **of suspected**  **methamphetamine. While**  **the officer**  **was arresting**  **Mr. Andrews,**  **Ms. Sparks**  **went and**  **recovered the**  **glass pipe**  **from the**  **roadway. Ms.**  **Sparks accompanied**  **her husband**  **and his**  **prisoner to**  **the police**  **department and,**  **while there,**  **conducted a**  **field test**  **on both**  **the pipe**  **and baggie.**  **The test**  **results were**  **positive for**  **methamphetamine. The**  **officer prepared**  **an affidavit**  **in support**  **of a**  **search warrant**  **for Mr.**  **Andrew's blood.**  **The affidavit**  **stated that**  **Officer Sparks (rather**  **than his**  **wife) had**  **recovered the**  **pipe and**  **conducted the**  **field test.**  **All evidence**  **collected, other than**  **the glass**  **pipe (which**  **was destroyed),**  **was placed**  **on evidence**  **at the**  **police department.**  **The prosecutor**  **filed a**  **charge of** **possession of**  **methamphetamine based**  **on the**  **field test**  **results. Despite notice**  **that charges**  **had been**  **filed and**  **a trial**  **date set,**  **the evidence** **was not**  **transported to**  **the state**  **crime laboratory**  **for confirmation.**  **The State**  **successfully obtained**  **a continuance**  **while awaiting**  **the laboratory**  **reports.**

**2 No.**  **34678-1-III**

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**In the**  **interim, Trooper**  **Sparks was**  **found to**  **have lied**  **to a**  **supervisor on**  **June 6,**  **2016, concerning**  **a traffic**  **stop she**  **had conducted**  **three days**  **earlier. WSP** **advised the**  **Washington Association of** **Prosecuting Attorneys**  **of the**  **finding. Trooper**  **Sparks resigned**  **her position**  **with WSP** **prior to**  **an administrative**  **investigation into**  **the incident.**  **Upon discovering**  **that the**  **suspected methamphetamine**  **had still**  **not been**  **sent to**  **the crime**  **lab, the**  **assigned deputy**  **prosecutor had**  **an officer**  **drive the materials directly**  **to the**  **laboratory for**  **immediate testing.**  **The test**  **results were**  **reported back**  **by e-mail**  **late in**  **the day,**  **and the**  **information was**  **e-mailed to**  **defense counsel**  **the next**  **morning. The** **July 25**  **trial date was** **reset to** **August 22;**  **Mr. Andrews'**  **speedy trial**  **period expired**  **on August 24.**  **The defense moved** **to suppress evidence**  **or to**  **dismiss charges due** **to governmental**  **mismanagement. CrR**  **8.3(b). The**  **argument focused**  **on Trooper**  **Sparks' participation**  **in the**  **evidence recovery**  **and testing**  **as well**  **as the**  **late transmission**  **to the**  **crime laboratory.**  **After hearing**  **testimony from**  **Officer Sparks**  **and former**  **Trooper Sparks,**  **the court**  **denied the**  **motion to**  **suppress, concluding**  **that the**  **defendant had** **not established** **prejudice. A** **jury subsequently convicted** **Mr. Andrews**  **of possession**  **of a**  **controlled substance.**  **The court**  **imposed financial**  **obligations totaling**  **$1,950 on** **Mr. Andrews**  **and sentenced**  **him to**  **serve 18**  **months in**  **prison. He**  **timely appealed**  **to this**  **court.**

**3 No.**  **34678-1-111**

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**ANALYSIS Mr.**  **Andrews contends**  **that the**  **court erred**  **in rejecting**  **his CrR**  **8.3(b) motion.**  **We agree** **with the** **trial court that Mr.**  **Andrews failed** **to establish**  **that governmental**  **misconduct denied**  **him a**  **fair trial.**  **CrR 8.3(b)**  **empowers a**  **court to**  **dismiss an**  **action when,**  **"due to**  **arbitrary action**  **or governmental misconduct," "there**  **has been**  **prejudice to**  **the rights**  **of the**  **accused which**  **materially affect** **the accused's** **right to**  **a fair**  **trial." The**  **trial court's**  **rulings under**  **CrR 8.3(b)**  **are reviewed**  **for abuse**  **of discretion;**  **the extraordinary**  **remedy of** **dismissal is**  **only appropriate**  **when there**  **has been**  **such prejudice**  **that no**  **other action**  **would ensure**  **a fair**  **trial. State**  **v. Garza,**  **99 Wn.**  **App. 291,**  **295, 994**  **P.2d 868**  **(2000). Discretion**  **is abused**  **when it**  **is exercised**  **on untenable**  **grounds or**  **for untenable**  **reasons. State**  **ex rel.**  **Carroll**
**v. Junker,**  **79 Wn.2d**  **12, 26,**  **482 P.2d**  **775 (1971).**  **Mr. Andrews**  **attacks Trooper**  **Sparks' participation**  **in his**  **case by**  **retrieving the**  **pipe and**  **conducting the**  **field tests**  **on the**  **suspected methamphetamine.**  **He challenges**  **the trial**  **court's conclusions**  **that it**  **was reasonable**  **for the**  **officer to**  **have the**  **trooper retrieve**  **the pipe**  **and that**  **it was**  **not misconduct**  **for her**  **to conduct**  **the field**  **tests. The**  **court also**  **determined, and**  **Mr. Andrews**  **also challenges,**  **that the**  **"insertion of** **Mrs. Sparks**  **into peripheral aspects**  **of the**  **criminal investigation**  **had no**  **material impact**  **on the** 

**4 No.**  **34678-1-111**

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**chain of** **custody." Clerk's**  **Papers at**  **94. He**  **argues that**  **there was**  **a "cloud**  **over the**  **credibility" of** **Officer Sparks**  **and Trooper**  **Sparks. 1**  **Brief of** **Appellant at**  **14. The**  **challenged conclusions** **need not**  **be separately**  **discussed here**  **since all**  **of them** 
**are reflected**  **in the**  **ultimate conclusion**  **that Mr.**  **Andrews was**  **not prejudiced** **by the**  **actions of** **Trooper Sparks. It**  **was his**  **burden to**  **establish actual prejudice**  **to his**  **ability to defend** **the case.**  **Garza, 99**  **Wn. App.**  **at 295.**  **He has**  **failed in**  **that burden.**  **He does**  **not suggest** **how his**  **ability to**  **defend the**  **case was**  **affected in**  **any manner,**  **let alone**  **that it**  **was so**  **devastated by**  **the actions**  **of the**  **two officers**  **that he**  **could not**  **receive a**  **fair trial.**  **Instead, he**  **simply focuses**  **on trying**  **to establish**  **that the**  **trooper's actions**  **were wrong.**  **Even that**  **is a**  **very hard**  **sell. That**  **a trained**  **officer 2**  **retrieved evidence**  **and field-tested**  **the suspected**  **controlled substances somehow**  **contaminated the** 
**case simply**  **because she**  **was off** **duty and**  **assisting another** **jurisdiction without**  **authorization is**  **a difficult**  **argument to**  **understand. But,**  **even if** **that was**  **wrongful conduct,**  **Mr. Andrews**  **does not**  **explain how** **he was**  **unable to**  **defend the**  **case due**  **to the**  **trooper's action.**  **Her unauthorized**  **intervention probably**  **helped his**  **case by** **giving him**  **something to**  **argue about.**  **The actions**  **of Officer**  **Sparks also**  **were presented**  **at trial**  **and**

**1 This**  **was not**  **part of** **his argument**  **at the**  **CrR 8.3(b)**  **hearing, but**  **it was**  **a basis**  **for cross-examining** **Officer Sparks**  **at trial.**  **Report of** **Proceedings (Aug.**  **23, 2016)**  **at 84-109.** 

**2 Even**  **civilians have**  **been known**  **to assist**  **police by** **turning over**  **evidence they**  **discovered or**  **by assisting**  **officers during**  **emergencies. We**  **know of** **no ban**  **on civilian**  **obtained evidence,**  **even if** **someone who**  **is not**  **a law**  **enforcement officer**  **becomes part**  **of the**  **chain of** **custody for**  **evidence. 5** **No. 34678-1-111** 

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**his credibility** **was clearly**  **challenged in**  **cross-examination. Report**  **of Proceedings**  **(Aug. 23,**  **2016) at**  **84-109. Those**  **issues were**  **presented to**  **the jury-the**  **body that**  **decides credibility**  **issues. Moreover,**  **as tried,**  **the evidence**  **shows that**  **the trooper's**  **involvement was**  **harmless beyond**  **a reasonable** **doubt. Having**  **been destroyed**  **earlier, the** **pipe was**  **not presented**  **at trial.**  **The prosecutor**  **expressly eschewed**  **reliance on**  **the residue**  **from the**  **pipe as**  **the basis**  **for the conviction,**  **focusing solely**  **on the** **baggie of** **methamphetamine and**  **expressly asking**  **the jury**  **to return**  **its verdict solely**  **on that**  **evidence. That**  **evidence**
**was totally**  **untainted by**  **the trooper's**  **actions. Since**  **the bag**  **of methamphetamine**  **was the**  **sole basis**  **for the** **jury's verdict,**  **there simply**  **was no**  **harm to**  **Mr. Andrews.**  **Having failed**  **to satisfy**  **his burden**  **under CrR**  **8.3(b), Mr.**  **Andrew's appeal**  **lacks merit.**  **Accordingly, the**  **conviction is**  **affirmed. 3** 

**3 Mr.**  **Andrews also**  **asks that**  **we waive**  **appellate costs**  **if the**  **State substantially**  **prevails. Since**  **he has**  **not complied**  **with our**  **general order**  **regarding request**  **to deny**  **cost award**  **by providing**  **more comprehensive**  **information about**  **his financial**  **circumstances, we**  **decline his**  **request. See**  **Gen. Order**  **of Division**  **III, In**  **re Court** **Admin. Orderre**  **Request to** **Deny Cost** **Award (Wash.**  **Ct. App.**  **June 10,**  **2016), http://www.courts.wa.gov**  **/appellate_trial_courts/?fa =** **atc.genorders&div =** **III. However,**  **the State**  **has indicated**  **it will**  **not seek**  **costs and,**  **therefore, will**  **not be**  **filing a**  **cost bill.**  **Accordingly, Mr.**  **Andrews will**  **not end**  **up paying**  **any appellate**  **costs since**  **the State**  **would be**  **estopped from claiming** **them.**



### 6**No. 34678-1-111** 

**State v.**  **Andrews**
**A majority**  **of the**  **panel has**  **determined this**  **opinion will**  **not be**  **printed in**  **the Washington**  **Appellate Reports,**  **but it** **will be**  **filed for** **public record**  **pursuant to**  **RCW 2.06.040.** 

**WE CONCUR:** 

**Lawrence-Herre C.J.**  

# �,g, **Pennell, J.** 

**7**