FILED 

JULY 6, 2017 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

Respondent, 

v. 

DANIEL R. SA VINO, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 34208-5-III 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.CJ. - The trial court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and 

determined that Daniel R. Savino's statements to the arresting officer were admissible. 

Following that determination, a jury found Mr. Savino guilty of possession of a controlled 

substance-methamphetamine. On appeal, Mr. Savino argues the trial court erred 

because his statements were made in response to police conduct that was likely to elicit an 

incriminating response. We find no factual support for his argument and affirm. 

FACTS 

Deputy Daren Schaum was on patrol in Spokane Valley when he responded to a 

malicious mischief call. Wendy Savino had called to report that her son, Daniel Savino, 

had broken a window in her house. Once Deputy Schaum arrived, he spoke to Ms. 
I 

l 

I 

J 

No. 34208-5-111 

State v. Savino 

Savino and obtained probable cause to believe Mr. Savino had committed third degree 

malicious mischief-domestic violence. The deputy advised Ms. Savino that the nature 

of the suspected crime required him to arrest her son. 

Deputy Schaum then handcuffed and searched Mr. Savino incident to arrest. The 

deputy found a clear plastic cigarette wrapper and inside that wrapper was another 

wrapper that contained a crystalline substance. Deputy Schaum immediately recognized 

the substance as methamphetamine. At this time, and prior to receiving Miranda 1 

warnings, Mr. Savino said the pants were not his and then said, had he known that it was 

there, he would have gotten rid of it before the officer arrived. Mr. Savina's statement 

was not made in response to any police questioning and implied that he knew that the 

substance was an illegal substance. 

The State charged Mr. Savino with possession of a controlled substancemethamphetamine. The court held a CrR 3 .5 hearing to determine the admissibility of 

Mr. Savina's statements. After the above facts were presented, the trial court found that 

Mr. Savino made the statements while handcuffed and he was not free to leave, but that 

the statements were not made in response to any police questioning. From these findings, 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 

2 
No. 34208-5-111 

State v. Savino 

the trial court concluded that although the statements were custodial, the statements were 

not the product of police interrogation, were voluntary, and were therefore admissible. 

The case proceeded to a short jury trial. The jury found Mr. Savino guilty as 

charged. Mr. Savino timely appealed. 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Savino contends the trial court erred when it did not suppress his custodial 

statements to Deputy Schaum. 

When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we determine "whether 

substantial evidence supports the challenged findings of fact and whether the findings of 

fact support the conclusions of law." State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242,249,207 P.3d 

1266 (2009). Evidence is substantial when it is sufficient '"to persuade a fair-minded 

person of the truth of the stated premise."' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 98 Wn. App. 152, 

156,988 P.2d 1038 (1999)). Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. State 

v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118,131,942 P.2d 363 (1997). We review the trial court's 

conclusions of law from a suppression hearing de novo. State v. Campbell, 166 Wn. App. 

464,469,272 P.3d 859 (2011). 

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "no person 

... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." "The right 

3 
No. 34208-5-III 

State v. Savino 

against self-incrimination is liberally construed." State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 236, 

922 P.2d 1285 (1996). 

Miranda warnings were developed to protect a defendant's constitutional 

right not to make incriminating confessions or admissions to police while in the coercive 

environment of police custody. State v. Harris, 106 Wn.2d 784, 789, 725 P.2d 975 

( 1986). Miranda warnings must be given when a suspect endures ( 1) custodial 

(2) interrogation (3) by an agent of the State. State v. Sargent, 111 Wn.2d 641, 647, 762 

P.2d 1127 (1988). Without Miranda warnings, a suspect's statements during custodial 

interrogation are presumed involuntary and inadmissible. State v. Heritage, 152 Wn.2d 

210, 214, 95 P.3d 345 (2004). 

Here, the parties agree that Mr. Savino was in custody for purposes of Miranda, 

and the statements in question were made to an agent of the state. The question is 

whether Mr. Savina's statements were made in response to police interrogation. 

Mr. Savino argues that Deputy Schaum's conduct was a form of interrogation 

sufficient to necessitate Miranda warnings. Specifically, he argues: 

[T]he issue is whether the defendant would believe the state agent was 

seeking information that would be incriminating. A reasonable person who 

had been arrested, handcuffed and searched, then confronted with a package 

containing what appeared to be a controlled substance found in his pocket, 

would understand the deputy's conduct as an accusation, intended to elicit 

4 
No. 34208-5-III 

State v. Savino 

an incriminating response, whether that would be in the form of an 

admission or an explanation for the presence of the substance. 

Appellant's Br. at 5 ( citation omitted). 

Interrogation includes express questioning and its functional equivalent, which 

means "' any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are 

reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.'" State v. Wilson, 

144 Wn. App. 166, 184, 181 P.3d 887 (2008) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 

291, 301, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1980)). 

Mr. Savina's argument that the deputy "confronted" Mr. Savino with the 

contraband is without a factual basis. The facts developed during the CrR 3 .5 hearing 

merely establish that Deputy Schaum found the contraband in the second wrapper inside 

the pants worn by Mr. Savino. Because of Mr. Savina's response, we infer that Mr. 

Savino knew that Deputy Schaum found the contraband in the pants. But we cannot infer 

any more from the record. Mr. Savino did not cross-examine Deputy Schaum during the 

hearing, so there are no facts to support his theory on appeal that the deputy "confronted" 

him with the contraband. 2 

2 This argument was not made during the CrR 3.5 hearing. This could explain why 

Mr. Savino did not cross-examine the deputy, and surely explains why the trial court did 

not enter findings that directly address this argument on appeal. Because the State did not 

argue that Mr. Savino waived this argument on appeal, we do not decide that issue. 

5 
No. 34208-5-III 

State v. Savino 

The uncontested finding that Mr. Savino' s response was not made in response to 

police questioning is supported by the record. That finding supports the conclusions of 

law that Mr. Savino's statements were not the product of police interrogation, were 

voluntary, and therefore were admissible. 

Affirmed. 

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: j 

Pennell, J. 

6