Opinion ID: 2632445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrantless vehicle search incident to Gonzales' arrest

Text: ¶ 73 Gonzales challenges the validity of his arrest under former RCW 46.20.289 (1999) [18] because this court subsequently struck down that statute as unconstitutional and argues that the evidence obtained from the vehicle search incident to his arrest must therefore be suppressed. [19] The State acknowledges that our ruling in Moore rendered any convictions under former RCW 46.20.289 void, but it asserts that subsequent invalidation of a statute that provided probable cause for a police officer to make an arrest does not retroactively render the arrest unlawful. The State argues that a law is presumed valid until declared invalid and police officers are obligated to enforce a law as long as it is in effect. ¶ 74 We recently determined that a police officer who arrested a person for violating RCW 46.20.342(1)(c) prior to Moore had probable cause to believe that the individual had committed a crime. State v. Potter, 156 Wash.2d 835, 843-44, 132 P.3d 1089 (2006). We concluded that probable cause is determined at the time of arrest and reliable information from the DOL indicated [the defendants] were committing the crime. Id. at 844, 132 P.3d 1089. ¶ 75 Although Potter involved a different statute, the same principle applies here. Officer Black arrested Gonzales after observing him driving a vehicle with a cracked windshield because, when he verified Gonzales' name on DOL records, he found that Gonzales had a suspended driver's license. Officer Black was entitled to rely on DOL records in accordance with Potter. As in Potter, this court struck down the statute under which Gonzales' license was suspended subsequent to Gonzales' arrest. See id. at 841, 132 P.3d 1089. Nevertheless, the DOL information available to Officer Black at the time was sufficient to warrant the belief that Gonzales had committed the offense of driving with a suspended license. Officer Black's reliance on the DOL information was reasonably prudent at the time of the arrest, and he had probable cause to believe that Gonzales had committed a misdemeanor in his presence. ¶ 76 We conclude Officer Black's warrantless vehicle search incident to Gonzales' arrest was lawful and the trial court properly admitted the evidence obtained as a result of the search.