Opinion ID: 2630876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Did the trial court err in admitting evidence obtained from the Suburban based on the vehicle owner's signed consent to search?

Text: ¶ 55 An appellate court reviews findings of fact related to a motion to suppress under the substantial evidence standard. State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. Id. We review conclusions of law pertaining to suppression of evidence de novo. Id. Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. State v. O'Neill, 148 Wash.2d 564, 571, 62 P.3d 489 (2003). ¶ 56 Levy argues that there was insufficient evidence that John Cox, the owner of the Suburban, consented to a search of the vehicle. He claims that the consent form signed by Cox was insufficient without corroborating testimony by Cox or another officer present at the time of the search. The State did not make counter arguments on this issue. ¶ 57 A witness with knowledge may testify that something is what it is claimed to be. ER 901. Officer Innes, the officer who obtained consent from Cox to search the vehicle, testified at trial that the signature on the consent form was obtained from Cox at the time of the search. Levy claims that Officer Innes' testimony was insufficient to authenticate Cox's consent; however, Levy's claim is not supported by the rules of evidence. ¶ 58 Moreover, Levy did not assign error to the trial court's findings of fact regarding admission of the consent form. At trial, Levy's attorney failed to file a motion to suppress the consent to search the vehicle, choosing instead to make a motion in limine immediately prior to the start of trial. The trial judge properly denied Levy's motion on the grounds that it should have been made at the suppression hearing. ¶ 59 We hold that because Levy did not move to suppress the consent form signed by Cox at the suppression hearing and he did not assign error to the trial court's findings of fact regarding the consent form, he cannot now challenge it on appeal.