Opinion ID: 1275717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: brian edward yates

Text: Petitioner Brian Edward Yates' former girlfriend, Ms. Barbara Egan, [3] lived with him for a year. She moved out of his residence on September 1992 because he became physically abusive and assaulted her. [4] On January 5, 1993, Petitioner Yates came to Ms. Egan's apartment in Mountlake Terrace and demanded return of a video cassette recorder (VCR) he had given her for Christmas. She told him she wanted nothing to do with him and asked him to leave. Petitioner pushed her to the floor so he could enter her apartment and get the VCR. Ms. Egan got up and called the police. Petitioner was arrested, transported to the Lynnwood Police Department and charged with fourth degree assault and burglary. [5] He was released on bail before midnight. [6] On January 6, 1993, Ms. Egan observed Petitioner Yates watching her at her apartment complex and at her child's daycare center in Lynnwood. [7] At approximately 4:00 PM Petitioner telephoned Ms. Egan. She informed him she had a restraining order against him. [8] She told him not to call her, not to mail her anything, and to stay at least 100 yards away from her. Petitioner telephoned Ms. Egan a second time at 4:15 PM, and again at 6:00 PM. [9] On January 7, 1993, Ms. Egan took her young son to the daycare center at 9:30 AM. Petitioner Yates was sitting in his car outside the center watching her as she left for work at 9:45 AM. [10] On January 11, 1993, Ms. Egan and her friend, Kristina Cook, left the Texaco station at Northeast Bothell Way and 67th Street Northeast and observed Petitioner Yates following them as they headed for a Denny's restaurant. He passed by the restaurant three times while they were there. When they no longer saw him, they left for Ms. Cook's house at 3:00 PM. At 4:00 PM Petitioner drove by Ms. Cook's house. Ms. Egan called the Snohomish County Police Department. [11] On January 12, 1993, Petitioner Yates in his automobile followed Ms. Egan on her way home from work. [12] On January 13, 1993, Ms. Egan and a friend, Kathryn Peaballs, noticed Petitioner in his automobile staring at them from a Texaco service station in Kenmore. Petitioner followed them to Denny's Restaurant and parked his vehicle in an adjacent parking lot. Ms. Egan and Ms. Peaballs entered Denny's to make a telephone call. Petitioner Yates left when Ms. Egan pointed him out to a restaurant employee. [13] On March 17, 1993, Ms. Egan called the Mountlake Terrace Police Department to report Petitioner Yates made contact with her at her apartment. She reported Petitioner had been telephoning her at her apartment, had been following her everywhere she went, followed her to the store and back to her apartment, and followed her to a lawyer's office. [14] On March 23, 1993, Ms. Egan noticed Petitioner Yates following her as she was driving her automobile. She attempted to lose him by driving north on the freeway, Interstate 5. She thought she had lost him and proceeded to Lynnwood Square. She waited for a short time and then drove south through the Lynnwood Square parking lot. She then saw Petitioner drive toward her. He waved for her to stop. Ms. Egan drove to a 7-11 parking lot and called the Lynnwood Police Department. Petitioner pulled into a nearby Chevron service station and waited a short while, but left before the police arrived. Ms. Egan reported to the officers that Petitioner Yates follows me everywhere I go. [15] On March 23, 1993, Ms. Egan obtained a temporary order for protection from domestic violence, Shoreline District Court # XX-X-XXXXX-X, ordering Petitioner Yates to have no contact with her and her child and directing him to stay away from her apartment and from her child's daycare center. [16] On April 2, 1993, Ms. Egan reported to the King County Police, Kenmore Station, that Petitioner Yates followed her all the way from Mountlake Terrace to her child's daycare center in Lynnwood. After she dropped her son off, Petitioner followed her to the Bothell exit on Interstate 405. Petitioner took the same exit as Ms. Egan, and pulled up next to her at a traffic light, honking his horn and shouting Can't we have a cup of coffee and talk? Ms. Egan was frightened and drove to the King County Police Station at Kenmore. Petitioner followed her, but kept going when she pulled into the police parking lot. The reporting officer described Ms. Egan as visibly shaken. [17] On April 6, 1993, Ms. Egan was granted an extension on her temporary order for protection from domestic violence. [18] This order was served on Petitioner Yates April 6, 1993 by Mountlake Terrace Police Detective [FNU] Hoalland. [19] On April 7, 1993, Petitioner Yates contacted Ms. Egan at her babysitter's house and followed her and her friend, Kristina Cook, to an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. Petitioner several times looked into the windows of the building where the AA meeting was under way. Petitioner drove by Ms. Cook's house many times. On April 11, 1993, Ms. Egan saw Petitioner Yates' automobile parked in her apartment parking lot. She saw him leave the vehicle and walk towards her apartment complex. She called the Mountlake Terrace Police Department. Officer [FNU] Sheets responded to the call. He parked his vehicle behind Petitioner's and observed Petitioner walking from the apartment complex towards him. Officer Sheets described Petitioner's conduct as follows: At first he was just slowly walking towards me and did not see me, but when he did see me he immediately started to run west through the lot. I drove my car up and caught up to him. I asked him who he was and he said, I'm Brian, and then I asked him what he was doing and he said, Just jogging from my car. I then advised him that I had been over by his car for the past 5-10 minutes and had not seen him, in fact I just saw him come from the apt. complex. [20] Officer Sheets then arrested Petitioner Yates for violating the April 6, 1996 temporary restraining order. [21] On April 19, 1993, Ms. Egan and Ms. Cook saw Petitioner Yates in his vehicle behind some bushes near Ms. Cook's residence. They drove up to him. He said I'm not doing anything wrong and left. Ms. Egan and Ms. Cook returned to Ms. Cook's residence at approximately 2:30 PM and saw Petitioner driving down the street toward them. He drove by the house a few minutes later. [22] On April 20, 1993, Court Commissioner Arden J. Bedle, Snohomish County Superior Court, issued a permanent order for protection against Petitioner Yates. [23] On April 24, 1993, Petitioner Yates telephoned Ms. Cook at her home. He told her she should not assist Ms. Egan in pursuing his violations of court orders. [24] On April 27, 1994 the Honorable Douglas J. Smith, Shoreline District Court, signed an order prohibiting contact (domestic violence): [25] It is hereby ordered, that pursuant to RCW 10.99.040, the defendant shall not stalk nor have any contact, directly or indirectly, in person, in writing or by telephone, personally or through any other person, with Barbara Egan (DOB 12-25-67), and Chris Cook (DOB 4-5-65) and Christine Jones (DOB 6-1-62), until further order of this court. On February 2, 1993, Petitioner Brian Yates was charged by the King County Prosecuting Attorney in the Shoreline District Court with the offense of stalking in violation of RCW 9A.46.110, the complaint (reading in confusing grammatical form): [26] That the defendant in King County, Washington, on or about 1/13/93 without lawful authority, intentionally and repeatedly follows [sic] the victim to the victim's home, school, place of employment, business or any other location, or follows [sic] the victim while he/she is in transit between locations, and the victim is intimidated, harasses [sic] or placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person being followed or injure another person, and the stalker did know or reasonably should know that the victim being followed is frightened, intimidated or harassed; or did intend to frighten, intimidate or harass the victim. [27] Although the syntax is confusing, the complaint presumably was intended to be written in the language of the stalking statute, former RCW 9A.46.110, [28] which in 1993 read as follows: (1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime: (a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly follows another person to that person's home, school, place of employment, business, or any other location, or follows the person while the person is in transit between locations; and (b) The person being followed is intimidated, harassed, or placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person or property of the person being followed or of another person. The feeling of fear, intimidation, or harassment must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and (c) The stalker either: (i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person being followed; or (ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person being followed is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person. (2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person being followed did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person; and (b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsections (1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person being followed. (3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendant is a licensed private detective acting within the capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165 RCW. (4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. (5) A person who stalks another person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor except that the person is guilty of a class C felony if any of the following applies: (a) The stalker has previously been convicted in this state or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact order or no-harassment order; (b) the person violates a court order issued pursuant to RCW 9A.46.040 protecting the person being stalked; or (c) the stalker has previously been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under this section for stalking another person. On June 17, 1993, Petitioner Yates filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the stalking statute as being overbroad. [29] On July 28, 1993 the Shoreline District Court denied the motion. [30] On October 29, 1993, Petitioner stipulated to trial on the record consisting of police reports detailing complaints filed by Ms. Egan. He filed a Statement of Defendant on Submittal or Stipulation to Facts. Several police reports were attached to the stipulation, which was reviewed by the Shoreline District Court. [31] The court found Petitioner Yates guilty of stalking and sentenced him on February 2, 1994 to (a) 365 days in jail with 355 days suspended; (b) a fine of $1,000.00 with $750.00 suspended; (c) probation for 24 months; and (d) no contact with Ms. Egan for 24 months. [32] On February 3, 1994, Petitioner Yates appealed his conviction to the King County Superior Court. [33] On May 9, 1995 the Honorable Patricia Aitken affirmed the conviction, denying his constitutional challenges and his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, stating in the order that: [34] 1. RCW 9A.46.110 (1993), as applied in this case, is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; similarly, the statute, as applied to this case, does not violate defendant's due process or equal protection rights. 2. The court finds there was sufficient evidence presented below to support a conviction.; This court does not rely on subsection (4) (i.e. 9A.46.110(4)) in this portion of the decision. [35] Petitioner Yates appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, Division I, which consolidated it with State v. Orson H. Lee, Cause Number 35012-9-I.