Opinion ID: 2621304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State v. Dunn ; State v. Wright; City of Tacoma v. Roesch

Text: During traffic stops on December 21, 1997 Petitioner Mark D. Dunn was arrested by a Washington State Patrol trooper; on April 30, 1998 Petitioner Michael L. Roesch was arrested by a Tacoma Police officer; and on October 23, 1998 Petitioner Sygrid D. Wright was arrested by a Pierce County Deputy Sheriff for suspicion of driving while under the influence. [31] Upon arrival at police stations, petitioners were read their constitutional rights from the WSP DUI Arrest Report form, the same form used in State v. Templeton. [32] Petitioners Dunn and Wright signed the form indicating they understood the warnings and waived their right to speak with an attorney at that time. [33] Petitioner Roesch did not sign the form because he was handcuffed. Petitioners subsequently agreed to submit to alcohol breath analysis tests in which each tested over the then legal limit of 0.10 blood alcohol concentration. [34] The State filed criminal complaints in the Pierce County District Court charging Petitioners Dunn and Wright with one count of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [35] The City of Tacoma filed a criminal complaint in the Tacoma Municipal Court charging Petitioner Roesch with one count of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [36] Prior to trial in each case, Petitioners moved to suppress the alcohol breath test results on grounds that the advisement of rights on the WSP DUI Arrest Report form did not comply with the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1. [37] On October 30, 1998, the Honorable Ronald E. Culpepper, Pierce County District Court, denied Petitioner Dunn's motion, finding that the warning given him was easily understandable to the average arrested person and did not result in confusion or prejudice. [38] On January 26, 1999, the Honorable David M. Kenworthy, Pierce County District Court, denied Petitioner Wright's motion, concluding that the Miranda warnings given met the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1. [39] On November 12, 1998, the Tacoma Municipal Court, the Honorable Elizabeth Verhey, denied Petitioner Roesch's motion, concluding that the constitutional rights read to him satisfied the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1. [40] The cases proceeded to trial and all Petitioners were found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [41] Petitioners in each case appealed to the Pierce County Superior Court. On June 11, 1999, the Honorable Arthur W. Verharen affirmed the rulings of the District Court. [42] On October 1, 1999, the Honorable Frederick W. Fleming upheld the District Court's order which ruled that the advisement of right to counsel given to Petitioner Wright satisfied CrRLJ 3.1. [43] On September 17, 1999, the Honorable Elaine Houghton, serving pro tempore in the Superior Court, reversed the Municipal Court's ruling and ordered suppression of all evidence, testimonial and nontestimonial, because the warnings given to Petitioner Roesch violated his right to counsel under CrRLJ 3.1 by limiting the right to counsel for questioning purposes only. [44] The State appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division Two. [45] Upon review, the Court of Appeals, the Honorable J. Dean Morgan writing, held that although the WSP DUI Arrest Report form advising defendants of their right to counsel did not satisfy the requirements of CrRLJ 3.1, it was harmless error because it did not detrimentally affect the defendants' ability to exercise their rights. [46] By order dated January 8, 2002 this court granted the State's petitions for review and consolidated the Templeton cases and the Dunn cases. [47]