Opinion ID: 1379698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Little.

Text: On April 21, 1989, Betty Fears, the project manager of the Lakeshore Village Apartments, testified that she received a call from her answering service [MRS. FEARS]: ... that there were [ sic ] a large group of people gathered by one of the buildings, we called the police. She also related that We have a problem at Lakeshore with drugs and gang activity and large groups tend to make us think that something is going on that we need to be  to have some action taken on. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 4-5 (June 16, 1989). She called the police and, at approximately 9:18 p.m., Seattle Police Officer S.M. Colman and his partner were dispatched to the 9000 block of 53rd South to investigate the report. Upon arrival, Colman saw more than 20 juveniles assembled in the intersection between Fisher Place and 9053 53rd South. The juveniles immediately broke and ran in several directions. Colman exited his patrol car, yelled Stop, police, and began pursuing the individuals on foot. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 12 (June 16, 1989). As Colman came around the corner of one of the buildings, he saw six or eight juveniles climbing the chain link fence. At that time he came alongside of Craig Little and another person walking through the complex. As Colman passed, Little's companion ran off to the left and Little then ran to the right. Colman then peeled off from [his] initial pursuit of the people over the fence and yelled for Little to stop as he chased Little into a nearby building. Little attempted to shut the door, but Colman stuck his nightstick in the door jamb. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 13 (June 16, 1989). Little attempted to shut the door several times, but Colman's nightstick prevented Little from doing so. Colman eventually opened the door, grabbed Little and arrested him for obstructing a police officer. Little was charged by information with one count of criminal trespass, RCW 9A.52.070, and one count of obstructing a public servant, RCW 9A.76.020(3). Judge Carmen Otero, finding Little guilty on both counts, analyzed as follows: THE COURT: The Court makes the following findings on the Obstruction. The Officer was dressed in his uniform. He was dispatched. He was on duty. The Court finds that the Respondent did see the Officer. That he was aware, and made aware, that the Officer told him to stop. That he not only refused to stop, he had already taken off before he was told to stop. That he ran into a building. That he purposely tried to slam the door on the Officer. The Officer had his nightstick in the door and he kept trying to push the door until finally the Officer was able to open the door and arrest the Respondent for Obstructing. Although I am not a person who goes along with some of the Obstructing charges that officers bring, I believe this certainly does fall within the Statute. The Officer was working. That he was on duty. He was obviously, an officer. The Respondent was aware that he was an officer. And that he did obstruct him in the line of duty. The Court then moves onto the next charge. And that is the Trespass. The Court can only go on the evidence presented here in court. And the Court finds that any evidence, or any argument about drugs is just not relevant to this case. There was no evidence of drugs. The only issue is whether the Respondent was on the property and whether he had a lawful right to be on the property. The Court finds that upon seeing the Officer, even before the Officer talked to him, he immediately ran. Not only did he run away from the Officer, he ran into the building, tried to force the door closed, preventing the Officer to come into the building. There were signs, signs that indicated in a clear language that there was to be no loitering. And the Respondent was on the property and loitering. The Court finds that his actions, plus the signs is sufficient for this Court to find that he was in fact trespassing. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 29, 30, 31.