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

Heading: State v. Hayden and State v. Davis.

Text: On the afternoon of January 23, 1989, Officers Kenneth Saucier and J.T. Rodgers were conducting a criminal trespass check at the Lakeshore Village Apartment complex. When they arrived at the property, the officers saw a group of 10 or more youths standing around a car in the parking lot. Both officers testified that they were generally familiar with the residents of the complex and that they did not recognize any of the youths as being residents. The officers approached the group to determine whether they lived at the complex or whether they were trespassers. As the officers moved toward the group, the youths started to disperse. Saucier exited the patrol car and told the group to stop and come toward the car. Jason Davis, Walter Hayden and another youth ran. Saucier pursued Davis on foot while Rodgers pursued the other two in the patrol car. After a brief chase, the officers arrested the youths. Officer J.T. Rodgers testified as to identifying the defendants when he first arrived and subsequent to their arrest by Officer Saucier. Q. At what point did you see their faces? A. At the initial contact. Q. Which was? A. Just before they started to run from us at the beginning of the whole incident. Q. At what point did you see their faces again? A. When my partner had them all on the ground, or I believe they were on the ground. When I had gotten out of my patrol car, just after I had lost sight of the two, walked around the corner  or actually ran looking for my partner. And that's when I saw them again. And they were somewhat in custody. Q. Approximately how long  how much time elapsed, would you say, between the time of the initial contact and the point at which they were apprehended? A. Somewhere between 60 to 90 seconds. .... Q. About how many second[s] was it between the time that you first saw the group of people around the car and the group started to disperse? A. It would probably be, I'd say, around 5 seconds. Q. Now, is it your testimony that in this 5 seconds, you were able to determine that none of the people there belonged there in the sense of being residents there? A. As they started loosening up to disperse, it wasn't like they were all taking off. We got very close to them before any of them actually ran. So they were still close enough so I could visually scan who was there. Hayden/Davis Fact-Finding Hearing, at 40, 41, 49 (May 8, 1989). Davis and Hayden were both charged by information with one count of obstructing a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.020(3). After a fact-finding hearing Judge Norman Quinn found both individuals guilty as charged and sentenced them within the standard range. Davis and Hayden appealed. In each case, the police detained or sought to detain the appellants to determine whether they were trespassing on the grounds of the apartment complex. Each juvenile appealed his conviction and challenged the propriety of his initial stop or the police order to stop. Appellants argued that the actions of the police exceeded the sanction of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968) and, therefore, violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 7 of the state constitution.