Court Opinion

ID: 9559691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:33:50.550259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:33.531517
License: Public Domain

Thompson, A.C.J.
(dissenting) — In my view, Officer Light improperly continued to detain Mr. Madrigal after his reasonable suspicion of criminal activity ceased to exist. I therefore respectfully dissent.
*284The scope of any governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security "must be 'strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,19, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 (1968) (quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294,310,18 L. Ed. 2d 782, 87 S. Ct. 1642,1652 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring)). As applied to a Terry stop, this means that when a reasonable suspicion ceases to exist, continued detention is unlawful. 1 J. Hall, Search and Seizure § 15:18, at 639 (2d ed. 1991). "[I]n determining whether the length of time between the initiation of the stop and the later release or arrest was reasonable, courts should assay the facts of the particular case." (Footnote omitted.) 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2(f), at 381 (2d ed. 1987).
Officer Light testified Ms. Williamson told him "there was no problem, no assault had taken place". Officer Light also stated: "She didn't appear that she had been assaulted." The trial court found that Ms. Williamson "was told she could leave after she said there was no problem, and . . . that was fairly early in the contact . . .". (Italics mine.) However, the trial court erroneously concluded: "I don't see that the articulable suspicion ended just because or that his right to request identification ceased the minute that Ms. Williamson was allowed to leave, even if she was allowed to leave early on." If a problem existed, it was diffused by the officer's presence. Once Officer Light was assured by Ms. Williamson that no assault had occurred, and no other facts justified a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he had no reason to continue to detain Mr. Madrigal. Any detention after that point in time was unconstitutional. The fact the continued detention for a warrant check took only about 2 minutes is immaterial.
Reliance on State v. Williams, 50 Wn. App. 696, 750 P.2d 278 (1988) and State v. Sinclair, 11 Wn. App. 523, 523 P.2d 1209 (1974) is misplaced. In both of those cases, the warrant checks were run while the law enforcement officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and as part of the investigation of that suspected activity. See Williams, at *285700, which states: "The warrant check was conducted during the time the officer was lawfully questioning Williams about the accident." In Sinclair, the court notes at page 531: "Based upon the suspicion described, the officers were justified in temporarily detaining defendant pending radio confirmation of the warrant and his answers to their investigatory questions." Officer Light ran the warrant check on Mr. Madrigal after it became clear no crime had been committed.1 The situation here is much closer to that in State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 625, 774 P.2d 1247 (1989). There, the court held the officer had no reason to compel the defendant to produce identification after it became apparent that his vehicle was not disabled, which was the initial reason the officer approached the defendant.
I therefore would reverse Mr. Madrigal's conviction based upon the trial court's failure to suppress the evidence seized.

 Also, Williams involved a traffic stop. The court specifically noted:
"We are not deciding the issue of the validity of warrant checks outside of situations wherein the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop the driver for traffic infractions occurring in the officer’s presence or other crimes occurring in or out of the officer's presence as defined in RCW 10.31.100." Williams, at 700 n.l.