Court Opinion

ID: 9863813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:54:36.38581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:20.930762
License: Public Domain

Baker, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent.
Two female juveniles were standing near a street comer within a few feet of an open market store in the early evening hours. One, the defendant, had her hand open at chest level and appeared to be pointing at something in her hand. There was no indication of anything being handed from one to the other, and no money was being visibly offered from one to the other.
*600This was the scene when two Seattle police officers drove around the comer and saw the two juveniles standing across the street. Based primarily on the fact that drug transactions frequently occur in that neighborhood, the officers believed they were observing a drug transaction and decided to investigate. They drove rapidly across the street and stopped in the oncoming lane of traffic near the two girls.
The majority acknowledges that an insufficient basis then existed for a valid Terry stop. However, the majority concludes that the reaction of the two girls provided sufficient additional objective facts to justify the stop. The reaction of the appellant, when she saw the police car rapidly approaching her from across the street, was to mutter an expletive, turn and start to walk away with her hands in her pockets. Such actions are certainly consistent with a desire to avoid a confrontation with the police. They are not, however, sufficient to justify an investigatory stop under our cases.
I further disagree with the majority's conclusion that the search conducted by the detaining officer was valid. The State concedes there was no valid basis to search for a weapon under these circumstances. Indeed, the officer's testimony clearly establishes that he saw a yellow object which he thought might contain drugs, and it was that suspicion which caused him to direct the appellant to hand the object to him.
Neither State v. Pimintel, 55 Wn. App. 569, 779 P.2d 268, review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1022 (1989) nor State v. Dorsey, 40 Wn. App. 459, 698 P.2d 1109, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1010 (1985) supports the majority opinion. In Pimintel, the officers had a valid search warrant to search premises and an unnamed individual who resembled the defendant for evidence of drug transactions. They found drugs and drug paraphernalia in the residence, and while the defendant was detained with hands spread against the wall, he tried to remove a packet of drugs from his pocket. Likewise, in Dorsey, probable cause to arrest was found to exist and the *601defendant, while walking out of an airport after he was in custody, was seen to attempt to rid himself of an envelope, which was then seized.
By contrast, no facts exist in this case to justify any belief that evidence was about to be destroyed. The officer merely believed the appellant had drugs in her pocket and acted on that belief to confirm his suspicion. No case in this jurisdiction has yet gone as far as the majority opinion to justify such a seizure.
State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509, 806 P.2d 760 (1991) discussed and distinguished in the majority opinion, does not contain any majority rationale which supports a stop and seizure on the facts of this case. In view of the fragile majority position in Glover, and the absence of a consistent supporting rationale as to these issues, I would not extend the holding in Glover to these facts.
Accordingly, I dissent.