Court Opinion

ID: 9791146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:06:41.16633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.469906
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — The majority relies upon State v. Lesnick, 84 Wn.2d 940, 530 P.2d 243 (1975), to justify the suppression of the contraband found by police in defendants' automobile and the confession of defendants made subsequent to their arrest. It seems to me Lesnick is an extraordinarily slender reed, and that a recounting of the facts in each case will demonstrate they are completely different. The facts in Lesnick are:
The Kelso Police Department received a telephone call advising that there was in the city a described van pulling a trailer, the driver of which was attempting to sell "punchboards" in the city. The caller also supplied a license plate number. The caller remained completely *52anonymous, refusing to identify himself and not providing any information as to the source of his knowledge.
The police chief and a sergeant participated in a search and soon located the described van and trailer in a private club parking lot. They drove to within a short distance of the subject vehicle, and observed that its license number was similar to that given by the informer, though some numerals were transposed. The officers parked their car on an adjacent city street and remained to observe the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the van was driven from the parking lot onto the street. The officers followed the vehicle for a block and a half, then pulled it over with siren and lights. Up to that time, they observed neither traffic violations nor any other indications of criminal activity on the part of the driver.
The driver produced his driver's license and the chief then walked to the front of the van to check the license plate, and observed gambling paraphernalia through the driver's window. Defendant was then placed under arrest for possession of gambling devices pursuant to RCW 9.47.030, repealed Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 280, § 23. Defendant's vehicle was towed to the police station and searched pursuant to a warrant. A large number of gambling devices, plus certain merchandise, were seized.
State v. Lesnick, supra at 941-42.
For a tip to have an "indicia of reliability" the court held in Lesnick, at page 944, that it must satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) that it was received under circumstances suggesting the informant's, reliability; (2) thát there were some corroborative observations suggesting criminal activity; and (3) that there were some corroborative observations suggesting the informer's information was obtained in a reliable fashion.
Unmentioned by the majority is the testimony of Officer Sweeney that he was familiar with narcotics activity in the city of Kent (where Kent-Meridian High. School is. located) and with the general narcotics activityiand method'of-operation in the area directly surrounding-Kent-Meridian High School. The questioning of Officer Sweeney 'on direct examination is instructive:
*53Q. You indicated previously that you were somewhat experienced with narcotics activity, particularly that around the Kent-Meridian High School. Would you indicate from your past experience and knowledge that you have directly or through your activity in that department at what location and what manner and type of persons are normally involved in narcotics trafficking at the high school?
A. In my interviews with juveniles and suspects in that area, I do know that adults are involved in the sale of narcotics, and that frequently the transactions take place from automobiles during the lunch hour at the school when the majority of the students have free access all over the school grounds. I have been involved in attempting to locate suspect descriptions and vehicles in narcotic sales at the noon hour, but this is the only one I have been successful in.
Q. Sir, do you know whether or not these transactions have characteristically involved non-students or students?
A. As a general statement, I — well, I guess I really can't say. I know that non-students are involved and students are involved as well.
Q. So it would be both? Would that be a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. From your experience in law enforcement, Officer, do you have knowledge or a feeling as to whether or not persons involved in narcotics transactions as a course are armed or carry weapons?
A. They frequently are armed, yes.
The police officers received a call from the high school reporting that the father of a student had called giving his name and telephone number. The parent advised he believed a drug sale was occurring in the north parking lot of Kent-Meridian High School. The exact description of the automobile involved in the alleged transaction and a reasonably accurate description of the license plate was given. The police, with this information and the knowledge that drug sales which involved both students and nonstud-ents had in fact occurred at Kent-Meridian High School, arrive at the scene. They find the car, as identified, at the *54location where they were advised it would be. In contrast to Lesnick, the car was parked. There was no forcible stop; no one was "pulled over" to the side of the road. Surely these are circumstances suggesting the informant's reliability and thus sufficient to meet the requirements of Lesnick.
The only fact which might argue against the reasonableness of the actions of the police concerned the observations of the vice-principal of Kent-Meridian High School. In his testimony, Officer Sweeney said the vice-principal told him (1) the two males (the defendants) in the front seat of the car were nonstudents and the two females in the back seat were students with whom he had had some prior disciplinary problems; and (2) he had had the defendants under observation prior to the arrival of the police officers and had observed no suspicious activity or any contraband.
I do not believe this was enough to rule out further investigation of the kind conducted by the police. The father of a student reported he believed a drug sale to be in progress. It is not unreasonable to believe that by the time this information had been conveyed to the secretary, by the secretary to the vice-principal and the vice-principal had gone to the parking lot that the transaction was completed. It is also not unreasonable to believe that the drug dealers or their purchasers would not flaunt the drugs about so as to arouse the suspicions of other students, school authorities or anyone else in the school yard. I am unpersuaded the observations of the vice-principal are in any way relevant to the question of the reasonableness of the police actions.
The majority cites Lesnick to the effect that "the seriousness of the criminal activity reported by an informant can affect the reasonableness calculus which determines whether an investigatory detention is permissible." Nonetheless, it finds the conduct of the police unreasonable.
The exact language in Lesnick to which the majority refers reads as follows:
Evaluating the reasonableness of the police action and the extent of the intrusion, each case must be considered *55in light of the particular circumstances facing the law enforcement officer. In this case, the suspected crime was a gross misdemeanor. It posed no threat of physical violence or harm to society or the officers. . . . [W]e do emphasize that if and when other cases arise they will necessarily be judged in light of their particular facts . . .
Lesnick, at 944-45.
The policy language found in Lesnick draws clear lines between what constitutes serious criminal activity and what does not constitute serious criminal activity. Where there is no threat of physical violence, harm to society or harm to officers, the criminal activity does not appear to be serious. This was so in Lesnick.
However, in this case, the criminal activity (i.e., drug dealing to high school students) poses grave harm to society. The line drawn in Lesnick has been crossed; the actions of the police were reasonable.
In the words of the trial judge " [I]f they didn't go over there and question those people at that point, then they should be fired as policemen, because they would not be doing their job." I agree. Given the circumstances here, I cannot believe society, the federal or state constitutions, or this court could reasonably expect or require the police to do nothing. Yet this seems to be the message of the majority. Indeed, under the view of the majority, the appropriate actions for the police officers would have been to have had another cup of coffee and continue a leisurely lunch.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals and I dissent.
Stafford and Horowitz, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.