Court Opinion

ID: 9585879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:42.658035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:16.179089
License: Public Domain

Grosse, J.
(concurring) — I concur, but write separately on the issue of the permissible scope of a search following a Terry stop.2 The majority opinion reads as if the state of the law until the court’s decision in State v. Rodriguez-Torres3 was that when the actions of a person being detained give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person possesses evidence which is in danger of being lost or destroyed, the officer who initiated the Terry stop may take reasonable action, consistent with the initial stop, to further investigate and protect the possible evidence. According to the majority’s opinion, this was the holding of the court in State v. Pressley,4 and it was not until Rodriguez-Torres that this holding was limited "to circumstances where the 'plain view’ doctrine or probable cause justifies a more intrusive search. Rodriguez-Torres, 77 Wn. App. at 691.”5
I disagree. The permissible scope of a search under the circumstances described above has always been limited by the requirement that either the plain view doctrine or probable cause justifies a more intrusive search. In State *368v. Dorsey,6 we upheld a search incident to a Terry stop because we found that "[a]t the point of seizure, the elements of 'plain view’ were satisfied and no warrant for further examination of the evidence was required.”7 In fact, the court in Pressley specifically stated that if the investigating officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person detained possesses evidence which is in danger of being destroyed or lost, the officer may make further examination of the evidence if "probable cause exists or the elements of 'plain view’ are satisfied.”8 Thus, in my opinion, the majority’s statement that the court in Rodriguez-Torres placed the limitation upon the Pressley holding is inaccurate and should be clarified.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).

 77 Wn. App. 687, 893 P.2d 650 (1995).

 64 Wn. App. 591, 825 P.2d 749 (1992).

Majority at 366.

 40 Wn. App. 459, 698 P.2d 1109, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1010 (1985).

Dorsey, 40 Wn. App. at 473.

Pressley, 64 Wn. App. at 598.