When is a Traffic Stop Lawful Under Washington Law?

People are protected by both the State and Federal Constitutions against unreasonable search and seizures. What this means, in part, is that the police cannot stop a driver absent a warrant or a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior. Thus, if the police stop a motorist without cause and the person is subsequently charged with an offense, there may be grounds to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop. Further, the State is precluded from introducing any evidence obtained during an unlawful stop against a defendant.

One such exception is the Terry stop, which is an investigatory stop conducted due to a suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity. The scope of the Terry stop exception is narrow, though, and searches that fall outside of the scope may constitute custodial arrests without a warrant in violation of constitutional rights.

Example 1: Court Reverses Washington Unlawful Firearm Conviction Due to Unlawful Stop

If a conviction is based on evidence obtained during an unlawful stop, it may be grounds for a reversal of the conviction, as evidenced in a recent case involving weapons charges in which a Washington court of appeals vacated a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Allegedly, the defendant was a seated passenger in a car parked in the parking lot of a grocery store. A man who parked next to the defendant’s car, observed the defendant holding a gun on his lap. The man went into the grocery store and called 911 to report what he observed. An officer responded to the call, an observed the car in which the defendant was a passenger leaving the lot. The officer subsequently conducted a felony stop. The driver, who claimed she was the owner of the car, denied there were any firearms in the car and gave the officer consent to search the car. It was determined that the defendant had prior felony convictions and was under Department of Corrections (DOC) supervision, so DOC was contacted to conduct the search.

It is reported that upon searching the car, the police found multiple firearms. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence obtained during the traffic stop, on the grounds that the police lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to conducting the stop. The court denied the motion. A trial was held and the jury found the defendant guilty, after which he appealed.

Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity

On appeal, the court noted that warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable unless one of the narrow exceptions applies. Terry stops are one of the established exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches. Terry stops allow the police to investigate situations which call for an immediate response but for which there is no probable cause for an arrest. For a Terry stop to be valid, the officer conducting the stop must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The suspicion must be based on clear and specific facts that the officer knows at the time of the stop. Whether the officer’s suspicion is reasonable is evaluated on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s training, when and where the stop occurred, and the behavior of the person stopped.

Here, the court found that the public possession of a firearm, in and of itself, was inadequate to support an investigatory stop. Further, because the officer conducting the stop had no information that either the driver of the car or the defendant were engaged or about to engage in criminal activity, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop. Thus, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Example 2: Using 911 Call Evidence to Justify the Stop

A Washington court of appeals recently discussed the grounds for permitting a Terry stop, an exception to the rule a warrant is needed to conduct a search, in assessing whether to overturn convictions based on a firearm and other evidence found during the stop. If you are charged with a firearm related crime, it is in your best interest to retain an experienced Washington criminal defense attorney to fight to preclude evidence that the State should not be permitted to use.

Reportedly, in the early morning hours of October 16, 2015, the police received four calls within a few minutes regarding an active shooter at a gas station. A police officer responded to the call and observed two men sitting in an SUV near the entrance of the gas station parking lot. The men matched the description of the shooters that were provided in the 911 calls. The officer initiated a traffic stop and ordered the passengers of the SUV to exit the vehicle. The passengers were frisked, handcuffed, read their Miranda warnings, and placed in the back of a police car.

It is alleged that upon returning to the SUV the officer observed a firearm under the front passenger seat of the SUV. The defendant, who was sitting in the backseat of the SUV, was charged with first-degree assault and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the traffic stop, on the grounds the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The motion was denied. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both charges, after which he appealed.

Grounds for an Investigatory Terry Stop

On appeal, the court stated that both the State and Federal Constitution require an officer to obtain a warrant prior to seizing a person unless an exception applies. A search known as a Terry stop is permissible if the officer has reasonable suspicion based on articulated facts that the person stopped either committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. The reasonableness of the stop depends on the nature of the alleged criminal conduct. A stop must be based on more than a suspicion the detainee is doing something he or she should not be doing. The officer’s training, the conduct of the person stopped and the location of the stop are factors weighed in determining whether a stop is reasonable.

In the subject case, the defendant argued the officer did not have sufficient facts to connect the SUV to the shooting. The court disagreed, based on the information provided in the 911 calls and the fact that the SUV was located at the scene of the crime. The defendant also argued that his detention exceeded the scope of the stop, and any evidence obtained during the stop must be precluded from evidence. The court rejected this argument as well. The court held that due to the serious nature of the crimes alleged, the officer’s actions in handcuffing and detaining the defendant were appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Example 3: The Arresting Officer ‘Recognized’ the Defendant

The standards for reviewing the nature of a stop were recently explained by a Washington court, in an opinion issued in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of firearms.

It is reported that the defendant was driving his vehicle when an officer recognized him and followed him to a nearby restaurant parking lot. The officer was aware that there was a warrant out for the defendant’s arrest and that he was a convicted felon. The officer, along with two other officers, tackled the defendant inside of the restaurant, held him down and handcuffed him. They then advised him that he was under arrest for a felony crime. One of the officers then questioned the defendant, who admitted he had a gun.

Allegedly, the officer located the weapon, and the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the handgun found during the search, arguing the police did not have the lawful authority to search and detain him. the court denied his motion, finding that the Terry stop exception applied, and the defendant appealed.

Terry Stops Versus Arrests

The court noted that the defendant was seized at the time the officers searched him and recovered the gun, as the officers restrained his physical movement to such a degree that a reasonable person would not believe he had the freedom to leave. The state argued, though, that the search and seizure of the defendant was a valid Terry stop. The appellate court disagreed and overturned the trial court ruling.

The court explained that while the Terry stop is an exception to the rule that a search must be conducted with a warrant to be valid, the exception only applies if an officer reasonably suspects a person is engaged in or is about to engage in criminal activity. Further, an officer may only frisk a person for weapons during the stop if he or she has reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the arresting officers lacked grounds to conduct the stop or search the defendant. Thus, it overturned the trial court ruling

Example 4: Terry Stop Resulting a DUI Conviction

What constitutes sufficient grounds to effectuate a traffic stop was the topic of a recent Washington opinion in which the defendant sought a reversal of his DUI conviction.

Allegedly, a police officer was dispatched to investigate a hit and run accident involving a white SUV. When he arrived at the scene, he observed a sedan with significant damage to the driver’s side door parked on the shoulder of the highway. The driver of the sedan was lying unconscious on the side of the road, and a witness advised the officer that the white SUV struck the sedan and the driver and sped off.

It is reported that later that evening, a second officer observed the defendant driving a white SUV of the same make and model as the one involved in the accident and made a traffic stop. When he approached the vehicle, the officer observed that the defendant smelled of marijuana, his eyes were glazed over, and he was lethargic. The officer observed that the SUV had damage consistent with the earlier accident, and after questioning the defendant, arrested him for DUI. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, but his motion was denied. He was convicted, after which he appealed.

Grounds for Performing a Traffic Stop

On appeal, the defendant argued that the articulable and precise facts the arresting officer knew when he stopped the defendant were insufficient to provide a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, he argued that the stop was unconstitutional, and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Specifically, the appellate court explained that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure and that warrantless seizures are unreasonable as a matter of law under both the State and Federal Constitutions unless they fall under a narrow exception to the warrant requirement. The court elaborated, though, that a Terry stop, or brief investigatory seizure, constitutes such an exception. Terry stops are permissible if an officer has a reasonable suspicion of unlawful behavior based on specific, articulable facts. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the evidence demonstrated the officer connected the defendant’s vehicle with the earlier crime, and therefore, the stop was lawful.

Meet with an Experienced Defense Attorney in Washington

A conviction can result in significant penalties, but in matters in which the State’s case is grounded in unlawfully obtained evidence, the charges may be dismissed. If you are accused of a DUI, weapons, or drug offense, it is prudent to talk to a lawyer about your rights. The skilled Washington criminal defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Smith & White are dedicated to helping people accused of crimes in the pursuit of justice, and if you hire us, we will fight diligently on your behalf. You can reach us via our form online or at (253) 203-1645 to set up a meeting.