State v. Jones

Citations: 887 P.2d 461; 76 Wash. App. 592Docket: 30684-7-I; 31471-8-I

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; February 16, 1995; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Steven A. Jones was convicted of delivering cocaine and possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, violating RCW 69.50.401(a). He appealed the trial court's decisions to deny his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of his person and to compel him to testify against himself. The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied Jones's personal restraint petition. 

The charges stemmed from a police operation on February 13, 1992, where two confidential informants, David Palmer and Norman Hunter, were sent to purchase cocaine from Jones at the Golden West Motel in Edmonds. Prior to the buy, Palmer was searched and given buy money, which was recorded. After entering Jones's room, Palmer recognized Jones from a police photograph and requested $30 worth of cocaine. Jones retrieved the drugs from the bathroom and completed the sale through an intermediary, Virginia Graves. 

Following the transaction, Palmer reported to the police and handed over the purchased cocaine. Jones was arrested shortly after, with the buy money found in his possession. A glass smoking pipe was discovered near him, and while being transported, Jones dropped additional cocaine in the patrol car. The amount of cocaine seized was valued at $300, indicating distribution intent.

During the trial, the defense contested the admissibility of a plastic tube found in Jones' anus during a warrantless search in the Lynnwood Jail, arguing that the search was improper due to coercion. Officer Bonallo, who transported Jones, noted his suspicious movements, prompting him to call for Detective Connor's assistance. Both officers were aware that suspected cocaine had previously been found in the patrol car, and a tip indicated Jones was hiding drugs in a tube in his rectum. Despite differing testimony, both officers agreed that Jones was informed about the possibility of drugs in his rectum before he was searched. Jones voluntarily lowered his pants and, upon being instructed, bent over, causing a portion of the tube to emerge, which Connor retrieved without direct contact with Jones. The defense claimed the search constituted a body cavity search and was coerced, but the court classified it as a strip search, permissible under RCW 10.79.070.

Jones testified that he did not pass anything to Graves nor received money from her while with Palmer, admitting to drug use but denying any drug delivery. On cross-examination, the prosecution sought to impeach Jones with a prior Alford plea to a delivery charge, arguing it contradicted his claim of being merely a user. Defense counsel contended that Jones's statements arose during cross-examination and that they had not opened the door for such impeachment. The court's decision on the admissibility of the prior conviction was debated, highlighting the tension between Jones's testimony and his criminal history.

The court ruled that Jones' prior conviction for delivery of cocaine could be introduced as evidence under ER 609, as it was relevant to his credibility and not unduly prejudicial. Jones was permitted to waive his Fifth Amendment rights to testify and confirm his conviction, explaining he had entered an Alford plea to avoid additional charges. On appeal, Jones contested the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his person in jail. The State defended the search, asserting it was lawful under statutory provisions for strip searches, which allow such searches without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion of concealed contraband related to a drug offense. The search in question involved the removal of a tube protruding from Jones' body; however, the court determined that the search did not constitute a body cavity search since there was no probing or touching of Jones' body cavity, merely the removal of an object without direct contact. The court concluded that the actions taken did qualify as a strip search and were justified under the reasonable suspicion standard applicable to drug-related offenses.

Jones was arrested for cocaine possession, which under RCW 10.79.130(2)(c) establishes a presumption of reasonable suspicion, allowing for a warrantless search. Jones claimed Detective Connor threatened to conduct an improper body cavity search, which is prohibited without a warrant under RCW 10.79.080(1). The officers expressed their suspicion that Jones might have drugs concealed in his rectum while Detective Connor donned rubber gloves, suggesting an intensified search. Despite Jones's belief that a body cavity search was imminent, the trial court found he did not manipulate the tube in response to this belief, and his offer to remove the tube himself did not constitute an illegal search. The court concluded the search was a strip search, not a body cavity search, and upheld the denial of the motion to suppress. The opinion is not precedential and will not be published. GROSSE and AGID, JJ., concur. Review denied at 126 Wn.2d 1016 (1995). Judge Jack P. Scholfield signed the opinion prior to his retirement.