State v. Moore

Citation: 169 P.3d 469Docket: 77484-6

Court: Washington Supreme Court; October 11, 2007; Washington; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alex Undrae Paul Moore appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to his arrest. The Supreme Court of Washington finds the evidence inadmissible, reversing the Court of Appeals and remanding the case to the trial court.

On April 27, 2003, Everett Police Officer Jamie French stopped a vehicle where Moore was a passenger. Although Officer French recognized Moore, she could not recall his name. Moore falsely identified himself as "Antoine Carver." Officer French arrested Moore for having a dangerous dog outside an enclosure and for refusing to cooperate with an officer. A subsequent search revealed cocaine, methadone pills, and about $800 in cash.

Moore moved to suppress the evidence, claiming his arrest was unlawful. The trial court agreed that Officer French lacked probable cause for the arrest related to the dog, as the vehicle was deemed a suitable enclosure. It also determined that Moore's false identification did not constitute a crime in the absence of an underlying traffic infraction. However, the court ruled the arrest valid based on a "hidden reason," suggesting that the officers could have arrested Moore for not wearing a seatbelt, which they had observed.

During a bench trial, Moore was found guilty, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court's review highlighted the lack of lawful grounds for the arrest, leading to the conclusion that the evidence obtained from the subsequent search should be suppressed.

The legality of the search conducted incident to Moore's arrest under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is in question. The trial court's findings of fact are accepted as true, but its conclusion about the admissibility of the evidence from the search is reviewed de novo. Under Washington law, warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they meet narrow exceptions, with the search incident to arrest being more restricted than under the Fourth Amendment. A lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite for such a search, necessitating probable cause at the time of arrest.

In this case, Moore was arrested for having a dangerous dog and for refusing to cooperate with an officer. The State did not contest the trial court's finding that there was no probable cause for these charges. The State claimed additional probable cause existed based on a potential violation of RCW 46.61.021(3), which mandates identification when requested during an investigation of a traffic infraction. However, the record shows that Officer French did not conduct a genuine investigation into the seatbelt violation, nor did she request Moore's identification as part of such an investigation.

As a result, it was determined that Officer French lacked probable cause to arrest Moore for failing to identify himself. Consequently, both the arrest and the subsequent search were deemed unlawful under the Washington Constitution, rendering the evidence obtained inadmissible. The Court of Appeals' decision is reversed, and the case is remanded.

The majority opinion asserts that Officer French lacked probable cause for arrest because she was not investigating a traffic infraction. Dissenting, Justice Bridge argues that labeling a fact "objective" does not negate the necessity of a subjective inquiry into intent, which is inconsistent with established jurisprudence. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution, warrantless searches are unlawful unless they fall under specific exceptions, one being a search incident to a lawful arrest based on probable cause. Probable cause must be determined objectively, based on the totality of facts known to the officer at the time of arrest. 

Officer French was aware that Alex Undrae Paul Moore was not wearing a seatbelt and suspected he had provided a false name, which could lead a reasonable officer to believe a crime had occurred. The majority's conclusion that there was no probable cause relies on a subjective inquiry into Officer French's intent, which has been rejected in prior cases. Justice Bridge references State v. Vangen and State v. Knighten, where arrests were upheld despite the officers' subjective beliefs about probable cause, emphasizing that the existence of probable cause is based on objective facts known to the officer. 

The dissent concludes that Officer French acted within her lawful authority when she questioned Moore about his identity due to the seatbelt violation, and upon his provision of a false name, probable cause for arrest was established. The dissent supports the view that the police actions were lawful under Article I, Section 7.