WA: Detaining defendant as a robbery victim to get his story was reasonable, necessary, and lawfully led to his arrest for marijuana possession

Defendant was a robbery and assault victim and he was questioned by the police. His status evolved from victim to marijuana possession suspect, and the officer’s questioning of him was reasonable. State v. Mitchell, 143 Wn. App. 1024, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 553 (March 3, 2008), ordered published June 17, 2008:

¶11 The police officers waited while Mitchell was receiving emergency medical care and treatment for his injuries before interviewing him. They then detained him only long enough to interview him, transport him to attend a show up identification and provide a written statement, and return him to the scene of the assault. These types of arrangements are ordinarily reasonable and constitutionally permissible.

It is very difficult to investigate or prosecute a crime without witnesses. Missing witnesses have been the bane of more than one prosecution. Identifying the witnesses and obtaining their stories is thus an essential part of police work, and is best done as quickly as possible. HN5A Terry stop of a … witness is therefore the essence of good police work.

¶12 Other relevant factors to be considered include the seriousness of the crime being investigated, a reason to believe the person detained had knowledge of material aid in the investigation of such crime, and the need for prompt action.

¶13 Mitchell contends that he was seized when the deputy told him he had to remain at the scene of the robbery. Under the circumstances, this remark by the deputy did not transform an otherwise consensual police interaction into a constitutionally impermissible detention. By that time, Mitchell was viewed both as a victim and a suspect in the criminal investigation. Mitchell acknowledges that the deputy had observed a green leafy substance resembling marijuana in his car, and that Mitchell’s girlfriend admitted to police that they had arranged to purchase marijuana from one of the robbery suspects. Given these facts and Mitchell’s own inconsistent statements about what happened, the police had a reasonably articulable suspicion of specific criminal activity. An investigatory stop was warranted under Terry.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.