WA: Gant after guilty plea did not require plea be withdrawn; it was a waiver

Defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea was before Gant was denied, and she appealed. Her guilty plea waived all constitutional issues, and didn’t change anything. State v. Wilson, 162 Wn. App. 409, 253 P.3d 1143 (2011).*

Stop for patronizing a prostitute here was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Diluzio, 254 P.3d 218 (Wash. App. 2011)*:

¶20 The facts in Mr. Diluzio’s case are similar to those in Doughty and provide even less justification for a stop. Here, as in Doughty, the investigatory stop was based on the officer’s observation. The officer saw Mr. Diluzio having a conversation with a woman who got into the passenger side of his vehicle. There was no police informant and the police officer did not see any money change hands and did not overhear any conversations between the two individuals. Neither individual was known to have been involved in prostitution or solicitation activities. These incomplete observations do not provide the basis for a Terry stop.

A nonflagrant violation of the state constitution did not require suppression of a confession that was attenuated from the violation. “¶33 In sum, we hold that the Harris exception is incompatible with the exclusionary rule under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution but that Eserjose’s confession was not attributable to the illegal arrest. Thus, the trial court did not err in determining that Eserjose’s confession was admissible under article I, section 7 of our state constitution as well as the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Eserjose’s conviction is accordingly affirmed.” State v. Eserjose, 171 Wn. 2d 907 (2011).*