{"id":2193,"date":"2008-09-20T21:33:34","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T16:50:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-26T16:50:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2193","title":{"rendered":"WA:  Search of defendants&#8217; car because they merely showed up at the scene of execution of a search warrant was without reasonable suspicion and invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officers ordered defendants out of car at gunpoint where they merely appeared in a car at a house where a search warrant was about to be executed.  Other than their showing up, there was no articulable suspicion that they did anything wrong. The detention and search was unlawful.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/260101.cor.doc.pdf\">State v. Smith<\/a>, 145 Wn. App. 268, 187 P.3d 768 (2008), ordered published June 24, 2008:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00b622 This court has held that when a person comes into the residence in which a search is being conducted, any detention must be justified by specific and articulable facts that create an objective, reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous and may not be based on a generalized suspicion that people present during narcotic searches are often armed. <em>State v. Lennon<\/em>, 94 Wn. App. 573, 580-81, 976 P.2d 121 (1999). There are no facts to show an individualized suspicion that Ms. Smith posed a threat to officer safety.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>\u00b624 Less intrusive action on the part of the officers could have achieved the desired result. Notably, the detective had recorded the comings and goings of other visitors and had not detained anyone else.<\/p>\n<p>\u00b625 Because the officers had no reasonable articulable suspicion that Ms. Smith had committed or was about to commit a crime or that she was a threat to anyone&#8217;s safety, the seizure violated Ms. Smith&#8217;s Fourth Amendment rights. All \u201cevidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure is inadmissible.\u201d <em>State v. Reichenbach<\/em>, 153 Wn.2d 126, 135, 101 P.3d 80 (2004).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2193\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}