{"id":3771,"date":"2010-03-24T07:41:32","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T00:07:05","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-25T08:48:24","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3771","title":{"rendered":"WA: RS only required for bench warrant for violation of probation; no hearing required before warrant issues"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Only a well founded suspicion is required for issuance of a bench warrant for arrest of a probationer. Here, the officer had obtained defendant\u2019s ID and let him go, finding out shortly thereafter there was a bench warrant, so he apprehended the defendant and a search incident produced drugs.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/815941.opn.pdf\">State v. Erickson<\/a>, 168 Wn. 2d 41 (2010): <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Once a person has been convicted of a crime, that person is subject to the court&#8217;s authority. That authority includes the power to supervise an offender conditionally released. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor article I, section 7 of the state constitution requires the court to make a finding of probable cause at every step of the proceeding. We hold that once a person has been convicted of a felony and is on conditional release for that offense, a bench warrant may be issued for his arrest without probable cause that he has violated the terms of his release. Instead, the court needs only a well-founded suspicion that a violation of the terms of the release has occurred before it may issue an arrest warrant. Here, one of the conditions of Erickson&#8217;s release was that he notify the court of any change of address. He did not do so and the returned summons provided the issuing judge with a well-founded suspicion that Erickson had violated that condition of his release. We affirm the Court of Appeals and Erickson&#8217;s conviction for possession of a controlled substance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s guilty plea three months before <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> waived the search incident issue for appeal. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/280179.opn.doc.pdf\">State v. Brandenburg<\/a>, 153 Wn. App. 944, 223 P.3d 1259 (2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3771\">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-3771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3771","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=3771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}