Defendant was driving a stolen truck identified by a license plate reader. After his arrest, a black shaving kit in the truck was inventoried, and it should have been inventoried without opening it. Also, the state didn\u2019t contest standing below, and the defense didn\u2019t brief it on appeal. \u201cWisdom lacks notice that this court might consider his standing and thus has no opportunity to address the issue. \u2018[T]here are obvious due process problems in affirming a trial court ruling in a criminal proceeding on an alternative theory against which the defendant has had no opportunity to present an argument.\u2019 State v. Adamski, 111 Wn.2d 574, 580, 761 P.2d 621 (1988).\u201d [Note that almost all other states would find no standing in a stolen vehicle, but apparently the prosecutor chose to waive this below.] State v. Wisdom, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1054 (May 19, 2015) (decision under state constitution).
\nhttp:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/318320.pub.pdf<\/p>\n
A burned out license plate light is reason for a stop. The trial court\u2019s credibility determinations underlying the conclusion of consent to search were binding on appeal. State v. Risius<\/a>, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 430 (May 20, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was driving a stolen truck identified by a license plate reader. After his arrest, a black shaving kit in the truck was inventoried, and it should have been inventoried without opening it. Also, the state didn\u2019t contest standing below, … Continue reading