Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts
Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. ................................................... ii A. ISSUE PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ............... .I B. STATEMENT OF THE CAE .................................................... 1 C. ARGUMENT .............................................................................. I 1. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED WAS PROPERLY OBTAINED AND THEREFORE FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT. .................................. 1 a. Standard of Review ................................................. 1 b. The Community Caretaking Function Exception.. ............ - 7 c. Challenged Findings of Fact.. ..................................... 10 d. Factors supporting the community caretaking function..l3 e. Search warrant.. ................................................... 15 E. CONCLUSION.. ............................................................ 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Washington State Decisions State v . Acrey. 148 Wn.2d 738. 64 P.3d 594 (2003) ................... 2. 4 State v . Cardenas. 146 Wn.2d 400. 57 P.3d 1156 ........... 1. 5. 6? 10 State v . Duncan. 146 Wn.2d 166. 43 P.3d 51 3 (2002) .............. 1. 5 State v . Kinzv. 141 Wn.2d 373. 5 P.3d 668 (2000) ................ 3. 4. 12 Decisions Of The Court Of Appeals State v . Gocken. 71 Wn . App . 267. 857 P.2d 1074 (1 993) .............. 7 State v . Johnson. 104 Wn . App . 409. 16 P.3d 680 (2061) ...................................................... 1. 3. 5. 10. 13 State v . Lvnd. 54 Wn . App . 18. 771 P.2d 770 (1989) ................ 7. 8 State v . Moore. 129 Wn . App . 870. 120 P.3d 635 (2005) .............. 9 State v . Villarreal. Jr.. 97 Wn . App . 636. 984 P.2d 1064 ( 4 999) ..... 11 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Cadv v . Dumbrowski. 413 U . S . 433. 93 IS . Ct . 2523. 37 L . Ed . 2d 706 (1 973) ............................................................ 3 Terry v . Ohio. 392 U . S. 1. 88 S . Ct . 1868. 20 L . Ed.2d 889 (1 968) ............................................................................... 5 United States Constitution U.S. CONST . amend . IV ........................................................ 2
- Page 1: DIVISION TWO STATE OF WASHINGTON, R
- Page 5 and 6: Warrantless searches are presumed t
- Page 7 and 8: eview of the cases cited herein, th
- Page 9 and 10: Cardenas, supra, at 406. The issue
- Page 11 and 12: that information, other officers ob
- Page 13 and 14: Briggs began to regain consciousnes
- Page 15 and 16: Smith also disputes Finding of Fact
- Page 17 and 18: (2) A reasonable person in the same
- Page 19: BRIAN SMITH, COURT OF APPEALS, DIVI
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. ................................................... ii<br />
A. ISSUE PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ............... .I<br />
B. STATEMENT OF THE CAE .................................................... 1<br />
C. ARGUMENT .............................................................................. I<br />
1. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING<br />
THAT THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE SEARCH<br />
WARRANT WAS BASED WAS PROPERLY<br />
OBTAINED AND THEREFORE FAILING TO<br />
SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED<br />
PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT. .................................. 1<br />
a. Standard of Review ................................................. 1<br />
b. The Community Caretaking Function Exception.. ............ - 7<br />
c. Challenged Findings of Fact.. ..................................... 10<br />
d. Factors supporting the community caretaking function..l3<br />
e. Search warrant.. ................................................... 15<br />
E. CONCLUSION.. ............................................................ 15
Change language