Washington State Courts

his coat pocket or walked with his ann pressed against his side. RP 140-
41.
B.-H. argued Johnson's seIzure exceeded the scope of an
investigative detention and was therefore an arrest. He contended the
arrest was unlawful because it was not supported by probable cause. RP
153-54, 172-77. He argued Walker reported no suspicious activity and did
not see him with a gun. Furthennore, despite claiming he suspected B.-H.
was armed, Walker neither stopped nor followed him, and did not radio
for assistance when B.-H. walked away. RP 156-57.
Alternatively, B.-H. argued that if the court found the seizure was
only an investigatory stop, Walker's suspicion that he was carrying a gun
was not reasonable. RP 162-72. Finally, B.-H. argued his consent to
Johnson's search was not voluntary, especially where Johnson did not tell
him he could refuse. RP 177.
The trial court rejected B.-H.'s arguments, finding Johnson's
seizure was a valid investigative detention. CP 43-49 (conclusions of law
2 and 3); RP 206-210. In pertinent part, it concluded as follows:
The nature and scope of the investigative stop
conducted by King County Sheriffs deputies was
reasonable and justified given the nature of the suspected
crime and the potential danger to both deputies and the
Respondent, as well as other Metro passengers.
-8-