Washington State Courts

CP 48 (Conclusion of Law 5). The court also concluded B.-H. voluntarily
consented to 10hnson's search:
The State has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent freely and voluntarily
consented to Detective 10hnson's request to search inside
the Respondent's pockets. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, the Respondent's consent to search inside of
his pockets was not the result of duress or coercion but
rather was given freely and voluntarily.
CP 48 (Conclusion of Law 6).
The court then found B.-H. guilty as charged. CP 36-42; RP 210.
The court imposed a standard range disposition. CP 31-34.
C. ARGUMENT
B.-H.'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED BECAUSE OFFICERS DID NOT CONDUCT A
LA WFUL INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.
Officer 10hnson exceeded the scope of a valid investigative
detention when he drew his gun and pointed it at B.-H., handcuffed him,
and escorted him off the bus. 10hnson correctly acknowledged he did not
have probable cause to believe B.-H. was engaged in criminal activity at
the time. The trial court therefore erred by denying B.-H.'s motion to
suppress.
-9-